Illegal alien sex offenders

In a new study (click on this post's title) based on 1,500 sex crimes committed by illegal aliens in one year, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta calculates that 2% of the 12 million (it might be more) illegal aliens now in the USA are sex offenders, and that these 240,000 criminals have preyed on an average of four victims each. That comes out, she notes, to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sex offenders crossing our border every day.

She also calculates that 63% of these criminals have been deported in the past.

Wonder if Cardinal Mahony and our bishops and clergy are aware of this new study and if they plan to comment publicly about it.

Remember Father Kapaun on Memorial Day

As we pause on Memorial Day to remember those who have made the supreme sacrifice, we should bring to mind Father Emil Kapaun (pronounced "ka-pown"), an Army chaplain in the Korean War who exhibited great courage and devotion to his men on the battlefield, and even greater courage and devotion during captivity by the Communists that led to his death.

Father Kapaun's cause for sainthood is in progress, and you can visit his official site (click on this post's title).

Father's patron saint was St. Dismas, the Good Thief, as he risked his life to steal food for his starving men from their Red captors. He was a rock of strength to his men, keeping them from despair. The Communists exhibited fear of him because of his holiness. Finally illness overcame him, and the Communists took him away to die in a freezing room.

Father Kapaun, pray for us!

Remember Father Capodanno (MOH) on Memorial Day

Tomorrow, May 30, is the real Memorial Day, but today is the federal observance of it, so here is a Memorial Day post about a Catholic chaplain who gave his life for his U.S. Marines in the Vietnam War and has just been named a Servant of God, the first step toward canonization.

He is Father Vincent R. Capodanno, and he was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for, as the saying goes, "rushing to the sound of the guns" and then disregarding Communist mortar and machine gun fire to minister to his wounded and dying Marines. Already wounded and having lost part of his right hand, Father Capodanno rushed to a wounded Marine only 15 yards in front of a machine gun and was hit with 27 rounds.

You should see the tributes to Father from his surviving Marines (click on this post's title).

Father Daniel Mode's fine book, The Grunt Padre, is about Father Capodanno.

Another Vietnam War chaplain, Father Charles Litecky, also was awarded the Medal of Honor. Sadly, he later left the priesthood, "surrendered" his MOH and became a leftist activist. Still, we honor his battlefield valor and we can keep him in our prayers.

LA Times: Kneeling as mortal sin

Today's (May 28) L.A. Times has a front-page (!) story, "A Ban on Kneeling? Some Catholics Won't Stand for It" (click on this post's title).

The article covers the continuing standoff (pun intended) at St. Mary's by the Sea Parish in Huntington Beach, in Bishop Tod Brown's Diocese of Orange.

At issue, as you probably know, is pastor Father Martin Tran's insistence that the congregation stand after the Agnus Dei. Father calls it "clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin" for his parishioners to refuse to go along with his standing order (pun intended again).

Father Tran also calls the refusal to kneel "despising the authority of the local bishop."

The news story says a third of the congregation is continuing to kneel after the Agnus Dei.

The story also says Father Tran wrote 55 pro-kneeling parishioners to tell them to quit the parish and the diocese (!) "for, among other things, 'creating misleading confusion, division and chaos in the parish by intentional disobedience and opposition to the current liturgical norms.'"

The article notes, "Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran's view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. 'That's Father Tran's interpretation, and he's the pastor,' he said. 'We stand behind Father Tran.'"

This does not exactly sound open, welcoming, inclusive and tolerant toward the members of the kneeling community. In fact, it sounds judgmental, non-pastoral and rigid.

Could the pro-kneeling parishioners get themselves invited back by the Diocese of Orange if they declared themselves to belong to the homosexual Catholic pressure group Rainbow Sash, and to be Catholic pro-abortion politicians, for good measure? Just wondering.

Is the Cardinal "educating" pro-abortion politicians?

Here, from the 2004 campaign season, is an oldie but goodie -- or baddie, as the case may be.

An article in The Tidings's issue of May 14, 2004 (click on this post's title), "Cardinal: Education on abortion is more effective than sanctions," quotes Cardinal Roger Mahony's faulty line, "And, in fact, with respect to the Eucharist, it really is not possible for a priest or bishop to deny someone Communion unless that person is known to have been a public sinner, in the sense of having been interdicted or excommunicated or formally sanctioned in some way."

You would think any Prince of the Church could immediately recognize that being actively, publicly and proudly complicit in the DISMEMBERMENTS of MILLIONS of BABIES easily makes a politician a public sinner. But in Cardinal Mahony's case, you would be wrong.

The same article also runs this astounding statement from the Cardinal: "The politicians themselves are not going in for abortions; it's women themselves, so that's the group we need to influence." Only when Teddy Kennedy goes in for an abortion will Mahony talk to him!

Our Archbishop then committed this non-sequitur: "The positive efforts to educate people about the reality of abortion and to offer women alternatives are dealt a very negative blow if all of a sudden the [C]hurch starts sanctioning people."

The Tidings article adds, "Cardinal Mahony said Catholic leaders, including lay leaders, must have a regular dialogue with Catholic politicians, discussing political issues from the point of view of Catholic moral and social teaching. 'That's our responsibility,' he said. 'We have not been doing that effectively.'"

That last sentence is quite an admission from the Cardinal: "We have not been doing that [presenting Catholic moral and social teaching to politicians]effectively." Some 36 YEARS after aborting babies became legal in California, "we have not been doing that effectively."

Your Eminence, it is now two years since you said you had not been effective in teaching Catholic politicians. Is it not time for you to update us? Have you told all, or any, of the pro-abortion Catholic politicians in your Archdiocese that they may not keep backing abortions? And if they have defied you, have you kept after them, or have you let them off the hook? So many lives and souls are at stake here in L.A., every day; will you please tell us?

"Turning Towards the Lord"

The new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith of Sri Lanka.

It is interesting, as reported in Sandro Magister's "Chiesa" online newsletter (click on this post's title), that at his first public appearance in his new capacity, on April 27, Archbishop Ranjith spoke at the Augustinian Institute of Rome about Father Uwe Lang's 2004 book, Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer.

The Archbishop quoted from then-Cardinal Ratzinger's Introduction to the 2004 book:

“To the ordinary churchgoer, the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people. Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the Council. The use of the vernacular is certainly permitted, especially for the Liturgy of the Word, but the preceding general rule of the Council text says, ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1). There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions.”

It is nice to reflect on these words, to remember that the man who wrote them is now the Pope and to realize that the one quoting them is assistant to the Church's "chief liturgist." May the long-awaited "reform of the reform" come about everywhere, including Los Angeles!

[A big thank-you to commenter Jeff Miller, who kindly wrote to say that Cardinal Arinze is still the head of the Congregation and Archbishop Ranjith is the Congregation's secretary. I have updated the post above to reflect Jeff's heads-up. As the saying goes, "Even Homer nods."]

+ Father Anthony Zimmerman, SVD +

Divine Word Missionary Father Anthony Zimmerman, 88, a beloved and world-renowned pro-lifer and defender of Catholic truth, marriage and the family against contraception, abortion, sterilization and the rest of the culture of death, died May 19 in Nagoya, Japan. A true missionary, he kept working almost to the end and thus "died with his boots on."

Father Zimmerman was a professor of moral theology, an author, a missionary and a pro-life apostle for many years. He never feared to explain why contraception is evil. For one thing, he noted that the contraceptive pill does act as an abortifacient -- and he pointed out that Catholic women who use the pill might be aborting their babies while in the Communion line at Mass.

Father Zimmerman's Webmaster, Matt Dula, has promised to keep his Website online. You can visit it at: www.CatholicMind.com and there you can still subscribe to Father's free e-mail newsletter, more issues of which will be forthcoming.

Father Zimmerman filled his e-mail newsletters with profound yet easily understandable reflections on the Gospels. In humility, he tagged his e-mail newsletter isssues as "Low Priority"; to his subscribers they were anything but that, of course.

In what turned out to be his last newsletter, May 8, Father Zimmerman defended Vatican II but noted that the Church, in the Catechsim and the Vatican II document Christus Dominus, does not give episcopal conferences special teaching authority:

"We are wrong, therefore, if we expect Episcopal Conferences and Federations to have the backing of Christ if they teach doctrines that the Church does not teach (e.g. the legitimacy of possessing atomic weapons, homosexuality, contraception, divorce and re-marriage)... Individual bishops teach their diocesan flocks authentically, and all bishops teach with the power of Christ when joined to the Chair of Peter. But Christ looks the other way when episcopal conferences try to teach new doctrines."

In this last newsletter of his, Father Zimmerman specifically defended Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae against the dissenting "spin" that some episcopal conferences gave it. He also predicted that Church dissenters and their "mischief" will fade away.

Cardinal Mahony and Sister Edith could do the attendees at their next Religious Education Congress a real favor if they would honor the memory of faithful Father Anthony Zimmerman, SVD, by bringing in lots of speakers (many are available, after all) to reprise his timeless message of fidelity to Catholic teaching on marriage, family and the right to life.

(Okay, this might not happen. But it surely ought to.)

Father Zimmerman, may the angels lead you into Paradise and may the countless millions of aborted and contracepted-to-death babies thank you for doing your utmost to save them. Please pray for us and all the Church, and for victory for the Culture of Life! Amen.

Seminarian forced to apologize for slamming contraception

We are hitting definite lows lately in the annals of "Catholic" institutions of "higher" education.

Recent example: Loyola Law School's hosting, this June 15-17, of the judge who forced the capital punishment-by-dehydration-and-starvation of Catholic housewife Terri Schiavo last year for her heinous crimes of being disabled and being targeted by her adulterous spouse.

New example: The Minneapolis Star Tribune (click on this post's title) reported yesterday that Catholic seminarian Ben Kessler, 21, has had to apologize publicly because in his honors graduate address to his fellow 2006 graduates of the University of St. Thomas (in St. Paul, Minn.) on Saturday last he called students' use of contraception selfish, upheld the school's anti-cohabitation policy for faculty members and denounced a recent campus food fight.

Kessler, who hopes to be a priest, is a student at St. John Vianney Seminary on the St. Thomas campus. He was a star defensive tackle on the St. Thomas football team and compiled a 4.0 grade average to win Academic All-America football honors.

Kessler's apology came in a statement released by the university -- which leaves no doubt that they forced him to make the apology. Last Saturday, he bravely continued with his speech despite members of the crowd booing, crying (!), calling for him to be thrown off the stage and, when he ripped contraception, actually walking out.

A university spokesman, said the news story, claims that previous honorees "typically" congratulated the graduates and wished them well. Father Dennis Dease, the university's president, "said in a prepared statement Monday that he accepted Kessler's apology and that he regrets that graduates, families and guests were offended."

Father Dease added, "I have shared my sentiments with Mr. Kessler that it was not appropriate for him to use the commencement exercise as a venue to express his opinions on several issues [but it is important for everyone] "to treat one another with respect as we speak and as we listen, regardless of how controversial an issue may be."

Which "issue" and "opinions" do you suppose Father Dease meant were "controversial" -- food fights, or timeless Catholic doctrine against fornication and contraception? No word on whether he -- or Minneapolis-St. Paul Archbishop Harry Flynn, who was at the commencement -- has used the whole occasion to reiterate and defend these Catholic doctrines.

Seems the Archdiocese of Los Angeles might not be the only one in which the words "Humanae Vitae" are never heard.

Let us hope -- and pray -- that no seminary or diocesan officials now deem Ben Kessler "too judgmental," "rigid" and "non-pastoral" to continue toward the priesthood. One thing is for sure -- he has learned that a prophet is without honor in his own country.

The name "Christian" includes Catholics

How many quadrillions of times have you heard people, including even good Catholics, say "Christians" when they mean "Protestants?"

We Catholics are Christians, are we not? So the term "Christians" cannot mean solely "Protestants." It is as simple as that.

This is not trivial. Why not? Mainly because quite a few Protestants love to claim we Catholics are not Christian. We have all had Protestants challenge us by saying, "I know you are Catholic -- but are you Christian?" And remember the TV preacher who insisted that he had no way of knowing whether Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a Christian?

It is even a life and death matter. Did you see the Catholicnews, Zenit and other recent news reports about Michael McIlveen, 15, of Ballymena, County Antrim, whom Loyalist/Protestant bigots recently beat fatally with baseball bats simply because he was a random Catholic? A friend of mine reports that before the funeral, a Protestant announced that young Michael could not go to Heaven unless he "repented" and "was saved," because as a Roman Catholic he was not a Christian. Fortunately, Michael's young Protestant friends attended his funeral.

All this is why we should definitely remember in our conversations that the name "Christians" includes us Catholics (and the Orthodox and others, too, of course) as well as Protestants.

Infamy: Loyola Law School to host Terri Schiavo judge

County circuit court judges are small potatoes -- not exactly the heavy-duty type of legal-eagle all-stars whom law schools, universities and legal forums seek out and invite to their symposia, seminars and mini-courses as celebrities and learned scholars.

So why has Loyola Law School here in ole L.A. invited a lowly country circuit court judge to teach at its very first Journalist Law School, this June 15-17? The event is a seminar only for professional journalists with at least three years of working experience, and its intent is to instruct reporters who have no legal background in how to think of the judiciary and how to write about legal affairs. Many big-shot news venues are sending their reporters to the event.

LifeNews.com broke the story on May 15, saying that the Loyola Law School admits it has invited Piniellas County (Florida) circuit court judge George Greer to speak at its event. Is there ANY reason for anyone to invite this previously obscure Florida judge anywhere for anything, other than the notoriety he gained from successfully ordering Catholic wife Terri (nee Schindler) Schiavo cruelly dehydrated and starved to death last year?

Imagine the kind of instruction a judicial supremacist would give reporters: "The judiciary is all-powerful, so worship it and speak of it worshipfully. And for all legal cases involving abortion and euthanasia, the default legal disposition is death for the baby, the disabled, the elderly and the infirm, so redouble your efforts to write only pro-death propaganda-speak."

Loyola Law School has pulled this type of stunt in the past. In 1986, I believe it was, their commencement speaker was Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, a Catholic who was one of the 7 pro-abortion votes in Roe vs. Wade (1973) and wrote a concurring opinion for it. Pro-lifers recall that some people entering that event cursed priests and other protesters.

Wish we could expect Cardinal Mahony to protest this latest infamy.

The baseball Quintero

For a change of pace (so to speak), may I point out proudly that there is a Quintero in baseball's Major Leagues: Humberto Quintero, 26, a catcher from Venezuela. The Houston Astros of the National League have summoned him from the minors (click on this post's title).

In 53 Major League games in three seasons before this year, Humberto batted .221 with three jonrones (home runs; also called cuadrangulares). Best wishes to my fellow Quintero!

More on the communique

The New York Times article today (click on this post's title) on the Holy See's communique about Legionaries of Christ founder Father Marcial Maciel D. says First Things magazine editor Father Richard John Neuhaus believes "the charges against Father Maciel were unfounded."

Father Neuhaus said, "There is nothing in the Vatican statement that suggests that the word penance is meant as a punitive measure." He added, "It wouldn't be the first time that an innocent and indeed holy person was unfairly treated by Church authority."

I believe the action against Father Maciel would be rare and possibly unique in the history of the Church against the founder of a religious order. Please provide any info on this subject if you can. There are other cases of punishment of major figures. The condemnation of St. Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc) in the 15th century was reversed 25 years or so after her execution.

You might scoff at this, but a friend from Mexico City told me some years ago that in her view there are many plots in Mexico and they are multi-layered, deep and difficult to solve. Nevertheless, as I have said, if the charges are valid then punishment is necessary.

Legionaries' response to Vatican statement

The Legionaries of Christ have responded (click on this post's title) to the decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal William Levada, announced today, to "invite the father [Legionaries founder Fr. Marcial Maciel D., age 86] to a reserved life of penitence and prayer, relinquishing any form of public minstry" but also, in light of his age and ill health, "to forgo a canonical hearing."

In their statement, the Legionaries say that they "renew their commitment to serve the Church" and that they "accept and will always accept the directives of the Holy See with [a] profound spirit of obedience and faith."

The Legionaries also say that Father Maciel "has accepted this communique with faith, complete serenity and tranquility of conscience..."

Clearly, if "the father" did the things of which he was accused, severe sanctions such as those announced today would be necessary. The announcement by the Holy See says, "Independently of the person of the Founder, the worthy apostolate of the Legionaries of Christ and of the Association 'Regnum Christi' is gratefully recognized."

Let us hope that the Legionaries' enemies within the Church and without will not now degrade themselves by committing the sin of rejoicing at their enemies' misfortune.

News breaking on Friday?

The National Catholic "Distorter" reported today (click on this post's title) that the Vatican is expected to issue a statement "shortly" -- the AP is now saying it will be on Friday -- about the status of Father Marcial Maciel D., the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

Let us wait and see, and let us pray. The most important sentence in the "Distorter" article is this: "Vatican sources stressed that the action against Maciel should not be read as an indictment of the Legionaries of Christ or its lay branch, Regnum Christi."

In this hour, let us pray for the Legionaries, for Regnum Christi and for their many friends and beneficiaries who know the goodness, the good works and the holiness of this vocations-rich, faithful religious order and its lay arm.

Bankruptcy judge rejects Spokane deal

What is in store for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles when the giant bill for the lawsuits inevitably comes in and all the lawyers and judges have their final say? The news from Spokane today, in an AP report (click on this post's title), is not too encouraging.

What happened is that a U.S. bankruptcy court judge rejected a previously announced $45.7 million settlement, saying it did not include all the parties and potential parties. The judge urged the many lawyers involved to get into mediation.

The Spokane diocese filed for bankruptcy in 2004. Lay people in the individual parishes of the diocese disliked the $45.7 million deal because they felt it would leave them not only holding the bag but holding it indefinitely.

Get this: Earlier this week, says the AP, the lawyers for parties not in the now-thrown-out deal proposed "an alternative plan that would assess individual parishes nearly two-thirds of the market value of their churches and schools in exchange for avoiding possible foreclosures."

We had all better keep seeking the intercession of the Blessed Mother, St. Vibiana and Padre Serra to preserve our Archdiocese and to restore it to all possible holiness and fruitfulness.

Quotes from Bishop Wuerl

A Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article of March 29, 2002 (click on this post's title), reported on remarks by Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl at that year's Chrism Mass. Here is an excerpt:

"Wuerl defended the church's 'secrecy' in not publicizing accusations against priests, saying the accusers often preferred to keep the issue from authorities and media. He also defended a much-criticized practice from decades ago of reassigning accused priests, saying bishops were only doing what they thought was best at the time. Today, Wuerl said, they know better.

"'In spite of all the repetition of the same names and the same incidences that create the impression in the media that this type of abuse is widespread, it includes a minuscule fraction of the Catholic priesthood,' Wuerl said. 'We are dealing with a limited number of priests, albeit one priest molester is one too many. We also need to keep in mind that charges range from inappropriate touching of a child to homosexual contact with a person in the late teens.'"

I am presenting this news article for whatever it is worth. No doubt it does not represent the totality of Bishop Wuerl's views then or now.

Bishop Wuerl to replace Cardinal McCarrick

Pope Benedict XVI has named Bishop Donald Wuerl, 65, of Pittsburgh, to replace Cardinal Theodore McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, D.C.

R. Scott Appleby and Father Thomas Reese, S.J., are happy. So must be all the pro-abortion Catholic politicians to whom Bishop Wuerl has said he would not "feel comfortable" denying the Holy Eucharist. In 2005, he proposed that no U.S. bishop say anything about "divisive issues" such as Communion for pro-aborts without "consulting" his fellow bishops first.

There is no word on how the 4,000 preborn babies who will be aborted today, the 4,000 tomorrow, the 4,000 the day after that, and on and on, feel about Bishop Wuerl. We do know they will not "feel comfortable" as the Catholic-politician-supported abortionists slay them.

USA Today (click on this post's title) has this to say about Bishop Wuerl (my edits are in brackets):

"During the 2004 elections when some bishops pledged to deny [C]ommunion to politicians who support abortion rights [sic], such as Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Wuerl served on a bishops['] task force that called for a different definition of 'faithful citizenship' for Catholics. Led by McCarrick, the task force called for assessing politicians by a broad range of peace, social justice and environmental issues. McCarrick was thrashed by conservative Catholic commentators, but the Vatican accepted the task force's report.

"[Father] Reese calls Wuerl 'a pastoral conservative. He's theologically quite Orthodox and loyal to the pope, but he thinks it's not a good idea to play cop at the communion rail. He's smart. He's articulate. He's prudent. It's not going to be a radical change from McCarrick.'"

Cardinal Mahony and soon-to-be-Archbishop Wuerl: Opposite-coast bookends?

Latin Masses

Commenter Matthew McKinley kindly points out that the Archdiocese's website does, after all, list the times and places of Tridentine Latin Masses (click on the title of this post). To find it on the site, you have to look under the un-obvious place of "Directories."

It is good to know that the Archdiocesan site does list the Indult Latin Masses somewhere, even if not under an obvious place. Before my previous post I did do some digging, doing a search on the Archdiocesan site for "Latin Mass" but not finding this listing.

Still, listing the Latin Masses under the category "Directories" makes them hard to find. There is every reason for the Archdiocese to ALSO list the Latin Masses under "Liturgy in Your Language." Nothing wrong with "see alsos" and cross-references, after all.

We all need to be careful and correct in our research, and I will redouble my efforts. Thanks again, Matthew!

"A place in the Church"

That was an informative article in last week's issue of The Tidings (click on this post's title) on the Mass at Blessed Sacrament Church in Hollywood on May 7 for the 20th anniversary of the Archdiocese's Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics, which Cardinal Mahony founded.

Yesterday's post here focused on the entrance procession's placing, said The Tidings, "rainbow[-]colored banners" behind the altar. That should not have been allowed -- because the unrepentant, actively homosexual movement uses the rainbow as its main symbol.

There was more. The participants sang the hymn, "Somos El Cuerpo de Cristo" ("We Are the Body of Christ"). A concelebrant spoke of homosexuals' "'pride of belonging' to the [C]hurch," The Tidings said. He added, "we have a place in the [C]hurch because of our baptism."

Another concelebrant spoke of the Ministry members at Blessed Sacrament Parish being "involved in every facet of the community," and he added, "That speaks of the spirit of God with them and with us." Ministry coordinator Fran Ruth said, "...hopefully, one day we won't have a need for this ministry. Hopefully, one day we'll just be all together."

But could it be that talk of "we are the Body," of "belonging," of "a place in the Church," of "every facet of the community" and of "one day we'll just be all together" might lend itself to the interpretation that seminaries and the priesthood should admit homosexuals? Let us hope that the padres who spoke did not mean it that way and did qualify it. Anyone who uses such language should be careful to qualify it to rule out such an interpretation. And The Tidings should be thorough and responsible enough to be sure to quote any such qualifiers.

Abomination in a holy place

The May 12 issue of the Archdiocesan newspaper, The Tidings, carries an article (click on this post's title) subtitled, "Lesbian and gay ministry celebrates 20th anniversary in archdiocese."

The story reports on a Mass at Blessed Sacrament Church in Hollywood on Saturday, May 7, that celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles's Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics. Then-Archbishop Roger Mahony founded the group in February 1986.

The article says two priests and "nearly a dozen other priests" concelebrated the Mass; a letter from Cardinal Mahony was read; "[t]he liturgy began with dancers"; and the choir and congregation sang "a rousing 'Somos El Cuerpo de Cristo' ('We Are the Body of Christ')."

That is not all. The Tidings report continues, "Members of the entrance procession placed rainbow[-]colored banners behind the altar."

That is an abomination. Rainbow banners, sashes, stickers, etc., are universally known to be a symbol of avowed, active, unrepentant homosexuals -- as anything but a symbol of repentance and Confession, penance and purity, reparation and amendment of life.

So rainbow banners in the sanctuary during Mass are fine with the Archdiocese -- but remember last June, when the ushers at Cardinal Mahony's Yellow Armadillo (a.k.a. cathedral) wanted the LAPD to ARREST pro-life t-shirt-wearing young people for trying to attend the Cardinal's "interfaith service" for the inauguration of pro-abortion Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

'Nuff said.

Politics in church is okay, except for pro-life

Andrea Burman of Northridge wins our unofficial "great point of the week" award for her letter to the editor in this week's issue of The Tidings.

She writes, "I thought politics weren't allowed on church property, yet what's this I hear? We can't collect signatures to save the lives of babies and teenaged girls on church property because the Parents Right to Know initiative is political, but we will now be instructed to fill out postcards on immigration reform, in the pews during Mass?...When will our church leaders stop saying that 'abortion is one of many life issues' and take abortion more seriously?"

Amen -- and thank you, Andrea! You have said a mouthful, as the old expression goes.

"Kansas City, here I come!"

Have you read about Bishop Robert Finn, the new ordinary of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri, and the house-cleaning he is doing there? Click on the title of this post to access a long article about him in the new issue of the National Catholic "Distorter."

When you read this article, you will find yourself exulting in more than a few places. Bishop Finn's house-cleaning of entrenched "liberal" personnel and programs sounds like a model for every orthodox and pro-life bishop to follow.

Let us pray for Bishop Finn, and for the naming of bishops like him in every diocese, including Los Angeles!

Language "diversity," up to a point

Language "diversity" only goes so far in our Archdiocese.

The "Liturgy in your language" page on the Archdiocesan website (click on this post's title) lists the languages in which we can hear Mass, and the parishes that provide them.

That is nice. There is a glaring omission, though: Latin.

As anyone who sees Mass on TV from St. Peter's knows, Latin is still "our language" in the Church Universal's liturgy. It should be incumbent upon the Archdiocesan webmaster to add Latin, and the parishes that offer Mass in Latin, to the "Liturgy in your language" listings.

Putin, not Mahony, calls for larger families

Russian President Vladimir Putin today said (click on this post's title) a plummeting birthrate is his country's most pressing problem, and he pledged to pay couples 1,500 rubles ($55.39) a month for their first baby and to double that for their second baby.

That is a lot of money in Russia, because weekly wages there are less than $100.00.

Putin said, "We are talking about love, about women, about children, about the family." He continued, "The problem of low birth rates cannot be resolved without a change in the attitude of our society toward the issue of family and family values."

When was the last time Cardinal Mahony called for Angelenos to have more babies and larger families? (I hope somebody can tell me it was recently!)

Immigration and the Culture of Death

Nature abhors a vacuum. That is the lesson totally missed by the anti-lifers, the population controllers and all those who swallow their death-dealing lies.

Hindsight is 20/20. We can see now -- at least, everyone not still blinded by the anti-human, inhuman ideology of the Culture of Death can see now -- that when people cease having babies, they create a huge and irreparable vacuum in society.

People should have anticipated a negative effect, or two, or three, to say the least, from aborting 45 million of our babies, contracepting to death tens of millions more of our babies (yes, the Pill and other forms of contraception can and do act as abortion agents, killing already conceived babies), and sterilizing ourselves by the tens of millions.

One negative effect clearly is that we do not have enough people anymore. Our fellow Catholics who are over 50 tell us that at Sunday Mass in their childhood, our churches were always filled -- that virtually every family had four children or more, and that more than a few families took up an entire pew, what with Mom and Dad and seven or eight kids sitting there.

Empty seats are a feature in every sector in the USA today, not just in our churches: the labor force, consumers, you name it. Even our playgrounds are empty, God forgive us.

So it is no wonder that people from all over the world want to enter our country and are doing so. We have created a lot of room for them. They are filling up our vacuum. Who can blame them! -- although naturally it would be nice if they would all come here legally.

Yes, of course there has always been immigration in our history, but only in the last several decades has it been in the context of our child-killing by the tens of millions and by a consequent severe drop in our "native" population growth to below replacement level.

The Culture of Death is a definite factor in the USA's immigration situation. The anti-lifers and all those influenced by them have helped create today's immigration reality. We will not hear anyone say that on the evening news, but it is true all the same.

"A pro-life issue, just as abortion is"

With each issue of The Tidings, it is hard to know where to start in pointing out the problems. The editorial in this week's issue (click on the title of this post to see it) has problems, and commenter/tipster Mark suggests blogging about it.

The editorial says, "So yes, immigration reform is a pro-life issue, just as abortion is. Both are social justice issues; both are civil rights issues..."

Now, it is nice to hear The Tidings admit that aborting babies bears upon social justice and civil rights. And The Tidings also rightly acknowledges that "abortion, as George Weigel has said, repeatedly and accurately, is the single greatest civil rights issues of our time."

The trouble lies in The Tidings's formulation, "just as abortion is." Lo siento (I am sorry), but abortion mega-death stands alone in seriousness among all other issues -- and in the solemn duty it imposes upon each and all of us to start doing something to stop it.

Nothing else compares to abortion and its toll in babies' lives. After all, Pope Benedict XVI, along with Pope John Paul II before him, has told us that no issue compares in moral gravity with the abortions of millions of babies all around us. The Popes have also told us that the first duty of government is to stop abortions -- not to save the whales, hug trees, etc.

So please, let the Tidings stop trying to link other issues to abortion, and vice versa. We, the Church, need to give far greater attention to fighting abortion than to any other issue.

And if, in The Tidings's own words, abortion is "the single greatest civil rights issue of our time," then how soon can we expect Cardinal Mahony to give more, or even as much, effort to it as he has to "immigration reform?"

Where is the Cardinal's Ash Wednesday announcement to the clergy to break the law in order to save preborn babies? Where is the Cardinal's forming of large labor and pressure group coalitions to bring hundreds of thousands of people into the streets to demand justice, rights, support and protection for babies in the womb? Where is the Cardinal's flying to the corridors of power in Washington, D.C., to lobby politicians to start saving preborn babies?

The truth is, no one except pro-life activists treats abortion as the #1 issue or even as an issue as important as any number of "liberal" causes. Pro-lifers have a wry joke that to "liberal" Catholics, every issue you can think of is a pro-life one -- except abortion.

So it is great to see The Tidings editorialize that abortion is "the single greatest civil rights issue"; but now let us see The Tidings, and Cardinal Mahony, back up those WORDS with comparable meaningful DEEDS.

"Episcopalians elect straight bishop"

It makes the headlines these days when Episcopalians elect a straight "bishop." San Francisco Bay Area members of the Episcopal Diocese of California did that on Saturday, and their three avowedly homosexual candidates got the fewest votes among the seven hopefuls.

As you might expect, though, the "bishop"-elect, Mark Andrus, 49, is straight only personally, not theologically or politically. After being elected, he claimed that the vote was one for "inclusion and communion of gay and lesbian people in their full lives" and for "expression of our common desire to be part of...the world, in what may be a new way."

Naturally, Andrus did not explain how or why a "new way" could suddenly show up now to take the place of Judaic and Christian sexual morality after about four millennia.

In any case, would it not be good if "liberal" Catholics, lay and otherwise, in our Archdiocese would support the naming of only straight bishops in the USA from now on?

By the way, be sure to check out the comments on all my posts -- and especially on the recent one, "Another REC transcript." In particular, good friend Jared there offers excellent insights, analysis and research in support of not recruiting homosexuals for the seminaries and priesthood; and the other commenters have thoughtful remarks, too.

Still in denial despite Wempe and other cases

"If the archdiocese had done the right thing...I would have been spared years of despondency," said the brother of a victim of Michael Wempe at Wempe's sentencing on Friday to three years in prison for one count of child abuse.

What with time already served, Wempe's stretch will be a little over a year. He will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

As we know, and as the many news accounts of the sentencing pointed out, Cardinal Mahony returned Wempe to priestly assignments even after knowing of his predilection for boys.

Archdiocesan spokesman Tod Tamberg said the "archdiocese has expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness for mistakes it made in dealing with Father Wempe."

What next, after "remorse" and "ask[ing] for forgiveness?" The lawsuits. Hundreds of millions in payouts. The Michael Baker case, with no wiggle room. More charges and trials? More scandal, more souls harmed, and more victims' lives wrecked. Church closures?

And still the "liberals" claim to see no link betwen homosexuality and molestation, and to want to continue recruiting and ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood. And Cardinal Mahony still brings in keynote speakers who urge seeing "Brokeback Mountain" and who ridicule the Vatican instruction as "yada-yada-yada." This ideology is expensive, in many ways.

Sentencing for Michael Wempe

Radio reports say that admitted molester Michael Wempe, 66, received a sentence of three years today (Friday the 5th), and he will have to register as a sex offender. We will have more on this as the story continues.

"Today we march, tomorrow we vote"

You probably saw the signs that read, "Today we march, tomorrow we vote," or "Hoy marchamos, manana votamos," in the marches in support of illegals last Monday.

News reports say that labor unions, left-wing pressure groups and Demoncrat activists organized and conducted the marches. These groups support aborting babies.

These realities mean that there is an urgent question that Cardinal Mahony, Bishop Zavala, the other bishops and the clergy need to answer right away: Are you going to let pro-aborts turn Monday's 2 million (or so) marchers into future long-term voters for pro-abortion politicians?

Unfortunately, as we know, the answer probably is, "Yes." For one thing, many of the hierarchy and clergy themselves are long-term voters for Demoncrat pro-abortion politicians. For another, our spiritual leaders are conspicuously silent in the pulpit about abortion, and especially about Papal and Vatican statements, and even U.S. bishops' official statements, that the right to life needs to be the primary consideration for Catholic politicians and voters.

So, as usual, it is up to us pro-life Catholics to go to work. On any number of fronts, we need to explain to everyone, including our illegal neighbors, that Demoncrats and some Republicans are pro-abortion and that it is wrong to support them and vote for them. We also need to urge our hierarchy and clergy to make these points; but good luck on that. Let us pray!

Another REC transcript

"Anonymous," our good friend and hard-working, faithful transcriber of talks at Cardinal Mahony's 2006 Religious Education Congress, has sent us the following transcript.

It is of Dr. Greer Gordon's talk, "Homosexuality, Celibacy and the Priesthood: Continuing the Conversation," given Saturday, April 1. Our friend "Anonymous" remarks, "Note how she attempts to portray homosexuality and pedophilia as two separate issues, when in fact the John Jay report stated that more than 80 percent of clerical sexual abuse cases are homosexual in nature. Of course, she never mentions that."
========================================================================>==>>>I I think I would self-describe primarily as a catechist, and I know so>many of us are catechetical personnel here today. I'm also a Catholic>school teacher, having cut my teeth teaching in New Orleans, Louisiana,>many, many years ago; high school, and that's because the sisters whom I>entered, I believe in graduate school, thought I was arrogant and I>needed to learn how to be a teacher, and I'm grateful for their recipe>for my arrogance . . . And the result is that they did in fact make me,>hopefully, a very good teacher.>>>>

The other part of what I would offer as insight at this time is just to>remind all of us that we're Church. So, as we come into these>conversations, as we engage in all manner of speculative thought, and we>begin to put forth ideologies, the fact of the matter is we're Church.>And it appears right now that some of us have forgotten what Church>means.>>>>It means that when we step outside of these walls and anywhere else, we>are probably the closest thing to Jesus Christ anyone else in the modern>world will meet today. And that if we think of ourselves as being part>of a body that is in fact Christ Himself, then perhaps we'll begin to>clean up our thought process and really begin to focus on the matters at>hand.>>>>

There are people dying in Iraq. There are people dying in Afghanistan.>There are people in New Orleans, Louisiana trying to clean out their>homes, thinking that a little bit of bleach is going to get them safely>back in, not realizing that the toxic waste site that is now New Orleans>is nearly irretrievable. And yet we as Church sit, taking apart one>another and taking apart Christ's children, and in the midst of that the>real job and the real task that we ought to be about is going undone>(applause).>>>>

[Referring to those who might disagree with and write about her later]>Those of you who have placards, who have all manner of thought to put>forth next week, tonight or tomorrow morning on the Internet, I spell my>name G-R-double E-R and [my last name is spelled] G-O-R-D-O-N. And I do>that not in arrogance but simply to say to them the process of>fracturing this body and attempting to put it forth that any one>individual has the right to serve in any fashion as a watchdog for Holy>Mother Church, I grant you I don't recall we named any of them Pontiff>(applause).>>>>

And so I say to myself, as well as to the rest of us and to my brothers>who know so very deeply that people are after them, I say to them what I>hear so very often and what is recited to me so frequently by my mentor,>a now-aging abbess in a monastery. She reminds me so very, very often,>"Be not afraid.">>>>

The words of Jesus, the words of the scriptures are consistent in saying>to us, "Be not afraid." And as we come together to talk about this>really problematic situation in the Church, we have to do that in a>spirit of listening to one another, a spirit of prayer, and a spirit of>being about the work of God.>>>>

We have an awful lot of evangelization to do, and I don't know about you>all, but now that it appears that the Lord has allowed me to return from>being in public institutions back into working in Church>institutions-for which I'm just profoundly grateful, I must say-I have>to say to us, "It's time. We have an awful lot of work to do." And we're>going to need every able-bodied individual who can possibly begin to>preach, teach, witness to and be present for Christ in the midst of this>very, very problematic, schizophrenic world. Amen (applause).>>>>

And thus I want to start with three approaches, please. The first is a>reflection on what is so appropriately referred to as "The Instruction,">but really is titled, "Concerning criteria for the discernment of>vocations with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies" and>yada-yada-yada-yada. So I'll just begin by offering some reflections on>the document. The second is to offer some reflections on the document in>relationship to the tradition of the Church, and the third is just some>general reflections I think that are needed at this time to be put>forward.>>>>

The good news is the document wasn't as bad as I expected. Given the>press that was out there and the statements that were made about it, I>expected it to truly be horrific. There are some really very solid and>very sound statements in it, and I would be remiss not to admit that and>not to say that. It is simply that: an instruction. It is an instruction>attempting-and it is, I must say, given how some of the more recent>documents have been written on the subject of homosexuality-it is a very>well-written document. I think the document reflects very well, in my>opinion, the perspectives of the Church. And that's going to frighten>some people, but the fact of the matter is we all get on a big frenzy of>beating up on one another. We have to look seriously at the words being>said, and what shall we do, and what shall we do with this document.>>>>

The bad news of the document is simply the basis upon which it was put>forth. It attempts to find a way to address a problem that we as a>Church have had for a very, very long time, and that is that somehow or>other, across a significant moment in the life of this Church, we have>had individuals slip into our midst who are in fact predators, who prey>upon our children and prey upon the children of others. And that's a>fact. And we've attempted to address, with a document about>homosexuality, a problem called pedophilia.>>>>

Rather than writing an instruction on how to discern, determine, find>and prevent from entering seminaries men who have any tendency toward>abusing children and others, we have written something about>homosexuality. And one more time, each time we have to deal with>pedophilism [sic], we pull out homosexuality, run it up to the gang>pike, and begin to beat it up.>>>>

I actually sat in Boston. Every single morning following some news>article or story that came out about some pedophile individual, we ran a>story the next morning talking about homosexuality and the Church. Our>bishop-now cardinal-spoke about it. We have individuals running around>saying things about homosexuals rather than really saying we need to>talk about pedophiles.>>>>

I went to college with one who's doing 36 years to life in a>penitentiary in Louisiana for rape of children. I had no idea as a>student that the individual had any tendency toward abusing children,>nor did I have any knowledge of how we could deal with those kinds of>issues or how to recognize them. We need to begin to give individuals>some kind of cue, some kind of clue to deal with these people.>>>>

We've not made any effort forward on the question of homosexuality>because of the fact that we really are trying to talk about preventing>pedophilia, pedophiles from entering the Church. We need to come clean>now as a church. We need to write an instruction. We need to tell>catechists how to recognize the fact that there may be others around us>who are abusing our children or have some tendency toward abusing our>children. We need to prepare some type of pamphlet, some kind of insight>that will assist them in feeling that they can speak up and can in fact>have a voice in this Church to say that it's unacceptable to put our>children at risk. It does not benefit us as a church to continue in any>way to guard or bring in people who may in fact be pedophiles.>>>>

I don't know about you, but after having been with that particular>individual, I recognized the fact that I knew there was something>different about him, something odd, something I couldn't put a finger>on. There I was, studying systematic theology at the hands of some of>the most incredible scholars in the world, and no one could tell us that>in our midst was someone who was predatory to young children.>>>>

Thus, it is a problem, and until we get to a point where we can>recognize and see these people, we will continue to have this problem>just absolutely rock us and rock our world. It's not a Roman Catholic>problem. It's not a Christian problem. It's just we're talking about it,>and frankly we're paying for it in a sense with money, and people get>upset about that.>>>>

I don't know about you; I'm not too concerned about the fact that if we>once again have to use beat-up cups on the altar, if it gets us to the>point where we have healthy children and gets us to the point where we>truly become Christ, then maybe the loss of our revenues will finally>get us around to dealing with the fact that we must be the ones to lead>the tide in ridding the world of pedophiles. Amen (applause).>>>>

We do need-and I do say this in all sincerity and a spirit of the most>profound confidentiality-we do need to encourage our bishops, just as>they have placed exorcists in our dioceses-I do sincerely believe that>our bishops should appoint one priest to be the one who is the>individual who asks all the pedophiles, "Who did you rape?" We need a>list of names. We need a list of families and parishes. And then we need>to begin a systematic process of contacting those individuals out of a>spirit of Christ's love to see to their healing.>>>>

Two things will occur from that. One is that we will own the fact that>we have a moral obligation and responsibility to attend to anyone who>has been raped by any person connected with the Roman Catholic Church in>the world, and not just in America. This is not an American issue. It is>a Church issue. And as we deal with this issue, when we ask, "Who is it>that you raped?" we are also looking for other pedophiles, because>people who are abused go in one of two directions. If they are>untreated, they either become abusers or they become lifelong victims.>>>>

The lifelong victim will continue to be victimized by anyone and>everyone and come all takers. And the abusers will be the ones>victimizing those who have already been victims, even though they might>have been their peesr. And thus we do need to engage in a sincere>process of ridding ourselves of this situation.>>>>

Now, it is true that we have an instruction that states up front what>everyone in the Vatican is thinking about regarding homosexuality and>homosexual candidates for the priesthood. It's really very>interesting-and I found myself just profoundly overwhelmed in hearing .>. . some of the interpretations that are coming from individuals in>Rome. What's frightening about it is the fact that we would have us,>once again, beat up on people who are simply, out of a profound sense of>the love of Christ, working to serve the Church, the Gospel, and the>people of God.>>>>

Perhaps the Instruction needs to be much more explicit. I don't know>about you, but I don't really know what a "gay lifestyle" is. . .>Rather than using euphemistic speech, we have to begin the process of>being the good, competent . . . scholars that we really are, and that is>be precise, be specific, state it, put it on the line, leave the rest,>and let us move forward.>>>>

When we look at the questions of this document, we also have to ask,>"Why is it that we have no similar document about heterosexual priests?">(applause). It's very interesting to me that the assumption is that we>need to somehow curb the sexual urges or desires of our homosexual>presbyters. But frankly, as a woman, as just a woman . . . as a good>middle-aged woman, I can reflect back in my youth, when frankly, having>to deal with passes, unwanted interest, whatever from some of our>ordained members of the clergy. I'm sure there are countless numbers of>other women who can speak to that issue.>>>>

The fact of the matter is we have a climate in our priesthood that says>sexual activity is okay. You can be sexually active as long as you go to>Confession and you don't let anybody know you're doing it in public.>Perhaps what this document is really uncovering for us is the fact that>we do have that issue and we do have that problem in the Church. We do>have sexually active gay priests. We do have sexually active>heterosexual priests. And the problem is we need a redefinition,>recommitment, re-understanding of the word celibacy.By making statements>such as we have in this document, that says all homosexuals are called>to celibacy, it does in fact cheapen and give us once again confusion>around the meaning of celibacy.>>>>

Celibacy, as I understand it-and I think as most of the Church history>teaches-has meant that one has decided, in a very intimate and singular>way, to make his or her life devotedly and devoutly with God in Christ.>It is not about the fact that I choose not to have sex; that's called>abstinence. And we may choose to abstain from sex. There are people who>are in fact married who have for whatever number of reasons had to>abstain from sex. Some because they've simply forgotten how to engage in>it (laughter) . . . and I say that because of the fact that as we know>within our positions [as catechists] we've had so many, many people who>have been put in the situation of having to be repressed about their>sexuality.>>>>

My fear of this document, unless it has a comparable heterosexual>document, is that it will in fact simply, once again, force us into>repressing other people about their sexuality. I'm sorry, but the>asexual nun just doesn't do it in the world anymore. We don't need to>put thousands of pounds of coif on our women, or we don't need to>suddenly make our men walk around as if they're all macho butches. But>what we really need to do is to have very real human beings who have>that life-giving force known as our sexuality that allows them to engage>in affective, meaningful relationships with men and with women--and>respectful relationships. That kind of scenario presented to us in>doctrine does not intentionally call for repression, but it certainly>can be read and be interpreted in that fashion.>>>>

When we deal with our sexuality, I think we must be very cautious, and I>don't know about you, but I really don't care to know anyone else's>orientation. I have far too many other issues, far too many other>concerns in my life to worry about with whom, where and how someone else>fantasizes to do something privately with another. I leave matters of>one's orientation between the individual and his or her God, and if the>individual is so inclined, perhaps between the two of them or himself>and his confessor. But we've forgotten about the fact . . . because>we're too busy forcing people out of the Church.>>>>

We have to begin the process of looking at the questions, asking others,>forcing others, or even creating a climate in which others feel that>they must step into the public to proclaim their sexuality, says right>then and there we are morally and sexually in trouble.>>>>As Church, we need to begin a process of growing up . . . We need to>deal with our sexual ethics in a way that really allows our moral>theologians to really give us some solid, sound reflections on what it>means to live not in the year 1549 about sex, but to live in the year>2006.>>>>

It's a whole new ball game. It's a whole new world. We've lost an awful>lot of credibility. We need to regain our credibility, and we need to>assist our bishops in being the most credible individuals they can>possibly be as they lead this Church and lead us hopefully deeper into>Christ and God.>>>>

When we look at the questions presented to us in this document, I see,>to put it succinctly, four problems that need to be addressed here. One>is that we need to address the question of pedophiles in our midst.>Second, we need to address the question of sexually active gay priests.>We need to address that. we need to assist them in finding once again>their lives as members of this Church and as individuals who have>professed celibacy. If you do not wish to be celibate, it is fine; we>need once again to make laicization available. It is okay if you want to>live in a selective relationship, but it does mean that that individual>makes that choice as an adult and not as one who chooses to hide.>>>>

Third, we have to address the question of our sexually active>heterosexual priests, and in the same fashion that I would say to our>gay brothers, we must also say to our heterosexual siblings, you too are>called to be celibate, and if so, be celibate. If not, once again, we>would ask Rome to make available laicization.>>>>

And then the crunch word, that it's time for us to simply calm down and>be honest about who we are and what we have been about. It also means,>parenthetically, we have to make certain that we as a Church never>return again to a practice of taking 13-year-old males and placing them>in same-sex environments and telling them that this is the natural path>to the service of God, the Church, and the Gospel (applause).>>>>

I say to you, both our gay priests and our heterosexual priests, I know>it is hard to hear me say so pointedly and so directly what I've said>about being inactive sexually. But I do say to us as a Church part of>the reason we have this problem is because we did not allow these men>the grace of growing up to be men who understood what it meant to be>sexual human beings. We rarely did that to women, and we do have some>nuns and some sisters who are still paying the psychological price for>having been pre-pubescent individuals who were suddenly being trained to>live a lifestyle that was never meant for anyone who did not have the>maturity to fall deeply in love with the Lord God and develop a>relationship.>>>>

And those are the facts, and that is who we are as a church. And we need>to be very honest as a church . . . To those of us who would like to>continue to force everyone else not to know or understand their>sexuality, I really invite the repressed among us and those who are very>taken with the sexual orientations of others, to kindly seek and find>what we have at Catholic Charities as some of the best and the brightest>psychologists and therapists on the face of the earth (applause).>>>>

So, once again, we must deal with the facts of being Church. The issue>of homosexuality and the priesthood frankly is a non-issue. This is>about individuals called by God to serve the Lord, the Gospel and the>Church. And it seems as if it's a big issue because of the problems and>the issues that affect us around pedophiles, et cetera, but we really>have to begin the process now of healing, of moving forward, and being>about the work of spreading the Gospel.>>>>

I want to add one further proviso on this. One of the things we do want>to remind ourselves: We don't take any litmus test at baptism. We really>don't try to figure out who's going to grow up to be gay or who's going>to grow up to be straight, or who might have some confusion later in>life about orientation. And that's what that means, is that as long as>we're going to practice infant baptism, we had best be about the>business of accepting the fact that we are going to have gay, lesbian,>bisexual individuals-although I have a problem with bisexuality-we have>to deal with those questions, and we are going to have to be conscious>of the fact that we baptize as infants all the members of the Church.>All stand equally in Christ's love. We cannot continue to beat one>another, but rather we need to invite one another to be Christ in the>midst of this world. Amen.

"Keep churches out of politics?"

Wait a minute! The "news" media and certain politicians have told us for years that pro-life hierarchy and clergy must stay out of politics. Pro-abortion Demoncrat head Howard Dean even warned churches recently to choose between politics and losing their tax exemption.

But the "keep churches out of politics" media and politicians are not exactly jumping all over Cardinal Mahony and the other cardinals and clergy for being knee-deep in politically promoting the cause of illegals.

We know that the very same "news" media and politicians have been savage in denouncing and threatening the few members of the hierarchy and clergy who have been so brave as to loudly speak Catholic truth against the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agendas.

So the lesson is that in the eyes of the "news" media and certain politicians, "the religious right" is always "bad" and the "religious left" (a term never used, naturally) can do no wrong.

By the way: As you know, the word "gringo," which some but by no means all of the recent marchers have used, is a term of insult. Thanks to commenter "Anonymous 8:23 a.m." today for eliminating any doubt in anyone's mind by providing the following dictionary definition: "gringo n. Offensive Slang. , pl. -gos . Used as a disparaging term for a foreigner in Latin America, especially an American or English person."

Making "nothing gringo" really count

The Cardinal, our bishops and our pastors and priests can really capitalize on Monday's big boycott of U.S. products.

All they have to do is tell people to make the boycott permanent -- of illegitimate commerce. After all, everyone should already have been boycotting, for instance, pornography stores and other stores that sell pornography; video stores and their pornography; devil-made products such as condoms and contraceptives; and abortion centers, especially Planned Parenthood.

Now, in case you are wondering: No, I do not think there is any chance of the Cardinal and his bishops and pastors making a big public call to do this. But they ought to!

Also, the Cardinal and his bishops and priests could tell everyone to find out which politicians in each party are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and anti-family, and to shun them forever.

"Nothing gringo" should come to mean that people permanently refuse to adopt anything and everything in the USA that is part of sin, decadence and the Culture of Death.

For instance, specifically for people who come here from Mexico, "nothing gringo" should come to amount to the same thing as "Mexico siempre fiel" -- "Mexico ever faithful." Amen!

El gran boicot

Happy Feast of San Jose Obrero, St. Joseph the Worker, May 1. On the worldwide Communist labor day, we say, Abajo comunismo! -- Down with Communism!

At Mass yesterday in his cathedral, Cardinal Mahony said taking part in the boycott was up to each person, but he recommended that people work and go to school on Lunes, 1 de Mayo, and only after that go to the L.A. march that was to start at 4 p.m. at "parque MacArthur."

We will see what is the fallout from the big boycott. In the meantime, we can only surmise about how many millions of U.S. babies could have been saved from abortion if the U.S. bishops had said, "No more business as usual" after Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and if the bishops had led gigantic boycotts, marches and sitdown strikes until the right to life was restored.

If only a fraction of today's march had been for saving babies from the abortionists!