GLACC Poll: September

Friday, March 2, 2012

Rest In Peace, and Thanks

There isn’t much I can write about Andrew Breitbart that others haven’t already. I was completely shocked when I found out he died. I still have a hard time believing he passed away. Anyway, the thing I liked about Mr. Breitbart was the fact he challenged the liars, all the while being called the most ridiculous things while taking heat from the leftists he completely loved to annoy. What was so stunning about the power he had was that he seemed to shine under such relentless hate. He wanted the truth, and wasn’t afraid to uncover it.

I think a lot of people who write in the Catholic blogging world could look to Andrew Breitbart as an inspirational person. No, I’m sure he wasn’t saintly. I’m not even positive he was really all that religious (someone Google it please, I’m too tired to check). What I’m getting at is that he didn’t except the rule that leftists could get away with being liars. And despite the nasty crap the left likes to spew, he challenged them every step of the way.

 Look, a lot of us who write online know what the score is. The Catholic left has almost completely demolished our faith in America. Sometimes it’s out in the open, sometimes it’s a very secretive attempt to dilute Catholic teaching and sow doubt in the tenants of our faith. A lot of bloggers have worked to uncover this very vile and contentious movement that for a lot of years has been ignored by those who are supposed to be our shepherds. I’ve seen it first hand, and have talked to people I know and trust that have seen and been in the middle of worse while trying to do nothing more than be faithful Catholics. The perfect solution would be for our shepherds to see the rot, and cut it out before it spreads. We know, however, that something like that just isn’t going to happen any time soon if ever. But at least that rot, thanks to the new media, has been exposed.

 Guys like Breitbart pioneered the new media, and I think gave a good example to how it could be used to uncover, expose, and challenge not only the left, but anybody who plays the game of lies and illusion in order to hide their true intentions or cower away from responsible action. Not all of his views were ours. Never the less, the Catholic blogosphere owes a token of gratitude to Andrew Breitbart.

Rest In Peace, Mr. Breitbart.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Of Statues and Air Supply

I was starting to write another report for school, when I noticed something today sitting at my computer desk. My three only statues of any religious significance had their backs turned to me. I don't remember putting them like that, and it is possible that one of my kids or my wife shuffled them around while I was at work. Still...I've fallen into the muck and am having a hard time getting back up. This could be a silly coincidence. Or maybe it's a sign that I have a lot more at stake here than self pity and wallowing in my sins. Perhaps it's time to man up and seek God's forgiveness. Redemption.

This reminds me of when I was in another rut not to long ago and a song came on by Air Supply. Just for the record, I'm not a huge fan. Never the less, the song had me in tears. All Out of Love. I'm sure the song has nothing to do with it, but all I could think of was Jesus. As cornball as it may seem, look at the lyrics or listen to the song. Imagine that instead of a Members Only Jacket wearing light rocker singing to a lady, you have a sinner singing to Christ.

I'm lying alone with my head on the phone
Thinking of you till it hurts
I know you hurt too but what else can we do
Tormented and torn apart
I wish I could carry your smile and my heart
For times when my life feels so low
It would make me believe what tomorrow could bring
When today doesn't really know, doesn't really know

I'm all out of love, I'm so lost without you
I know you were right believing for so long
I'm all out of love, what am I without you
I can't be too late to say that I was so wrong

I want you to come back and carry me home
Away from this long lonely nights
I'm reaching for you, are you feeling it too
Does the feeling seem oh so right
And what would you say if I called on you now
And said that I can't hold on
There's no easy way, it gets harder each day
Please love me or I'll be gone, I'll be gone


Oh, what are you thinking of?
What are you thinking of?
Oh, what are you thinking of?
What are you thinking of?

[Chorus x3]

Till this day I can't hear that song without getting a lump in my throat. Honest.

Friends, I am about the most despicable and predictable of sinners. Yet, in the strangest and sometimes most magnificent ways, Christ calls to me--to all sinners--toward repentance. So when I noticed those statues with their backs turned to was like a clarion call. Hell is like God turning his back on you FOREVER. Now is the time to repent, to love God, TO ACCEPT HIS FORGIVENESS!

I long for the day when Christ doesn't have to use a cheesy early 80's band or damaged little statues to turn my head again toward him. For now, I'm glad. Glad with my whole heart that He loves me enough to use whatever means to call me back to Him.

Sunday, November 27, 2011


...The Movie!

So, if you haven't heard yet, Fr. Barron has an exciting series about the Catholic faith called, quite simply and to the point, Catholicism. I've only had the opportunity to see the tail end of one episode on EWTN, and I'm sure a lot of people didn't get to catch any of it.

Well, if you life in Anchorage, you've got a chance to not only see Catholicism, but engage in a discussion with a panel of priests afterward about the subject matter of the show.

Beginning on December 1, the Archdiocese is going to have this going on at the Wilda Marston Theater in the Loussac Library. Read the Catholic Anchor for more details.

I don't know about you, but this is defiantly the kind of stuff I feel the Archdiocese should be doing in order to engage in a public--Catholics and non-Catholics alike--who have received nothing but dark scandal  after dark scandal in regards to the Catholic faith. There is a great joyful and overwhelming message of hope that the Catholic Church brings. Take it from a convert, when you see the Church as it truly is, it's almost like scales falling from your eyes. Things get a little clearer. The problem has always been how to properly promote--EVANGELISE--that message. Hiding behind things and not being upfront with the folks is probably the last thing you should do. I'm hoping that the panel of priests who are going to be engaging the movie goers are unafraid in their faith, and clear in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I think that now would be a good time to pray for them, both in thanksgiving to their willingness to witness, and that they may have the heart of evangelists.

I may travel up to Anchorage to view one of these showings. Times like these, and I wish I still lived in the city. To make it up to me, dear reader, do me a favor and go to these showings. Show your support for our Archdiocese and our faith. God willing, there will be a fair number of people who are either on a journey to find God or completely reject the notion of a God in heaven. May this show turn their hearts toward our Lord! And if you go, may it be a welcome way to rejuvenate your faith during Advent.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Cain, the GOP, and Abortion

So unless you live under a rock or don’t give a hoot about GOP politics (or both), you’ve heard about Herman Cain’s recent abortion gaff. If you haven’t, go here. Anyway, I posted a comment on Facebook that I was very disappointed in his response in the interview with Piers Morgan. If he truly is pro-life in all cases, it isn’t too hard to defend or define your position on the matter. I stated as much in my response to Cain’s Morgan interview link.

A bit disappointed with your abortion comments. The proper answer to Piers' question about the granddaughter being raped is that two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a baby, even one conceived under the evil of rape, is punishing that life for the sins of his or her father. Mr. Cain, you have to clarify yourself, because after that interview, I'm not sure anymore where you stand.

Pretty easy stuff if you ask me. I want, with all my heart, to give Herman Cain the benefit of the doubt. Being grilled by a reporter of television personality who isn’t exactly an ally or worse is spiteful toward your positions, can be a hard thing to overcome. Mistakes –gaffs—can be made. It would only make sense that you send as much information to clarify your real position on an issue if you thought that it was misunderstood by the people you’re trying to gain the support of. Later on his Facebook page, Mr. Cain posted this: 

I’m 100% pro-life. End of Story.

No it’s not the end of the story, even if Mr. Cain wants it to be. Again, I posted a response on Facebook as soon as that post went out: 

Great that he is, but we need a little bit more meat. Is this "I'm 100% pro-life" with a but added in for certain situations, or is this "I'm 100% pro-life" with the understanding that every abortion results in the loss of innocent life, and therefore is an intolerable action that should not be legalized? Silly as it is, there are plenty of politicians who believe the former rather than the later but still call themselves "100% pro-life".

And that’s true. There a so many people within the GOP who simply aren’t ‘100%’ prolife. There are certain qualifiers that allow them to turn a blind eye toward the murder of an innocent infant, rape and incest being primary among them.  Here’s one example of a lady that I had a back and forth with on Herman Cain's Facebook post who claims to be prolife but

I am Pro a mother who loves her baby..if I was raped or my life was in should be my choice if I keep the baby or not.
You almost have to cry with the way this response has been framed. ‘It should be my choice if I keep the baby or not.’ Why, if this woman feels so strongly about this, does she not use the right terminology in her response? The answer is because it’s much easier to dismiss the baby in the womb as a lost possession then it is to deal with the ramifications of that ‘choice’. The baby dies.The statement should have read “…it should be my choice if I kill the baby or not."

But this is typical among the different factions in the GOP. While it’s head over heels closer to being genuinely more pro-life then the Democrats, the Republican party can hardly be called a solid pro-life party. I think Mr. Cain, and his supporters (to whom I had once counted myself as), have proven this fact. As a matter of fact, there were some people that even dropped their support once Cain posted that '100%' comment on Facebook.

We here in Alaska are well aware of pro-choice Republicans. In this state, life is a secondary issue compared to the amount of pork someone can deliver to the state from the Federal coffers. For Mr. Cain and his supporters, it’s all about 999. Like the GOP in Alaska, social issues are a big question mark easily put aside for more…important…issues like the economy.

Latter in the day, Herman Cain did, finely, put out a longer more detailed statement: 

Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Is this enough? Does Mr. Cain mean this, or is this a play with semantics? Is he simply giving the right answer to avoid the issue, like I believe Mitt Romney is doing? Has he given social issues any thought, or is he stuck on 999? And the most important question, is he ready for prime time?

I don't know. I thought Mr. Cain was a candidate I could hands down support. But with this gaff? Like I said above, it should have been an easy answer. And what gives me a little bit more pause is that this isn't the first time Mr. Cain has tripped over his words in regards to abortion, as highlighted in a REDSTATE article by Lean H. Wolf. 

It's a long road to the GOP nomination. Cain has a lot of time to make up for lost trust. I can say without a doubt that I'm not rock solid in his corner like I once was. Newt is looking pretty good, and despite the fact that he appears to snarl a lot, Rick Santorum is look pretty solid as well. Romney, never. Perry, eh. Maybe Paul if he wasn't so darn bat shit crazy. Bachmann seems a little off. And Huntsman is a joke.

It's going to be a long next couple of months.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

One alternative is as legitimate as another...right?

And why not? If the very meaning of marriage has been changed to include one 'alternative lifestyle', why not another?

When gay marriage is argued for by activists who want it legalized, they often unfairly compare it to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. If they were able to use that comparison as part of a strategy to have government force others to recognize their lifestyle, then they should have no problem with other alternative lifestyles using their struggle to legitimize their own movement.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Angels

The Defend Us in Battle blog has an interesting novena going on concerning angels. While I myself am not partaking in the novena, I did find it interesting that one of the first pages I turned to in an old Catholic Children's book I bought a while back on was on that very subject. This book, written in 1918 and given an Imprimatur by William Cardinal O'Connell, the Archbishop of Boston, has an interesting way of putting the story of the Angels together for the children of that age. One thing I found refreshing about it was that it wasn't full of the kind of fluff you'd perhaps see in a modern made for children Catholic publication. Here it is:

THE first beings created by God, my dear little ones, were spirits--the beautiful angels. At first, they were all good and happy, but after a while many of them forgetting the goodness of God became very proud and would not obey Him. Of course, dear children, this was a sin. God punished the bad angels by sending Michael, the great archangel, to fight against them; he drove them down, down deep into the fires of hell, and ever since they have been called devils, while their leader is often called Satan.

These bad angels hate God and all that is good; they hate us also, and do all they can to draw us away from our dear Father in Heaven; they are envious of us, too, because God means to give us the place in Heaven left vacant by them. 
But the good angels, those who did not disobey their Maker, are happy with Him in Heaven, and they love us very much.

Many times God has sent His angels as messengers from Heaven to earth. Have you not often seen, children, the picture of a lovely maiden kneeling at prayer and an angel with outspread wings standing before her? Well, that angel was Gabriel, and he was sent by God to the Virgin Mary to tell her that she was to be the Mother of the little infant Jesus.

Then, too, every one, even every little child, has a guardian angel who always watches beside him. If the child loves and obeys God as he ought, if he is obedient at home and does just as father and mother tell him to do, and if he is always gentle and kind with other little boys and girls, oh, how closely that dear angel companion folds his soft white wings about that good little child!

Now, all good little children just as soon as they open their eyes in the morning, of course thank God for keeping them through the night; and before going to sleep, they say a prayer to God for being so kind to them all day long. Perhaps after thanking God, they would like to whisper into the ear of their of their guardian angel these few words:

"Angle of God, my guardian dear, 
to whom His love commits me here, 
Ever this day be at my side
To light and guard, to rule and guide."

This little, almost century old book is greatly illustrated, and the stories are pretty well written. When compared to the children's bible stories I bought my girls from one of the big box stores, the stories here are by far superior.

I haven't bought another old Catholic book on ebay, but since looking at this book more in depth, I've kept my eye out for good deals on books who's pages might be yellow with age and the cover worn, but are treasures none the less.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Not Those Who Should Be

I can’t seem to stop thinking about the comment I received on this blog in regards for my September poll question, which was posing the question if we are safe than we were on 9/11/2001. Now besides the kind of annoying “we” (why in quotes?) and the black helicopter rhetoric that the religious right is on some sort of government terrorist watch list, the anonymous commenter made a great point.

And if by "we" you happen to mean the 3000 unborn babies who are aborted each and every day in this country by our own mothers, fathers, and doctors, then again, "we" are not safer than we were on 9/11. Every single day in this country we kill the equivalent number that were killed on 9/11 by terrorists through the unspeakable sin of abortion. We commit a 9/11 on ourselves by killing our unborn every single day.

Safe? Not those that should be.

You know, I guess I couldn’t agree more.

 If we truly believe what the Church teaches about life, then it is under constant assault every day in this nation in the way it treats it’s unborn—or if you live in Canada, the recently born. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been near fifty million abortions performed in the United States alone. That equals about sixteen thousand times the death toll on 9/11.

 9/11 was a horrible attack committed by brutal, barbaric fanatics. The images of that attack, from the planes crashing into the twin towers to their eventual collapse, will haunt and anger many people for a long time. Furthermore, the events after 9/11, the reaction, caused even more death and loss of life. Agree or disagree with America’s wars after September 11, there’s no denying that our retaliation was a bloody one that also—though I believe for the most part unintentionally—dealt death to innocence. 

While the attacks on 9/11 were showcased constantly on news media, and the pain of that day relived every anniversary, the attack on the unborn is largely a hidden massacre. The attacks on 9/11 were committed by jihadists, whose organization and purpose are regarded by all but the most extreme cooks as villainous. Meanwhile, the slaughter of the unborn is regarded by at least half this country as a ‘moral’ choice, and protected by law. Though both the one time event on 9/11 and the ongoing killing threw abortion both result(ed) in the loss of innocent life, they are both thought of quite differently. 

And I believe that thought, that somehow the tragedy on 9/11or any other mass killing of humans outside the womb is more of an issue then abortion, is prevalent even in the Church. An interesting example to illustrate this is a poor response by Geoff Kennedy to an anti-Catholic rant by another blogger from the Anchorage Daily News. Geoff makes the following claim about the majority of Catholic lay men and women, priests, and bishops.

While it’s true, some Catholics today continue the obsession with sexual sins, most of the Catholics, especially the priests and bishops I know, are more concerned with social justice. Some evangelicals are still stuck on sex: Witness the obsession with abortion and same-sex marriage.

Instead of abortion being an issue about life, Mr. Kennedy lumps it with sexual sin. And while I could go on about his obvious error on the teaching of the issue, and his being a hypocrite since a lot of his writings for the Anchorage Daily News deals with ethical double standards, that’s not my focus. Instead, I point out his erroneous writing because it could very well be and honest reflection of the attitude of modern American Catholics today. And though it’s very hard to believe that he knows priests and bishops who share his point of view as he claims, it could very well explain why so many lay Catholics have a blurred view on what should be very clear Church teaching.

 This, by the way, is the same camp that poses the moral question “How can you deal with abortion without dealing with the moral wrongs that cause abortion?” My own question to that is simple, how can you expect a nation to care about any morality in dealing with the poor when its legal to kill—as Blessed Mother Teresa called the unborn—the poorest of the poor?

The embattled Fr. Frank Pavone has written an interesting article that fits perfectly with this point that we tend to view the cause and effect of terrorism as a greater evil than abortion. He also points out the willingness of Catholics and Catholic leadership to abandon the poorest of the poor in the political arena: 

Many will support a particular party because it’s a family tradition (or a Church tradition?), or because they are in bed with leaders in that party who support their social programs in exchange for their silence on baby-killing. That’s often the reason for the perplexing spinelessness often observed among Church leaders on the abortion issue.

So back to the question of the poll I posted for this month. Are we safer since 9/11? I think the anonymous commenter’s final words are true, and if we are people who love life, should shake us to our core.

Safe? Not those who should be.