Pope Francis: Satiating The World's Desire To Feel Love

I have to admit that I get very uncomfortable when people get googely-eyed over Pope Francis and praise him excessively, as if he were the first good Pope in history. Don't get me wrong - I love Pope Francis...but I also love Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II. I have great affection for many popes who have gone before us. These vicars of Christ have the weight of the world on their shoulders but have managed to remain extraordinarily holy, wise, disciplined, and humble. The world will never fully realize the struggles of the papacy, with all of its challenges, anxieties, and responsibilities. Maybe I read too much into things, but it sometimes seems as though people's obsession with Pope Francis is an indirect negative critique of previous popes. But this article reminded me that in a world literally starved for authentic love, Pope Francis makes it tangible for us.

From Little Catholic Bubble:

Pope Francis burst into our comfortable neatness and encouraged us to "make a mess" -- by leaving our books and debates and pristine doctrines for a time and going out into the streets and byways to meet our fellow human beings exactly where they are.

The world "likes" this pope, not for the doctrine and morality he teaches and preaches (which is no different from what came before), not because of ordered thought and careful words, but because he seems to care and listen and love. He seems relatable and real, and more like a loving grandpa in the neighborhood than a Supreme Pontiff on a throne.

But let me stop right here, lest anyone misunderstand: It's not that his predecessors did not love and care for and ache for every soul on the planet! Oh, how it boils my blood when people misunderstand the mystical, saintly JPII who embraced all mankind, or when they malign the shy and kindly Benedict, a quiet and gentle introvert. It's simply that Francis moves the world in a different way, and I think it's that he makes people feel something first, before he makes them think something.

For so many reasons, the soul of modern man is desperate to feel, and feel profoundly.

Read entire article here.

On Christians Who Refuse To Join A Party

If one more person reminds me that God does not have a political party I think I am going to scream. 

I think it goes without saying that showing more loyalty to a political party than to God is unacceptable. 

Almighty God has placed us in a Democratic Republic with a two party system. Getting involved in politics and choosing a side is transforming the culture. The more we pretend that we are above the system and above politics, the farther we get from actual transformation. The reason we have a sub-par nominee in the Republican Party is because too many Christians sit on the fence and declare that their allegiance is to God and not a party. 

With all due respect, OF COURSE your allegiance is to God and not a party. Membership in a party does not in any way detract from your loyalty to God. Last time I checked, when you register to vote you don't sign a document saying you will never disagree with or question that party's platform or practices. Membership in a party gives you the ability to have a voice in the party. 

Option #1: Disconnect from the political atmosphere by declaring you are a member of "God's party" while the two real-life, actually existing parties go toe to toe in the culture war (very convenient...).

Option #2: Analyze both parties and determine which one is more in line with God's will. Which one advocates the breaking of the 10 Commandments? Which one is more supportive of the family unit (the building block of society)? Which one rejects the very God you claim loyalty to? Which one supports grave moral evil? Which one alludes to the disbelief in objective Truth? (Notice that which one your great uncle John always voted for is not one of the criteria).

Does the party which is most in line with God's will have to be 100% perfect? No. And perhaps the reason it is not more in line with God's will is because Christians are sitting on their hands waiting for a perfect option to be handed to them when it is their duty to be the salt and light they are so anxiously awaiting.

Married Love: Total, Faithful, Fruitful

From Humanae Vitae:

Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love,"the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named."  

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. 

The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.

This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment. 

 It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself. 

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness. 

Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare."

Communism in America

Listed below are the Communist Goals of 1963. Take a quick look and compare these goals to our present day circumstances. You will notice that most of them have been fulfilled.

Communist Goals for America (1963)

Documention below Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, 

Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier,which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America. At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen: [From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.  

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.(Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations whichare under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."  

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness,repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the groundthat it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who hadno concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.  

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not been digitized and posted on the Internet.  It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them. Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter. You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point. Click here to see them listed with brain-challenging comments. 

Documentation

 Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library. Sources are listed below.

The quote starts on page 259.

Microfilm:

 California State University at San Jose 

 Clark Library, Government Floor

 Phone (408) 924-2770 

 Microfilm Call Number: J11.R5 

 Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session 

 Appendix Pages A1-A2 842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12 

 The book was found in the off campus stacks, was ordered and checked. The quote below was checked against the original and is correct. The few errors in the copy from the Congressional Record are shown in [ ] .The quote starts on page 259. 

Stalin knew the vulnerable underbelly of America is the good heart of her people, which could be used against her to subvert the very principles upon which she is founded.

St. John Fisher and the Obama Administration's HHS Mandate by Rushad Thomas

Nearly 500 years ago in England a Catholic bishop was martyred. England, which had been known throughout Europe as "Mary's Dowry," had been plunged into heresy and schism by a tyrannical King whose insatiable loins led him to break communion with Christ's Catholic Church and establish a parallel church which permitted divorce and remarriage, against the divine law set down by Christ in the Gospels. 

That bishop who gave his life as a witness to the Catholic Faith was John Cardinal Fisher, Bishop of Rochester. He shed his blood for the Church because he could not, in conscience, support the King's claim to supreme leadership of the Church on Earth. Fisher knew quite well that the Lord Jesus had given that role to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to Peter's successors as Bishop of Rome. The King gave Fisher two choices: either violate your conscience and live, or remain faithful to it and die a gruesome death. Instead of doing what was easy (indeed, what EVERY OTHER BISHOP IN THE REALM did), Fisher chose Christ before Caesar, and went peacefully to his death on the scaffold in the Tower of London on 22 June 1535. He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935, 400 years after his death.

So what relevance does St. John Fisher's life and martyrdom have for us moderns in 21st century America? Well, to put it quite bluntly, a lot. In recent weeks the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (a Catholic who has been refused Holy Communion by her Archbishop over her avowed support for legalized abortion), handed down a mandate under ObamaCare which requires individual Catholic employers and Catholic institutions to provide employee health plans which cover various forms of birth control (the pill, IUDs, etc...), abortifacient drugs (Plan B, Ella, etc...), and sterilization free of charge. Yes, my friends, this means that Catholic institutions and employers will be required by federal law to subsidize artificial contraception (the use of which the Church deems morally reprehensible) or face a $2,000 fine per employee.

I should certainly note that the HHS Department has included an exemption for religious institutions that primarily employ and serve people of their own faith, and whose primary work is instruction in religious doctrine. This really would only apply to Catholic parishes themselves (although it's questionable if even they would apply, since parishes are involved in the work of serving and employing non-Catholics just like our Church schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions). 

While it is laudable that the Administration saw fit to include some form of religious exemption, it is nevertheless completely unjustifiable that the Administration did not also include an exemption for religious institutions whose primary work is to serve all people regardless of faith. As a wise Catholic leader once said, "we don't serve people because they're Catholic, we serve them because we're Catholic," and for the Administration to presume that because a religious charity or college is not primarily working to promote its particular faith in the execution of its overall mission that they do not qualify as "religious enough" to qualify for an exemption is blatantly ridiculous. Since when is Obama the judge of Catholicity?

So where does this lead us? I must go back to the example of St. John Fisher. When faced with a government trying to tell the Church of Jesus Christ how it must organize its affairs, St. John Fisher said "Hell no, we won't go!" Catholics in this day and age facing a similar challenge should stand up and say the same. This mandate violates the principle of religious liberty which lies at the center of the First Amendment. Catholics must first of all pray to Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, the Patroness of this Land, to convert the hearts of President Obama, Secretary Sebelius, and all those in authority, that they may swiftly change this unjust policy. In addition, we must write to the President, Secretary Sebelius, and our own Members of Congress to voice our disapproval of this mandate. And if the powers that be refuse to listen and this unjust mandate is allowed to go into effect, Catholics have to be willing to engage in peaceful civil disobedience to the government's unjust mandate, including refusing to pay the cost of the birth control coverage and refusing to pay the fines incurred for refusing to pay for the birth control. And, if it comes to it, we must be willing to go to jail to defend the integrity and liberty of Our Holy Mother the Church.

The Catholic Church gives us life. She preaches the Gospel of Life that frees us, she provides the Sacraments of the New Covenant which are the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and she attends to the material needs of the poor and disadvantaged, the least of these, in imitation of her Lord and Savior. Despite the state crackdown on the practice of Catholicism in Henrician England, the Catholic Faith lived on in that realm. Likewise, Barack Obama WILL NEVER stop the work of the Kingdom of God in the United States from pressing forward, but ordinary lay Catholics have to be willing, like St. John Fisher, to stand with Christ before Caesar if we don't want to see the Church kneeling before the world, instead of the world kneeling before the Church. 

by Rushad Thomas

Philosophical Grounding For Moral Relativism

What Luther unleashed and the British Monarchy exported, was the philosophical grounding for modern relativism. The Reformation should be called the revolt and the Enlightenment should be called the great darkening. Prior to Luther's revolt, the worldview was that God is the origin and the end of man's existence, and the Church is the necessary conduit between God and man. 

Whatever indifference or disregard one has for God this side of death is dramatically elevated to an intense hatred...a bitter, foul disgust, in being in the Divine Presence after death. So, they flee from Him and rapidly join themselves to the society of the damned forever. Where, with full knowledge, they realize that for all eternity, their lot is damnation and never ending misery. This is their choice, not God's. 

Papa Benedict XVI on Socialism

By Rev. Robert A. Sirico posted in Crisis Magazine

One doesn’t usually expect a thorough-going reconstruction of the history of socialism in the late 19th century from the pope, but Benedict XVI delivered to us a wonderful — and oh-so-needed — reminder of what socialism was (and is), and why it went wrong. One can’t but marvel at his intellectual power: He has discerned the essential problem that has evaded vast numbers of academics for 100 years.

What’s more, he has done this in a time when socialism as an ideology seems to have been unfazed by the collapse of the communist experiment. Visit the philosophy and English departments on most college campuses, and you will still find intellectuals waxing eloquent on the glories of socialist theory. Students are still encouraged to imagine that it could work.

What about the Soviet Union? We are told that this wasn’t really socialism. And what about Nazism — the German word for national socialism? Oh, that’s not socialism either. What about the growing impoverishment in once-rich countries with social democratic governments? The failure of micro-socialism in the United States, where entire communities have lived on government subsidies and are plagued with frightening levels of social pathology? They say that this is not socialism either.

Large swaths of American academia are in denial. So too are major parts of the American and European clerical class, which is still under the impression that socialism represents a gospel ideal that has yet to be tried. One suspects that the entire history of the 20th century passed them by, for they have learned nothing from the poverty, despotism, and vast suffering wrought by the socialist ideology.

Not Benedict. He wants to talk about it. It fits his message of hope precisely. Are we to discover our hope in salvation from God or from some material transformation?

The passages occur in his great encyclical Spe Salvi (“in hope we are saved”). He addresses this core Christian virtue and explains what hope is and what it is not, what salvation is and is not.

History is strewn with intellectuals who imagined that they could save the world — and created hell on earth as a result. The pope counts the socialists among them, and Karl Marx in particular. Here was an intellectual who imagined that salvation could occur without God, and that something approximating the Kingdom of God on earth could be created by adjusting the material conditions of man.

History, in Marx’s view, was nothing but the crashes and grinding of these material forces. There was no such thing as a fixed human nature. There was certainly no God who is the author of history. There are no permanent themes that follow along moral lines. Rather, we are all merely pushed around by large and impersonal forces. But it is possible to wrest these forces within our control, to our advantage, provided we take the right steps.

And what are these steps, in Marx’s view? The expropriated working classes must take back what is rightfully theirs from the exploiting capitalist classes. Call it mass thievery, if you like — the point is to gain power over the production forces of society. This is where history is headed anyway, said Marx; we only need to give it a shove in the right direction to achieve the bliss of socialism. How will it work? Well, Marx never thought much about that. Why should he? The large and impersonal forces of history would hammer that out. It was only his job to describe the great events that lead to the revolutionary environment. What follows after is not really a matter of bourgeois science; we must simply accept on faith that somehow, somewhere, sometime, socialism will begin to work brilliantly.

Bizarre? It’s not so strange. We can look to the ancient world and see that many of the greatest intellectuals imagined that there would come a time when the problems of economics — scarcity, ownership, calculation, money — would vanish and utopia would appear. You might say that this is a longing for the Garden of Eden, but it neglects a critical fact: Human nature is the same now as it always was. There will always be a need to advance beyond a state of nature. The economic problem is intractable. Simply asserting that the new world will magically appear begs critical issues, such as how we are to feed, clothe, and house people.

Benedict sums the problem up neatly:

Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another.

Socialism included no plan for the post-revolutionary world. Once economists discovered this central flaw, they seized on it and pointed out that socialism had no system in mind for solving the core economic problem of allocating scare resources among unlimited needs, and certainly no system for creating the new wealth that would be needed to sustain a rising population.

Nonetheless, the revolution happened:

Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This ‘intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx . . . omitted to work out how this new world would be organized — which should, of course, have been unnecessary.

The “appalling destruction” referred to here is a reference to war that occurred soon after the revolution. Millions died in famine and wholesale slaughter. It became clear to Lenin that he had to back away, lest there be no one left to rule. That he did — and just in time, with the New Economic Policy. But the dictatorship continued. So too did the poverty relative to capitalist nations.

So why did Marx never explain how socialism would work?

His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.

And so the pope has put the problems of economics exactly in the right light: the practical issue that needs to be settled within the framework of a sound morality and understanding of human nature. Socialism fails for a precise and practical reason: It has no system for pricing factors of production to make economic calculation possible. Prices come from the exchange of the very private property with which socialism dispenses.

And yet the moral problem with socialism is more profound: It exalts theft as an ethic and overlooks the human right of freedom.

Would that every Catholic interested in economics would read this encyclical. Some are getting the message already: The Catholic Church in Venezuela worked against Hugo Chavez’s dangerous plan for nationalization and regimentation of economic life. Someday, the world will come to learn the lessons that the history of socialism has taught. In the meantime, Benedict XVI is proving to be a wonderful teacher.

Homosexual Activists Brainwashing Public School Children

Why should children this age be being taught about sexual "preferences"? If it is such a normal behavior, why rub it in the faces of our youth? This is indefensible.

The Real Root of Abortion is The Contraceptive Mentality

"Abortion and contraception are inextricably intertwined in their use. As the idea of family planning spreads through a community, there appears to be a rise in the incidents of induced abortion at the point when the community begins to initiate the use of  contraceptives." - Malcom Potts, Former medical director of Planned Parenthood

As these hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators begin to March and fight against abortion and rail against it, as they should...the taking of innocent unborn life...the real root of this problem is the contraceptive mentality that allows for the spread of abortion and the degradation of human life and turns sex from a wonderful gift of God, to participate in His procreation into a tool simply for our pleasure. "We will try to do everything in our power to not have children or conceive. If we do, we'll simply kill them and discard them. That's the link between contraception and abortion. Contraception is evil and contraception gives rise to abortion.

Newsflash: babies come from SEX!

"Don't get us wrong, pleasure and bonding are supposed to come from sex too but the point of sex is unity and procreation: babies and bonding. If we try to take on without the other, or we actively try to prevent one of those from happening, we are stopping what sex is made for. Does this mean that the Church expects you to have like 10,000 kids and take over the state of Texas? No. Responsible parenthood, including the spacing of children, is a big-time virtue. But contraception is intentionally saying that your fertility - your baby making potential - is a big-time problem that needs to be gotten rid of. That's not true. And it's not love."

Though We Do Not See Him, His Presence is Real.

My Mum Forced Me To Clean My Teeth by Fr. Tim Finigan

I am heartily sick of the protest "I don't go to Mass because my parents forced me to go when I was young." OK Son, what else did your parents force you to do?

Your parents forced you to wash before you went out in the morning. Those cruel tyrants made sure that you cleaned your teeth before you went to bed. They dragged you kicking and screaming to school so that you could learn to read - and the teachers collaborated by forcing you to learn the alphabet and put the words together.

To top it all, after looking after your physical needs, they had the temerity to exercise their authority by looking after your spiritual needs and taking you to Mass on Sunday.

If they had neglected to see that you were clean, had suitable clothes, eat some sort of nourishing food, get some education and cross the road safely, they would have been visited by social services and given a care plan so that you could be healthy and safe.

And you are complaining because they took responsibility for your eternal life?

In this context, it is relevant to quote again the classic:

1. I was forced to as a child.
2. People who wash are hypocrites - they think they are cleaner than everybody else.
3. There are so many different kinds of soap, I can't decide which one is best.
4. I used to wash, but I got bored and stopped.
5. I wash only on special occasions, like Christmas and Easter.
6. None of my friends wash.
7. I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
8. I can't spare the time.
9. The bathroom is never warm enough in winter or cool enough in summer.
10. People who make soap are only after your money.

by Fr Tim Finigan at the The Hermeneutic of Continuity Blog

Iran: Christian convert to be executed

Iran: Christian convert to be executed | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?:

"Pray, please, for our brother Christian Youcef, sentenced to be executed in Iran for converting to Christianity from the religion of peace."

from Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?

The Great Global Warming Myth: Bad Science and Evil Intentions

I ran across this Catholic Facebook page today which is seeking to reduce the Catholic carbon foot print (ughh...typing that made me queezy). That would be commendable, if there were a cause for concern. Man induced Global Warming is a fabricated concept generated by elitist environmentalists whose main goal is to reduce the population (for some, the goal is to gain power, but let's just say: regardless of their evil motives, they work together nicely). Thousands of scientists reject the theory of global warming. Why don't you hear about it in the media, you ask? Because you rely on the wrong media. Still don't believe me? Watch the documentary: "Global Warming Unmasked: The Hidden Agenda" by Michael Voris here (just create a free account and search 'global warming'). See a mini-explanation from Michael Voris here. Voris is not some Republican operative, he is a concerned Catholic citizen fighting against and exposing the evils of today's society. His claims are not empty or baseless. They are backed up by overwhelming evidence. He is not the only one calling B.S. on this global warming swindle. I know that you are probably skeptical because companies who try to stay green, public school teachers, and democratic politicians weep over global warming so much that you'd think they'd be willing to kill themselves in order to reduce their carbon foot print. The sad truth is that America was duped by the global warming propagandists. Their evil agenda is even being promoted within the Church.

take a look at this eye opening excerpt from an article I found which exposes some of the evil:

These radical environmentalists actually believe that there will be unprecedented global disasters if radical population control measures are not enforced across the globe immediately.

Of course by now most people who will read this article know that this bizarre population control agenda is even represented in the White House. Barack Obama's "science czar", John P. Holdren, once co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" in which he advocated population control measures that are so wild and so bizarre that it is difficult to believe that a sane individual actually authored them.

What follows are actual quotes from Holdren's textbook...

Pages 787 and 788:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would haveto meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Pages 786 and 787:

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838:

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Keep in mind that Holdren is now Barack Obama's top science advisor.

But even some of the richest people in the world are absolutely obsessed with population control. Back on May 5th, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other of the wealthiest people in the world gathered for a clandestine meeting in Manhattan. The meeting was supposed to be so secret that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told that they were at "security briefings".

So what was so important that so many of the wealthiest people in the world had to gather for a secret meeting?

Population control.

According to one major U.K. newspaper, one person who attended this secret meeting confessed that "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."

This is what the richest people in the world are so upset about?

The article goes on to quote one attendee of the meeting as saying the following about the "overpopulation problem"

"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers."

Apparently they do not intend to include the rest of us as they come up with their "big-brain answers".

It would be a mistake to underestimate how obsessed the global elite are with population issues.

The truth is that they are absolutely committed to trying to solve the "population problem" in this generation.

So what will their "solutions" look like?

We can only guess.

But what we do know is that in the name of fighting "climate change", the United Nations and the global elite plan to pursue a radical population control agenda. According to their own documents, the number one problem the world is facing is "climate change" and the number one cause of "climate change" is overpopulation.

Knowing that many nations on earth will never willingly submit to open population control measures, the global elite will likely implement their population reduction methods by subtle means. Let us just hope that they are not successful in their attempts to eliminate as many people as possible.