THE PATIENTS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM

Imagine walking to the roof of the apartment building you reside in, on a bright clear day with a light breeze. When you open the door to the roof you see a blue sky. All seems right in the world. Then you notice a young woman standing at the edge of the building looking down.

Your first thought is to make sure she is alright. As you approach she notices you and you see tears in her eyes. You realize she is distraught and about to end her life.

You could just turn your back on her, thinking to yourself, it should be her right, it's none of my business, if she wants to kill herself. But then you realize she must not be thinking clearly. So, you try to help draw her away from the edge of the roof.

Then you hear faint shouts from below. As you focus you realize people are telling her to jump.

She jumps to her death ending her life.

You hurry down to the street to confront these people. They say it is her right to do what she wants with her life.  You are amazed that anyone could think this!

You try to reason with them. You share that instead of letting people hurt themselves, even if they think that they will feel better, the loving, courageous option would be to help them see reality and live a better life. It is better to be a support and help them out of their misguided thinking than to just turn your backs on them.

PART II
Some time later, sitting at home, you see in the news that the Law of the land now says people who wish to jump off a roof are allowed to do so. Unbelievable! The Law goes further than to give people the right to jump off any building they choose. The Law states that all buildings need to allow access for people desiring to jump off. Regardless of how you feel, people must be allowed access to each building or you will be fined, imprisoned and labeled a bigot.

You sit in your cozy living room thinking this new Law is awful, but then you realize it doesn't really affect you personally. You do not own any buildings. So the Law can not force you to allow people to jump off your roof.  An odd thought comes to mind... you should look up more often when walking down the street.

Think of this scenario in light of the most recent decision of The Supreme Court on Same Sex Marriage.

There are people in this world that care so much for others, even total strangers, that they would rather attempt to help them then allow them to hurt themselves. I pray everyday for God's Grace to be one of these people.

Can I Stand For Obama AND For Gods' Word?

Can I Stand For Obama AND For Gods' Word?

Hello, I was hoping that the subject line would get your attention!

My conscience has been bothering me lately.  It has been asking me what have I done to encourage others to vote in a manner consistent with the standard of God’s Truth.   Sadly, it seems clear that I have bitten into that lie that religion and politics do not belong in the public arena.  Yet if I am a Believer, I must be compelled to share the Good News and stand up for Truth.  This email is one of the things I can do.  I am sending it to all on my contacts list who know me as willing to stand for what I believe.

This is Richard’s Condensed Version of Truth: God is Love.  Before time, space or matter existed, He conceived in His mind the life of every human that would come into existence.  And from that moment, He loved us!  Then out of this love for us, He created the cosmos that there may be a place and time for us to come into being –that we may come to know and love Him, that we may be loved by Him, become like Him, and then, love one another.

This is the reason of all that is.  Everything else is just part of the mix, part of the mystery of God’s Plan.  God’s love for His Beloved is the foundation of Truth, the Universal Purpose.  It is the cause of our being; what holds us in existence, and is the fullness of our destiny –if we choose to love Him (For love always demands a choice.)  Love demands freedom, therefore, we must be free to be unloving.  Free Will comes at the cost of an All Loving God allowing evil to exist.

Thus the stage is set.  Good will be at war with Evil until the end of our time, when Christ will return, and all will be judged on how we fought in this war, on the choices we made in God’s grace of freedom.  “¹⁵ If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.  ¹⁶ He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.  ¹⁷ Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given.” (Sirach 15:15-20)

War is hell, and politics is both.  To dismiss politics, because it is dirty, is to leave the fight.  We are all needed & called into battle, but we must keep our focus.  Distractions are everywhere & most are legitimate battles in need of attention, but the real war is between Good & Evil, Life & Death. 

Today, our nation is in the throes of a battle that is unprecedented.  Our nation is in danger of losing its soul, of spurning its Judeo-Christian heritage in an attempt to embrace death and depravity.  [Warning: If you read beyond this point, you may be in danger of losing any warm & fussy feelings that might have been associated with me.]  Our 2-party system is in critical condition, both parties have potentially fatal injuries, but one of them appears to be mortally wounded.

Here’s the scenario: You find yourself in a vast open field and there is a raging bull 3oo yards in front of you.  100 yards on your left and right is a person calling to you saying they can help you.  The one on the right doesn’t appear like much of a super hero.  The one on your left is waving a huge red flag.  The bull is charging.   How much time do you want to take to ponder the plusses and minuses of your decision?  My friends, I believe our Democratic Party has gone AWOL.  Not only do they seem clueless about being exposed, but they are waving a red flag to get our attention.

Why would a party seeking to represent what is best for America nail down as a foundational plank, the call for the right of a woman to kill the baby in her womb?  (Obama went even farther by voting to kill the baby that was born from a botched abortion.)  Or why lay down as a plank the call to treat the homosexual lifestyle as a protected status in our society?  Or fight to redefine marriage which is the foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of life and society?  Why would the majority of its representatives fight to have God removed from its platform?  Why would this party be one of the biggest drivers of racism by insisting on segregating humanity by the color of their skin, by relentlessly using terms like “Black” or “People of Color”, when in Truth there is only one race –the Human Race?   Can our real world get any Crazier?   Yes we can!  And the bull is charging.

I am a Catholic, so I say this with a deep sense of pain,  54% of the Catholic vote chose Obama, the man who is the champion of this insanity.  Our faith says that God’s Word is the Unchangeable Truth.  It unambiguously calls out murder and  homosexuality among the darkest sin, an abomination, yet, over half of us voted for an Obama Nation.  What is even more scary to me, is the number of our priests who still are registered as Democrat.

I can understand voting for a Democrat because they are a person of integrity and competence.  But in today’s world, I cannot understand how one could vote for a person because that person is a democrat.  And given the brazen identification of the Democratic Party with values diametrically opposed to those revealed in Scripture, I cannot see how any Christian can now identify themselves with as allied with them.  In fact, we should be actively exposing those heretical planks with such a fury that the Democratic Party will renounce them and return to nurturing values that all faiths can embrace.   And I am sick of the lame justifications referencing issues like Republicans are for war, or capital punishment or against immigration.  Are these part of the Republican party’s plank, is this what they identify as foundational?  No!  Even if they did, how would that override the injustice of killing 50 million innocent babies since Roe vs Wade?  Or of undermining family, the foundation of society?   And now, they are even attempting to take away our religious freedom and force us to pay for what we believe to be evil.  The time is upon us where every vote must be based on whether the candidate is a person of integrity, whose life mirrors what he says, and says what is compatible with the Mind of God.

This is a pivotal election.  One man is now in the position to take us into a darkness that will take generations to recover from, if it is possible at all.

How can one president control the destiny of our country? Try this on for size:   Cause a furor by grid locking legislation, with the simple strategy of insuring that his party's majority leader of the senate, by merely not bringing up to the floor for a vote, any legislation that is contrary to the President's agenda; while simultaneously ensuring his minority leader in the House pushes legislation that promotes his agenda, and resist everything that does not, but whatever is passed by the house is condemned to failure just by Senator Reid not bringing it forward for a vote!  The president then issues executive orders that bypass congress, all under pretense of protecting America, using the "Urgency of this Emergency".  This is sealed, by doing whatever is necessary to survive into the lame duck term, where he can appoint a majority of liberal activist Supreme Court justices, who will for their entire life, will hand down decisions that will redefine both, the meaning and limits of our constitution, of what our country deems worth protecting.  This is not a conspiracy theory, this is in play already.

Anyone who says this president has been ineffectual in his 1^st term, has been just watching the news and not watching what irreparable changes are being inflicted upon our nation -all without the consent of the majority of our elected legislators, not to mention, the majority of American values.

And to blame Obama for what is happening is about as smart as blaming a starving dog for eating our steak when we turned our back on it. That dog was just being a dog.  We knew it was not in his nature, to not eat what did not belong to him, when we turned our back on that steak.  You see, WE THE PEOPLE knew what Obama stood for (what his record was, what his ideology was, who his friends were, how he was intrinsically intertwined with a radical socialist community committed to values alien to our founding fathers, and to our Judeo Christian roots) when we voted him into office. A dog will be a dog because that is his nature. Obama will be Obama, because that is what the nature of his character is.

It is WE THE PEOPLE who are responsible for putting into office the people we choose to represent us. Yes, we may be fooled sometimes, but Obama, Reid & Pelosi had a clearly established record (which is the unbiased reflection of their character and values.) The 54% of Catholics who voted for Obama had no responsible excuse for not knowing that he was an activist committed to the pro-choice agenda. Or, that he was in league with the current forces to undermine the family unit by redefining marriage and by redefining the depravity of homosexuality into a constitutionally protected status. Nor was there any reason not to know that his pastor of 20 years, who he considered his mentor, was a racist who espoused hatred for America and the Jewish nation. Nor was there any reason not to know the extraordinary disconnect between what he, Obama, said and what he did. All of this was a matter of history.

God gave us a steak, when America came to be founded as a nation, where its people could freely live their lives within the context of their Judeo-Christian values. We live in a present darkness, where what is good is being called bad, and what is bad is being called good, and where only the silly would entrust their lives into The Way of a personal and loving God. There are dogs waiting to eat our steak  -our gift from God, when we turn our backs on His Values and elect people to represent us who openly support what is abhorrent to Him.

WE THE PEOPLE need to take responsibility for the sins of our nation. We need to become a people who are committed to His Truth, to never compromising it for what is expedient, but rather demanding it the more so as it comes under attack.  Let us fervently pray for the gift of repentance, personally and nationally.  Let us vote with the Mind Of God.   May His Spirit lead us to a vote that is not blinded by words, but rather, is based on His Word.   –Richard Swiderski

Christmas - It’s that time of year again!

Christmas - It’s that time of year again!

I received an email from a ”well meaning” Christian, expressing the opinion that as loving Christians we should not defend our right to “public displays” of our Faith. The email was set as a “Letter from God”. I believe the “letter” came from further “south” of “heaven”.


The Letter said, among other things that Christmas, while being a celebration of the Birthday of Christ was originally set on the date of a “pagan holiday”. As though that makes it alright not to defend our right to public displays of our Faith. I ask; “How so”?


Then the letter goes on to say we should rather live a life of love, again, somehow suggesting that we do not need to defend our rights to a public display because we are living the Christian calling. Which, of course, every Christian should be doing regardless of this issue.


This brings up a “sore point” among Christians, that being, whether Christians need to love at all? Actually, Jesus, St. Paul and the early Church stated love is necessary for salvation… [see: http://www.iamonetruth.com/all_you_need_is_love.htm ]


The “letter” finally states that as God He does not need our help.
[Don’t forget; I am God and can take care of Myself. ]


This statement reminds me of a statue in New York City. The statue is in front of St. Nicholas of Tollentine Catholic Church in The Bronx, it is of Jesus Christ with His hands outstretched. The statue has been vandalized and the hands of Christ were broken off. Some enterprising person placed a sign around the neck of Jesus that read: “I have no hands but yours”.


Think about it! God can take care of Himself, but He expects us to do His work here on earth.
Be careful… we can be loving… caring Christians and still stand up in the public arena for Christ!
Pope John Paul II said; “today religious freedom must be upheld and defended against those who would remove religion from the public domain and make secularism America’s faith” [Homily at Oriole Park, Baltimore, 1995] [ENVOY Magazine]

Halloween - It's that time of year again.

The following is my 'reply' to a misinformed 'post' on myspace.

You are a loving Christian lady and I respect that... but "Halloween" comes from the term "All Hallows Eve" or "All Saints Eve". The original celebration of All Saints Eve was in honor of all the Christians that have led exemplary lives and gone before us... you know, the "cloud of witnesses" [Heb. 12:1] that St. Paul speaks of.

Yet, it is true, that satan has taken it over [a Christian practice] and made it something evil. So, I agree that we can find other things to do at that time. For example, there is a Catholic tradition [small 't'], that suggests children and even adults dressing up as figures from the Bible and play acting that others can guess who they are supposed to be. This is quite fun as I have done the same myself.

Excerpt from This Rock online magazine
Can Catholics Celebrate Halloween?
Q: Some families in our parish don’t allow their children to celebrate Halloween. Should Catholics celebrate Halloween?
A: The word Halloween is a contraction for All Hallows Eve, which, before the reform of the liturgical calendar following the Second Vatican Council, was the vigil of All Saints and All Souls Days. As such, Halloween can be considered a Christian holiday. As with many Christian holidays, the secular world has attached its own traditions to the day (costumes, trick-or-treating, parties) that are not intrinsically wrong but can become problematic when the religious meaning of the holiday is set aside or forgotten.

For more information:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Halloween/

Christianity has started many traditions that have been handed from one generation to the next. Secular society tries to take them and make them non-Christian, such as we can see with taking "Christ" out of Christmas. Should Christians give in to this approach?

I am sure you would agree that Christians need to, "test everything, holding to what is good", 1 Thess 5.

Christianity saw a pagan festival and decided to end the practice and replace it with something good and holy. That 'held' for centuries, until modern society decided to uproot the good tradition and make it bad... with satan smiling the whole time... as Christians oppose each other.

Christians should not oppose each other on this... just hold fast to what is good. Remember Christ's prayer for the 'unity of the believers' the night before He died. [Jn. 17:21]

I am sorry this is long, but just giving you a small amount of information didn't seem the right thing to do.

Your friend in Christ;
Philip

The Odd Saint? Dean Koontz

It has been years for me since I stopped reading Dean Koontz and, for that matter, any horror novels, but I always liked the fact that he had some “Catholic” aspect in his books.

Here is a link to an article about his “Odd Thomas” series, that you might find interesting.

St. Odd? TIM DRAKE

Merck Pharmaceutical Caution!

Texas Gov. orders anti-cancer vaccine"Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country."

Merck pharmaceutical strikes again!

Caution! Read more about Merck.

Children of God for Life on Merck
On Vaccines From Aborted Fetuses

Should a Muslim be allowed to 'swear in' on the Koran to uphold a public office in the USA?

First Merry Christmas!

As to the question about swearing in on the Koran if you are Muslim, I personally do not have problem with that. Because, if a person doesn't believe in the Bible there isn't much 'force' to their 'vow' or 'oath' that they will uphold the responsibilities of their office just because they lay their hands on a 'book' and say some words.

Let me quote Prof. Scott Hahn from SalvationHistory.com on the meaning of 'swearing an oath' on The Bible.

First, contracts involve promises, covenants involve oaths.
When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a promise to the seller, along the lines of: "I give you my word that I will pay you this amount of money for your house." The seller, in turn, makes a promise: "I give you my word that if you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you the deed to my house."

The "word" you each pledge to the other is your name. And you each sign your name on the contract as a "sign" that you'll uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.
Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as your witness.

Think of the oath we're most familiar with, the oath you swear before taking the witness stand in a courtroom: "I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
You've promised, given your word to tell the truth. You've also asked God to help you keep your promise. It's not only you and the judge now. It's you, the judge and God. Now, if you lie under oath, you're not only liable to go to jail, you're liable to be punished by God. The flip side of asking for God's help in an oath is surrendering yourself to God's judgment. You say, in effect, "I'll be damned if I don't tell the truth."

In the old days, we used to have politicians swear on the Bible and the Bible would be opened to the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, where the blessings and the curses are recorded. We were asking them to swear to uphold the constitution or suffer the curses recorded in those pages.

Even in our highly secularized society, we retain elements of this older understanding of oaths. We make doctors, police officers, military personnel and public officials swear oaths. Why? Because we depend on them; we literally put our lives in their hands. We want them to swear to God that they'll do their jobs. We can't just take their word for it, we want them to know that they'll have to answer to a higher authority.

Incidentally, did you know that the word "oath" translates the Latin word sacramentum, where we get our word "sacraments"? In a future course, we'll look sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship with God.
END SALVATIONHISTORY.COM

Literally when a Christian lays their hands on the Bible and swears to uphold their office or 'tell the truth, so help me God', they are saying that if they tell the truth, by God's Hand they will receive all the blessings contained in the Bible or the reverse is also true. They are saying that if they lie, all the curses contained in the Bible will come upon them.

A heady thought when understood properly.

My problem isn't with the Koran.
But I pose a further question, if we allow the Koran, then we would have to cater to every possible group. For example, The Book of Mormon for Mormons or let's get right to the nitty gritty... perhaps we would have someone who believes in Satan who wants to swear in on a Book of Rituals for Satanic practices.

In a case like that, you would have someone promising to ... what? To cause chaos and disruption at every chance... perhaps. Then where would a nation founded on Christian principles be?

I submit that it is dilemma. Maybe we could have an "approved list" of books allowed.

I am wishing for you this day a Happy Christmas!
I wish you laughter, pure joy, a merry heart and a clear conscience!

Catholics should be outraged over caricature's of Jesus & The Blessed Mother!

9:59 AM 2/23/2006
Calling All Catholics
I heard a really good homily today at daily Mass. The Gospel Readings were from, The Gospel of Mark 9:41-50. I would like to point out verse 43 in particular.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire."
Fr. Sean Shine pointed out that Jesus did not mean this literally, but that he meant we should be willing to stand up for what we believe, no matter the cost. Father pointed to the present day riots of the Muslims over the caricature of The Prophet Mohammed.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/13914885.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_world

He said that while it is terrible that some people are being killed over this, it is right that they should stand up for their belief. Father also said that Catholics should be more like them. Some time ago an artist in New York put an image of Christ in a bottle of his own urine and offered that to the American public as 'art'. Also, there was a portrait of The Blessed Mother covered with cut-outs of pornography, presented as 'art'. With no outcry from the Catholic Church. The American Catholic Bishops did not make one statement! With over 150 million Catholics in the United States we can make an impact!

Here is a link to a group that legally fights anti-Catholicism. The Catholic League. http://www.catholicleague.org/
Here is one on the Muslim caricature from The Catholic League: http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%201/060217_Illinois_Cartoons.htm

With all the hoopla about the lawsuit against the priest in Italy who is supposedly misrepresenting Jesus, I thought this information would be useful.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/

Secular History of Jesus
There is the writing, for example of "Flavius Josephus" commissioned by the Romans to write a "history" of their conquests. Being he was commissioned by the Romans he could not cover Jesus, in depth, because they wanted to hear about themselves, not some supposed Messiah. The fact that he wrote anything about Jesus is actually a wonder to most scholars and that the Romans left the information in the history.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html
Here is another source of information:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

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