Cardinal Dolan : Left is distracting a grave issue with side shows. Not about condoms but something much more.

Too sexy for her budget. Extreme sex needs to be funded by nation - even by religious organizations. Coed from Georgetown Law needs $3000 a year for contraceptives. See her video here.

She's that Georgetown Law school student who wants the nation to pay for the condoms of her boyfriends - $3000/year. If they can afford to get to Georgetown Law (albeit by scholarship) then they can get a condom if they need to. If a man wants to get laid, he'll find a way.


But it's not about the money.  She and Obama wants the culture to change and with in the way Americans live. She and Obama wants America to not only to tolerate their culture but to accept it by funding it. 

Breaking: Sandra Fluke Exposed As Fraud, Activist, Possible White House Operative – With Video
http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6964/Breaking-Sandra-Fluke-Exposed-As-Fraud-Activist-Possible-White-House-Operative-With-Video.aspx

Censored in FB: Active Opposion to Inhuman Islam is a Human Imperative

(This status was deleted from my Facebook status.  I guess someone complained so, it was censored. )

People of conscience have a moral imperative to oppose evil.  God requires us to be our brothers' keeper.  To allow someone to continue their wrong doing is to reneg on that obligation, to sell out the victims and to ignore a Divine mandate.  Passivity in the face of evil is not tolerance;  it is unconscionable and is not a moral option for any human being. 

Today, wrong doings abound under the ideology of Islam and people of goodwill are faced with the choice to submit to it or to resist it.  Anything other than resistance is submission and that is against all that good and true, moral and decent, human and Divine.

Pope allows condoms? Morality behind cooperation with evil.

Pope cites specific cases when condom use is justifiable.  It could be under the lesser evil approach to cooperation with evil.  If you know that an AIDS infected person cannot stop impregnating others, then it is a lesser evil to counsel that person to at least use a condom.  That doesn't mean that condom use is moral.  It is just a way to stop him for infecting others since he does not have the discipline to stop engaging in sex.  It's cutting a finger to save a hand.

If video fails, go to http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-allows-condoms-morality-behind.html


Excerpt below from here with fuller context and background.

From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you
stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

"Catholic moral tradition elaborates four basic principles that help us navigate a morally complex world. Each of these principles involves varying degrees of cooperation with evil. The principles are (1) double effect, in which a single action has two foreseen effects—one “good” and intended, the other “evil” and tolerated, such as the removal of the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother; (2) tolerance, in which we judge, following the Gospel principle of the wheat and the tares, that certain evils must be endured for the time being lest a greater evil ensue from our efforts to weed out the malefactors, such as tolerating legal abortion even if we disagree that this should be the case; (3) compromise, in which we in some way actively participate in actions or sinful social structures that have a clear morally evil component, such as purchasing goods made under exploitative labor conditions in foreign sweatshops; and (4) the lesser of two evils, such as counseling the use of clean needles among drug addicts." (1)

Sopranos series and Godfather saga are my favorite. Fr. Barron explains why.

If video fails, go to http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2010/11/soprano-godfather-wiseguys-analyze-this.html

Fr. Barron explains why the Sopranos is a great series.

The parable of the stuck CD drive and infected computer

There are 2 problems.  First, the system got corrupted that it needs to boot using the backup disks and to have a file recopied from there.  Second, the CD drive is stuck. 

Some CD drives have a hole where you can stick a paper clip tip to push the drive open.  You can go to Youtube and see videos about that approach.  I had one that did not have a hole.  So after a short prayer,  I attached an external CD drive, booted (started)  and recovered from there.  (You won't find that at YouTube;  I got that with a little prayer and insight.  So, you saw it first here.)

Moral:

Since this is a religious blog, let me use this to talk about Christian life.  The corrupted files are our human frailties that have been overrun and controlled by sin.  It can manifest itself in destructive behaviors e.g. addictions or habitual sins.  The backup disk with the original files is God's grace that contains our chance to be made fixed i.e. freed from addictions and bad habits.  The locked CD ROM drive can be our attitudes e.g. It's too late for me.  I can never be forgiven.  It won't work.  I'll fall back into sin.  It can be denial i.e. "Problem?  I don't have a problem." or false pride.  So, it comes down to one's choice to wallow in sin or to rise up and walk.  Just like the joke, how many priests does it take to change a light bulb.  One but, the light bulb must really want to change.

The external drive are others who help us through their prayers and counsel.  Somehow, some people wake up one day and say, "I tired of this life;  I'm going to change."  That did not come out of the blue but from some grandmother praying the Rosary every night or some nun behind the cloister wall - just like St. Therese of the Child Jesus who prayed for the murderer who was about to be executed.  The man repented at the last minute - just in time to receive God's forgiveness before he died.

Pelosi seeks to lower the ethical bar for Congress

Looks like the content of their character ain't cutting it...  So, what's a leader to do to make her caucus look good?  Just change the rules - lower the bar just like in school.  Nancy Pelosi's broom must be getting worn out sweeping all the corruption under the rug.  Since it's from her own people, the most moral Congress - according to her wild wet dream, she needs to do some damage preventation.  Who knows what else might show up before November. 

Here's the report.
" Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately indicated she is willing to rewrite some of the ethics rules that House Democrats implemented two years ago.  Pelosi late last month met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) about the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was created to bolster the ethics of the lower chamber. At the meeting, which was also attended by CBC lawmaker and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), sources said Pelosi heard complaints about the OCE’s new powers and investigation tactics. ....Some CBC members also are questioning why Fudge was allowed to lead the effort after the ethics committee just last year admonished her chief of staff, Dawn Kelly Mobley, for advising members and corporations how to get around new House rules against corporate sponsored-travel while serving as the ethics committee staff director under Tubbs Jones....

...While amending the OCE is being considered, making such changes now would be politically difficult because Republicans are citing Democratic ethics scandals in their effort to retake control of the House.

CBC members and Pelosi discussed a plan to begin a dialogue over the next few months about changing the OCE’s rules following the midterm elections. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), a former prosecutor who was elected in a 2009 special election after the death of then-ethics committee Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), volunteered to lead the effort.

Sources say Fudge was expected to craft proposed changes to the OCE and circulate them among like-minded lawmakers on both sides of aisle. But in a move that has irritated some House Democrats, Fudge quietly introduced the legislation on May 28 with 19 CBC co-sponsors. Days later, government watchdogs and the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times blasted Fudge’s resolution."  From http://thehill.com/homenews/house/102633-pelosi-considering-ethics-rule-change

Sin or Bankruptcy/Jail - Cath. Hospitals must choose.

Last year, the bishops threatened to close Catholic hospitals if FOCA was ever legislated. Now with Obamacare, they may have to push through with the threat unless that law gets repealed or amended to allow conscientious objections. Then again, even without Obamacare the Catholic hospitals will still be in a dilemma of choosing between sin or jail as shown in the case of Sister McBride. See Wiki page below for details. Her situation is not a case of double effect but an abortion. Since the fetus is a person with rights, the Church condemns its murder even to save the mother.

US Law however sees it differently. If the hospital did not abort and the mother died, then the hospital could be liable for not providing a reasonable "standard of care". So, the hospital either sins or risks fines and jail time.

So, even without abortion on demand from Obamacare, the Church faces this issue now albeit rarely. The nun chose to allow the abortion thus incurring an automatic excommunication as provisioned in canon law. Had she chosen otherwise, then the hospital might have been sued and forced to shut down. Probably, the nun selected what she thought was the lesser evil. Although I beg to differ because, what is worse than offending God with sin?

While medical ministry is still valid, cases like this offend God or waste the resources of the faith community. So, in my opinion, unless the laws here change then it is best to continue this ministry elsewhere. Perhaps, it is a call to relocate these facilities and professionals in areas whose people are not covered by Obamacare.

References:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/05/the_excommunication_of_sister_margaret.html - The justice in not aborting a non-viable fetus and letting the mother of three die is incomprehensible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McBride  - Wiki page Excommunication of Margaret McBride

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/05/when-is-catholic-hospital-not-catholic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCatholicKeyBlog+%28The+Catholic+Key+Blog%29

Porn, S&M, KamaSutra, erogenous zones & more in a Christian Marriage

At a men's retreat, someone brought out a point that will clarify a misconception about chastity in married life. This guy thought that just because he's married then he can do a lot of sexual stuff as long as he does not commit adultery and that there is no contraception involved.

First of all, my insights are general concepts and principles. For spiritual guidance, one needs a director - preferably ordained. What I'll state will not be enough but, it is a start.

Let's step back and establish some rules about judging immoral actions. There are 3 components: the action itself, the intention and the circumstances. The first 2 are self-explanatory. Some actions are evil by itself e.g. abortion or indifferent e.g. drinking water. Intention is why the action was done. And circumstances mean knowledge and freedom. Knowing that something is bad and still doing it is worse than being ignorant. And doing something deliberately makes it worse than being forced into it.

Let’s apply these to the case of watching porn to prepare for intercourse. The act by itself is immoral because, it dehumanizes women and supports that industry. The circumstances point to defective knowledge. He didn't know but can he be excused? No, it is clearly taught in the Catechism. Let’s assume that he is not addicted, so the act is deliberate. Finally, the intention - to start the marital act is good. But as you can see, determining culpability or sin or the gravity thereof is not that cut and dried.  (That is why the Lord ordered us not to condemn.  And that is why he forgave the Jews; because, they didn't know.)

But before going down to specific acts, we need to step back even farther to frame a moral life. There are 2 schools of thought: the navigation system model and the boundaries.

The first is like having a TomTom or Jiminy Cricket in your head saying, "Turn right or go ahead." So every step involves discerning God’s will. I think that is reserved for big decisions e.g. picking a career but not with what to do at bed.

The borders approach consist of having defined bounds and not crossing those lines. Anything within is fair. One can be spontaneous without analyzing every step. This is where the guy came from and he would have been right had he not missed one of the bounds.

That said, is it alright to learn about sexual pleasure e.g. erogenous zones? Absolutely, but not with porn; because, the end does not justify the means. Or a good result cannot be achieved using immoral ways.

What about foreplay? Definitely. In fact women need remote preparation. So, you can plant some thoughts in the morning then follow up with a phone call at noon. It is not sensitive to just jump her when you feel like it. She has to be ready too and it takes her more time to be in the mood.

How about playfulness and games? That’s foreplay too. It shows appreciation to your mate as a person instead of a bodily cavity.

How about props and positions? I'd think the rules to consider would be consent and dignity. Lubricants, scents, feathers, beads, ice-cubes, tapioca pudding and the entire Kama sutra is fair game. I have issues with SM and bondage - even if someone's wife likes it because, it degrades the other. Those issues may need to be referred to a mental professional.

And there are Church teachings about this – in general. See references below. I distinctly remember a passage stating that it is not enough for the man to be satisfied; he must ensure that the wife is also "fulfilled". At first, I felt a bit scandalized that clerics would talk about these but, with the new approach to sexuality, I even got to this point of writing details. I certainly hope I did not shock anyone. My goal was to make clear what is sinful so, God won’t be offended. And also, to state that while sex is not the end all and be all of married life, it does not have to be the missionary position all the time.

References:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=theology+of+the+body+john+paul+ii&aq=5
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19831101_sexual-education_en.html

HuffPost Kirk Writes "Ted Kennedy Having a Merry Christmas In Heaven"

"He's having a merry Christmas in heaven," said an emotional Sen. Paul Kirk, D-Mass., who was appointed to fill the seat after Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer in August. Kirk said it was an honor to essentially cast Kennedy's vote as Democrats passed the Senate's version of a bill that would extend insurance to 30 million Americans."  
Source:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/24/ted-kennedy-senate-libera_n_402925.html

I tried to put my 2 cents in by somehow my comments get censored out so, I'll do them here.  First, Ted Kennedy is not likely to be in heaven because he supported abortion laws that led to the massacre of 50 million unborn children despite the admonitions of his Church.  He persisted without any remorse until the day he died writing a letter to the Pope about his other accomplishments.

This leads to the second point i.e. the other accomplishments of service to the poor which Ted might have encouraged does not dispense from following all the tenets of his faith.  One does not pick and choose which commands of Almighty God to obey and which to discard.  If something needs to be discarded, it would have been the latter because the right to life trumps over the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

As far as the health care bill is concerned, one needs to consult the teachers of the faith for what the people of God believes.

Democrats can still win in 2010 & 2012.

There is obviously a lot of anger out there for the Democrats but they seem unperturbed.  Some are still cocky as they rub the GOPs noses on their success with the healthcare reform.  They do not have a leg to stand on and their platforms suck.  They're for the culture of death, their opponents for life.  They're blatantly upholders of a culture of corruption;  the other of integrity.  So, what gives them confidence?

They must still have their Rock the Vote support.  Where are the young Republicans?  They still have the fake Catholic organizations that will personally contact marginalized Catholics.  Will the bishops denounce those?  Will the Jesuits still support the one?  They still have demographic groups e.g. the homosexuals and feminists that are not included in any conservative party.  They have ethnic minorities that feel out of place in the GOP.  Has the GOP reached out to those?  They might have pseudo conservative agents that divide the opposition.  I already read about a Constitution Party coming up and about.  Then there's Joe Lieberman and the Independents.

Bottom line, despite the anger and frustration, the Democrats can still win in 2010 and 2012 because it is about numbers.  And all the TEA party goers and pro-lifers may still not add up to give them the boot.   Remember the shock when the entire student body of Notre Dame cheered, "Yes We Can!"

Video: Re: New Yorker: Talk of the Town column: "Not Covered"

Creative Minority Report: Fr. Barron on Abortion and the Law

To all the points of the author is one question: "What about the baby?"
Fr. Barron explains further.



Source:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHrePl6zvfQ or click here


H/T to Creative Minority Report


H/T to Creative Minority Report.