911 - Katrina

911-Katrina

Monday, September 12, 2005

To Whom It May Concern;
I found some of this information on the internet, to the best of my knowledge it is true.

Chain of Responsibility

In case you are not familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work:

The chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans is:

1. The Mayor
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security

(a political appointee of the Governor who reports to the Governor)
3. The Governor (ME - In case of emergencies each state is autonomous.)
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President

What did each do?

1. The mayor, with 5 days advance notice, waited until 2 days before he
announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of President Bush).
Then he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.

2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done.
(So much for political appointees)

3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2 DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal troops and aid. Until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.

4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be ready when the Governor called for them .

5. The President:

(ME- Because of each State's autonomy, can not just move troops & assets into an area without first being asked.)

President Bush urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.
The levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[...]
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin's court to carry out the evacuation order. With a 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration [messed] up.
Mayor Nagin has displayed lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.

---

(I apologize for making changes, to whomever wrote the original piece. I have been unable to "track" the "author" down. But as a Christian I can not report facts that I am unable to confirm
and there was also originally profanity in the piece, which I deleted.)
---
(Onetruth)

As a resident of Florida I was glued to Fox News before, during & after hurricane Katrina hit.

In interview after interview you could see the total lack of leadership in both the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor or Louisiana.
They should both be immediately replaced for the protection of their own people!

Compare the disaster of Katrina with the terrible attack of 911.

Katrina was forecasted well in advance. The leader's in charge of New Orleans and the fine State of Louisiana had adequate time to prepare and react to the problem. In every interview of both the Mayor & the Governor before and immediately after they said that everything was under control.

As the media began to report all the "problems" the hurricane had caused from no electricity to the breaking of the levees, both the Mayor and the Governor, rather then stepping up to "bat", so to speak, seemed to go into what can only be described as a catatonic state.

As I said earlier, let's compare one disaster with another.

Everyone knew Katrina was going to hit and yet no local authorities reponded until about 48 hrs. later.

While 911 was completely by surprise and yet Mayor Gulianni and the men & women under his authority took care of the problem in stride, reacting immediately.
There was never a time when The Mayor of New York was interviewed and he did
not know exactly what was happening and would happen, as far as his control extended.

With Katrina, many people interviewed on the news said that things went so adly because there was actually two disasters in New Orleans, a hurricane and a flood.
(Both of which were forecasted before they happened.) (Emphasis mine.)

During 911 there was also two disasters, neither was known ahead of time.
One was the planes hitting the building, but the second was, the collapse of the buildings. Yet the Mayor and the Governor of New York handled both with competence.

Slippery Slope

To Whom It May Concern;
The following is based on an article from Crisis Catholic magazine by Mark P. Shea.,
he puts to words, something that I have been saying all along.
That being, "Someday someone is going to 'lobby' for the legality of child sex or what so many Americans (rightfully so) are in an uproar about in The Catholic Church scandals.
http://www.iamonetruth.com

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils,
they will differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
(G. K. Chesterton) (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/499)

Different ideologies have different ways of effecting what in Catholic Church theology or the Bible calls mortal sin. Those people trying to follow a moral code laid out
in their lives through study of theology, The Bible and the hard knocks of life are familiar with the manipulations of "Truth" from the 'far left'. There are those who would have us believe any 'perversion' that is pushed as 'normalcy' by a group, should, first of all be heard out and then for the slightest of reasons made into law.
And so the old saying; "The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'."
Meaning that just because society wants to treat any minority group fairly we have to accept any idiocy they present to the world as 'gospel truth' or 'fact'.

(The following is from the article by Mr. Mark Shea.)
"And now according to Lifesite News (http://www.lifesite.net/), that very same ethos has made it possible for Richard Yuill to be awarded a doctorate degree from Glasgow University for arguing in his doctoral thesis that sex between children and adults is
sometimes a positive experience for the children.
The reason a moral cretin like Yuill can now be taken seriously in the leftist academy is actually quite simple: Once you embrace one form of sexual sin on the basis that
morality is subjective or that the ends justify the means your own flawed logic demands that you support whatever fresh perversion rounds the bend. After all, if you try to tell
Dr. Yuill that he's advocating a violation of the immemorial moral code of humanity you stand in grave danger of having your recently legitimized sexual sin called back."
Mark P. Shea, Crisis magazine "Toying With Evil"
http://www.crisismagazine.com/

This is what The Catholic Church has been referring to all along when they talk of immorality being a "slippery slope". Once you are on the slope, once you allow any form of perversion, such as abortion, as the norm, it is much easier to slide down. It is almost impossible to slide up or even remain where you are.

It may take 10 years, but if we allow same sex marriages, someone will petition the courts to marry their dog or cat! And you know how many animal lovers we have in the United States? It might no longer be a minority asking for the ridiculous or harmful.

Onetruth Catholic Church Apologetics

For more information: www.iamonetruth.com

What do you think?

Mat 10:26 "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. (curtesy of E-Sword)

A Pastor asked his congregation two questions at Mass last week.
Question number 1: "Who thinks that it is correct to post in the local newspapers the names, addresses and photos of all known sex offenders?"

Many in the congregation raised their hands.

Question number 2: "Who thinks that it is correct to post in the local newspapers the names, addresses and photos of all known sinners and a list of their sins?"

Not one hand was raised.

www.iamonetruth.com

"Who is culpable?"

To Whom It May Concern;
A question arose. Actually it was more like an accusation or a 'judgment'.
It was brought to my attention that a Pastor of a Catholic Church was accused of being pro-choice. This accusation came from within his own parish and was brought to the attention of the Bishop of the Diocese.
The accusation came about because the pastor in question; (to protect the ignorant we will call pastor A), Pastor A allowed a doctor to put an ad in the parish bulletin. The doctor is Catholic and goes to Pastor A's parish for church services and functions.
It was found out that the doctor in question distributes birth control as part of his practice. He is in general practice and this is only a small part of what he actually does as a doctor. But this part of his practice is immoral in the eyes of God and The Church.
A parishioner of Father A's church pointed out, the doctor in question did distribute birth control which goes against church teachings and demanded that Pastor A pull the plug on the doctor's ad.
Pastor A didn't think that was warranted. Because the doctor had many other functions in his practice and this was a small part.
The parishioner who made the complaint to Pastor A started attending another Catholic Parish, this Pastor will be referred to as Pastor B. Pastor B wrote a letter to Pastor A telling him that he was in mortal sin as long as Pastor A allowed the doctor to run the ad in the bulletin. Because of the birth control part of his practice.
Pastor A, in return, invited Pastor B to get together to talk about the issue. Pastor B flatly refused.
Pastor B notified the diocese, at the same time Pastor A contacted the diocese to get a ruling on the situation. The diocese said that, at the time they had no rule for such a situation. So, Pastor A left the ad in the bulletin and pastor B cut off almost all relations with the entire parish of Pastor A.
(I might add during the interim, that is, until the matter was settled, Pastor B would not publish in his bulletin any functions that were happening in Pastor A's parish. On the other hand, Pastor A allowed any advertisement for functions in Pastor B's parish.)
Pastor A, showed me, the letter from the parishioner, from Pastor B to A the first time, from the diocese to A, also,the letter to Pastor B inviting him to a talk and the letter from Pastor B denying the offer for communication.
Pastor A gave me his reasoning. I believe I would have acted differently, but his reasoning is sound.
Pastor A, wasn't running an ad for the local 'abortionist', who only does abortions and abortion related issues in his practice. He was running an ad for a General Practitioner who as a small part of his practice does indeed distribute birth control pills. But, Pastor A's question is this; "If we take out the doctor's ad because a small part of his practice goes against Church Teachings, then how far do we take this idea?"
You may not get my meaning at first; but think about the implications of taking out the doctor's ad for a moment. Suppose we take this 'idea' to it's ultimate conclusion. If we reject everything that has to do with abortion or goes against Church teachings, we might not be able to exist, in our society.
For example: ATT is known to give money to pro-abortion groups, so does Sprint and MCI. The local phone service is Sprint, to my knowledge for both Pastor A & Pastor B's parishes. They both fall into this category of Sprint being their local phone company. So, Pastor B and Pastor A as well as all the parishioners who use the Sprint local service would be in mortal sin if they know that Sprint contributes some of their money to immoral and anti-Catholic activities. Or, for that matter, suppose the Diocese has funds invested in companies that own companies that make part of a drug that could be used for abortion.
I know that this is really knit-picking, but I want you to 'clearly' see where I am going with this. Shouldn't someone, in Church authority say where the 'line' will be drawn. Or maybe every Catholic parish should go on a 'so-called "witch-hunt" or, in this case, "immoral-hunt"? Looking, and delving into every nook and cranny to see when and where a parish ad, parish contributions or parish service, such as the phone company, where we get milk for the children's school from, or where we invest the parish or diocesan money and wherever we uncover the slightest connection to immorality or anti-Catholic sentiment, we crush it immediately!
So, this was Pastor A's point. Like I said, I myself might have handled it differently, but this is a sound argument. He wanted to know from 'higher up' where the line should be drawn.
When the diocese finally made a decision they asked pastor A to take the ad out, which Pastor A did. But, at least to my knowledge, the Diocese has not made any further decision on such matters.
____________________________________________________________

That would actually be the background to the real problem.

To me, the "real" problem, is that the parishioner who stated all this and Pastor B may have committed a sin, (Pride and Jugmentalism for starters), when they said Pastor A was in mortal sin because he had the ad in his bulletin. Certainly what they did was immoral in 'judging' the moral state of Pastor A. In order to make that judgment, they would need to know the 'mind' of Pastor A or they would have had to have an insight from the Holy Spirit (Jn 7:24), in order for the judgment against Pastor A to be accurate. Because, by any normal means, unless pastor A admitted that he knew he was doing wrong, both the parishioner and Pastor B could not possibly have known the 'mind and heart' of Pastor A when he was going through this entire situation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on this type of issue.

CCC 1857 for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." 131
So, in order for Pastor A to be in Mortal sin the situation would have to involve 'grave matter', which it did. We know, as Catholics, that abortion, or having anything to do with an abortion is 'grave matter'. So, that condition has been met. But, what of the other two, you need to know that what you are doing is a mortal sin, which in this case, Pastor B and the parishioner, could not have possibly known, about Pastor A.
So, when they accused Pastor A of being in Mortal sin they were making a judgment that they couldn't possibly be aware of without supernatural means!
What the doctor, in question, was doing in handing out the birth control pills was 'grave matter'. I would have to say that, for him, he was 'culpable'.
You might easily say here 'physician, heal thyself'. But, we can judge rightly here, because the teaching on the Church is clear, that if you partake in an abortion knowingly and willingly, as an adult in the Church you must be held accountable on some level. This is so because it is up to you to know Church teachings on grave matter and then to adhere to them. If the doctor actually didn't know the Church's teachings it is up to him as an adult to know Church teachings and to follow it.
__________________________________________________________

But, let's take another look at Pastor A.

He is allowing an ad for a person who is committing a Mortal sin. As long as he is 'pastoring' the doctor and the Diocese had not made a commitment, then, unless you know what Pastor A is thinking, you could not make a moral judgment and say he is Mortal sin without committing a sin yourself.

Why?

One reason is the theology of 'culpability'.

Culpability:
WordWeb: Deserving blame or censure as being wrong or evil or injurious.
Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) - (Our Sunday Visitor's)
Culpa is the Latin term for fault or blame. In canon law, culpa refers specifically to negligent or otherwise blameworthy conduct which is considered serious enough for ecclesiastical penalties to be applied.

In the case above I don't see how it can be proved that Pastor A was 'culpable'.

Again, in order to prove culpability you would have to have, information that is only available to God and Pastor A, you would have to be able to read the mind of Pastor A. On the other hand, the doctor can be held culpable because as an adult in the Catholic Church it is his duty to know what concerns grave matter especially in his own field of expertise.

Lastly, we have Pastor B and the lay person, who apparently meant well, but went about it without the love of God in a judgmental way.

CCC 2477
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: (The Catechism says that Pastor B and the lay person, are guilty!)
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; (Again, the Catechism says that Pastor B and the lay person, are guilty!)
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; (Perhaps, here only the lay person is culpable, because he announced Pastor A's sin on the radio he works at.)
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. ( Again, the lay person, in question because he made known to the public information that was inaccurate and sinful, even though malice was probably not intended.)
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: (Again guilty!)

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. (end quote from CCC)

This last part fits in with Pastor B being invited by Pastor A to discussion. If Pastor B is correct in his reasoning, he should have 'shared the truth in love" Ephesians 12:15.

Which did not happen.
So. who would you say is the sinner or sinners here?

www.iamonetruth.com