That’s what is quoted in this op-ed in the Baltimore Sun.  Baltimore is one of many American cities that has experienced a long, painful decline.  The city is shrinking.  While city leaders try to solve this population implosion by immigration (ha!), Diana Schaub notes that the major reason for this decline is the out of control moral decay in the city, especially the collapse of marriage and the rampant use of abortion:

The decline of marriage, particularly among African-Americans, is all too familiar. Not as well-known is that Maryland has a very high abortion rate (third highest among the states in 2005, the year that the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene stopped collecting abortion statistics). The breakdown by jurisdiction reveals that Baltimore City is driving those deadly numbers, and also that the abortion rate among African-American women is at least triple the white rate.

Even for those in favor of legal abortion, the situation should be dismaying. And it certainly represents what Montesquieu termed “a change of customs.” For comparison: In 1970, Baltimore City abortion rates for single white and black women stood at 7.43 and 10 respectively (the abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44), with the married women’s rates half that. By 2005, the Baltimore rate was 86.2. The National Abortion Rights Action League, which cites that figure, did not provide the African-American rate, but it would be substantially higher.

Lest one think that poverty accounts for this shift, the poverty rate in Baltimore has remained relatively fixed at around 20 percent for decades. The marriage dearth and the abortion deluge among all races are not attributable to material causes as much as moral causes: young women’s loss of respect for themselves as the bearers of new life and their resulting willingness to treat abortion as a method of contraception.

Cities dying off from abortion and general moral degradation.

May Jesus Christ be praised always and at every moment!  What a glorious gift of self, what an oblation!  I can’t wait to go!  There is a 100% certitude I will cry!  What a gift to make of oneself, to be a bride of Christ!   

I love nuns, and there are no nuns I love more than Carmelites!  To think of joining the order of St. Teresa of Jesus, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Teresa Benedict of the Cross, St. Teresa of the Andes, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, and so many more! 

Glorious!  Deo Gratias!

The United States is a nation founded on the principle of life, liberty and justice for all. Throughout the history of this great nation, the religious communities and those in posts of civil authority have recognized that free practice of religious belief is foundational to our country.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” But in recent days the latest salvo in the attack on religious freedom was fired by the Obama administration and, sadly, by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic. [The fact that she is still able to call herself a Catholic, is, to my mind, a major reason why this noxious regulation was put in place.  We need ecclesial discipline enforced, for the good of the Church and the good of souls]

On Jan. 20, Sebelius announced the administration’s decision to mandate the inclusion of particular health services in insurance coverage that would result in Catholic institutions having to provide coverage that violates Catholic Church teaching and, therefore, Catholic conscience.

The HHS ruling requires that sterilization and contraception, including controversial abortifacients, be among the “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans, including health plans offered by religious organizations.

The one-year concession allowed to implement these provisions is, as Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “a one-year period to violate our consciences.”

Cardinal Roger Mahony, retired archbishop of Los Angeles, says this is a “full frontal attack” on religious freedom.

As the shepherds for nearly 2 million Catholics in North Texas, we cannot stand by silently.

This decision is outrageous. It is an unprecedented and untenable abrogation of religious freedom in the United States. This ruling, upon its implementation, would force Catholic institutions — hospitals, schools, social service agencies — to either violate the fundamental tenets of their faith or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees, students and clients.

This is part of a pattern in the United States that has degenerated from the recognition of religion as good and salutary to our society to religion being subjected to punitive discrimination. [All true.  But we must recognize that our own failure to live the Faith as Catholics, and even the failure of our leadership to reliably enforce the Doctrines that define the Faith, has helped precipitate this collapse in Faith and the increasing secularization in our society.]

We ask that the Catholics of North Texas and other people of good will join us by speaking out for the protection of conscience rights and religious liberty that are essential to the American way of life.

We ask our civil authorities at all levels of government to “reform the law and change this unjust regulation,” as Dolan said after the ruling.

The Catholic Dioceses of Dallas and Fort Worth, just as every religious organization in the United States, must be allowed to follow the fundamental tenets of their faith in all aspects of life without unwarranted government interference as is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

A very good presentation of the problem and condemnation of this egregious assault on our foremost liberties.  But let this just be a beginning.

Two F/A-18Cs from VFA-131 Wildcats being refueled by a KC-10A Extender.  Super high-res video, watch in full screen.

Those fighters move around alot, don’t they!

Related – it looks like the sailors may get to cross the Magsaysay bridge and the @#$& River (literally) and storm Olongapo as in days of old again.  Maybe even old Clark Field will be open for US business again (though I doubt it) - it’s time for containment, round 2.  And countries who felt they had no need for a US presence anymore after 1991 now feel rather differently, with a new Red Menace growing in the East.  The Phillipines is negotiating with the US for a renewed US military presence. 

A reconstruction of the Cubi Point Officers Club below:

BAH!!  Still screwed it up!  Trying again!

The town being Amarillo, but only for a short time at the March for Life.  He did participate and speak at the March itself and various other events.  Apparently, both Bishop Zurek and Fr. Pavone feel that their “problem” is now in the hands of Rome, which must be comforting to Bishop Zurek.  It is unlikely Rome will decide anything in Fr. Pavone’s favor, but we’ll see.  I guess I should retract my statement that Fr. Pavone will never serve publicly in a pro-life capacity again.  I pray he is released from his limited circumstances on Bishop Zurek’s own authority – and not Rome’s – soon.  That’s the only way I see Fr. Pavone returning to the kind of ministry he exercised previously.

I do think it important to have at least some priest or priests dedicated full time to the pro-life mission.  Abortion is such a critical social evil that must be fought, surely the Church can spare a priest or three.

Much ado about nothing, or a telling sign of the formation Catholics have received over the last several decades?  Why is it that in so many of these polls, Catholics seem less sure of their own religion, less willing to assert it as the best and only religion, and possess a tolerance bordering on indifference towards others?  Is this the result of a conscious effort to weaken the faith of many, or just a product of the times?  But if the latter, why do Catholics stand out more than protestant sects?

Is this the fruit of a runaway, wrong-headed ecumenism, that threw overboard over a millenia of Tradition in a desperate attempt to appeal to separated sects?  It’s certainly disconcerting.  

Thomas Peters, making far more sense than his father of late, points out the hypocrisy of the “primacy of individual conscience” crowd, that includes the likes of Dr.Rick Gaillardetz, Bryan Cones, and Jon O’ Brien, president of “Catholics” for Choice.  This group has justified their apostasy for years on the basis of a radical misinterpretation of a badly written section of VII, claiming that their conscience, no matter how poorly formed, gives them the right to reject the constant Doctrine of the Faith.  The conscience, they claim, is supreme.  But wait a minute……..the Obama HHS mandate forcing religious employers to purchase contraception and sterilization for all their employees is a massive violation of the conscience of millions.  What about the conscience of those millions?  And yet Jon O’ Brien, Gaillardetz, and the rest are four square in favor of this massive violation of my consciene, and that of almost all my readers and millions more. 

So we see what “the primacy of the individual conscience” really is.  It’s just another excuse – an incredibly hypocritcal one, at that – to reject the constant teaching of the Faith.  These people, if they were honest, would leave the Church.  I don’t wish that on any person, I pray they repent, but the scandal they cause through their horrific example, and the even greater scandal of the likes of O’Brien and the others being able to continue to call themselves “faithful Catholics” without any ecclesial discipline being imposed is of such magnitude that souls are being damaged, and even lost.  That is why discipline in the Church, historically, was enforced, to prevent this enormous tragedy from occuring. 

Yes, yes…….I’ve heard the arguments…..”shouldn’t we ‘keep them in play?’”  Shouldn’t we try to “engage” with them?  Sadly, many people are so lost in their sins they are beyond human means to reach.  The faith of those who remain true to the Church must be protected.  It is way, way past time to start enforcing ecclesial discipline, with formal excommunications or, at least, denials of the Blessed Sacrament for all this swath of dissenters, heretics, and apostates.  True charity demands it.   

And, I strongly suspect, that if discipline were to be enforced on something approaching a wide scale, many of these apostate “Catholics” would have a change of heart.  They would be denied that “best of both worlds” situation they’ve been enjoying, where they can pretend to be faithful, keep the ‘cache’ of being Catholic, and yet work with all their might to subvert the Church and wreck the moral society (such as it is, today).  Proper enforcement of ecclesial discipline would force the individuals in question to make a choice – either accept the Doctrine of the Faith, or continue to adhere to heterodox views.  Faced with that stark decision, I pray that many would choose rightly, and thus greatly improve the likelihood of their personal salvation.

Too harsh?  The loss of one soul is a tragedy that is incalculable.  But keeping these few souls who are so radical “in the Church” poses grave danger to far, far more souls.  It would be far better to inoculate the Body of Christ by removing this pathogen from its presence.

A Defense of Confession

It is in no way surprising tha tthe confessionals today are often empty.  The Good News spread by modernists is that everyone will be saved and that “it is almost impossible to commit a mortal sin.” [Shades of Fr. Barron!  And, I've been told in the Confessional that it is almost impossible to commit a mortal sin.  Once you hear that from a confessor, it's time to move on] This is comforting indeed; but the comfort is a delusion. It requires courage to put one’s soul  under a microscope and be “face to face” with one’s sinfulness and imperfections. It calls for a spiritual awakening that most of us dread.

Moreover – and this is a  key protestant argument – why confess our sins to a priest who is himself a sinner?  They should be confessed to the all-perfect God, Who alone can forgive man.  The argument is clever, and like many false arguments seems very convincing.  The reply, however, is to be found in the words of the Gospel, which protestants revere, claiming that sola scriptura is the only valid source of information, alone to be obeyed: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (Jn 20:23). 

While knowing Scripture by heart, protestants often misread it – here, as elsewhere. (To take another example, their denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, so clearly stated in John 6).  Or else they misinterpret the Divine Word.  Yet the words of Christ, as recorded infallibly by Saint John, are luminous and not open to misinterpretation.  Christ did say to His apostles that he sins they shall forgive shall be forgiven, and those they do not forgive shall not be forgiven. 

In other words, Our Savior proclaimed clearly that He had delegated to His priests the power to grant or deny absolution for sin in His name.  How can one read the Gospel and not see this?  The answer is found in the Psalms: “they have eyes and do not see,” for the evil one has thrown dust into their eyes.

A point to be stressed: To confess one’s sins directly to God, as the protestants claim they do, si not deeply humiliating, for God already knows all our sins.  But to reveal to another frail human being that we have committed serious offenses against God, our neighbors, and inevitably ourselves, is an act of humility that God knew to be spiritually beneficial – a blessed medicine precisely becasue of its being humiliating. 

………….

The Post-Conciliar Crisis

The evil one truly had a field day in the wake of Vatican II.  Catholics the world over were in a state of euphoria over the Council, which was surely going to bring us a new and possibly never-ending “springtime” that would correct and eliminate all past errors of a “sinful Church.” [this "springtime" is more like January in Prudhoe Bay]

Of course, from the very beginning the Chruch was made up of sinners marked by original sin.  We only need think of the twelve apostles hand-picked by Christ Himself: one was a traitor; another betrayed Him hours afger having sincerely declared that he would die for Him; all of them fled……….Our Holy Mother Church gives us all the spiritual means necessary to attain holiness, but those of us who have tried know that the way is very narrow, and few are those who make use of the means of sanctification that She offers her children [I could not agree more.  The way is very narrow, and very hard].

….At the Council, many bishops convinced themselves that the Church was so powerful and spiritually healthy that a Council could only confirm the victories achieved and provide a noble encouragement to proceed on the same path.  But the Enemy immediately perceived that he had been given a unique opportunity, by what I shall call “devilish chemistry,” to teach lethargic Bishops and faithful to misread the messages given.  Needed corrections in the Church should not be interpreted as a warrant for revolution.  Almost overnight, the faithful were informed by the news media [aided and abetted by 'progressives' like Fr. Francis X. Murphy, who helped create an impression of the Council as a radical break with Tradition], always on the lookout for sensationalism, that everything was about to change.  The Church had finally perceived that she had to close Her doors to the Middle Ages and make a solemn entry in to the dooorway of the modern world, which, understandably, could not endorse a dogmatic or moral teaching no longer in harmony with “the spirit of the times.” 

I need not go into details.  Before those firmly rooted in the Sacred Traditions of the Church had awakened, a tsunami had taken place.  Without any approval by the Council Fathers as a whole, modernists under the direction of the evil one [!! - I didn't say it!, but......] made contributions which, interpreted by the Zeitgeist, not only allowed some radical changes but, in fact, directed them.  The use of vulgar languages that had been approved for some part of the Liturgy was presented to the faithful  as an order to abolish Latin altogether.  The beautiful symbolism of kneeling was abolished; communion rails were destroyed with iconoclastic zeal; kneeling was no longer in harmony with man’s dignity.  Very many homilies were spiced with heresy; anything and everything was put in doubt.  Historicism was going to help us finally understand the true meaning of holy books misread becaues of our ignorance of the new science.  The list of disastrous changes is discouragingly long. 

Alas, at first sight the devil has won the battle.  It is our strict duty to wake up, pray, and make sacrifice to prevent him from winning the war.  Indeed, depressing as the situation has been, we have the blessed certainty that the gates of hell shall not prevail, adn the promise of Our Lord to Saint Peter shouls sing in our ears as a sacred refrain.

From self-assurance and illusion, deliver us O Lord!

Amen!

Given that, there has apparently been an ongoing series of talks given regarding ‘Forming Consciences’  here in the Dallas Diocese.  The second of 3 talks will be given on February 2 and St. Rita’s in Dallas, entitled ‘Answering Your Tough Questions on Faithful Citizenship.’  I doubt my tough questions, such as, “how do the bishops who wrote this thing plan on explaining it to God at their particular judgment?”, will be answered.  But who knows, maybe I can sneak out and attend, leaving my poor wife at home with 97 screaming children in our broken down hut with no running water, the outhouse 90 yards away, the snow 11 ft deep, and the electricity turned off for lack of payment?  Ahhhh……a man can dream…….

Disregard the last sentence.

 Join us Thursday, February 2 at 7 p.m. for

“Applying Catholic Teaching to Major Issues: A Summary of Policy Positions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops”

presented by:

Most Reverend Edward J. Burns
Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau, Alaska &
former U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Presenter on Faithful Citizenship

with presentation of Bishops Kevin Farrell and Kevin Vann’s Joint Statement on
Faithful Citizenship by Karen Garnett of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee

at St. Rita Catholic Church, Sweeney Lounge
12521 Inwood Rd. Dallas, TX 75244

This is the second of a three-session series on Faithful Citizenship as we faithfully discern and prepare for the Texas primaries.  Please save the new date for Part 3 on February 20, featuring Jennifer Allmon of the Texas Catholic Conference (location TBA). [My personal note - I don't like the Texas Catholic Conference.  I don't like Allmon's seeming leftism.  This one could be interesting.  I wonder if the speakers will attempt to water down the joint statement?]

When Sonoma County Pro-Life advertised its annual Rally for Life held last Sunday, it promised that its keynote speaker — Santa Rosa Bishop Robert Vasa — “is sure to challenge and inspire us all.” Bishop Vasa did not let them down.

Any government leader, particularly those who claim to be Christian, who claim to be pro-choice, is unworthy of public office,” Bishop Vasa told the rally at Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa on Jan. 22. “Absolutely unworthy and absolutely unfit for public office.”

Politicians who support abortion are “as guilty of abortion as those who choose it themselves,” he said. And Roe v. Wade, said Bishop Vasa, was an “illicit and invalid” decision.

Because of its pro-abortion policies, said Bishop Vasa, the U.S. is no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s a land of the imprisoned and the home of the cowards.”

The bishop’s remarks, reported the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, brought cheers from a crowd of about 100 people who gathered in the afternoon rain to hear his speech.

“Vasa suggested such leaders who publicly hold such a position shouldn’t accept communion at Mass,” reported the Press Democrat. “He also said they could be excommunicated, or banished from the church through their actions.” [I pray the "suggestion" was actually a firm demand]

“In some ways, they excommunicate themselves,” the Press Democrat quoted the bishop as saying in an interview following his speech. [Uh....it's either clear that they do, or they don't. You can't be excommunicated partially.  Anyone who takes a public stand against the Doctrine of the Faith on such a clearly defined issue places themselves outside the bounds of the Faith - excommunicate, anathema sit!]

Well, yes, but “self-excommunication” doesn’t have the same weight, the same alleviation of public scandal given by pro-abort or other apostate ‘Catholics,’ as does a formal excommunication.  And it’s rather easy to say these things, and rather harder to implement them, when there will be real and imagined consequences.  I have previously held Bishop Vasa in high regard, but heard a few things regarding him which were somewhat disconcerting.  It appears his former Diocese of Baker, OR is not in great shape, and wasn’t a wonderland of Catholic orthodoxy when he was there.  But perhaps I have an exaggerated view of the power of a bishop and don’t appreciate how hard it is to swim against a stream of modernist, heterodox staff, clergy, and laity. 

Anyways, it’s still good stuff.  We need more like this, much more.  Perhaps this contraceptive mandate will be a wake-up call to the episcopate.  I pray that it is.