Archive for January, 2007




…then scroll down….



…then scroll down….



…then scroll down….




Sorry, couldn’t resist…we all need a good laugh sometimes!

Live simply; Love generously; Care deeply; Speak kindly; and Leave the rest to God!

Read Full Post »

Sent to me from a friend who is probably less charitable than I am, these posted pictures will only make sense if you are a Doctor Doctor Who / Science Fiction fan: 



One was a priest and the other a scientist.

Both condoned immoral medical technology.

Both compromised on the sanctity of life.

Both sought victory for their own and eventually transformed the people they lead.

Daleks were changed from human beings into pathetic radioactive biological organisms within the robotic armor of killing machines.

Democrats were changed from the party that always protected the poor and weakest among us to  a political machine that waged all-out-war against the child in the womb.

Davros argued that everything he did was for the good of the Dalek people.

Drinan argued that being “personally opposed” but energetic in the support of abortion rights was a positive agenda for Democrats and for the good of Americans and others. 

Drinan contributed to the culture of death through a permissive stance on abortion.

Davros  engineered the mutation of his people and the creation of the inhuman Daleks for an endless war.

In both cases, we can hear the cry:


Read Full Post »

drinandalek.jpgI am a few weeks late (January 9, 2007) but I suppose I should acknowledge his passing. The Holy Father ordered him to leave Congress and he did so in 1980. In regards to this discipline, he was obedient. He was a priest, and each and every Mass he offered had immeasurable value. I am not sure what else I can say about him. God will be the one to judge him.

His pro-abortion views never changed. He even supported Clinton’s veto of a partial abortion (infanticide) ban in 1996. Recently, he celebrated Mass for Nancy Pelosi and gave her communion at Trinity College in DC. She is probably the strongest advocate for abortion in Congress, as well as same-sex unions.

Archbishop Wuerl got drawn into the controversy when questioned about the matter and he acknowledged that Drinan had faculties to say Mass and that he would essentially follow Cardinal McCarrick’s lead regarding the reception of Holy Communion. It is not the place of a priest to second-guess his bishop and I am not privy to all that might have been said in a private forum. How can I be critical of men who have done more for the Gospel of Life than I will could ever imagine doing? I do not shy away from my convictions, but I am contrite about rashness and a lack of prudence in the past.

There is so much guilt…so much blood upon our hands…so much passivity in the face of grevious evil…it has cost me, and makes me grieve in spirit. I love the Church and yet sometimes I am ashamed. Words cannot convey the emotions that are stirred. Father Drinan lived a long life and had the esteem of colleagues and his religious order. Pelosi counts herself a good Catholic and a mother. She is now the majority leader of congress and her name is on everyone’s lips. How many millions of children only knew a short life in the womb and then were murdered without being given any name at all?

When it comes to dead babies, there are no other issues…not immigration reform…not minimum wage increases…not military intervention in the Middle East…not vouchers for parochial and private schools…not tax exemption for churches…not balancing the budget and tax changes…not social security and health care…not racial justice and equal opportunity…not even the question of same sex unions. The new holy innocents do not even have proper graves with markers. A selfish and pragmatic reductionism of subjects to objects or persons to things has lead to the cruel holocaust of children made in the image of God with immortal souls.

It is thought by some authorities that upon death we encounter not only Christ as our judge but also all those we have wronged in this world. Father Drinan could have challenged the other Catholics in Congress and the Senate. Instead, he helped to sedate their consciences and became an enabler and supporter of abortion alongside them. In my minds eye, I am haunted by a vision of him on the other side of the grave. He is journeying toward the gates of heaven and Christ but impeding his way he encounters a crowd of over fifty million children. Each one of them is reaching out to him, begging to be loved, and calling out to him as “Father” to give them a name.


Heaven forbid that I should make a false depiction or representation.  Given criticism I have received, I am adding the following remarks.

The Boston Pilot, November 26, 2004

“It was a very bad idea for the four bishops to say they would refuse to offer Kerry Holy Communion. Abortion is a small issue.”

“I received permission to run for Congress from Cardinal Cushing. The old canon law said you had to get the approval of the local bishop. Then the Polish pope came in and changed the canon law. He didn’t want any priests involved in governments, so I resigned.”

The New York Times, June 4, 1996

“The indignant voices of the pro-life movement and the Republican Party will likely reach new decibels in the campaign to urge Congress to override President Clinton’s veto of the bill banning so-called partial-birth abortions. But Congress should sustain the veto. The bill does not provide an exception for women whose health is at risk, and it would be virtually unenforceable.”

“I write this as a Jesuit priest who agrees with Vatican II, which said abortion is virtually infanticide, and as a lawyer who wants the Clinton administration to do more to carry out its pledge to make abortions rare in this country.” (Notice his qualified language and participation in the Clinton deception.)

Meet the Press, March 27, 2005

“Go back to Vatican II. Three thousand bishops agonized over this, and at the end of the day, they said that the church should never seek to impose its views. They should not have any shadow of coercion, renouncing 20 centuries of the church dominating the scene. So I think that it’s a different world, and we respect everybody else and there’s lots of things that are immoral that should not be illegal.”

“And I think that it–we all agree with that. The problem is when some religions say that you have to impose in the law our particular beliefs. Certain fundamentalists think that gays should be discriminated against, and that’s not in the common tradition. There’s a common core of moral and religious beliefs, and frankly, we are in total violation of that. We are supposed to be good to the poor; we have more poor children in America than in any other industrialized nation. We’re supposed to love prisoners and help them; we have 2.1 million people in prison, the largest of any country of the Earth. We also allow eleven children to be killed by guns every day. All of the religions are opposed to that. That’s violence. Why don’t we organize on that?”

It is said that Father Drinan was the chief architect of the double-speak that was adopted by Catholics and others in political life on the topic of abortion. They would say, “I am personally opposed,” but would work for liberalization of abortion laws arguing that they did not want to impose their religious views on others.



Read Full Post »



  • Yvonne De Carlo (Actress) 1922-2007


  • Iwao Takamoto (Animator) 1925-2007


  • Ron Carey (Actor) 1935-2007


  • Art Buchwald (Columnist) 1925-2007


  • Tige Andrews (Actor) 1920-2007


  • Sidney Sheldon (Writer/Producer) — 1917-2007

Read Full Post »


guyoutnumbered.jpg1.) FINE: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right, and you need to shut up.

2.) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

3.) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine (see #1).

4.) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!

5.) Loud Sigh: This is not actually a word but a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)

6.) That’s Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. “That’s okay” means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

7.) Thanks: A woman is thanking you – do not question or faint. Just say you’re welcome.

8.) Whatever: Is a women’s way of saying “%@< /SPAN>&* YOU!”

9.) Don’t worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking “what’s wrong” – for the woman’s response refer to #3.

Send this to the men you know to warn them about arguments they can avoid if they remember the terminology.

Read Full Post »

What is the first thing a blonde does after a bad car accident?

Turn off the ignition?


Get away from the car in case it explodes?


Call 911 on her cell phone?


Then what does she do?


She brushes her hair and takes in the view.

Read Full Post »


This is hardly the stuff of political debate between ladies and gentlemen.  The campaigns are only just beginning, and I suspect that while we will see much to tickle the funny-bone, there will also be a lot of “crude and rude” material as well. 

I might disagree with various people, but what has become of civility?


I have no idea who came up with these images although it was probably a good idea not to put names on them.  Is Hillary bossy?  The joke used to be that when Bill Clinton was president, she was the power behind the throne.  True or not, she has certainly proven herself a capable Senator. 


Actually, while I disagree with her on a crucial subject like the right-to-life of the unborn, she is in appearance a rather classy lady who is quite articulate in expressing herself.  Weak minds insult her looks and dress insteading of addressing the issues.  This kind of mockery can be somewhat amusing between men, but there was once expected a higher level of manners and respect with women. 

I suspect that we had best get ready for a campaign to end all campaigns. 


Is that Chaney?  And I really would have posted something funny against Republican candidates, if I had any such material at hand– other than their speeches that is. 

Feel free to email me your funnies, if you have some to make this posting more balanced. 


Read Full Post »

pope_benedict45.jpgI recently read a wonderful article by Thomas J. Craughwell and have to admit that this reflection flows from many of his thoughts as an author and commentator on Catholic issues. While putting my spin upon things, I have borrowed shamelessly from him and wanted to give credit where it was due.

Many of us have been wondering what might be the hold up with the Holy Father’s document on the Eucharist and the universal indult for the Tridentine Mass?  It was purportedly going to be released last year on HOLY THURSDAY, then we heard October, November, December and January.  Of course, there were rumors of dissent in the Curia and no hiding the French bishops exploding on the topic of the old Mass, even if permitted side-by-side with the reformed rite.  This article linked below, while dealing upon the Polish scandal of a compromised clergyman working for the Communists, nevertheless, focused upon concerns that probably apply here.  Pope Benedict XVI is a brilliant man but also an extremely gentle person who finds challenge both from a secular-islamic-communist world and from progressive voices in the Church. 

Benedict seen as isolated at Vatican
John Phillips
January 21, 2007

“Benedict does not have a decisive temperament and must take into account his age,” said the Italian Panorama newsmagazine. “The initiatives he has taken are meeting with much resistance.”

Marco Politi, the respected Vatican reporter for La Repubblica newspaper, said many officials in the Curia, the church’s central government, resent the conservative pontiff and see him as “a man of the past.”

But Benedict, who is more used to playing a low-key role as John Paul’s personal theologian, evidently has had difficulty becoming a team leader.

“For months, Benedict appeared isolated, closed up in his study polishing his speeches, writing his book on Jesus of Nazareth to be published in April or playing the piano,” said Ignazio Ingrao, who writes for Panorama.

“His only outings were dinners at the home of his former secretary, Monsignor Josef Clemens. He has paid dearly for not being a team player.”

Maybe it is time for the Pope to change a few more of the chief players on his team?  The Pope wants the French bishops to see the light. Their churches are empty. The translation they use for the Mass was declared heretical by the late Father de Lubac. Nevertheless, they oppose the flourishing traditionalists, no matter if the whole Church has to go down the proverbial drain. What is with them? The Pope started calling them on the phone recently, trying to get them to back away from their statement of opposition to his plans. If they really think that the reformed liturgy in France cannot hold its own against the Tridentine liturgy, then they can only blame themselves.

The bomb went off on October 30, 2006 when 10 bishops in France attempted to impede the Holy Father’s plans by making a stinging rebuke. They stated their anxiety that “the extension of the use of the Roman Missal of 1962 makes the direction of the Second Vatican Council relative… [and] would also risk harming unity among priests as well as among the faithful.”

Bishop Andre Lacrampe of Besancon, added, “One cannot erase Vatican II with a stroke of the pen.”

What is the truth? Does the Pope really want to revoke the Second Vatican Council? No, he seeks to enforce the REAL council over the nebulous and largely suspect “spirit” of Vatican II. Look at what the council stated:

“In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way”  (Sacrosanctum Consilium).

Nevertheless, the New Order of Mass became mandatory and there was little in the way of a gradual and organic movement from the old liturgy to the new. The traditional Mass found itself virtually banned around the world.

The reformed liturgy was often badly translated and all sorts of abuses took place. The role of the priest seemed to diminish and sanctuaries were destroyed where high altars for sacrifice were replaced with picnic tables for fellowship. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, lamented that we were struggling to hold on to a high-church theology while we had a low-church liturgy. Given the lack of rubrics, wholesale substitution of pop and folk songs for chant, and meager catechesis, he admitted that sometimes it seemed that the Roman rite had all but disappeared.

It could not be said that the New Order of Mass was responsible for all the Church’s problems and the confusion caused by dissenters. After-all, every one of the early liturgists and liberal revisionist voices were trained under the old system and regularly offered the Tridentine Mass. The old liturgy itself could neither prevent the emergence of the earlier Modernists nor the post-Vatican II progressives. Similarly, its restoration would not mean an end to the Church’s problems. However, for certain traditionalists, it might represent the end to their long sense of exile.

Prior to the council, a number of the issues that plagued us through the 1960’s and 70’s were already having an effect. The Vatican II changes, instead of acting as a remedy, inadvertently functioned as a catalyst amplifying the damaging reverberations. A sure footing had been shaken in an age of tumultuous change in society and technology. While the heart of the Mass remained, it was often misrepresented and people acted as if there had been a rupture in Church history. Church libraries and sacristies were emptied and treasures thrown into dumpsters by fools who no longer saw value or a connection with the pre-Vatican II Church.

We wanted reform; in many instances what we got was revolution. Discipline was relaxed and the penitential practices on Friday were all but abrogated. People started eating meat on Friday, but failed to substitute some other penance or mortification of the flesh. Basic doctrines were called into question or distorted and weakened, particularly regarding the unique identity and necessary value of the Catholic Church and the propitiatory role of the Mass. Masses for the dead became grand celebrations while prayer for the dead was neglected and purgatory all but forgotten. The genuine authority of bishops and priests was spurned while such authority was sometimes abused, as with the forcing of reforms (sometimes loosely based on Vatican II) upon people who were happy with things as they were. Religious sisters and nuns today are an endangered species and thousands of priests broke their vows and left ministry for women. Church music became indistinguishable from the worst of contemporary folk and pop while the gospel of black congregations moved the center of gravity away from the altar to the choir. Religious music replaced liturgical music and almost all of it was banal and narcissistic. Whole generations were lost because of poor catechesis that taught more about sociology and drug prevention than about the creed, sacraments and Catholic morality. If even priests could dissent about birth control, then why should the laity give Church teaching a hearing? At present, half of all Catholic marriages end with divorce, and those seeking annulments almost always get them- even though marriage is supposed to be “until death do us part”.

When I was born in 1958, some 75 to 80 percent of all Catholics in the United States went to weekly Sunday Mass. Now we would be lucky if a quarter of the population attends, despite the precept of the Church that binds us under pain of mortal sin. Where are the vast fruits of the Council? What good came from any of it? I am not saying that we should or even could go back, but I am tired of churchmen pretending that things are so much better today. There is a real crisis, and it is time that we faced the questions seriously. The restoration of the older form of Mass, alongside the new, may be a help in building up the Church from the ashes. Why is it that those who clamor about FREEDOM, would refuse people with spiritual affinities toward the older form, the right to attend the Tridentine Mass? The Catholic Church has always been the great Church of the “and”. We believe in Jesus AND Mary AND the angels AND saints. We believe in faith AND works. We see God as Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit. We believe in the Scriptures AND Tradition. We already have many Oriental rites in union with the Holy See and there were once many variations upon the Roman or Western or Latin rite. Even certain religious orders like the Dominicans had a ritual for Mass that was their own. I fail to see the damage of permitting two expressions of the Roman Rite: the New Order and the Tridentine.

The word is that the universal indult, would come with a catechesis about the New Order of Mass or at least a catalogue of abuses that would have to be remedied immediately. The New Order would be termed “normative” and the Tridentine as “extraordinary”.  The Holy Father, appreciating that song is also prayer, wants the texts to go through an approval process. The American bishops have opted to interpret this as a thematic listing so as not to hamper the music industry. I suspect that this will be inadequate and that they will be compelled to re-examine this matter in the near future.

Let us not fool ourselves about the opposition that faces the Holy Father. He turns 80 this year and no doubt some churchmen are hoping to delay proceedings in the hope of a future Pope more to their liking. However, I am utterly convinced that divine providence has a hand with the selection of Pope Benedict XVI.

Returning to the matter of French Catholics, they should be utterly ashamed. Only about 5% of them go to weekly Mass. The faith is dead. The traditionalists have full seminaries and churches. What have they got? Honest and humble men would admit that it is time to change course.

The question of the Mass must be understood within the context of the lived faith of Catholics.  Catholics who regularly participate at Mass are more likely to be pro-life and (given good preaching and solemn worship) tend to better know their faith.  Unless we spiritually feed our people, they will find their formation in the world.   

When American bishops give holy communion to Catholic politicians who are enablers and supporters of abortion and partial birth infanticide, should it be any surprise that as many as 53 percent of American Catholics think it is okay to have an abortion? I recently read that 70 percent of U.S. Catholics 18-44 do not understand transubstantiation and the real presence of the Eucharist. They might believe in a spiritual presence, but nothing more.


1965 – 1,575 priestly ordinations
2002 – 450 priestly ordinations

1965 – 600 seminaries
2002 – about 200 seminaries

1965 – 180,000 sisters (104,000 teaching sisters)
2002 – 75,000 sisters (8,200 teaching sisters)

Kenneth Jones’ Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

We see a struggle from a theology from above (God centered) with a theology from below (human centered). I would contend that the emphasis has to be upon God and divine worship, although not dismissing the various human elements like fellowship.

The restoration of the Tridentine Mass would be a great help in giving balance to the Church, a proper orientation to worship, and a constructive challenge to the New Order of Mass.  Its restoration will not immediately fix a lot of problems, it would be simplistic to think so, but like falling dominoes its effects should not be underestimated either. 

Read Full Post »

Be prepared for the NEXT TWO YEARS…


They’re going to be a pain in the [Deleted]


This was sent to me by a friend and does not necessarily reflect my personal view and definitely is NOT a public statement from the church.

Read Full Post »

WARNING:  This post was written to share a concern about the possible exploitation of children. Some good discussion  and reflection about the topic has resulted.  However, I am concerned that this post on my Blog often receives the highest number of hits.  Given the use of certain search-engines, it may be that some of the visitors to this site are themselves looking for obscene and inappropriate images.  If this is the case with you, turn off your computer, fall to your knees, and ask the good Lord for help against sexual addiction and any perverse fascination.  Give yourself to Jesus Christ and ask for  spiritual, psychological and physical healing.  Pornography desensitizes the heart and poisons the imagination.  It destroys relationships and damages families.  ESCAPE this path before it is too late.  Now you can read the post below… if that is the reason you visited my site.]


fanning.jpgFanning plays Lewellyn, a girl with an obession for Elvis Presley living in the South during the 1950’s. Headed by her grandmother, her character’s family is poor and dysfunctional. This sets the stage for what follows.

The movie HOUNDDOG has attracted some questionable attention and significant controversy over Dakota Fanning’s depiction of a young victim of sexual abuse and rape. Some groups contend that it will bring needed attention to a continuing crisis in American society. Others focus upon the young actress herself and argue that the scene of rape was too explicit for a twelve year old (she will be thirteen in February). This controversy caused the original financial backers to withdraw from the film, suspending filming for a time. The concern was understandable given that the screenplay would have Fanning appear naked or in her underwear for an explicit rape scene. Displayed at the Sundance Festival, viewers tell us that Fanning is not nude in the scene although she wore a body suit that made her appear so from the waist up. The scene takes place in a dark alley. Most of what is seen is her face and hands.

Some critics have contended that the film itself, instead of drawing attention to an important issue, might in itself be sexual exploitation.

Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, made the following statement: “This movie looks like a clear case of child abuse to me. The legal authorities should take harsh action against it.”

It was misreported by the AP that the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights had asked for a boycott. The truth was that Bill Donahue requested that the matter be investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if any federal child pornography laws were violated during the making of the motion picture.

What do you all think?

Years ago there was similar controversy about a young Brooke Shields playing a prostitute; such films caused a rift with her mother when she got older, although they have since reconciled.

Fanning’s mother and tutor were on the set during the filming of the problematical scene and have taken some heat for the business. Is it pornography? How far can children feign sexual intercourse and/or rape scenes without it becoming sexually exploitive?

What about movies that have minors use or listen to foul language? Is this a corruptive influence?

Hollywood has not protected young actors in the past, why should we think things would change now?

I suppose many viewers are particularly protective of Fanning since she has grown up before our eyes in many films.  We feel a connection and want her to be safe and happy.



The competition this year is steep, especially for BEST PRIEST’S BLOG, but hey, at least I am begging.  Voting ends March 17 so don’t delay!  CLICK the logo to vote!

Read Full Post »

maggots.jpg‘Cat’s’ vet is in treatment
By Libby Tattler

Elijah Lincoln, who plays the healing vet on “Cats Taste Like Chicken” is the patient now.

He’s in treatment for his use of an anti-larvae slur against a squirmy cast member, an animated baby-would-be fly who infests roadkill brought to his clinic. He joked at an award’s dinner, that he did not mean to call his castmate a “maggot”. The word shocked everyone.

“With the support of my family and friends, I have begun counseling. I regard this as a necessary step toward understanding why I did what I did and making sure it never happens again,” Lincoln said in a statement Wednesday. “I appreciate the fact that I have been given this opportunity and I remain committed to transforming my negative actions into positive results, personally and professionally.”

Lincoln took some time off from taping Tuesday to meet with larvae rights activists and offered to assist in educating the community about the cruelty and stereotyping from such words, an effort the activists acknowledged as legitimate.

As to whether Lincoln was getting outpatient or inpatient treatment was not clarified, and the statement did not reveal whether he would miss time on the hit show.

The show’s creator and producer Bugsie Peta issued his own statement, both chastizing Lincoln for his implementation of the term “maggot” about co-star Larry Larva and praising Lincoln’s determination to seek behavior modification and counseling.

“I speak for all the cast and crew of the show here at “Cats Taste Like Chicken” when I say that Elijah Lincoln’s use of such a disturbing word was a lamentable and shocking display that insulted not only grubs and larvae everywhere, but anyone who has ever struggled for respect in a world that is not always tolerant and receptive to differences,” Peta said.

It was during an on-set fight last November with co-star Larry Larva that Lincoln reportedly first used the slur about Larva, who was conversing with his mother on some freshly harvested manure. Although Lincoln apologized then, the matter emerged again at the January “Worship the TV” Awards when he denied saying the epithet.

After being condemned last week by the Grub & Larvae Alliance Against Mean Talk and by the network, Lincoln issued the statement of contrition.

He hopes that counseling sessions will help him to understand how the freedom of speech does not give one license to say anything one pleases.

Read Full Post »

Signs at work can give direction and offer reassurance, they can also do something quite different.  Here are a few: 


I have known people who really hated their jobs, feeling abused and used.  Any yet, the Church speaks of work as ideally an expression of ourselves.  Today, we have poor people who are compelled to work every day of the week, even on Sunday.  They fear losing their jobs and sacrifice for the needs of their families.  It is interesting how some struggle for the bare necessities of life and others in an affluent middle-class have time for leisure and the acquisition of material things that are not only luxuries, but are “things” that even the richest people of the past never possessed or imagined.  Is the sign above funny?  What is the responsibility and proper relationship between the employer and the employee? 

Here is another image:


I guess we all like some appreciation sometimes.  A slap on the back and the words, “Well done!” can go a long way.  No one wants to be taken for granted or ignored.  We all want to make a difference.

Notice this picture:


Could you imagine any boss putting up such signs?  An adversarial relationship is immediately instigated.  And yet, there is a truth to the message.  I suppose employers sometimes feel frustrated with the quality and quantity of work for which they pay.  Is this a real work-place sign?

Here is another one:


Yes, it does seem that work relations are sometimes unnecessarily strained.  This sign might be a useful tool to start a dialogue about such a situation.  There is no reason why we must remain dysfunctional. 

Of course, if all else fails…


Oh well, no one ever denied that the work setting could become an “explosive” environment.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers