Friday, December 21, 2007

1930 Alert

Thanks to Cathcon

AN ALL-FEMALE committee representing the Anglican Church's Melbourne diocese has recommended that abortion be decriminalised, in what is believed to be the first official approval of abortion by Australian Anglicans.

The diocese was one of 40 church, medical and community groups who made confidential submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which is reviewing state abortion laws. According to the commission, there were also more than 500 written submissions.

And my favorite part:

"If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, paradoxically we shouldn't make it more difficult legally because we will go back to the days where poorer women resorted to underground means and corruption was rife through the police, medical practitioners and hospitals," she said.

"The knee-jerk reaction is to make the legislation very restrictive, [which is usually what a goverment doess to limit or stop something...] but the way you reduce abortions is with contraception and sex education.
[God-forbid anyone teach abstinence, the only 100% effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's] The other thing is to support families — we need to be a pro-child society with a pro-child government."

Notice the double-speak?

"If we want to reduce abortions we should decriminalize it."

When has the legalization and govermental regulation of anything resulted in its reduction? After the prohibition of alcohol was lifted and regulated, did alcohol consumtion go down or up? After protitution was legalized and regulated in Nevada, did prostitution go down or up? After abortion was legalized in the states, did the number of abortions go down or up? When there was a big push by liberals to hand out condoms in school, the banning of teaching abstinence, and teaching of homosexual lifestyles to grade-schoolers, did teenage pregnancies go down or up?

And more doublespeak here: "The other thing is to support families — we need to be a pro-child society with a pro-child government."

How can government and society be "pro-child" and "pro-family" while legalizing abortion and pushing contraception? How does that work? How is pushing the message that we have the 'right' to a 'consequence-free sex-life' and the right to kill family members "pro-family"? And always with the fear-mongering of returning to back-alley coat-hanger abortions.

The only way to get us to drink their poison is mixing it with pleasant-tasting platitutdes. I think it's obvious liberals are somewhat mentally defficient. That's why they're liberals. So all those who aren't sharp enough to see through their doubletalk will fall for their deceit.

It boils down to "If you're pro-family then you'll side with us and legalize abortion." What hooey! What an insult to our intelligence that they'd try to pull a fast one like that. Do they think we're stupid? Yes, because liberals think our nanny-state should take care of us, that we're too inept to take care pf ourselves. Are we that stupid? Many of us are, because we keep falling for it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anglicans-call-for-new-stance-on-abortion/2007/12/14/1197568264984.html

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The New Ecumenism - Evangelists Need Not Apply

Here are some words from Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Christian Unity, regarding the 400,000 Anglicans seeking union with the Church: (H/T to Gerals at The Cafeteria Is Closed )

One of the Vatican's most senior cardinals has dismissed the idea that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse - despite Benedict XVI's personal support for such a move. Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome."

The cardinal's comments refer to the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a rebel group which claims to represent 400,000 people. Its bishops sent a letter to Rome last month requesting "full, corporate and sacramental union". But the bishops did not send their letter to Cardinal Kasper. Instead they addressed it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), where, it is understood, they expected a warmer reception.

It has been claimed that 60 Anglican parishes have joined the rebel group since their request became public.

The cardinal said on Monday: "We are on good terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury and as much as we can we are helping him to keep the Anglican community together."

When asked whether he felt encouraged by the TAC's request, the cardinal replied: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome and I am not sure there are so many as you are speaking about."

He added: "Of course, as a Catholic I am happy if one person joins our Catholic Church but I doubt such a big group is coming - I think there are still many questions to solve first."

And here I thought that we were called to evangelize the world and bring all people into the Church, ouside of which there is no salvation.

I didn't know that it was our duty to keep other protestants faiths together.

This guy is a disgrace to his office; he's working directly against why his congregation exists. He doesn't want unity, he wants indifferentism. VII has really screwed up the notion of ecumenism, which used to stress teh ecumenism of return. It used to preach the importance of evangelization. Now it just stresses the hippie notions of I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok.

If it's not for the sake of reuniting people with the one trut Church of Christ then it is a waste of time. I guess Kasper cares more about happy-clappy circle-jerks than saving souls.

I'm sorry Cardinal, you may not want 400,000 souls to rejoin the true Church. But there are over 400,000 souls that disagree with you.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7202

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Next Punch to the Groin of Indifferentists

H/T to Roman Catholic Blog

Dec. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican will release a new document on evangelization next week, with officials in Rome indicating that it will be an important statement on the duty to spread the Catholic faith.

The subject of the new document, which is being released under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is evangelization. The document will be released on December 14.

In July of this year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released, a document entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, reaffirming the central role of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church in the plan of salvation. That document, released without fanfare, revived a controversy that had been ignited in 2000 by Dominus Iesus (doc), a powerful statement released by the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed at that time by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), which affirmed the traditional Catholic teaching that the Christ and his Church provide the only means of salvation.

The new Vatican document is expected to carry the argument of Dominus Iesus a step further, explaining that because of the unique role played by the Church in the plan of redemption, Catholics have an obligation to spread the faith, thus offering others the best means of attaining salvation.

I hope the shepherds will not be too scared of the wolves and that this document has no-nonsense wording free of Vatican II-speak. We need hard and fast language with zero room for (mis)interpretation. We need the truth to be told no matter how unpopular it is. The more controversy such a statement threatens the more it obviously needs to be said.

To paraphrase Bp. Fulton Sheen,

"We need a Church that is right not when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong."

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55201

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The Canary in the Mine

H/T to Cathcon

Reindeer Ralph - the new Nativity

The traditional nativity play is on the wane, suggests a survey. One alternative is Ralph the Reindeer, says a leading children's playwright.

The excitement of being Third Shepherd, Inn Keeper or Little Donkey is a staple part of a schoolchild's Christmas experience.

For generations, the season is forever associated with tea-towels and tinsel, as parents rummage to make costumes for traditional Nativity performances.

Yet a Sunday Telegraph survey of 100 schools has found only one in five opting to stage the traditional Christmas story. One in three will stage a religion-free Christmas play or have no event at all.

The apparent trend for non-traditional plays has been welcomed by the National Secular Society's director Keith Porteous Wood.

"This is a reflection of society: Seventy straight years of continuous decline in Church attendance," he says.

"We should celebrate it. It shows a greater sensitivity to our more multicultural society, those of all faiths and none."

Multiculturalism, the new political dogma, will destroy western culture. Silly religious zealots we are, thinking that not all cultures and religions are morally equivalent. We're merely throwbacks from a bygone era marked by persecution and bigotry, right? If you don't support multiculturalism then you must be racist. Or if you don't accept all religions as equal you must be an ignorant fanatic.

Removing God only panders to the slim minority of atheists. There is nothing there that supports faith by removing the reason for that faith.

That's ok. Remove it out of sight, stuff it away, pretend it doesn't exist, ignore it and it will just go away.

Once you make people forget where their country came from they will forget what their country means. If you have no history, no traditions, no foundation, then you don't have very much of a reason for patriotism. Leave a country's values and foundation to the waxing and waning of public opinion and fancy, you won't have anything worth protecting but a bunch of opinions.

If you want to know where we're headed, just look to the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7125171.stm

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

More Roman Protestants - This time from a Cardinal

This is from Fr. Z's blog:

This is an excerpt from the response to Summorum Pontificum by Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja SJ, Archbishop of Jakarta:

4. As a bishops which authority is also recognized in "motu proprio data", I affirm that what is currently practiced now is the only [one] (meaning the ordinary form) officialy practiced for the Arch Diocese of Jakarta. Until there are special condition which force this ruling to be reviewed.

5. I made the ruling because of consideration that the reason for the [re]establishement of the 1962 Missale Romanum is not relevant for the Arch diocese of Jakarta. There are no Pius X group, the lefebvrist group. There is no reason for reconciliation in the Church in the Arch diocese of Jakarta, which has become the reason for "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. With the currently practice Missale Romanum, still opens the possibility of Gregorian songs being sung. Therefore I decided for the whole ArchDiocese of Jakarta to follow the ordinary [which is] the newest form of Missale Romanum, in order to follow the latest development, [a development] which was made after the second Vatican council.


Not relevent?

First off, he doesn't have the authority to ban the mass of Pius V.

Second, there are a whole lot of non-SSPX parishioners that desire the TLM, Summorum Pontificum is not just a concession to the SSPX.

Third, it has the authority of the Pope who has authority over you, you twit!

Who the hell does he think he is? This is open rebellion. Why would a man of God ban a mass? Perhaps he's not working for God, but himself; and by proxy, someone else...

Of course, he is a Jesuit and such defiance isn't all that surprising from that society.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/julius-cardinal-darmaatmadja-sj-says-summorum-pontificum-doesnt-apply-to-jakarta/