"I Haz Met the Enemy & He Iz Me"

I thank Thee, Lord, that Thou hast made me JUST as other men are, and even given me the grace to recognize it....
I do know it, really I do. I just have trouble remembering that I know it.
Himself is off to a volunteer activity, one that requires real, make-you-bone-weary labor, and he is heading there early, in order to make it impossible for anyone to guilt him into staying late.
He explained who it was who indulges in the attempted lazy-shaming, and quoted the "tired of being left to finish this up all by myself" emails, and since I know the person, I surmise that being unpleasant pretty much guarantees the same outcome every time.
Himself then drew parallels to a subordinate of his in another charitable work he does - that guy refuses to acknowledge that his area of authority is under the umbrella of a larger program,  (Himself is fine with that, hates being in charge of anyone else in the first place,) except when he needs more help, which he constantly does, and then he expects Himself to scare up some minions.
The guy is always wailing that he is too old to be doing so much on his lonesome, he needs assistance, why is his load so great? more volunteers are found by my husband, the guy talks to them as if they are mentally disabled 5 year olds, bosses them, scolds them, yells at them, insults them in front of others; they quit, and he gets to wail again that he's too old to be doing so much, needs help, behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me!
"Which," says Himself, a light bulb going off over his head, "is what he actually wanted all along."
I think in the movie, "Last Days in the Desert," a very clever thing was done in casting the same actor to play both the human incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the Evil One.
This is not some heretical dualism, but a visual representation of Christ the "high priest who is [not] unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way."
Surely in these tests, in these temptations to sin, one is often one's "own worst enemy."
Temptations aren't ugly, obviously evil possibilities that present themselves - they seem good and true and beautiful, THAT'S  WHY  THEY  ARE  TEMPTING.
And our sins are habitual because vices are habits we allow ourselves, even when taking actions putatively intended to produce virtuous, or at least beneficial to us, results.

See? I tried Y [solution] but it ends up that I have to do Z [sin]. It's not my fault, it's X's!!!!!! Why does this always happen to me?

It is amazing how often, and how blatantly we sabotage our own stated goals. And we don't need the Serpent to suggest it - no, the devil can take his ease, we're his Useful Idiots and will do all the work for him.
It's never my fault.
I think of the Islamists who resort to murderous violence because someone insulted them by saying they were prone to murderous violence.
It's the cartoonist's fault!
I think of the self-proclaimed "nice guy" who goes on a vicious rampage because women don't recognize his niceness, and so believes they "deserved to be dumped in boiling water for the crime of not giving me the attention and adoration I so rightfully deserve."
They didn't think he was nice, go figure...
So it's women's fault!

And yes, it's my fault. And Lent is about trying to remember that, and repent of that, and remedy that.

I think of that axiom about the government we have, and think perhaps, yeah, we all commit the sins we deserve.
It is God, against Whom we sin Who doesn't deserve them.

Deplorable and Deplorabler

Poor Fr. Fox.
For saying that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for either the lesser of two evils or abstain from voting, he is ripped by a crazy woman, (who makes her choice quite clear.)

evShe uses a tactic I am seeing more and more, not just from crazy commenters, and careless on-the-fly bloggers and conversationalists at parties, but from actual "journalists," and that is to repeat over and over the accusation that ones target has said something "amounting" to something deplorable, but steadfastly refusing to supply actual quotes, even out of context.
The tactic is used by both sides, of course, the Trumpite right winger against Fr Fox, the liberal Twitter over-lord against a Breitbart gadfly.
Too much reading of Jane Austen, and her free indirect speech!
All I need to do is vaguely describe what I want people to think you said, and damn you for my words, I needn't actually quote you and be honest about it.

You'd think Catholics especially would balk at such dishonesty deception, lies, this method having been used against the Church for.... well, forever.
(Soon to be saint,) Fulton Sheen, anyone?

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

The devil's having a grand old time this election.

Does Catholicism Need a Whoopi Goldberg...

... to explain, yeah, but he's not a 'martyr-martyr' ?

So when you think about it, it's kind refreshing: the Public Square and the Minions of Hell

I suppose it can be refreshing to hear someone say what he's thinking - no obfuscation, no shading... 

No manners.

I have a friend who tells me that when she was young, if the kids whined that they "wanted" something, her Grandma would cock an eyebrown and mutter, people in hell want ice water.

"Taught That Sin Does Not Matter"

I do not have the strength to have been a parent.

Looks as if I should - I'm stubborn, confident, smart, very sure of what I actually know and very interested in looking into what I don't, flexible...
I love babies, I love children, I even love, (though it's hard sometimes,) teen-agers going through their sullen phase. I love teaching. I love learning from them. I love the negotiations between generations.

I love the spats. Yes, really.

I love large, no, make that enormous families, I come from one and would happily have continued the family business, (which for generations seemed to have been producing children.)

But the good Lord knew what he was doing.
I read articles like this open letter, and I literally tremble.

Sin was introduced into all our children’s lives, and one by one we watched as they began to weaken and fall. The teenagers in our community were suffering the broken hearts, bodies and souls that sexual experimentation brings with it....
As our children’s hearts broke, they had to turn to ways to dull the pain. Alcohol and drug abuse followed shortly behind. Then, of course, mental and emotional problems. Eating disorders were rampant in our daughters’ Catholic girls’ high school. Abortions were common. Suicides not unheard of. 

The family to which I am closest, have seen the most over the years as they grew up, have lived with and cared for for solid stretches, never were in this deep a whole, nowhere near - and yet, I don't know if I could have handled even those 5.
They're young adults now, only 1 doesn't go to Mass with anything like regularity, 1 thinks too highly of drinking as a recreation, 1 lived with spouse-to-be before marrying, (presumably not to have a partner with whom to say their pater noster...)
But all in all, a really good family.
They had great parents, (their worst transgression, as far as I knew? letting a son keep a "Grand Theft Auto" in the house. Can't think of much else I would have done differently.)
I just would not have had the strength.

But Susan Fox? more than strong, she's mighty. But never mind that she "saved" her family.

Read her take on today's problems, and their long, winding, hardy and tenacious root.
We should remember, the devil does, after all, have gardening experience...

Holy Hour For Life

I will not go so far as to say the person targetted here is corrupt, nor call for her resignation, for many actions are taken by those who are stupid or uninformed or illogical or ill-thought-out rather than evil.
But I do suspect that the the California Attorney General targetted David Daleiden because she supports Planned Parenthood, and that support and therefore that action are evil.
So, at the time of the rally at the AG's office in Sacramento, today from 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM I will fast, keep silence, and pray in reparation for the sin of the murder of the unborn.

The Merciful Murderers

What does it say about me, what does it say about the world, when a headline about some atrocity draws my attention
and I am relieved to see that the Islamists responsible for the killing being reported merely shot their victims, instead of employing a more grisly, more barabric method?

Call it Genocide!

I keep reading, (from both sides of the question, and in fact, both political parties, and finally both ends of the spectrum of governmental philosophy,) about the legal ramifications that would result from the Obama administration's and Sec. of State Kerry's making a declaration that the ongoing slaughter by ISIS/Daesh/ISIL of Christians, Yazidis, Muslims from other branches, and other religious and ethnic minorities is "genocide."
The White House press secretary said that,

"that word involves a very specific legal determination."  

And a few days later,

"The decision to apply this term to this situation is an important one.  It has significant consequences, and it matters for a whole variety of reasons, both legal and moral.  But it doesn’t change our response.  And the fact is that this administration has been aggressive, even though that term has not been applied, in trying to protect religious minorities who are victims or potential victims of violence.....
there is an independent determination that needs to be made based on a very specific legal definition that our lawyers are considering right now.  And while that legal consideration and while that legal definition is important, and I certainly wouldn’t downplay the significance of the use of that term, we have been quite aggressive in both speaking out against but also taking tangible steps to try to protect religious minorities who are the victims of persecution."

That seems smarmy in the extreme, to me, we're doing everything we would do already anyway, so it's just semantics. Then why not?
The moral obligation is obvious, and not accepting them by refusing to use the term seems heinous to me, but what of these supposed legal obligation?
Are their obligations enshrined in US law?
Because the U.N.'s "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" to which we are signatories places a very light burden indeed.
Read them, they are startilingly lacking in rigor. Penalties in keeping with a country's constitution, and extradition, that's pretty much it.
And Obama and Kerry surely don't share the right-wing hesitancy to place ourselves under the direction of the UN's rules.
You know, 'cause the UN is a bunch of commie third world-types trying to establish a one-world government. You know, under The Beast.

And what is this "very specific legal definition" with which the White House is trying to align? And where?
Not, again, in the UN's convention.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The reluctance to call the bloodbaths and extermination in Syria "genocide," smells to me very like the diplomatic diffidence regarding Turkey's massacres of Armenians - oh, no, we mustn't pin an offensive label on anyone off of whom we might later wish to make money.

It smells like it, and it stinks.

"Make Hell Great Again!"

You know he's winning, don't you?
No, not Trump. And not Cruz, and not Clinton, and not Sanders, and not Rubio, and not....
Well, no one who is running for anything.
Who's winning?
That's right.

And he's mighty happy about it.

You know why he's winning? you know why he's happy?
Not because me, or my candidate is for or against socialism, or immigration reform, or universal health insurance, or free trade, or protectionism, or nationalism, or free higher education for all, or lower taxes, or higher taxes....

He's winning because every time he gets a candidate or a protester to say something hateful, he has a really good chance of getting one of us to hate the speaker.
Not whatever the speaker said, but the speaker. Another human being. Made in the image and likeness of God.

Oh, sure, the father of lies is pleased enough when he gets us to despair, or to question how there can be a good God who allows evil, because hope and faith are important, so when we lose hope, or lose faith he's got a foot in the door -- but they're small potatoes compared to the real prize.

When he gets us to hate? to lose love, to abandon charity, to stop desiring the good of others, even others we don't like, maybe especially those we don't like - that's the whole shebang.

He has all the delegates he needs.

Another Day, Another "Wait, WHAAAT? ....That's Not What He Said"

One of my husband's siblings has a calling, in life: to take the joy and fun out of any pleasant reminiscences by droning, "That's not the way it happened...."
Now, I don't mean this person corrects libels, our postman, growin' up, killed his best friend so that he could marry the widow, I always heard) or contradicts life-threatening advice, (yup, gramps drank a quart of motor oil every day, and that's why he lived to be 103.)

No, this is more like interrupting to deliver unnecessary information such as that the rooster that attacked the five of them that day at the swimming pond was red, not white, and belonged to to Old Man Otto, not the Pederesons, and anyway, we shouldn't have skipped school -- thereby sucking the life out of the presentations of some very, very gifted Blarney-mongers.

But I am here to apologize for the ill-will this has provoked in me over the 15 years I've known the family, as I now see such people are absolutely vital.
Several of them should travel with the Pope at all times, and others should be dispatched to  keep an eye on every journalist who thinks to report on what Francis is purported to have said.

What can be done about bloggers, I don't know....

Francis stopped reading the written text and said... Communion is a vital form of the Church and the unity of Her Pastors is evidence of Her veracity… There is no need for “principles” but for a community of witnesses to the Lord.

Huh?
We need not have PRINCIPLES??!??!??
Well, no.
"Princes."
He said the Church don't need no stinkin' "princes".
An honest mistake by Rorate, or Google translate, or whoever, the two words are the same in Italian.
So I think we need not to get worked up about what was said to have been said, as I said.

But here's the other problem - official translations coming out of the Vatican seem, often, to be very slow in coming, (not this case.)

Whose fault is this?

Doesn't at least a little of it devolve on the person who insists on going off script, not giving those who serve him any kind of heads up, ignoring the fact that the Prince of Lies is having a field day with those of us who think what the Pope has to say might be important and so WANT to pay attention, and tossing handfuls of ammo to those whose agenda is to destroy this "communion", this "unity"?

Just a thought, Holy Father.

And Interwebs, how about a little compassion for the Mexican episcopacy, who need to try to hear and understand him even more urgently than we laity do - isn't it possible some of their reaction is to what it was said that the Holy Father said rather than what he actually said? For that matter, my Spanish is lacking, but some of the reaction to their statement may be based on faulty understanding of what they said and what they meant.
Charity.

Playboy Magazine and the Episcopalian Priest Who's a Big Fan of Abortion

What? you ask....
I read a little blurb about a woman who was ordained in the Episcopal church and believes God is "on the side" of those who favor a woman's right to dismember her unborn child, and filed an Amicus brief with the Supremes regarding the Texas law placing more stringent requirements on "health" facilities where unborn children are done away with.
Her letter of recommendation, (that killing an unborn child be considered hunky-dory and should therefore be expedited,) begins on pg 27 of the PDF.

Killing her child effected the usual Good Things. It kept it from being impossible to finish Divinity School, which carrying the child a few more months and giving him up for adoption would have put the kibosh on.
Not sure why - shopping for maternity clothes and a few days in the hospital and a few more recuperating would have put her that far behind in her studies? or Divinity schools in those days frowned on public immorality and might have suspected her guilty of fornication, or adultery or some such?

Probably not the latter, as the pregnancy was "accidental", (as in, slipping on a banana peel and landing on some guys gamete.)

Anyway, thanks to discarding her child she was able to lead Three Capital Campaigns (!!!) engage in various forms of activism, and, (this was the phrase that struck me, "help the enormous number of people whose lives she has touched."
One Little Life  vs. An Enormous Number of People.
Off one person who you don't really know, to contribute to the happiness of a whole bunch you do know, yourself first of all.

Hmm....
Sound familiar?
Of course it does!
Cameron Diaz and Frank Langella were in a movie a few years back, there was a Twilight Zone episode on tv, apparently a radio play (who knew there were radio plays in the 1970s?) and the germ of the idea actually traces back to Chateaubriand, (not the steak. What would Jesus eat?)

But Richard Matheson's short story is probably most responsible for the resonance the plot has today.

You know it, even if you think you don't - a couple, or family, or divinity student in dire straits. A sinister stranger offers the way out of all difficulties.
Only one thing is needful.
See this button? Push it, and all your worries will magically disappear!
The catch?
Someone will die.
Don't worry, someone you don't even know.
A stranger.
A "Chinaman" thousands of miles away.
A baby in your womb.
Does it really matter who?
YOUR WORRIES WILL BE GONE.

Push the button.

The Matheson story dates from 1970.
It was a gentler, less inclined to look favorably on the convenient murder of the inconvenient or inconsequential, and I doubt anyone read it without thinking the person who made the offer was the Devil, and taking the deal was to do evil.
In 1970, I'll bet even the readers and editors of Playboy, which first published the story, thought so.

Yeah. Playboy.

Think about that. The vanguard of the Consequence-free Sex Movement, "An Ye Harm None Have Fun, Do What Ye Will."

Even Playboy knew that not knowing the innocent person you would kill to make your own life easier didn't make a heinous act somehow all right.

Don't tell me you don't see the irony in that....

"Com'on, Hugh, push the button. You'll be famous, have a mansion, beautiful women will pretend to love you, you'll be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. Just push the button.... oh, don't worry, Anne, I have a button for you, too. YOU, my dear, will be able to become a priest and  'help' people, like Mrs Jellyby did...."

Yeah, Planned Parenthood Really Did Say Something That Stupid and That Evil

I'm not a very trusting person.
I read something, or I hear something, particularly on a polarizing issue, even from someone with whom I generally agree, and wonder, really? you're not exaggerating a bit? or okay, maybe so, but what's the context? That sort of thing.
I have trouble, from time to time, because when he says something on certain contentious topics I tend to ask Himself, how do you know? and he always hears, implicit in my question, I don't trust you, when I mean, I might not trust your sources.
Because, you know, Those Interwebs.

Anyway, Lifesite, a very strong advocate of the right to life, (as well as of other issues, some of which are only peripherally connected to their main goal,) naturally takes a very adversarial position regarding the chief purveyor of private murder of the unborn in this country.
And, like most advocacy journalists, they may not reveal all the shades in an issue on which they report.
An example would be claims that so-and-so "supports" thus-and-such, when in reality he has just declined to criminalize it, (e.g., I am not in favor of drunkenness if I don't think all drunks should be thrown in the hoosegow.)
Anyway, forgive me for my scepticism when I read something like, Planned Parenthood says a law requiring those who are HIV to inform their sexual partners of the fact somehow violates their civil rights.
But no, that's exactly, and expressly what PP said:

Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.

Just to be clear, this is a publication of Planned Parenthood International and dates from 2010, but it is still being offered as a resource.

Evil.
Just plain evil.

Pretend Priest Preys on Pious People

It really pains me that someone with such exquisite taste in vestments and liturgical furnishings would prove to be a con man. I am shocked, shocked.

Why I Am Not an Extraordinary Minister

I've been asked, numerous times, multiple parishes. You're always here anyway, you know how to do things at church, you'd be good at  it, we always need more people....
I would do it, I have done it, for home visits.
But not in the context of a liturgy.
The excuse I usually make is m eczema, my skin condition. Heck, most of the time, I wouldn't eat anything my hands have touched, (and I imagine the Blessed Sacrament would not be improved by condiments such as Bag Balm or hydrocortisone ointment. Just a guess.)
But back in the day of school Masses another faculty member, (who was an EM,) was going on a tear about kids who present for Communion with filthy hands or fake tattoos all over their palms drawn with Sharpies and how she insisted they receive on the tongue and that they had better not present themselves like that tomorrow.
And I told her that I had seen too many people present for the Sacrament in a manner that made it very clear that they had no idea what they were about to receive, I had seen people strolling back down the aisle and casually breaking off a chunk of Jesus to give someone else, I had seen people look at the Host in their hands with such a quizzical expression on their faces that there was no doubt that they were not Catholic or even, perhaps, Christian, I had seen people go to stick Him in their pockets only to be chased down by ushers, I had come across the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ stuck in the pages of a missallette.... I couldn't do it.

I could not stand at the head of the aisle giving the Body and Blood of Christ to everyone knowing the profanation that was, I will not say "probable," but certainly possible, and occurring with a hideous frequency; yet I am sure this is the task, is it not?

The bar is very high for a non-ordained minister to refuse someone Communion. (I am no John Wesley.) It would make me sick to wonder if with every ministration I was risking participation in the profanation of the Sacrament, but I could hardly do other than to give the Host to anyone who presented.

I hadn't thought of this in a while, but I helped out with Communion at a rest home today. (Very short of healthy priests, just a Liturgy of the Word with Communion.
These are all long term residents, no one is on the road to recovery, no one will be leaving alive.
Quite a few non-Catholics, even some non-Christians in attendance - it is something to do, something to break the monotony and provide human contact. It is always thus at nursing homes, old age homes, etc.
One man wanted my attention while the EM was distributing, his roommate was not a Catholic, he insisted, and always took Communion at these things, look at him there, big as life waiting in line, I had to do something about it!

I told him, (I think this is more or less accurate?) that according to canon law it is not up to any minister of Communion, ordained or extraordinary, to deny the sacrament to anyone who presents without moral certainty that that person may not receive, and that the nun religious sister directing the service took his word, hadn't she? she had accepted him as a Catholic without insisting on seeing his "permanent record,", and would take the word of his roommate, as well, all things being equal.

That seemed to sooth him, the mention of canon law, and my acknowledging his concerns even if I offered no remedy, so he went on, (there were many extraneous conversations going on throughout the service,) that the fellow would go to the Methodist services too, and that he was "mentally ill" and was there in the home because of his dealings with Satanism and theDevil, (which are, I believe, two different things?)

That rocked me back on my heels a bit, I admit.

But if he is indeed mentally ill, there is no sin in actions which he cannot help.
And besides, he receives on the tongue. And he does so, so easily, I cannot believe it is not an action in which he has engaged for a good part of his life. (And he consumes the Host.)

And he knows the words and tune to Holy God We Praise Thy Name, (seldom if ever heard in Protestant congregations hereabouts.)

And finally, he says his Hail Mary fluently and unaffectedly.

If he is not Catholic, he is certainly not a devil-worshipper, and if receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is not something he has done most of his life, it is something that does him good, and nourishes his soul and prepares him for a voyage that is not, I think, too far off.

Do You Know What the Devil's Sin Is?

Isn't lucifer's sin pride?
Well, yes, at first it was pride, but that's over with now.
He is all too aware of the depths to which he condemned himself.

The sin on which his soul now feeds itself is envy.

He is envious of us who still have to opportunity not to disobey, to say, unlike him, serviam.

And he has hope - in this case not the Theological Virtue, but the burning desire for, and the knowledge that it is still possible, that we, like him, will choose wrong.

There are some people who think that the balm, the comfort needed to assuage the pain of their failures is, that's right - the failure of others. (Though they would not express it that way.)

Father Dwight Longenecker has a piece on an ex-priest who sketching the outlines for us of the schism he says is coming.

What mystifies me is why people like [him] remain in the Catholic Church at all. Other progressive Catholics have been much less hypocritical. Realizing that their views are contrary to Catholic teaching they have left to start their own churches.

Does it really mystify you, Fr L?
His former vocation is the clue.
I'm afraid the poor guy's hanging around hoping to see that, if he couldn't stick it? well, at least a lot of other people couldn't either.

And I believe, I hope.... that his is a false hope.

Choosing Your Words

I have, more than once lately, bemoaned to myself that the Holy Father is not more careful in parsing his sentences, more wary of expressions that may be correct but are so loosely phrased that they help bolster positions which are not correct.

But today, in looking for some clue as to the actual beliefs of some public figure, I realized how artfully some manage to phrase their opinions and ideologies; how well they manage to protect themselves from being called out on their opinions thereby making themselves and their organization palatable to those who should be fighting them tooth and nail; how glibly the obfuscate such that they can support real evil and still be welcomed in circles that would be horrified if they succeeded in their goals.

So yeah, Pope Francis's off-the-cuff remarks in many ways are a tonic after the disingenuous cant coming from so many quarters. (Even if when he's wrong.)

Anyway, down the rabbit hole I found myself, and I came across a very pro-abortion page on Save the Children. (A charity to which I have happily given in the past.)
At least in the UK, they have a motto - NO CHILD BORN TO DIE.

Which sounds nice, right? Who could argue?
Except that ALL of us are born to die, all of us, every single member of the human race, (putting aside Catholic Mariology.)

We all know that, right? Save the Children certainly knows it, they are not pretending that their ministrations, their efforts, confer immortality, right?

So what does it mean?
I know it is difficult to whip up a punchy, sound-byte and letterhead accommodating slogan that no one could find objectionable.
None of us want a child to die.

But the fact is, they will. They do.

So it's hard not to think, (especially when one reads it at the top of a page such as i was on,) that what they really mean is, some children shouldn't be born, that unless he has a shot at a longer, more comfortable life, HE SHOULD NOT BE BORN.

Am I reading this wrong? Tell me.

Hosanna!

Just to be sure you know, although it is often used as an expletive of triumph or praise, "hosanna" is actually a plea to be saved. (And I'm not using this as an attack on Obamacare, I think universal healthcare should be the law of the land.)
Lord, save us!

In a radio interview Sunday, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.
Singer contended the health-care system under Obamacare should be more overt about rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
..... In [a previously published treatise], Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.”
Asked whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the U.S. under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs."

[The interviewer asked if] the killing of severely disabled infants should be institutionalized to reduce health-care costs... “I know that it happens and it happens certainly if the family gives consent. But do you think in the future in order to ensure a more fair rationing of health-care and health-care costs, that it should actually be instituted more? The killing of severely disabled babies?”
Singer responded such a plan would be “quite reasonable” if it saved money that can be used for better purposes. He contended that most people would say they don’t want their premiums to be higher “so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

Hosanna!

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Lie Them

A friend, who is not Catholic, and not particularly sympathetic to anything that smacks of conservatism, in politics or the arts, was listening to the news, (can't recall whether it was network or cable,) with me and reference was made to the joy with which the crowd in St Peter's square greeted the news of Francis's election in contrast to the grim reaction to Benedict's.
Wha??!?#?$?? he asked, I watched that on television, they showed it over and over, the crowds at the announcement of Benedict reacted the way they ALWAYS do, jubilantly, there were nuns jumping up and down, seminarians wave flags and cheering, why in the world would they say --

Slow your roll, Mike, I demurred, that is the accepted version of the MSM and the dissenting Catholic press, that's what everyone always claims now.

And whether you heard it from a Republican strategist, ("perception IS reality!"), or a Nazi, (a lie of sufficient enormity to convince everyone, since NO one could have "the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"), you all know how it works.
They couldn't say it on those Interwebs if it weren't true, right? And my boyfriend is a French model....

There are some matters that one never looks into, everyone says it so....

All this is prelude to another story of lies and the lying liars who've been lying them.
The National Catholic Register's having actually looked in to something.
You know, the way actual news organization do, well, are supposed to pretend to.
Recall the matter of the evil, hated California priest who has left acrimony in his wake, and stirred things up, and wounded all and sundry at his new parish... NOT.

As the signatories [of a newspaper ad clling for their bishop's removal] framed Father Illo’s appointment as another blot on the [Cordileone's] legacy in the city, the situation on the ground at Star of the Sea remains far more nuanced — and far less grim — than the harsh claims would suggest.
“The old-timers are delighted that Father Illo has come because he is ‘breathing new life into the parish,’” Vivian Dudro, a new parishioner and mother of four who returned almost two decades after her youngest child was baptized at Star of the Sea, told the Register.
“The parish is attracting new people who want to go to the liturgies and public prayer open to the public. My husband went to the men’s prayer, and a high-school student was there who had shown up on his own for prayer.”
“If that’s not evidence of new life,” Dudro said, “I don’t know what is.”
Indeed, those who attended the retirement party for Carmel Tickler, the parish's operations manager since 1991, said Tigler's farewell speech noted that there had never been more pastoral activity during her tenure than at the present time, under Father Illo's leadership.....
he pastor made the decision to focus on training altar boys back in November. Two months later, he said, “the day before the 2015 Walk for Life, the local CBS affiliate arrived with cameras to do a story” on the only all-boy altar-server program in the diocese.
When he watched the story on the news, the pastor recalled his surprise at the “the grim way it was treated, as if there was some kind of catastrophe or scandal in San Francisco.”...
Father Illo explained the rationale behind his decision to the parish-school community....

‘Popular’ Pastor in Stockton
Finally, the priest strongly disputed the claim that he had a troubled history in the Diocese of Stockton before his arrival at Star of the Sea.
Media reports have already noted that Father Illo created a stir in Modesto when he told parishioners that it was wrong to vote for a candidate who supported abortion rights even if his or her other positions were good.
However, The Modesto Bee described Father Illo as a “popular” pastor. And the priest told the Register that he ran a large parish with “5,500 families — about 19,000 members. We had more men in the seminary than any other parish and one of the highest levels of Mass attendance.”
These details were absent from the Chronicle ad. Also missing was information that contradicted the portrait of Star of the Sea’s new pastor as an unmitigated disaster.
Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, the founder of Ignatius Press, which is located in San Francisco, has known Joseph Illo since before he entered the seminary and dismissed the allegation that he had a “troubled” history in Stockton.
“When we have the annual Walk for Life, there are several busloads of people from Modesto, where he is hugely popular,” said Father Fessio, who nonetheless agreed that the priest had stumbled somewhat during his first year at Star of the Sea — and taken responsibility for it.

New Initiatives
When Father Illo arrived at Star of the Sea last August, he took up residence in a diverse but fading parish with an aging population and weak finances.
He planned to establish an oratory of St. Philip Neri at the parish, after obtaining Archbishop Cordileone’s agreement to a plan that seemed like an ideal path for revitalizing Star of the Sea.
An oratory, he explained, is a “community of priests and brothers who are committed to a life of common prayer and apostolic work.”
“Usually, the oratories enhance the parish and school because they provide a stable body of priests that stay with the parish for the rest of their lives,” Father Illo explained.
At present, one other priest has already joined the oratory. Star of the Sea has 1,200 parishioners, mostly elderly couples and single people.
Father Illo hopes to attract many more Catholics and already sees signs of hope, with a 60% increase in parish revenue since he arrived and much higher numbers at this year’s Triduum services.
“We assume we will be here for the duration, and we are putting in programs and improving the church lighting and sound system.”
“New initiatives include Bible study and men and women’s support groups,” he said.
... Father Illo...believes his parish and the city of San Francisco desperately need hope to overcome the challenges ahead.... But if Father Illo and his oratory have actually lit the flame of hope at Star of the Sea, why has the pastor become a target of angry critics?
As Father Illo sees it, part of the problem is that Star of the Sea School is only 40% Catholic, and the school community has become separated from the parish.
Thus, even as parishioner Vivian Dudro celebrates the increase in Mass attendance, along with the new Bible study class and parish barbecues, last month also featured an angry meeting of school parents who aired a host of grievances about the priest’s policies.
Father Illo hopes he can build bridges with the school, and his immediate goal is to move from monthly to weekly Masses for students and also teach a religion class. [ed. note- a Catholic school that only offers a school Mass once a month????]
But even as he labors to stabilize his parish school, there is little sign that the fury against Archbishop Cordileone will abate, and that means this new pastor could face further trouble.

Pray for San Francisco, and pray for the city's Catholics and non-Catholics, and pray for Fr Illo and pray for Archbishop Cordileone.

Take THAT, Lucy!

Lucy Fur, that is.
Eccles notes that something devilish is afoot on the othe coast, but the Supreme Court handed Satan and his minions a defeat today on this one.

The U.S. Supreme Court has continued its trend of decisions stopping enforcement of a federal contraception mandate against religious employers with moral objections.

On April 15, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order barring the federal government from enforcing the mandate against Catholic Charities affiliates, Catholic schools and social service organizations in the dioceses of Erie and Pittsburgh.

"Atrocious"?

Speaking of Fr Longenecker,

Kansas Governor and Catholic convert, Sam Brownback signs a law banning “dismemberment abortion.”....

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Kansas and Mid-Missouri sharply criticized the move, which it described as the latest in a series of “extreme political measures aimed at denying women access to health care and at undermining their decision-making ability.”

“Kansas is now not only the sole state with this atrocious law; it also now has more restrictions on abortion than any state in the U.S.,” the advocacy group said in a Facebook post.

As my friend Inigo would say, I don' thin' that word means hwhat you thin' it means...

The good Father continues,

The reason this law is such a great step forward is not only that it bans dismemberment abortion, but it throws the reality of abortion right up front into the spotlight.

To be against this law is to be in favor of cutting unborn babies up in little pieces while still alive in their own mother’s womb.

To be against this law is to be in favor of sticking sharp knives into the womb, cutting off  arms and lets and then sucking the parts out of the mother’s body.

To be against this law is to be in favor of putting another tool into the womb to find the baby’s head then crush it in a kind of nutcracker.

This law states quite clearly what late term abortions are all about.