The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 91,000 times in 2015. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 4 days for that many people to see it.
One Mad Dad was kind enough to bless me, not only with a lifetime of love, but also a new laptop so I can stop limping along. How lucky can a girl be? Three cheers for him. Back to the blog next week!
Merry Christmas from our family to yours. Hoping that all of you have a very blessed Christmas! Remember, this is the beginning of Christmas, not the end!
As you’ve probably figured out, I’ve been too busy preparing for Christmas to be mad. I did see this ridiculous statement from Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo a few days back. Fr. Fessio took care of it with a good, clear explanation. No need for me to waste time on it. Just wanted to make sure you saw it! https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-bishop-popes-view-on-global-warming-is-as-authoritative-as-the-cond
Happy Advent and Merry Christmas from our family to yours! See you next week!
I guess Archbishop Blase Cupich wasn’t getting enough attention and wanted to make a big splash. What’s the matter, Archbishop, were the Vatican light show and Cardinal Turkson stealing your thunder? So what has he said now? In case you haven’t heard the collective groan of the faithful, try this on for size: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-cupich-again-insists-people-in-homosexual-unions-can-receive-com
When asked if the same “internal forum” could be used to secure Communion for sexually active homosexuals, he said that it could. “When people who are in good conscience working with a spiritual director come to a decision, then they need to follow that conscience. That’s the teaching of the Church. So in the case of people receiving Communion in situations that are irregular that also applies. The question then was: Does that apply to gay people? My answer was: they’re human beings too. They have a conscience. Thy have to follow their conscience.
He continued: “They have to be able to have a formed conscience, understand the teaching of the Church, and work with a spiritual director and come to those decisions. And we have to respect that.”
“It’s not up to any minister who is distributing the Eucharist to make a decision about a person’s worthiness or lack of worthiness. That’s on the conscience of those individuals,” he added.”
There are sooooooooooooooooo many things wrong with this one. First and foremost, the “internal forum” was brought up in regards to the annulment process. It was not brought up in regards to active homosexual relationships, nor even to the simple divorced and remarried case. To even imply that these are in any way comparable to each other is totally and utterly ridiculous. Cupich is pretty much trying to nullify sin in general.
So what is all this “internal forum” talk in regards to annulments? I didn’t know what the heck it was, but there was a very narrow possible scenario given to me as an example. I’m sure there are others examples, but at least it explains to me why anyone is even still using it in a sentence. I was thinking about giving the scenario, but it was conjecture at best, even though I suspect good conjecture from a knowledgeable Catholic.
Before I go on, I would like to point out that Cardinal Burke has said the Synod did not and cannot approve the internal forum for divorced/remarried to receive Communion. Marriage is indissoluble. And, here’s the biggie, the Pope hasn’t put forth any document yet. Cupich is speaking WAY out of turn and trying, once again, the old “put the cart before the horse” method of trying to sway the Holy Father.
The “internal forum” regarding annulment scenario presented to me was a “failure to administer justice” scenario. Sorry to be vague but I wouldn’t want to lead anyone into error by stating the scenario knowing that there is a possibility it might be incorrect, even if I think it sound.
If my friend’s scenario is correct, suffice it to say, it would be super rare (as any use of the “internal forum” would be) and it would be limited to something that COULD be a rectifiable situation IF the annulment were eventually granted. It does nothing to alter the indissolubility of marriage, though. In contrast, there is NOTHING that could ever rectify an active homosexual relationship. There is nothing that can make homosexual acts not intrinsically depraved, and, as the Catechism states (Archbishop Cupich might want to crack it open every once in a while), “Under no circumstances can they be approved.” http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm
Do you see the difference in the two scenarios? There’s a gap the size of the Grand Canyon in between them. In one scenario, a couple would be trying their best in accordance with the teachings of the Church to live in accordance to the Church teachings. The scenario with a couple continuing in an active homosexual relationship is them failing the teaching of the Church (and, really, them failing themselves).
Cupich is floating something not even close. He’s saying, if a couple doesn’t think the teachings of the Church are correct, they can just use their very poorly formed conscience to decide if they are committing a sinful act. I guess he’s also saying they need to shop around for a spiritual director like him who goes with the “I’m OK. You’re OK.” mantra. It’s just a tad bit different.
Next, the “minister” distributing Communion certainly does have the duty to protect the Eucharist from defilement. If someone walks up with an “I’m an atheist!” t-shirt, they have made a public statement and shouldn’t be given the Communion. Remember a few years back when the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence approached Archbishop Niederauer for Communion in full clown drag dress? It was a “gotcha” moment where he failed, and he admitted that. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_niederauer_apologizes_for_giving_communion_to_sisters_of_perpetual_indulgence_at_san_francisco_parish/) Yes, the minister can and should protect Our Lord’s Body and Blood from the sacrilege of the Eucharist. Public obstinate sinners are in a special class. So, you see, the “I’m sinning and I’m going to keep sinning no matter what the Church says” without public repentance club can be denied Communion to avoid scandal. The “minister” denying Communion to the public obstinate sinner, despite what Cupich might decree, might REALLY be where the “internal forum” comes in.
I really can’t take too much more of these. I’m going to channel Trump and ask if the Vatican can put a moratorium on interviews until they can find out what the hell is going on!!! As a mother of a brood, I cannot tell you how utterly offensive and pathetic I find this one. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-cardinal-claims-pope-called-for-birth-control-suggests-it-as-soluti
PARIS, December 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – In an interview this morning, Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said that Pope Francis “has called for a certain amount of control of birth,” while specifying that this would not include methods like the birth control pill.
Speaking to the BBC outside of the climate change talks in Paris, the cardinal suggested that limiting births can “offer a solution” to difficulties such as water and food shortages that are said to come from overpopulation and climate change.
The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover, yet the Holy Father has also called for a certain amount of control of birth.
Well, thanks for that clarification on the pill, but, Cardinal Turkson, you’ve just handed one to the enemy. Children are not now, nor have they ever been, the problem. They are not the reason for any water or food shortages. This is completely naïve. What’s next? Are children also responsible for global terrorism?
I’d also like to remind you all of a warning several people gave about so-called “climate change.” We’ve been warned by several good and faithful servants that this was where we were headed with it – the suggestion of overpopulation and need to get rid of people as the solution.
Now, if someone offers an idea and the solution is to get rid of or prevent God’s great gift of life, how righteous can that idea really be? There’s no slippery slope anymore. We just jumped off a cliff with this one.
I remember a little command to “go forth and multiply, fill the world and subdue it.” Um, it ain’t filled and it ain’t subdued. I’ll tell you exactly who understands that and it doesn’t seem to be Cardinal Turkson. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/10/pew-muslims-will-largest-world-religion-end-century/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social The facts of this article are enough reason to do just the opposite of what you are suggesting. Are you really encouraging us to give the world over to Islam – peaceful or radical? You see, they are playing the long game (the one we used to rule), but you’ve just encouraged us to forfeit and surrender, Cardinal Turkson. Limiting Catholics would be close to spiritual suicide, and in many cases, physical suicide. Like I said, they are playing the long game, and God, of course, knew all about that when he gave that command.
Cardinal Turkson, described by the BBC as the Vatican expert on climate change, said while the critical level of population remains to be determined, the pope has nevertheless called for control of births.
“Having more mouths to feed is a challenge for us to be productive also, which is one of the key issues being treated over here, the cultivation and production of food, and its distribution,” he said.
“So yes it engages us in food security management, so we ensure that everybody is fed and all of that. The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover.”
Holy @#$@%$#! (Yes, I’ve been pushed to comic book swearing!) I feel like I’m reading the beginning of a dystopian novel! Really, Cardinal Turkson? Think just for a moment about what you are saying. Is bringing life into this world really the problem, or is it the blatant disregard for human life which you are promoting right now? “If it’s burdensome, get rid of it” is pretty much what you are saying.
“This has been talked about,” he added, “and the Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control, because the church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that. So yes, it can offer a solution.”
Somebody get this guy a hat. He’s been out in the sun too long. Realllllyyyy??? The Church is against birth control in all its forms. What it is NOT against is Natural Family Planning for serious situations. See? Was that so hard, Cardinal? What you managed to do was to lump birth control in with Natural Family Planning, and this does not make sense. One involves periodic continence, and the other involves a defilement of the marital bed and makes the marital act closed to life. Honestly, this ain’t rocket science. Is this another wrecked soundbite or something more?
The cardinal was referencing Pope Francis’ in-flight interview on the return from Manila where the pope urged “responsible parenthood,” and chastised a woman as irresponsible for having seven children by C-section. The pope said Catholics should not breed “like rabbits.”
I’ll admit, this one has always bugged me. I mean, quite frankly, when a husband and wife, in prayerful consultation with Our Lord, engage in the marital embrace during the fertile period, “who am I to judge?” I’ve actually known people who had 7 children by c-section, and I cannot imagine the world without any of them. And, yes, Catholics shouldn’t “breed like rabbits.” Last time I checked, rabbits weren’t graced with rational thought.
While advocating control of births, Turkson specified that he was not endorsing the birth control pill. “You don’t deal with one good with another evil: the Church wants people to be fed, so let’s do what the Church feels is not right? That is a kind of sophistry that the church would not go for,” he said.
The cardinal was likely referring to natural family planning, a method of birth regulation which allows a couple to know when the fertile times of the woman are so that they might either achieve or avoid a pregnancy.
Mr. Westin is much less suspicious than I am. And, while we’re at it, let’s talk sophistry. How about the one where bringing children into the world is the root of all evil? Might there just be some other possible explanations – like ridiculous government regulations and waste, warring factions, or greed – that might truly be the root of the problem for our poor? You gotta wonder how it would go if the Cardinal suggested that Muslims think about limiting their births. I’d pay to see that one.
At this point I will turn our readers to Stephen Mosher and the Population Research Institute (https://www.pop.org/). I’m sure he’s already responded to this someplace, but he has done much research and written about overpopulation and the lack thereof. Wouldn’t it be just awesome if the Vatican consulted with him? If you haven’t perused this site, please get really educated , really fast in this area, because I’m reasonably sure one of your friends just read some lame article over at the National catholic Reporter touting Cardinal Turkson as having approved birth control.
Oh, my ever loving goodness. (Yeah, that’s about as strong as my language gets.) People are being massacred around the world and an archbishop of the Church comes up with this? The entire Vatican staff needs some serious soundbite coaching! It’s just one bad soundbite after another.
In reference to Canon 1370, which imposes automatic excommunication for “physical violence” against the Roman Pontiff, Archbishop Fisichella said: “I would say that we need to understand well ‘physical violence,’ because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones, and therefore I believe some of these sins, too, are far more widespread than we might think.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canonist-to-vatican-archbishop-no-church-law-doesnt-excommunicate-papal-cri
Clearly, nursery rhymes in English don’t translate well. It goes like this Archbishop: Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
No, words are not physical violence, Archbishop. Worst. Comparison. Ever. And we’ve already been subjected to a barrage of whiny college kids who are crying about safe spaces, so that’ s saying something! Words might be hurtful. Words might be wrong. Words might be annoying, but they do not equate with physical violence against the Pope.
There are definitely some members of the clergy who need to come down from their “safe spaces” and man up! I live in a country that’s become the nation of the offended. I don’t need my Church to follow suit. You are the ones who need to “understand well ‘physical violence.’”
So, for goodness sake, please think about the fact there are actual people who want to do physical violence against the Holy Father!!! There are actual people who were killed by the same ilk in the past week, and we are a state in mourning. Talk about people who should be offended! Have we even heard one mention from the Vatican on San Bernardino? Nope, but we got a fancy light show. You trying telling their families that words are equal to physical violence. It’s no wonder we’re in the blooming mess we’re in. We’re not paying attention to the wolf at the door (or the one who’s already entered the house). The media is going to ignore atrocities around the world and spend time spinning the ones people aren’t ignoring. It would seem that the Church needs to focus like a laser on people being massacred and not on a Disney-esque light show. It kind of downplays the tragedies of our days. People are being martyred.
Now, I’m guessing it’s a soundbite error, and it will probably be walked back, but it’s getting weary hearing correction after correction after correction. Speak like people are listening, because they are.
I posted my last blog less than 24 hours before the attack in San Bernadino. I was trying to stay away from the topic of “jihad” for the most part. In hindsight, I might have wanted to propose we consider that one a little more. Expand the whole section on assimilation and radicalization. Clearly this is going to be a bigger issue in the upcoming days. Please note, I have no knowledge of these people being refugees. How much harder is it going to be for them to stay away from radicalization? This couple were apparently citizens, with a baby and jobs. https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/what-if-we-paused-to-ask-a-few-questions/
Refugees. This one little word has launched a verbal civil war within America and within the Catholic Church. In my Catholic world, it seems to be mostly in the context of “You’re a good Catholic if you favor bringing refugees to America” or “You’re a bad Catholic if you oppose bringing refugees to America.” However, there are many faithful priests, bishops, and cardinals with differing opinions on this. Catholics have really let liberals frame the choices here, and that always ends in disaster. False dichotomy, people! There are other alternatives, not just these two. I really don’t have any concrete ideas to solve the crisis, but I think a whole lot of more questions and ideas need to be bounced around before we run headlong into a possible disaster for us and for the refugees. I’m sure I’ll be labeled “less than Catholic” by some. What I really am is a Catholic woman who wants to help these people in the best way possible for them AND for us. I’m going to emphasize “woman” here, because we tend to see social dynamics that men don’t always see. (Sorry to you gender-equal people who hate pointing out differences between men and women, but we are different and we have different qualities that complement each other, so deal with it.)
First of all, this whole discussion should have been framed as “helping refugees” or “not helping refugees.” I think faithful Catholics are all in favor of helping refugees. It’s the “bringing them here” where we start to differ. The “third option” (there are actually more, but let’s assume this for a second) is to help the refugees in their own country or near their own country. Why is it that we think we need to put them on a boat or plane to help them, especially to bring them to a land that’s having a bit of trouble taking care of their own right now? The majority of these refugees are not going back if we bring them to America. If we are taking Christian refugees, that would mean we just give up Christianity in the Middle East (although it looks like Christians are the only ones being denied refugee status). And if we’re talking Muslim refugees well, that means we’re spreading that faith all over the place.
So, back to looking at the “best way” to help refugees… Is it really wise to uproot them and move them to another country? Another culture? How does this differ for Christians and Muslims? This all needs to be looked at quite seriously before our goodwill does more harm than good.
Then, of course, there’s the vetting. Could we start off with just a little common sense? We can still help refugees, care for them, and provide for their safety, without being suicidal. How about, right off the bat, we set up a safe zone in Syria itself or one of the neighboring countries that has already set up refugee camps and take just a little more time to do our best to make sure they’re not people who want to kill infidels? Yes, it’s hard, but as I’ve stated before, Chaldeans, for example, have tattoos of crosses on their wrists. How about we start using this as one means of the vetting process, but without publicity? Relying on the Obama administration to properly vet refugees is a little silly, don’t you think? Which program of his has worked thus far? Plus, there are a slew of government agencies already stating that we’re blowing it. You know, the ones who are responsible for the vetting? And then there’s this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/sen-sessions-reveals-15-refugee-jihadis-hopes-shrink-obamas-2016-refugee-budget/
Next, let’s talk about assimilation. That can be the word of the day. Can you say “assimilation”, children? Good, I knew you could. This is, by far, the most important thing to look at. Can we just agree that most Muslim countries have very different cultures than the West? Muslims from Muslim countries have a very hard time assimilating into Western Culture. Heck, I have a problem with this sometimes, and I was born and raised here, but I’m Catholic first, so that’s where my priorities lie. The Tsarnaev brothers are a perfect example of what happens when Muslims cannot assimilate. Then there’s Nidal Hasan. He was even born here but raised Muslim by his Palestinian parents. These Muslims never quite feel like they belong and end up getting drawn into radicalism while looking for people to whom they can relate. To some extent, our crazy, hedonistic, bully culture is to blame, but that’s a whole other blog post. As I have said before, sometimes I don’t fit in either, but my response is never to blow someone away. Unfortunately, there’s often not a loving thing we can do to make a radical change their view. Case in point: http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/video-palestinian-mom-wanted-baby-become-martyr
Sadly, radical Muslims are really all in for their “cause.” They do believe in something, even if it’s evil. The youth, especially, are looking for something to believe in, and since America can be rather wishy-washy in many regards – patriotism, faith, etc. – they are drawn to the Islamic clear “truth” (again, not truth, but it’s vehemently put forth as such.) You’ve seen how many Americans have decided to throw in with them. Why? Could it be that they want the rigid rules of a faith, even if it is an evil faith? Could it be that they are looking for clear “gender roles?” You betcha! It’s too bad that all some can find is a confused version of these things, but again, our culture is partly to blame. While we’re changing the signs on our bathroom doors to be “gender inclusive,” they are doing the polar opposite and it’s attracting many lost sheep. That’s why it’s crucial the Church promotes true teachings and stop trying to make people feel good about every wrong thing they want to do. It doesn’t work! We want limits, whether we admit it or not. Failure to set them makes for unruly children. And why in the heck aren’t we listening to the warnings of this guy? http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/theres-no-such-thing-as-moderate-islam.html
Wake up! The cancer is at your door. They will destroy you. We, the Christians of the Middle East are the only group that has seen the face of evil: Islam.
Now, as far as the Christians in Syria go, their focus should be God first, right? Would that help them to assimilate better? I suspect yes, but that’s just a guess. That said, would I even think it a good idea to bring them here? Quite frankly, for what? We’re having trouble enough with our own poor, thanks to big government folks who’ve ruined the economy. Would I want their children to be put into a Catholic or public school? To learn what? Only some black lives matter? Shoot, bringing them here might very well save them from imminent death, only to lose their souls in our liberal school system. What if the Catholic organizations set up refugee camps in nearby areas, if not in Syria, and teach them there? Never mind, probably would still be the same stupid education. Remember, I don’t even put my kids in Catholic schools, but I digress. What could we give them here that we couldn’t give them closer to their home? Come on, people (especially Christians!), give until it hurts! Regardless of where they end up, that needs to be done. I’m definitely not advocating in any way that we don’t help the poor and war torn refugees. That absolutely has to be done. But how about we fund guys like this priest? http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/23/iraqi-priest-saves-thousands-isis/ or this one: http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/24/iraqi-priest-pleads-for-pope-francis-to-help-end-genocide-of-christians/ or these guys: https://www.youcaring.com/emergency-relief-in-syria-ats-pro-terra-sancta-437263? We also need to take stories like this into consideration:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263593/Syrian-wives-mothers-left-condemn-men-fled-country-ask-free-protect-wrong-leave-country.html#ixzz3sQ9UrWcG. This isn’t the first time this has happened with our sloppy immigration policies, either.
Now for some more questions…Why, oh why, haven’t we taken refugees from Mt. Sinjar or Nigeria? How about Christians from Iraq? It’s like they’ve all been forgotten. My guess is there are a lot of Christians in that mix. It would make perfect sense for Obama to not want to do anything for them, but what about the Church? I mean, we did make a big stink about them, but why didn’t we push for everyone to take in these refugees? It’s like we’ve forgotten 300 young girls.
At this point, I’m all for making a Catholic “special forces.” They may have called them Crusaders in the olden days. And, yes, I’m one who doesn’t believe the revisionist history that the Catholic Crusades were a bad thing. Quick debunking link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/a_note_on_equating_isis_with_the_crusades_dont.html Seriously, being Catholic, we would and should be more discerning, more caring, etc., than any other elite force, right? Might be time to get someone to go find those 300 missing girls or to rescue the remaining stuck on a Mt. Sinjar. I mean, could it be that hard to have some sort of elite intelligence force find them? For some reason, someone didn’t want to do a darn thing. How Christian is that???
So, I’ve posed a lot of questions. What about a solution after all the vetting that can be done? How about this? Why don’t we try to help the refugees save their own country, and protect, train, arm, and care for them while we do it??? Please, somebody, tell me where I’m going wrong here? They could then go back to their homes, or rebuild their homes (with our help), as well as their jobs, their schools, etc., when peace returned. They can feel at home in their culture and not out of place when everyone around them shares the same culture, not to mention a universal experience of a war torn refugee, whether they be Christian or Muslim. Think it can’t be done? Somalis have actually started going home after being harbored in nearby Yemen, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Millions of Syrians have even returned to their homes since Russia (and presumably now France) have set their sights on ISIS. However, it’s a lot harder to return home when you are thousands of miles away from your homeland.
Of course, all of this matters little. Obama is going to do what Obama is going to do, but we, as Catholics, should at least ask these questions.