Today's Gospel was the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. I'd be willing to bet that many parishes heard "social gospel" pabulum from the pulpits and even invocations to "end poverty". Leaving alone the fact that the cry to "end poverty" actually lies in contradiction to Jesus' own words, let's look at some groups of people who might fall into the "rich man" or "Lazarus" categories: folks who fall off the radars in too many pulpits across the country.
We also remembered the victims of recent shootings. The Baltimore shootings happened within 60 miles of me so that's relatively close to home. However, I'd bet that yesterday in any five abortuaries in Maryland, at least an equal number of babies were wantonly slaughtered in their mothers' wombs. I submit that they are a group who would most definitely fit into the Lazarus group. How about their mothers? Into which group might they belong? It depends. I see too many cases where the mother is being dragged (often literally) into the mill by her parents, male companion, etc. In that case she too is Lazarus and these others are the rich man. The abortionists clearly fit into the "rich man" category, quite literally. I've been to their houses before to pray Stations of the Cross in front of them. They all live in the Potomac area, where every dwelling is a veritable mansion. Theirs' however, are more like impregnable fortresses.
But let's look at poverty for a moment. What's the biggest indicator that a child will find him/herself in poverty as they attain adulthood? If they grow up in a broken home, their chances of ending up poor are greatly increased, no matter the social strata in which they grew up. What influence leads to most broken homes? Contraception. When Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae back in 1968, he predicted that if contraception became widely accepted, a whole host of social evils would ensue as a consequence. Every single one of his predictions is coming to pass as we draw our breaths!
Now how much do we hear of these diabolical attacks on marriage, family life, abortion, contraception etc do we hear from the pulpit? In the Archdiocese of Washington, way too little, particularly contraception. Homosexuality is another topic that is particularly taboo in the ADW. I know of at least two priests who preached on these topics over the years; both were punished. Here we have a clear case of the rich man (some "powers that be" in the chancery) denying truth to the Lazarus-people in their pews.
Below the jump break I'll post two videos - one by Venerable Fulton Sheen - telling the truth about contraceptives and their immense sinfulness. Only when our priests speak this forth from the pulpits will there be revival in the Church and in our Western civilization.
A few days ago, I wrote about the "third-party" candidates (namely Hoefling and Castle), looking askance upon ethics that would allow them to enable Hillary's win. Now I wonder if there are other issues as well with the American Party candidate.
Any candidate running for federal office must comply with regulations promulgated and enforced by the Federal Election Commission. They must file periodic reports, and these reports are open to public inspection. Well, I took a look at the FEC page dealing with such reports. I see that all the other presidential candidates have filed their reports, but see nothing on Tom Hoefling.
Whoopsie!!! That's quite an omission!! Would anyone from the Hoefling camp care to explain that? Your would-be voters have a right to know.
This letter is penned by the Remnant and Catholic Family News. It is entitled: "With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis". I just linked to the first of three installments. Please read it, along with the Liber of Accusation that is at the bottom of that post.
At this time, I can only reply "AMEN". I will post these as they are published and ask that my readers circulate these.
Please offer your Masses and Rosary for Our Church, Pope and all clergy.
We've all come across good people
who are disappointed in the selection of candidates - Trump and Clinton
to be specific. Most of them voice their displeasure regarding Trump with
scarcely a word for Clinton. While I find that odd I'll leave that aside
for the moment.
Some have stated their intentions to vote for a third-party candidate such as
Tom Hoefling or Darrell Castle. Why? Because they "are
principled unlike Trump".
Really? Are these third-party guys as "principled" as they
portray themselves? Think about what they are doing and the realistic
impact of their actions. Unless they are suffering delusions of grandeur,
they know they haven't a prayer (literally) of garnering a decent showing let alone
winning the election. They have to realize that the few votes they'll get
would have gone to Trump but for their candidacies. Of course anyone with
a modicum of common sense will understand that this would only make easier
Clinton's bid for the White House. Again I don't believe they'll garner
that many votes, but since this will probably be a close election, every vote
counts. Consider that in 1960, JFK defeated Nixon by a margin of
less than one vote per precinct.
Either they really believe they have a shot at the White House or they don't
care what their diversion of votes will do. Therefore in the first case
they haven't the intellectual acumen to hold the office of the US presidency or
they really don't have the nation's best interests at heart.
I think it's the latter. So what's driving their stunts? Is it some
sort of ego trip, self aggrandizement or even some, uh, "financial
incentive"? It's hard to say, and it probably doesn't matter. Suffice it to say that their blithe disregard for the consequences of their actions causes me to look askance upon these so-called "principles" of theirs'.
I'm not opposed at all to the concept of a third party. However, if a
third party is to have any success, they have to start from the bottom up. They
need to win lots of local offices then move up to Congress. For any third
party to go straight for the presidency is at best a publicly stunt; in today's
circumstances it could have disastrous consequences for the nation.
If a third party does get off the ground, they better not float the
above-mentioned individuals as candidates. In their reckless pretensions for the presidency,
they have demonstrated to me that they are utterly undeserving of public trust.
Please see the comment from "Tomboysuze" in the preceding post regarding Father Imbarrato's homily. On Sunday, Sept 18, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington gave a homily in which he flat out mocked the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding marriage and homosexuality. This rot needs to be exposed so that it can be rectified. If you have knowledge of this situation, please provide details in the combox. We will investigate and publish accordingly. Thanks.
Below I'm posting a recent homily given by Father Imbarrato of Priests for Life. He is indeed a "protest priest" spending many hours outside the new Two Rivers Planned Parenthood abortion mill in NE Washington. Please listen closely to this homily. Thanks to the Johnson Amendment (the amendment that he praises Trump for promising to eliminate), he cannot name Trump nor Clinton explicitly, but one would have to be incredibly dense not to understand his meanings.
Some might think he's addressing those Catholics who would be so stupid and callous as to vote for Hillary, but I think his words could just as well apply to the #nevertrump crowd: those who plan to vote "third party" or not vote at all.
A few days ago one of my facebook friends stated his opinion that his conscience was bothered by Trump and he was considering voting for Johnson (libertarian) although the latter is pro-abortion. I objected, of course. In the interest of not repeating myself, I posted links to several of the blog posts that I've written in recent weeks regaarding this particular election. For my trouble, one of my friend's other friends engaged in ad hominems, calling me a "nutcase". My friend rebuked him and some time later the attacks disappeared from his page.
I mention this because I suspect at the heart of the #nevertrump movement, emotion reigns at the expense of logic and reason. When I broach principles of Catholic moral theology to these people, I'm largely ignored, signifying to me that #nevertrumpers are threatened when asked to see if their stances actually square with Church teaching. Others simply carry on as that man cited in the preceding paragraph albeit not nearly so rudely.
As I mentioned previously, a couple of mental anomalies in the #nevertrump mindset are really quite bizarre:
Acknowledging the fact that Hillary will win should they get their way, and welcoming that outcome, opining that "our nation needs to be punished". I suppose they haven't a care about the babies who will be murdered should she attain the White House.
Somehow dreaming that Trump and Clinton are morally equivalent. Leaving aside the obvious differences of policy statements that they've both made, let's look at Hillary's track history. She allowed the four men to die at Benghazi. She probably caused many more deaths with her sloppy handling of classified emails. There have been a number of former associates and others connected with her that have "mysteriously" died over the past several months. Can anything remotely similar be uttered about Trump?
Many of these #nevertrumpers are quite blithe in assuming that our country would survive four years under Hillary, not considering that during these past eight years the fabric of our republic has been weakened and mutated almost beyond recognition. While I might hope they'd be correct I'm not making that brash assumption. They fail to consider that they are gambling with their children's futures.
In the video below, Father refers to an interview given by Cardinal Burke; I wrote a piece on it that gives a few more details of the Cardinal's words. Father also cites paragraphs 2239-2240 of the Catechism. On the right side bar of this blog is a link to the Catechism. Please refer to this also. Please also pass word of this video along to your other contacts. Thank you.