R. J. Grigaitis

I’ve looked at the pictures (http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/album/bbc/091019calendario_album.jhtm), and I am completely disgusted. Please send an e-mail to the Minister of Justice of Spain and tell others.

It seems that the new e-mail address for the Minister of Justice of Spain is not working. You can copy and paste the message below to the contact form for the Spanish Minister of Justice at this address:
http://www.mjusticia.es/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1057821035277&lang=en_gb&pagename=Portal_del_ciudadano%2FPage%2FContacto

(What an ugly address. Compare it to mine (http://grigaitis.net/contact/). I’d say the Spanish Minister of Justice needs a better computer programmer working on his website.)

You may have to be patient, the server for the Spanish Minister of Justice website seems to be getting overloaded today. There must be a lot of outraged Catholics around the world trying to contact him.

Excmo. Sr. D. Francisco Caamano Dominguez,

My heart is broken to learn about the calendar launched by homosexuals in Spain that pervert, distort and blaspheme my Catholic faith and the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.

I write to express my deepest and most just outrage at this calendar being allowed to circulate in Spain, the country that is home to the world’s first Marian shrine of Our Lady of PiIar.

Spain has always been known as the Most Catholic Nation. How then can this unspeakable blasphemy be allowed there?

The choice of the calendar’s theme is clearly intended to offend the religious sentiment of Spanish Catholics, which is in violation of #525 of the Spanish Criminal Code.

As a Canadian, I am also offended by this blasphemy, more than words can express.

I urge you to use all measures afforded by law to stop the circulation of this highly offensive and blasphemous calendar.

Respectfully yours,
R. J. Grigaitis, sfo

This is the original e-mail that I received from America Needs Fatima:

October 29, 2009

Dear Mr. Grigaitis,

My heart is sick to tell you, but…

…as Catholics, we must defend Our Lady’s honor, especially when She is blasphemed, and shown half-naked!

According to press reports, homosexual groups in Spain published a calendar that has horrific, unspeakable blasphemies against Our Lady of Fatima and other Marian apparitions!

Besides a man that is practically naked alongside Our Lady, the calendar has “images that are based on famous works of sacred art, especially apparitions of the Virgin Mary, but interpreted by transsexuals.

“In the ‘Secular Calendar,’ each month is represented by a free interpretation of famous scenes of Catholic imagery, such as Our Lady of Fatima and the three shepherd children. But redecorated with homosexual esthetics.”

“The scenes show saints dressed as drag queens, using crowns, necklaces, bracelets, and colored condoms with applicators and vibrators attached to the crowns.”

Moreover, the homosexual group behind the calendar suggests December 25 be officially declared the Day of Democracy instead of Christmas. (BOL Noticias, online 10/19/09). http://noticias.bol.uol.com.br/internacional/2009/10/19/ult36u47296.jhtm
— (Access with caution).

As Catholics, you and I cannot remain silent before such blasphemous insults to Our Lady and the Catholic faith! No matter where in the world it is.

So please send a protest message NOW via email to the Minister of Justice in Spain.

It’s vital that you send your message right away. I don’t believe the honor of Our Lady has ever been attacked like this before in history. Ever!

You and I, and tens of thousands of Americans MUST speak out against this and spread our just outrage to other countries too. And, with God’s help, our prayers and protest may become so huge that the authorities in Spain will enforce the country’s anti-blasphemy laws, and prohibit this blasphemous calendar.

How wonderful that would be!

For love of Our Blessed Mother, please pray this happens.

So please send your e-message today to the Minister of Justice of Spain.

And consider forwarding this email message to all the Catholics you know.

And since the honor of Our Lady was insulted in the worst way ever, you and I MUST offer the most fervent and widespread act of reparation possible at this time.

To join our nationwide, even worldwide campaign of reparation, please go here to download and pray these acts of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Thank you for joining me in this fervent, filial and global act of reparation in face of such a vile, unspeakable blasphemy against our dearest and purest Mother.

May God bless you!

Sincerely in Jesu et Maria
Robert E. Ritchie
America Needs Fatima
www.ANF.org

PS — Please send your instant e-mail protest against this blasphemy to the Minister of Justice of Spain.

Above all, please pray that our protest be blessed by God, and that hundreds of thousands of Americans and Canadians join Catholics worldwide in defending the holy honor of Our Lady against this vile calendar.

Suddenly, everything clicks. And swipes. And scrolls. And exposes you to more electromagnetic pollution.

Introducing Magic Mouse. The world’s first Multi-Touch mouse.
Now included with every new iMac. And only available as wireless.

It looks really cool, and I’d like to try it, but I’m not about to expose my body to anymore electromagnetic pollution than I have to, and you should be as concerned as I am about the dangers of electromagnetic pollution. Voice your concern to Apple. If we get them to put a cord on this mouse, maybe we can get them to put a dirty electricity filter on their computers.

You can make your voice heard here:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/

This is what I said:

Subject: Please put a cord on the Magic Mouse

I would really like to try your Magic Mouse, but I do not want to expose my body to the electromagnetic pollution that it emits. Electromagnetic pollution is a real danger to the human body. Most people don’t notice the effects of electromagnetic pollution until they develop electrohypersensitivity and become sick.

Please give consumers the option of a safer Magic Mouse by putting a cord on it.

Go to this webpage for more information about electromagnetic pollution:
http://eha-ab.ca/electrical/

This is what I said in a separate e-mail:

Subject: Please put a dirty electricity filter on your computers

I am very happy with my iMac; however, I would like to have the option of purchasing my next computer with an integrated dirty electricity filter. Dirty electricity is a form of electromagnetic pollution. Electromagnetic pollution is a real danger to the human body. Most people don’t notice the effects of electromagnetic pollution until they develop electrohypersensitivity and become sick.

A dirty electricity filter integrated into a computer will cost consumers only 10% what it costs to buy one separately. I would gladly pay an extra $12 to $20 on my next computer purchase to protect my body from harmful effects of electromagnetic pollution.

Please give consumers the option of purchasing your computers with an integrated dirty electricity filter.

Go to this webpage for more information about electromagnetic pollution:
http://eha-ab.ca/electrical/

This is a letter I completed today. More information about the PepsiCo boycott can be found here: http://www.boycottpepsico.com

Frito Lay Canada
Consumer Response Center
P.O. Box 40
Cambridge, Ontario  N1R 5S9

Dear Sir,

I must first apologise for taking so long in writing this letter. I see that I created this document on April 13th, but it was not until now, some four months later, that I have found time to complete it.

I am apologising because for the last four months I have boycotted your products, along with all PepsiCo products, which was unfair of me since I did not inform you of my reason for this boycott. With this letter, I am rectifying my negligence.

Before I give you the reason for my boycott, I must say that I have been a big customer of yours; particularly of your Tostitos product. Tostitos have been a basic staple of my diet for many years. I do not think of them as snack food, but an alternative to bread and potatoes. I used to make Tostitos a part of between three and nine meals a week. Four months ago, I switched to the product of one of your competitors, which I consider an inferior product, so I am looking forward to the end of this boycott.

The reason for my boycott is your aggressive role in the culture war regarding homosexuality. I understand that PepsiCo believes it is acting for the good of society; however, I believe, as do many others, that PepsiCo is damaging society. I do not expect PepsiCo to change sides in this culture war, but I do expect you to take a neutral stance on this issue. Until PepsiCo takes a neutral stance regarding the homosexual issue, I will not buy any of your products, and I am encouraging others to join me in this boycott.

These are the specific actions I expect PepsiCo to take before I end my boycott of your products:

• Withdraw membership in the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (Ford, McDonald’s and Wal-Mart all withdrew from membership when asked to do so)
• Stop requiring employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity diversity training
• Stop giving financial support to “gay pride parades”
• Stop funding homosexual organisations such as Human Rights Campaign and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
• Stop using TV commercials to promote the homosexual lifestyle

Just today I read in the news that a Tim Hortons franchise in Rhode Island pulled its sponsorship from a Marriage and Family Day organised by the National Organization for Marriage due to pressure from the gay and lesbian community. If the gay and lesbian minority can force Tim Hortons to remain neutral by pulling sponsorship for a group that supports the traditional definition of marriage, surely PepsiCo will listen to the majority and also become neutral by pulling support from groups that wish to redefine marriage.

Sincerely yours,
R. J. Grigaitis

I’ve been following the George Tiller story, and there’s one thing I just don’t understand: Why are so many pro-abortion advocates drawing a connection between this killing and the pro-life movement? Anyone with any acquaintance with the pro-life movement will know the aim of this movement is the protection of life from conception to natural death. This means that the pro-life movement entails a lot more than just an anti-abortion agenda. The agenda also includes being anti-euthanasia, anti-human cloning, anti-human embryonic stem cells research and anti-death penalty (It should also include being anti-contraception, but I’m not going to debate that right now).

George Tiller did not die a natural death; therefore, the person responsible for his death is not pro-life. In case any pro-abortion advocates miss this, I’ll say it again. The person responsible for George Tiller’s death is not pro-life. It is a contradiction to say that a murderer is pro-life. The issue gets a little fuzzy with the just war theory and with self-defence, but in this case, the issue is clear: it was wrong for George Tiller’s killer to take Dr. Tiller’s life.

Over and over again, pro-life groups have been denouncing Dr. Tiller’s killing and demonstrating they had no involvement, but they really shouldn’t have to. When a drug lord is murdered, anti-drug advocates don’t have to denounce the killing or prove their innocence to the media. Why are pro-life groups not given the same courtesy?

The man arrested and charged with Dr. Tiller’s killing, Scott Roeder, has no connection to any legitimate pro-life organisation. His family members, however, say he does suffer from a mental illness. Why doesn’t the media and pro-abortion advocates attack the mentally ill? We (that’s right, I have a mental illness) usually don’t kill anyone, but, unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, never kill anyone, if they do, they are no longer pro-life advocates.

It is a sad fact that some mentally ill persons succeed in killing people, most commonly themselves. It is an even sadder fact that far more people are killed through abortion than through mental illness. For the most part, people involved with abortion don’t fully realise that a person is being killed. If they did, only a few mentally ill persons or the most callous of people could actually go through with it. Many times the after affects of abortion induce mental illness, sometimes resulting in suicide.

The death of babies and the suicides over their deaths are what the pro-life movement is trying to prevent. Murdering an abortionist will not achieve this goal. Even though the facts prove otherwise, it seems that George Tiller is becoming a martyr for the pro-abortion cause. People believe the lie that “it’s not really a baby,” so they’re likely to believe the lie that the pro-life movement killed George Tiller.

Last week I read and commented on Sr. Helena Burns’ review of the movie Angels & Demons. This is what I wrote:

Good review except for this one sentence: “The screenplay (which is kinder to the Catholic Church than the book) zigzags schizophrenically between insulting the Church and patting her on the head.” Schizophrenia is not the disorder you wanted to refer to. What you wanted to refer to was dissociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder. The pope made a similar mistake almost a year ago. You can read about it here:
http://blog.grigaitis.net/2008/09/humble-correction-of-the-pope/

Sr. Helena respectfully made this reply describing how she corrected her review:

Thanks! I fixed it to “rapidly.”

Today I saw the movie at a matinée and have decided that schizophrenic, though Sr. Helena used it in the wrong context, describes this movie perfectly.

A couple of times close to the beginning of the movie, I was almost offended; however, closer to the end, I could hardly keep myself from laughing out loud it was so ridiculous. Of course you shouldn’t react either way when dealing with someone delusional, and this is how I interpret the main character, Robert Langdon.

Mr. Langdon is a very ill person who believes he’s been summoned to help the Vatican. His delusions defy theology, history, and physics. This is the only rational way I can explain what goes on in this movie.

I met a guy once on the psych ward who had similar delusions. It was ten years ago, so I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember that the organisation that played the same role in his delusion as the Vatican in this movie was MTV. He believed that some evil force in this world was going to annihilate everyone of his ethic background, and was sending all sorts of e-mails to MTV for this to be stopped. Maybe Ron Howard should base his next movie on this story.

I can’t take the delusions of Angels & Demons seriously enough to be offended by them, just as I can’t be offended by the delusions of someone with schizophrenia.

Now I’m not saying that Dan Brown and Ron Howard have schizophrenia. I doubt they share the same delusions their stories suffer from, which begs the question: Why are they creating these stories?

They must have some unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church. Maybe they should turn it into a healthy obsession. Wouldn’t it be something if both of them became devout Catholics a few years from now?

I thought about commenting on the news article Bleak stories behind failed condom campaigns back in mid-April when it was highlighted on the Catholic Radio International show The Heart Of The Matter. When I read it again last Saturday in the May 1st issue of Life and Family Report by St. Joseph’s Workers for Life and Family, I decided to finally comment.

No, I would never again eat sweets with a wrapper on. I tried it before I was Catholic, and it just wasn’t as pleasurable  as without a wrapper, which is why I often took the wrapper off before the sweet was gone.

OK, if that wasn’t graphic enough for you:

Two-thirds of the world’s HIV/AIDS cases are in Sub-Saharan Africa. The men there sleep with whomever they like and don’t get married until they are old and need someone to cook for them. “A man might be sleeping with six different women in a year.” These men want to have children, so they don’t use condoms.

HIV positive men in Sub-Saharan Africa often don’t care if they give it to someone else. They think, “I can’t be the only one. Since someone gave me the disease, I will give it to someone else.”  Men that don’t care if they pass on a disease don’t use condoms.

Rape is common place, and “even if the rapist is known, nothing much is done.” In South Africa, “more than a quarter of all the females can expect to be raped at least once in their life.” Rapist don’t use condoms.

These are the facts of the general sexual morality in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is why Pope Benedict XVI is sceptical about the effectiveness of distributing condoms as a solution to this problem. Even if a condom is used, it’s no guarantee that a disease will not be transmitted. If anything, condoms embolden people to take more risks. “Fighting AIDS with condoms is like extinguishing a fire with petrol.”

Will a man who sleeps with several different women say, “I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? Will a man who doesn’t care if he passes on a disease say, ”I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? Will a rapist say, ”I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? It is ludicrous to think that anyone that engages in activity that is far more immoral than using a condom will not use a condom simply because the pope says it’s a sin.

What is needed in Sub-Saharan Africa is not condoms, but morality. The only positive thing about distributing condoms as a solution is the revenue generated by western condom manufacturers; a revenue that is funded primarily by taxpayers. Since the condoms don’t get used, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just flush money down a toilet? Oh yeah, they can’t afford ones that flush.

There is only one rational solution to the world wide problem of HIV/AIDS and other STDs: have only one sex partner for your entire life. Since you know you’re not going to get a disease, and NFP is more reliable for avoiding pregnancy, there’s no reason to compromise sexual pleasure with a condom. Don’t eat sweets with a wrapper on.

It is quite common for people to point to priestly celibacy as the cause of the clergy sex abuse scandal. Many have the idea that if priests were allowed to get married, they wouldn’t have to suppress their sexual desires, and therefore would not fall into immoral sexual relationships. Anyone that holds such ideas is actually ignorant of the meaning of marriage, as they are of the meaning of  celibacy.

First, let me put the scale of this scandal in perspective with some personal statistics. I personally know of two sex scandals involving married Protestant ministers. One was a consenting adulterous relationship, and the other involved a number of young girls. I do not have any personal knowledge of any sex scandals involving Catholic priests, and I know around four times as many Catholic priests as I do Protestant ministers.

I should clarify that that the scandal involving a number of young girls was in a congregation that denies being Protestant (although an examination of their history proves that they are). They will also deny that the man involved in the scandal had any authority in their church because he was only a professional preacher, not a deacon or an elder. This, of course, is a ruse because he was the main teacher of this congregation.

The scandal in this congregation also mirrors the Catholic scandal of bishops putting supposed rehabilitated sex offending priests in positions where they could re-offend because the elders of this congregation were aware of at least one sexual offence when this man was in Bible college. There were no legal charges laid in this earlier offence, and so the whole affair was kept quite. However, knowing of this past offence, the elders allowed this man to be in a position where he was alone with young girls.

The purpose of these last three paragraphs is simply to point out that this is not just a problem in the Catholic Church. The reason the Catholic problem is so publicised is because the secular media has a bias against the Catholic Church. Statistically speaking, sexual offences among Catholic clergy is lower than in the general public. As well, more than half of the offenders in sex abuse cases are married, divorced or in a common-law relationship.

Marriage does not stop a potential sex offender from offending. Even if he does not do anything illegal, he will still offend in his mind, which Christ affirms is just as sinful:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)

In his General Audience of October 8, 1980, Pope John Paul the Great points out that Christ does not say “one who looks at a woman that is not his wife lustfully,” but “one who looks at a woman lustfully.” Thus, Christ implies that even if a man looks at his own wife lustfully, he commits adultery “in his heart” (I use the pope’s actual quote in my next Weekly Thought).

Purity of heart is just as important in marriage as it is in celibacy. A man that habitually looks at women, or men, lustfully and can’t stop himself from doing so is not only unfit for the priesthood, he is unfit for marriage. He may never act out on these thoughts, but the fact that he can’t stop himself from thinking these thoughts means he has a deep rooted disorder that must be corrected before he can make a vow of celibacy or make a vow of marriage.

Marriage makes some sexual acts seem moral in the eyes of other Christians; however, if such acts are motivated by lust and not love, they are in fact immoral no matter how they may appear. In time, such acts will likely no longer satisfy, and acts that are blatantly immoral will be sought. So as to keep up appearances, these blatantly immoral acts will be done in secret, but as a person becomes more and more sexually disordered, he will take greater and greater risks in losing his reputation as a good Christian.

If a person with disordered sexual desires gets married, there is always the potential that the children resulting from this marriage will become the object of these disordered desires. Marriage puts a person with disordered sexual desires in a legal situation where he is alone with young children.

Even if a man is able to quench all his lust with his wife, there is no guarantee that she will always be sexually available to him. A medical condition may arise, such as a coma, where she cannot have sexual relations with him for months or even decades. How can he quench his lust if something like this happens? He will most likely look for a sexual outlet beyond that of his marriage. 

In such a scenario, the only moral thing for a man to do is to remain faithful to his wife, which would require remaining celibate, possibly for the rest of his life. Such a heroic life could be forced upon any married man; however, some men freely choose such a life, many of whom become Roman Catholic priests.

A married priesthood would not have stopped the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. All a married priesthood would do is bring more women and children into the scandal. As I mentioned above, more then half of sexual offenders have, or had, a legitimate or semi-legitimate sexual relationship. Such a relationship does not stop one from committing a sex crime.

Of course, a good percentage of priests involved in the clergy sex abuse scandal would still have chosen celibacy even if a married priesthood was an option for them. They chose the vow of celibacy as a legal way of suppressing their disordered sexual desires. Only mandatory marriage would have stopped them from becoming priests.

Mandatory celibacy did not cause the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. What caused the scandal was admitting men to the priesthood that were not only unfit for the priesthood, but also unfit for marriage.

In my last post, I put “same sex marriage” in quotes, or referred to such unions as “so-called marriages.” I did this because such unions are not marriages. It is impossible for persons of the same sex to marry each other. This is not a moral judgement, but a linguistic and biological fact.

The Latin word for marriage is matrimonium. Mater is Latin word for “mother,” and the suffix monium signifies an action, state, or condition.  Matrimonium literally means “state of motherhood.” Or more correctly, when a couple marry, the man leads his wife into motherhood.

It is biologically impossible for a woman to lead another woman into motherhood, just as it is biologically impossible for a man to lead another man into motherhood. Same sex marriages are a biological impossibility.

If a same sex couple insist on forming a immoral union, there are very few countries that will legally stop them. However, no country can change the biological fact that such unions are not marriages.

In my Weekly Thought titled Contra-Sexual, I end with the following statement:

While “homosexual” acts are sinful and cannot be condoned, so are hatred and discrimination. The argument I make about same sex attractions being disordered must not be used to discriminate against people with these attractions. The only Christian response to persons with same sex attractions is love and compassion.

No person that claims to be a Christian can discriminate against anyone who has same sex attractions. This, however, does not mean that a Christian should allow legislation to pass that would allow what is call “same sex marriages.” Stopping same sex couples from joining in what they call a “marriage” is not discrimination, but is the only responsible thing to do for these couples and for society.

So-called “homosexual” acts are harmful to the persons engaging in them and to society as a whole. By allowing legislation to pass that would attempt to legitimise such acts, one would be in part responsible for the sin committed by the persons that then participate in these so-called “marriages.” Any action that would condone ”homosexual” acts, even if law requires such action, is a sin against those committing these “homosexual” acts, and against society.

I am thinking of the 2005 case in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia where the local Knights of Columbus council declined to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian “wedding” reception. This was not discrimination, but the only just thing for this council to do for the lesbian couple and for society. If they had not declined, they would have be in part responsible for the immoral union celebrated at this reception, and fully responsible for the message it would speak to their community; a message directly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

This Knights of Columbus council did not discriminate against this lesbian couple, but let this couple know that what they were celebrating was not a wedding and not morally acceptable. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, however, did discriminate against this Knights of Columbus council by forcing them to pay the lesbian couple each $1000 plus legal costs. These Knights of Columbus were penalised by the British Columbia government for being responsible Catholics.

Discrimination against persons with same sex attractions is wrong, but not speaking up about the immorality of so-called “same sex marriages” is just as wrong.

The McDonald’s boycott worked, now it’s time to boycott Pepsi.

• Pepsi has produced TV ads that not only promote Pepsi but also promote the gay lifestyle.
• Pepsi gave a total of $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace.
• Both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, which received $500,000 from Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Proposition 8.
• Pepsi forces employees to attend sexual orientation and gender diversity training where the employees are taught to accept homosexuality.
• Pepsi is a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

The boycott is intended to force PepsiCo to remain neutral in this culture war. Check out the website, and join the boycott.

http://www.boycottpepsico.com

Personally, I don’t drink Pepsi or Coke. They are both unhealthy choices. When I do drink a soft drink, it’s usually Virgil’s Cream Soda or Virgil’s Root Bear. They cost more than your average soft drink, but the taste is vastly superior and they are better for your health.

I can still join the boycott with PepsiCo’s Quaker brand. Make sure to check out all of the products of PepsiCo Companies.