Grandma Bloomberg meet Grandpa Patterson.
I don’t know about you, but I’m fed up with politicians who want to legislate society into living a healthier lifestyle, always under the pretense that it “for our own good”. First our dear mayor Michael Bloomberg bans trans fats from restaurants. Then he requires fast food providers to post the caloric intake of their foods. And let’s not forget his fixation on banning smoking. It is now easier to smoke a joint in New York City than it is to smoke a cigarette . . . And no, I am not a smoker.
Now New York State Governor David Patterson has decided that he will out-grandparent Mayor Bloomberg by pushing for a “fat tax”. (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/12/the-doctor-is-in-cyberspace.html) According to New York Daily News columnist Elizabeth Benjamin, this tax will involve an “18 percent levy on sugary drinks like non-diet soda.” New York State Health Commissioner Richard Daines openly admits that the purpose of this tax is to, in Benjamin’s words, “disincentivize sugary drinks, which research shows are the top culprit in the childhood obesity epidemic, and encourage people to return to 1970s-era levels of consumption of other, less fattening beverages like milk and water.”
Instead of worrying about our cholesterol and the size of our waistlines, our esteemed Mayor and Governor should focus on more important things, such as the following:
$ Why the MTA continues to lose hundreds of millions of dollars annually, resulting in ever rising fares paid by commuters?
$ Why it is that NYC public school teachers are forced to hold classes in hallways because of limited space? Isn’t the money generated from Lotto supposed to go towards our schools? Where instead is that money being spent?
$ What rules were bent and what “incentives” were given to the Yankees to encourage the franchise to build its new stadium in the Bronx?
Maybe if our elected officials spent more time on pressing issues such as these, they would be less inclined to worry about our vices.
Donald Tremblay
Catholic Agenda
Catholic Agenda
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Merry Christmas
1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
2 This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria.
3 And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David,
5 To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.
6 And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock.
9 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear.
10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: 7 "Her firstborn"... The meaning is, not that she had afterward any other child; but it is a way of speech among the Hebrews, to call them also the firstborn, who are the only children. See annotation Matt. 1. 25.
11 For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying:
14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.
15 And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath showed to us.
16 And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger.
17 And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child.
18 And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Luke 2: 1-20
Merry Christmas.
Donald Tremblay
2 This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria.
3 And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David,
5 To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.
6 And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock.
9 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear.
10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: 7 "Her firstborn"... The meaning is, not that she had afterward any other child; but it is a way of speech among the Hebrews, to call them also the firstborn, who are the only children. See annotation Matt. 1. 25.
11 For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying:
14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.
15 And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath showed to us.
16 And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger.
17 And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child.
18 And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Luke 2: 1-20
Merry Christmas.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Sold a Bill of Goods?
My generation was taught that greed and capitalism-run-amok were responsible for the Great Depression. We were taught that the Stock Market crash was directly responsible for the eventual 20%-plus unemployment rate which plagued the country for several years during the early 1930s. Thomas Sowell refutes this notion in his latest column, “Another Great Depression?” (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/another_great_depression.html) Using data from Out of Work, a book written by scholars Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway, Sowell argues that it may have been the government interventionist policies of Presidents Herbert Hoover and FDR that were truly responsible for the skyrocketing unemployment rates of the 1930s.
Sowell points out that in Nov 1929, one month after the stock market crash, the unemployment rate was 5%. In December 1929 it climbed to 9%, but then steadily decreased until it hit 6.3 percent in June 1930. It was at this time that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, which like all tariffs sought to limit imports to protect American jobs. According to Sowell just five months after the passage of these acts “the unemployment rate hit double digits for the first time in the 1930s.” From there despite government intervention, or because of government intervention as Sowell argues, the unemployment rate climbed to over 20% where it remained for nearly three years.
Not being an economist I am in no in position to argue whether Sowell’s contention is accurate or not. However, since I generally believe that when government bureaucracy gets involved in anything it tends to make matters worse, it would not surprise me if his analysis is correct. Which brings me to the current taxpayer bailout of corporate America. I understand that if these corporations tank many jobs will be lost. But are we just throwing money into an empty pit? Will the same mismanagement that bankrupted these companies waste the bailout money as well? Where does the accountability lie?
Plus, the game of politics dictates that you never agree to anything unless there is something in it for you. The people on Capitol Hill are politicians, not missionaries, which means that in exchange for approving federal handouts in any form they will expect support for their pork projects. For ex., today Las Vegas television network News 3 reports that Nevada Senator Harry Reid is looking for one billion dollars from a possible federal economic stimulus package to repair and upgrade Las Vegas roads. (http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9567674) I’m sorry but you will be hard-pressed to convince me that fixing roads in Vegas somehow benefits those who have been laid off without a severance package and are relying on unemployment insurance to feed their families and pay their bills.
Something tells me that decades from now history will not look back kindly at how taxpayers dollars were spent.
Donald Tremblay
Sowell points out that in Nov 1929, one month after the stock market crash, the unemployment rate was 5%. In December 1929 it climbed to 9%, but then steadily decreased until it hit 6.3 percent in June 1930. It was at this time that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, which like all tariffs sought to limit imports to protect American jobs. According to Sowell just five months after the passage of these acts “the unemployment rate hit double digits for the first time in the 1930s.” From there despite government intervention, or because of government intervention as Sowell argues, the unemployment rate climbed to over 20% where it remained for nearly three years.
Not being an economist I am in no in position to argue whether Sowell’s contention is accurate or not. However, since I generally believe that when government bureaucracy gets involved in anything it tends to make matters worse, it would not surprise me if his analysis is correct. Which brings me to the current taxpayer bailout of corporate America. I understand that if these corporations tank many jobs will be lost. But are we just throwing money into an empty pit? Will the same mismanagement that bankrupted these companies waste the bailout money as well? Where does the accountability lie?
Plus, the game of politics dictates that you never agree to anything unless there is something in it for you. The people on Capitol Hill are politicians, not missionaries, which means that in exchange for approving federal handouts in any form they will expect support for their pork projects. For ex., today Las Vegas television network News 3 reports that Nevada Senator Harry Reid is looking for one billion dollars from a possible federal economic stimulus package to repair and upgrade Las Vegas roads. (http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9567674) I’m sorry but you will be hard-pressed to convince me that fixing roads in Vegas somehow benefits those who have been laid off without a severance package and are relying on unemployment insurance to feed their families and pay their bills.
Something tells me that decades from now history will not look back kindly at how taxpayers dollars were spent.
Donald Tremblay
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Pride and Global Warming
Uh-oh.
Looks like it might be time for a certain CNN meteorologist to begin searching for a new line of work.
Chad Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, uttered blasphemous words on the Dec 18 edition of CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight”:
“‘You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,’ Myers said. ‘Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.’”
(http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)
Myers must have had a case of temporary insanity. Questioning one of the commandments of 21st century western society? He should immediately run up to the nearest tree, prostrate himself before it and beg forgiveness. Otherwise, environmentalists will demand he be burned at the stake.
Oh no, scratch that. I forgot that fire releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus killing the ozone layer.
Well, maybe they can make an exception in this case and give this heretic the fiery punishment he deserves. After all environmentalists often disregard their “values” when it’s convenient. Ozone Man Al Gore allegedly uses enough electricity to supply the eastern seaboard of the U.S.
Someone close to Myers, maybe a friend or a relative, needs to explain to him that he is confronting political correctness . . . a state of mind where the truth is irrelevant. Defending the cause is what matters, even if it means exaggerating or falsifying claims to gain supporters. Who can forget in 1988 when Sam Malone, aka Ted Danson, announced that humanity only had 10 years to live. Why? Because in 10 years he said the oceans would be dead from over-fishing. And if they died so would we.
Perhaps Ted’s calculator was on the fritz.
The global warming frenzy is based on pseudoscience and speculation. Myers likened it to purchasing a car:
“It’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”
Our arrogant assumption that we control nature is a manifestation of our arrogance toward life in general. It is the most recent example of Pride casting its shadow over western society. We live in a world where Man worships himself as the highest good. God is okay as long as He fits within the confines of what is “my truth”. Make no mistake about it, the Church has its problems and is in part responsible for the emptying of pews, but the biggest reason that our churches are sparsely attended is because we have become a prideful society who will only accept God and religion on our own terms. We believe that it is God who should accommodate us, and if He doesn’t, then He should be shown the door.
Humility appears to have disappeared from our vocabulary.
Donald
Looks like it might be time for a certain CNN meteorologist to begin searching for a new line of work.
Chad Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, uttered blasphemous words on the Dec 18 edition of CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight”:
“‘You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,’ Myers said. ‘Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.’”
(http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)
Myers must have had a case of temporary insanity. Questioning one of the commandments of 21st century western society? He should immediately run up to the nearest tree, prostrate himself before it and beg forgiveness. Otherwise, environmentalists will demand he be burned at the stake.
Oh no, scratch that. I forgot that fire releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus killing the ozone layer.
Well, maybe they can make an exception in this case and give this heretic the fiery punishment he deserves. After all environmentalists often disregard their “values” when it’s convenient. Ozone Man Al Gore allegedly uses enough electricity to supply the eastern seaboard of the U.S.
Someone close to Myers, maybe a friend or a relative, needs to explain to him that he is confronting political correctness . . . a state of mind where the truth is irrelevant. Defending the cause is what matters, even if it means exaggerating or falsifying claims to gain supporters. Who can forget in 1988 when Sam Malone, aka Ted Danson, announced that humanity only had 10 years to live. Why? Because in 10 years he said the oceans would be dead from over-fishing. And if they died so would we.
Perhaps Ted’s calculator was on the fritz.
The global warming frenzy is based on pseudoscience and speculation. Myers likened it to purchasing a car:
“It’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”
Our arrogant assumption that we control nature is a manifestation of our arrogance toward life in general. It is the most recent example of Pride casting its shadow over western society. We live in a world where Man worships himself as the highest good. God is okay as long as He fits within the confines of what is “my truth”. Make no mistake about it, the Church has its problems and is in part responsible for the emptying of pews, but the biggest reason that our churches are sparsely attended is because we have become a prideful society who will only accept God and religion on our own terms. We believe that it is God who should accommodate us, and if He doesn’t, then He should be shown the door.
Humility appears to have disappeared from our vocabulary.
Donald
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown
Last night I watched my favorite Christmas special, A Charlie Brown Christmas, for the third time this year. As I listened to Charlie Brown rail against the commercialization of Christmas while pleading for someone–anyone–to explain “what Christmas is all about”, I realized that our national economic crisis has forced many Americans to confront the Truth of “what Christmas is all about”. Below is an example.
Each year St. Ephrem’s Church in Brooklyn, NY, decorates Christmas trees with cards containing the age and gender of a poor child who will have no gifts to open on Christmas morning. Some are orphans; others have families but no money. Parishioners who would like to help these children can take a card and buy an appropriate gift for that child. The gifts are collected and held on the Church’s altar. Last Sunday as I entered the Church for Sunday mass, I noticed that despite the current economic turmoil there were as many gifts on the altar as there had been in years past. It was comforting to see that although people may be hurting financially, they still want to thank God for giving Himself as a gift to Man. And what better way to repay that gift than by giving gifts to the less fortunate.
Keep in mind that these Catholics who donated are not people who have “of their abundance cast into the offerings of God” (Luke 21:4). They are Catholics who have donated despite having lost their jobs or watched their savings plummet because of the tanking stock market. As members of Christ’s flock they know it is their responsibility to take care of the less fortunate sheep.
Maybe it’s naive but based on the outpouring of help that I’ve witnessed, the next time Americans are asked to explain the true meaning of Christmas, I believe more of us–Catholic and otherwise–will respond as Linus did to Charlie Brown:
“And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. 9 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. 10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:
For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.”
Luke 2: 8-14)
Donald Tremblay
Each year St. Ephrem’s Church in Brooklyn, NY, decorates Christmas trees with cards containing the age and gender of a poor child who will have no gifts to open on Christmas morning. Some are orphans; others have families but no money. Parishioners who would like to help these children can take a card and buy an appropriate gift for that child. The gifts are collected and held on the Church’s altar. Last Sunday as I entered the Church for Sunday mass, I noticed that despite the current economic turmoil there were as many gifts on the altar as there had been in years past. It was comforting to see that although people may be hurting financially, they still want to thank God for giving Himself as a gift to Man. And what better way to repay that gift than by giving gifts to the less fortunate.
Keep in mind that these Catholics who donated are not people who have “of their abundance cast into the offerings of God” (Luke 21:4). They are Catholics who have donated despite having lost their jobs or watched their savings plummet because of the tanking stock market. As members of Christ’s flock they know it is their responsibility to take care of the less fortunate sheep.
Maybe it’s naive but based on the outpouring of help that I’ve witnessed, the next time Americans are asked to explain the true meaning of Christmas, I believe more of us–Catholic and otherwise–will respond as Linus did to Charlie Brown:
“And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. 9 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. 10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:
For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.”
Luke 2: 8-14)
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Cattle Call
One of the most famous incidents of people behaving like a herd of bulls took place in Dec 1979 in
Are these herd behaviors aberrations? Unfortunately, based on a number of studies, the answer is no. Numerous experiments have proven that under the right (or wrong) conditions, people can lose the ability to think clearly and rationally. Malcolm Gladwell offers several examples in his excellent best-seller The Tipping Point. Here is one of them:
Should this knowledge about Man’s vulnerability to the herd mentality affect our views about the Black Friday tragedy? Absolutely not. The people who trampled Mr. Damour should be held accountable for their actions. Although it may be easy to get caught up in the frenzy, people still have the Free Will to say no. If this were not the case then every customer that day would have participated in the stampede, which clearly was not the case.
Wal-Mart should also be held accountable for doing such a poor job of organizing, as they phrased it, their “door-busters” sale. As Jordan Hecht, the lawyer for Mr. Damour’s sisters, pointed out, “"Hundreds of stores around the country have these kinds of sales, but a tragedy only happens if you don't prepare." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122818206309671069.html)
One word of advice to shoppers: the next time a store offers a crazy sale on the Wii game console or on the latest Xbox 360 game, wait till after Christmas to buy it. Your child’s emotional well-being will not suffer if he/she has to wait a week or two . . . and you may just save your own physical well-being in the process.
Donald Tremblay
Sunday, November 30, 2008
That Most Evil of Holidays
(A speech from a progressive politician in Anywhere, USA)
Attention, everyone! I have an announcement.
It’s that time of the year again—time for the most evil holiday on the calendar.
Christmas.
We must resume our annual battle to prevent the open celebration of Jesus’ birth. Our main point of attack will continue to focus on the notion that Christmas displays create hostile environments for non-believers. Playing the victim card continues to work well. We’ve been able to virtually eliminate Nativity scenes from the public sphere, and we’ve white-washed the term Christmas tree and replaced it with the conventional Holiday tree. Public schools have proven invaluable. Christmas concerts have been replaced by Winter Festivals. Children may sing about Kwanzaa and even Hanukkah, but the only "Christmas" songs allowed are those generic winter songs about sleigh-riding, Santa, and winter wonderlands.
What is that you’re saying in the back of the room? The majority of Americans want Christmas decorations publically displayed? Forget them. We who are offended by Jesus have the final say . . . even if there are only a limited number of us. When you have as many supporters in the judiciary as we have, the number of followers is irrelevant. If those Jesus Freaks want to celebrate his birthday then let them go to a church.
On to the next item: I have in my hand a few of the anti-Christmas strategies that have been put into effect by other towns around the nation. These are just two examples; there are many more that will be enacted over the next few weeks.
Last weekend the town of Patchogue, NY celebrated its 15th annual boat parade. Formerly the Patchogue Christmas Boat Parade, the name was changed to the Patchogue Holiday Boat Parade because of "complaints that the use of ‘Christmas’ seemed to make the parade less inclusive". (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443785,00.html) Fireworks by Grucci withdrew their fireworks donation to protest the change, but so what? Getting rid of the word Christmas is what matters.
"Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) administration has banned all holiday decorations from common spaces on campus and canceled a popular greeting card design contest, which is being replaced by an ugly sweater competition. In Griffin Hall, the university's giving tree for needy preschoolers has been transformed into a ‘giving garden.’" (http://www.news-press.com/article/20081125/NEWS0104/811250380/1075 )
Pretty good, right?
Yes, yes. I understand you’re frustrated because you still have to confront those offensive decorations on people’s private property. Be patient. Think about how much we’ve accomplished in just the past 10 years. Eventually we’ll be able to concoct some law that your rights are being violated by the very sight of these hateful Christian symbols regardless of where they are displayed.
And remember to look at the total picture. Each year more people accept the minimizing of Christmas. We have succeeded in making them feel powerless to stop our onslaught. Plus, we are now rearing generations of children who are clueless as to how widespread the Christmas holiday once was. In another 20 years our followers will be legion.
Let’s meet again next week. We have much work to be done.
Donald Tremblay
Ecumenism Gone Wild
Once again we see the effects of ecumenism gone wild.
Last week as many as 20,000 Muslims attacked a Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo, Egypt, yelling slogans such as “Islam is the solution” and “No God but Allah” (http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/egypt-thousands-protest-vandalize-church-17223/). Yet despite this latest example of Christian persecution in Muslim lands, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran–head of the Catholic Church's department for interreligious dialogue–“has thanked Muslims for bringing God back into the public sphere in Europe.” (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36765320081128)
Ecumenists like Cardinal Tauran ignore the injustices committed in the name of Islam, regurgitating the party line that radicals don’t represent the true Islam, that Islam is a peaceful religion. Well, regardless of whether this assertion contains any truth, and there are plenty of examples proving otherwise, the reality is that many of these radicals are the same European Muslims who Cardinal Tauran is thanking. In its July/August 2005 issue, Foreign Affairs magazine spelled out how deeply Europe is infested with these extremists:
Jihadist networks span Europe from Poland to Portugal, thanks to the spread of radical Islam among the descendants of guest workers once recruited to shore up Europe's postwar. . . . The emergence of homegrown mujahideen in Europe threatens the United States as well as Europe.
(http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html)
Ecumenists will argue that supporting Islam is necessary to combat the growing secularism that has overtaken Europe and is threatening to wipe religion from the continent. Yes, atheism is the greatest threat to the human race, as Nazism and Communism proved in the 20th century; however, embracing the strategy that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is hypocritical--and hypocrisy disgusts the faithful and poisons their trust in Christ’s Church. It’s not coincidental that Christ continually addressed hypocrisy in his teachings. He recognized that a major reason why the children of Israel had turned away from God was because of the Pharisees’ insincerity.
Ironically, if the ecumenists continue along this path, they will be responsible for the very outcome they are fighting against: an irrelevant Church and a global rejection of Christ.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, November 17, 2008
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
It is no secret that a significant share of the USCCB (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) is composed of liberal bishops. These are men who were ordained in the 1960s and 1970s during the greatest social upheaval in American history. This societal tumult combined with the Second Vatican Council’s decision to open the doors of the Church to the world resulted in an entire generation of clergy ignorant to the instruction, “Be in the world, but not of the world”.
It was during this era that the American Church foolishly partnered with the rest of American society in embracing the progressive, morally relativistic, anti-hierarchical, “primacy of conscience” lifestyle promoted by the baby-boom generation. Since then our nation has found itself sliding headlong down an immoral slippery slope toward high abortion and divorce rates, increased violent crime among ever-younger children, and greater demands to expand our Culture of Death to include doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research.
Yet, despite these horrific facts, liberal bishops still refuse to acknowledge the fallacy of their “enlightened” thinking. Worsening matters is that these leftist shepherds are many in number and their clout within the American Church is widespread. Last week Washington Times religion editor Julia Duin referenced the continued influence of this liberal branch of the Church in her column, “Double-Minded Bishops”. (http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2008/Nov/11/double-minded-bishops/)
“As I have been covering the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops off and on since 1986, I've learned there are small ways of learning who is in and who is out, who is rising in status and who is losing power. One thing reporters have learned to look for is who wins or loses yearly elections as chairman of a variety of USCCB committees. I have noticed, strangely, that the most outspoken bishops on the pro-life issue always lose these elections.”
As examples Ms. Duin cites St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who was rejected as chairman of the Committee for Canonical Affairs, and Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who was by bypassed for the position of Washington See. What do the two men have in common? Burke “famously told Sen. John Kerry during his presidential run in 2004 not to try taking Communion in his diocese,” while Chaput “is another key bishop who has spoken out forcibly against pro-choice politicians.”
Some may argue that these men were “punished” not for what they said, but for the outspoken manner in which they said it. It’s possible, but I don’t believe it. Clearly cowards exist among bishops just as they exist among the general populace, and I’m sure there are also those clergy who don’t want to rock the boat out of fear that they’ll lose their comfy lifestyle.
But aside from these men there is also a large section of the USCCB who are at odds with “fire and brimstone” theology. Love everyone; make peace, not war; cast no stones; remember the beam in your own eye . . . and never, ever criticize anyone.
Ironically, anyone who disagrees with them is blackballed.
How pathetic. Bishops punished by their brethren for zealously defending Church teachings.
St. Peter must be furious.
Donald Tremblay
It was during this era that the American Church foolishly partnered with the rest of American society in embracing the progressive, morally relativistic, anti-hierarchical, “primacy of conscience” lifestyle promoted by the baby-boom generation. Since then our nation has found itself sliding headlong down an immoral slippery slope toward high abortion and divorce rates, increased violent crime among ever-younger children, and greater demands to expand our Culture of Death to include doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research.
Yet, despite these horrific facts, liberal bishops still refuse to acknowledge the fallacy of their “enlightened” thinking. Worsening matters is that these leftist shepherds are many in number and their clout within the American Church is widespread. Last week Washington Times religion editor Julia Duin referenced the continued influence of this liberal branch of the Church in her column, “Double-Minded Bishops”. (http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2008/Nov/11/double-minded-bishops/)
“As I have been covering the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops off and on since 1986, I've learned there are small ways of learning who is in and who is out, who is rising in status and who is losing power. One thing reporters have learned to look for is who wins or loses yearly elections as chairman of a variety of USCCB committees. I have noticed, strangely, that the most outspoken bishops on the pro-life issue always lose these elections.”
As examples Ms. Duin cites St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who was rejected as chairman of the Committee for Canonical Affairs, and Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who was by bypassed for the position of Washington See. What do the two men have in common? Burke “famously told Sen. John Kerry during his presidential run in 2004 not to try taking Communion in his diocese,” while Chaput “is another key bishop who has spoken out forcibly against pro-choice politicians.”
Some may argue that these men were “punished” not for what they said, but for the outspoken manner in which they said it. It’s possible, but I don’t believe it. Clearly cowards exist among bishops just as they exist among the general populace, and I’m sure there are also those clergy who don’t want to rock the boat out of fear that they’ll lose their comfy lifestyle.
But aside from these men there is also a large section of the USCCB who are at odds with “fire and brimstone” theology. Love everyone; make peace, not war; cast no stones; remember the beam in your own eye . . . and never, ever criticize anyone.
Ironically, anyone who disagrees with them is blackballed.
How pathetic. Bishops punished by their brethren for zealously defending Church teachings.
St. Peter must be furious.
Donald Tremblay
Saturday, November 15, 2008
And So It Begins
And So It Begins
Despite being president-elect for less than two weeks, Barack Obama has already made it clear that he “plans to reverse an existing executive order against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081110/sc_nm/us_stemcellresearch_shares_1) This decision should surprise no one. Over the years Obama has shown complete indifference to the lives of the unborn. Remember this is the same man who as a member of the Illinois State Legislature rejected the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) which “mandate[d] that all babies born alive receive immediate medical attention.” (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138) In comparison, when a similar bill was proposed to the House of Representatives in 2000, “no one, even those who had most staunchly supported abortion over the years, wanted to be on record as supporting what was, in effect, infanticide.” (See above link)
With his embryonic stem cell research plans revealed, expect him to next announce his intention to sign the granddaddy of all abortion rights legislation: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In July 2007 Obama told guests at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event that “the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." (http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/one_year_annive.html) According to Americans United For Life, below are some of the “550 federal and state laws” that will be nullified by FOCA:
· Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
· Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
· Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
· Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
· Informed consent laws
· Waiting periods
· Parental consent and notification laws
· Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
· Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
· “Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
· Bans on partial-birth abortion
· Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
· Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
· Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
· State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
· Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities
(http://www.aul.org/FOCA)
Earlier I stated that Obama’s treatment of the unborn has been one of “indifference”. I was wrong. “Disdain” more accurately describes his treatment. The idea that a fetus is a human life is anathema to him, so much so that in response to the question, “When do babies get human rights?” he sarcastically answered, “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138) Interesting. It’s above his pay grade to know when a baby should get rights, but it’s not above his pay grade to deny a baby those rights. The hubris is sickening.
Considering his track record and his recent statements, it appears our president-elect is targeting the unborn.
I hope I am wrong; I fear I am not.
Donald Tremblay
Despite being president-elect for less than two weeks, Barack Obama has already made it clear that he “plans to reverse an existing executive order against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081110/sc_nm/us_stemcellresearch_shares_1) This decision should surprise no one. Over the years Obama has shown complete indifference to the lives of the unborn. Remember this is the same man who as a member of the Illinois State Legislature rejected the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) which “mandate[d] that all babies born alive receive immediate medical attention.” (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138) In comparison, when a similar bill was proposed to the House of Representatives in 2000, “no one, even those who had most staunchly supported abortion over the years, wanted to be on record as supporting what was, in effect, infanticide.” (See above link)
With his embryonic stem cell research plans revealed, expect him to next announce his intention to sign the granddaddy of all abortion rights legislation: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In July 2007 Obama told guests at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event that “the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." (http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/one_year_annive.html) According to Americans United For Life, below are some of the “550 federal and state laws” that will be nullified by FOCA:
· Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
· Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
· Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
· Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
· Informed consent laws
· Waiting periods
· Parental consent and notification laws
· Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
· Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
· “Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
· Bans on partial-birth abortion
· Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
· Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
· Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
· State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
· Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities
(http://www.aul.org/FOCA)
Earlier I stated that Obama’s treatment of the unborn has been one of “indifference”. I was wrong. “Disdain” more accurately describes his treatment. The idea that a fetus is a human life is anathema to him, so much so that in response to the question, “When do babies get human rights?” he sarcastically answered, “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138) Interesting. It’s above his pay grade to know when a baby should get rights, but it’s not above his pay grade to deny a baby those rights. The hubris is sickening.
Considering his track record and his recent statements, it appears our president-elect is targeting the unborn.
I hope I am wrong; I fear I am not.
Donald Tremblay
Friday, November 7, 2008
Screening Out The Unborn
Now that Barack Obama has been elected president, Catholics can expect the battle to defend the unborn to be fiercer than ever. Feminist groups like NOW will demand legislation that removes all restrictions to abortion, and they will find a sympathetic ear in the White House. Pro-life supporters will need to join forces to withstand the onslaught, and one group whose assistance would prove invaluable is the medical community. Unfortunately, this group primarily has remained silent in defense of the unborn.
This realization struck me yesterday as I read the Wall Street Journal’s “Letters to the Editor” section. Two doctors had responded to an October 25 Wall Street Journal article entitled, “The Toughest Test”, which discussed how prenatal genetic testing is influencing parents’ decisions on whether to abort their children. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238185398776759.html) Below are the two doctors’ letters in their entirety:
· “For-profit companies that offer prenatal genetic testing services are shameful; they play upon the fears of expectant parents, gladly accept testing fees, and then leave these parents and their (ill-equipped) doctors to deal with the aftermath.
I loathe the day that my daughter shows up at her first prenatal visit, only to be handed a list of "diseases" to test for, just to make sure that "everything is OK with the baby." This represents a giant step backward for modern medicine. We should remember that it is genetic diversity that is essential for the survival of all species, including human beings.”
Timothy P. Madion, M.D.
Fellow, American
Chief of
· As a physician who daily performs ultrasounds and has delivered many babies over the years, I read with sadness that physicians "tried, but failed to persuade" a couple to terminate a pregnancy that they felt wasn't worthy and that 80% of women choose to terminate their pregnancies after receiving a positive diagnosis of Down syndrome ("More Prenatal Testing Brings New Worries," Oct. 25).
As one who took the original Hippocratic oath that directs physicians to "first do no harm" and "never proscribe abortion," I find myself trying to persuade couples of the value of each human life whether disabled or not.
Prenatal testing itself may put a physician in material cooperation with the destruction of a human life whose future is uncertain. Let us give the unborn the benefit of life and support through possible cures or through hospice until natural death.
Mark Druffner, M.D.
Granted there are physicians who would disagree with the above assessments. Yet, I suspect there are many more who would agree but who remain silent.
Someone needs to remind them that the unborn cry out for their voices.
Donald Tremblay
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
THE REAL COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
We have been inundated with presidential campaign propaganda for well over a year. Over the past six months we have been told repeatedly that this is the most important election of our lifetime. And an Obama victory now means that Catholics will be facing unprecedented pressure to abandon the teachings of Christ and His Church. Make no mistake about it: we will be facing “dominions and principalities” empowered like never before in this nation’s history. We will all need to accept the mantle of “Soldiers of Christ”.
Yet despite the inevitable trials, we must not forsake Hope. If we truly believe in the Lord, then we cannot despair.
Perhaps the single most important article I’ve read on the presidential election and America’s future appeared on www.spiritdaily.com . It is only 13 lines in length and is titled, “No Matter Who Wins”. Here it is in its entirety:
Top 10 Predictions No Matter Who Wins the Election
1. The Bible will still have all the answers.
2. Prayer will still work.
3. The Holy Spirit will still move.
4. God will still inhabit the praises of His people.
5. There will still be God-anointed preaching.
6. There will still be singing of praise to God.
7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.
8. There will still be room at the Cross.
9. Jesus will still love you.
10. Jesus will still save the lost.
ISN'T IT GREAT TO KNOW WHO IS STILL IN CONTROL?
(Amen!)
That says it all.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Three-Card Monte, Anyone?
Shysters can be found in all religions and ethnicities. For ex., according to The Swazi Observer a Christian group called “God's Purposed Kingdom Ministries” is selling bottled water under the name “Jesus”. (http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=48184§ion=Business) Themba Magongo, the co-director of the aforementioned ministry claims that the water “will not [just] quench your physical thirst but also meet the need of a soul.”
Ministry members insist that they distribute the 500 ml bottles to spread the Word of God; yet, one has to question their motives since this “miraculous” H20 is not freely offered to people, but instead sold for $0.50. This would be comparable to bottling the waters of Lourdes and selling it alongside Evian or Deer Park. When approached by fellow-Swazis about the difference between Jesus water and the traditional Swazi cleansing water (siwasho), Magongo responded, “My brother this is not siwasho. If you are a Christian you will understand this well. The Holy Spirit will tell you what this water is, but if you use your own understating you will get it all wrong and start to think this is siwasho”.
Perhaps “God's Purposed Kingdom Ministries” does truly want to spread the Word . . . but I find their intentions highly suspect, especially considering the part of the world they operate in. In 2005 the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released the FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture World Food Programme. In the report FAO revealed that “over the past decade, Swaziland has repeatedly experienced droughts or inadequate rainfall and resultant poor harvests.” (http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/J5512e/J5512e00.htm)
What better product than water to sell to people all too familiar with droughts? Offer them “holy” water and you not only sate their physical thirst, but their spiritual one as well.
Sorry, but this sounds like a scam.
Donald Tremblay
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Time to De-Frock
Can someone explain this to me?
Why are members of the clergy who preach against Church doctrine allowed to continue wearing their collars? Why are these heretics not tossed out into the streets? Have we forgotten Christ’s proscription: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) If these men want to follow the broad road “that leadeth to destruction”, that is their business. But must we stand by and watch them serve as malevolent Pied Pipers, leading the Faithful into the abyss? It is time for the Vatican to get rid of these wayward priests, and the first cleric they can start with is Australian Father Peter Dresser:
“This whole matter regarding Jesus being God ... not only does violence to my own intelligence, but must be a sticking point for millions of people trying to make some kind of sense of the Christian religion ... No human being can ever be God, and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that. "(http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9772)
Dresser furthers his blasphemy by asserting that “Mary had as many as six children, Joseph was the father of Jesus and the bodily Resurrection is not to be taken literally.”
Explain to me why we need this man serving the flock?
If you do not recognize Christ’s divinity, then you are not a Christian. Go join a New Age movement if you believe that the Lord was merely an archetype, one of many men in history who accessed the “divinity within every person”. As Anthony Robbie, Sydney lecturer in Church History, argues in the above-mentioned article, “The Council of Nicaea settled the question that Christ was God in 325, so he [Dresser] is 1,700 years out of date. The rest is a regurgitation of every discredited 19th century liberal Protestant German cliche in the book."
Get rid of Dresser and others like him. The last thing Christians need on their journey to the Beatific Vision is a defective compass.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
