R. J. Grigaitis

If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. (John 15:18-19)

The sex abuse scandal the pope has found himself in does not surprise me; in fact, I’ve come to expect things like this. This is a satanic attack, but not against the pope. It is an attack against at least 70% of Catholics, and more likely, more than 80% of Catholics, not to mention the many people that knowingly or unknowingly wish to be Catholic.

Very few people get their news from reliable sources. Most put their trust in the mass media, which is unapologetically  anti-Catholic. Even the majority of people in the mass media that claim to be Catholic give an anti-Catholic slant to the news. An example of this is the use of the terms Anti-Choice, or Anti-Abortion, or the new one, Abortion Rights Opponent for the correct term Pro-Life. Another example is who they choose to quote as authentic Catholic experts, who usually turn out to be major Catholic dissenters like Fr. Richard McBrien. Since this is where most people get their news, including the vast majority of Catholics, they’re quite likely to believe this anti-Catholic propaganda.

It’s also no coincidence  that the mass media is bringing this story out at this particular time of year. It’s that time of year when some, among the 70% of Catholic that do not regularly attend Mass, are deciding if they’re going to go to Mass for Easter. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they won’t go to Mass this year, maybe never again.

What about the 30% that do regularly attend Mass? Well, it seems that less than 20% of Catholics practice the Faith in its entirety, most notably on the major issue of contraception (Remember the term intrinsically evil?). This means that at least a third of Catholics that regularly attend Mass don’t actually believe everything the Church teaches. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they’ll stop believing more of what the Church teaches.

The Catholic Church is the voice of God in the world. The only way to God is through the Catholic Church. Hence, everyone knowingly or unknowingly wants to be Catholic. The majority of people are not Catholic. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they’ll never become Catholic. (Note: you don’t have to be Catholic to go to heaven, but once you’re in heaven, you’ll be Catholic.)

What about the pope? He’s probably not the least bit concerned about his good reputation, which is extremely good. His biggest concern is likely the three groups of people mentioned above.

What about the mass media? They’ve succeeded! When the truth becomes too obvious, they’ll simply quit reporting on this issue. They will offer no apology, and they will not run stories that contradict what they are now reporting. They will leave the general public to continue to doubt the pope’s character, and since the majority of the general public only gets its news from the mass media, the truth will likely never reach the majority of the general public.

What am I going to do? I’m going to go back to only reading reliable news sources. A while ago, I started reading news from the mass media, but I’m too disgusted with it now. When a major event happens that I need to pray about, the pope will publicly pray about it. When he does, reliable new sources will report on it, and when they do, I’ll hear about it.

What do I suggest you do? Seek out reliable news sources that are not intent on slandering Christ’s Church. I also recommend going to Mass this Easter whether you’re Catholic or not.

How can a person be taken seriously on an issue when he is too afraid to say what he is actually taking a stand for or against? Compare these two ads:

If I was is favour of something evil, I wouldn’t want to tell anyone what that actual evil was either.

In case you didn’t understand the first ad, Olympic Gold Medalist Al Joyner and former NFL football player Sean James are responding (can you call it responding when they haven’t see what they’re “responding” to?) to the Pam and Tim Tebow ad that ran during the Super Bowl. If you followed the FocusOnTheFamily.com link at the end of the ad, you’d see all the information that couldn’t be put in a 30 second ad. The ad with Al Joyner and Sean James does not give a link, just the name “Planned Parenthood.” The name “Planned Parenthood” sounds nice, but they are the largest abortion provider in the U.S., and their parent organization, International Planned Parenthood Federation, is the largest abortion provider in the world.

Since the ad was too afraid to give any links, here they are:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org
http://www.ippf.org

BTW: So you don’t get confused, “reproduction health” is the code word for “abortion.”  And, if you don’t know what abortion is, it’s when a baby is murdered in his mother’s womb before he’s born.

The story about the Planned Parenthood ad can be found here:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5961.html

The term pro-choice is misleading and inaccurate. Those that say they are pro-choice are not really pro-choice. It may sound good, but being totally pro-choice is absurd. There are some choices that should not be allowed. No one should be given the choice of driving 200 km/h or 30 km/h (remember, I’m Canadian) in a school zone, especially when kindergarten is letting out. No one should be given the choice of stealing a $40,000 car or paying for it. No one should be given the choice of killing a person, whether that person is an abortion practitioner  or a fetus (the word fetus, by the way, is Latin for “young one”).

Even more misleading is the use of the term anti-choice instead of pro-life. Those that say they are pro-life are not anti-choice. There are many choices that should be allowed. Everyone should have the choice of fair-trade chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla (even if you’re allergic, wouldn’t it be nice to have the choice?). Parents should have a choice of names for their children. Everyone should have a choice of religion.

Even when it comes to abortion, many of those that say they are pro-choice are not really pro-choice. It seems those in the abortion business are doing everything they can so women who have an unplanned pregnancy do not have an informed choice. They lie about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. They lie about the pain that a fetus feels during an abortion. And, they lie about the psychological damage abortion does to the woman. As well, Canadians do not have a choice in financially supporting abortion with their tax money.

No one is pro-choice, so stop using the term. If you’re pro-abortion, call yourself “pro-abortion.” If you’re afraid to, it only goes to prove that there is something wrong with abortion.

November 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Supporters of Linda Gibbons are disseminating the following information to encourage support for the Canadian pro-life sidewalk counsellor:

Linda Gibbons has been a “common criminal” for many years now.  For fifteen years, since 1994, this grandmother has been in and out of Ontario prisons. Her totally accumulated jail time is seven years.  What is her crime?  Linda prayerfully and quietly witnesses in front of Ontario abortion clinics, in violation of an unjust “bubble zone” law.

This past session has been particularly onerous – she has been behind bars since last January, and this will be her second consecutive Christmas in jail.

Please consider sending Linda a Christmas card this year.  She will be encouraged and uplifted by your thoughtfulness. To maximize the effectiveness of this initiative, why not talk to your pastor and see if you can put this message in your church bulletin?  Why not pass this message along to family and friends?

Her address is:

Attention: Linda Gibbons
Vanier Center for Women
655 Martin Street, Box 1040
Milton, Ontario  L9T 5E6

There are some mailing guidelines because the Detention Centre mailing department reads everything sent to the inmates:

1. Don’t use stickers (address, return address, pro-life) on the envelope or card.
2. Don’t send any laminated cards, bookmarks, prayer cards, pro-life pamphlets. Non-laminated items will get to her.
3. Don’t ask direct questions about daily activity of the detention centre.
4. Put your address directly in the card or letter. (Sometimes the mail sorter keeps the envelope and Linda feels badly if she can’t write back.)
5. If you would like to send a little monetary gift to Linda it must be a money order made out to “Linda Gibbons.” The detention centre will deposit the money directly to her account. She uses any donations for envelopes and stamps.
6. Many people add a variety of Christian reading material in their mailings to her. She often shares articles with others in the Centre. She can receive pro-life material that show the development of the baby but not post abortion photos. She can’t receive books. Try to stick to one or two pages of reading materials or pamphlets.

I left a lengthy comment on Sr. Anne Flanagan’s blog for the Chicago Tribune concerning the morality of IVF. She wrote a very good article, and I simply answered a negative comment that was posted on it. You can read it here.

I find it a little strange that there was only one negative comment (unless I missed the other[s]), and that it happened to be the very first comment.

Do you know who made these two statements:

“I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people.”

“I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making…”

No, it wasn’t one of the Kennedys. Close though. It was Eunice’s son-in-law, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Over and over again, I keep reading in the news about politicians that say they’re “a dedicated Catholic” or “a Catholic in good standing,” but add that their faith does not interfere with their political affairs. Since most of the news I read is from Catholic sources, over and over again, I read how bishops keep affirming that such politicians should refrain from receiving Communion when their anti-Catholic decision-making results in the death of an innocent person, as it does with abortion.

This is not a punishment or power-play by the bishops. It’s actually the only charitable thing to do for such politicians. It is a mortal sin to deliberately, and with full knowledge of the consequences, do something that results in the death of an innocent person. If someone receives Christ in the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, he commits a sacrilege, and he is in a worse state than before receiving Communion. Catholic politicians that make such political decisions, and are therefore in a state of mortal sin, must make a valid Confession (avowing not to commit the same sin again) before receiving Communion.

Not only are these politicians putting themselves in a state of mortal sin when they make such decisions, they are betraying the Catholic Faith. This is how the Jews felt about the Jewish tax collectors, or publicans, during the Roman occupation of Israel. They were selling out their own people to the alien Roman government. They were traitors.

Of course, we all know that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. But such close communion had a healing affect. These tax collectors and sinners were never the same. Look at Zacchaeus. He publicly repented of his acts of corruption and vowed to make restitution for them. Catholic politicians that betray the Catholic Faith are called to do the same.

Is it easy? Is it safe?

No!

I have another quote for you:

“I am the state’s good servant, but God’s first.”

Now this really doesn’t sound like one of the Kennedys. Okay, I admit I modified the words to make this quote more relevant to modern western governments. It should read, “the King’s good servant.” You probably recognise it now. It’s St. Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians.

What does it mean to be a patron saint? To understand this, I guess we need to know what it means to be a saint. All baptised Christians living on earth are saints; however, when we use the word saint, we’re usually referring to a canonised saint. For someone to be canonised, he either has to be a documented martyr for the Catholic Faith, or leave documented proof of living a life of great virtue followed by miracles worked through his intercession after his death. Basically, for someone to be canonised, the Church has to have undeniable proof that he is in heaven (aside: note that the Church never declares that a person is in hell).

There are two reasons for declaring someone is a saint in heaven. First, knowing a person is in heaven means we can confidently ask him to intercede for us. But more importantly, knowing a person is in heaven means we can confidently follow his example on how to get into heaven. We are all called to follow the examples of canonised saints to become canonised saints ourselves.

A patron saint of an office or state in life is a specific example of how all persons in similar offices or states can live in order to get into heaven. St. Thomas More is an example of how politicians can live a life that will get them into heaven. We have both documented proof of his life of great virtue, and proof of his martyrdom for the Catholic Faith.

Did St. Thomas More let religion interfere with his government policies or with the policies of the people? Did St. Thomas More let his dedication to the Catholic Faith interfere with his decision-making? Yes he did.

St. Thomas More was Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. To the vocal majority of Englishmen at the time, it was in Britain’s best interests to pass the Act of Supremacy. Politics required St. Thomas More to sign this act; however, signing would betray the Catholic Faith. St. Thomas More instead proffered his resignation of the chancellorship. It was not accepted the first time, but sometime later his second resignation was.

After his resignation, he was asked to swear his allegiance to the parliamentary Act of Succession, which would also betray the Catholic Faith. For refusing to swear, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, and later tried and found guilty of treason (through perjury I might add).

On July 6, 1535 St. Thomas More was beheaded on Tower Hill. While on the scaffold he declared, “I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”

This is the call of all Catholic politicians. If you are forced to betray the Catholic Faith due to politics, God demands that you resign. Before that happens, for the good of the people you server, all government policies and decision-making you make must be formed by your Catholic Faith, regardless of how unpopular such an action may be. Anything less than this means that you are not “a dedicated Catholic” or “a Catholic in good standing.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, God is calling you to be Saint Arnold Schwarzenegger. Please answer this call. Maybe you’ll be made the patron saint of bodybuilders and even co-patron of politicians.

Except for Conan the Barbarian, I never saw any Arnold Schwarzenegger movies until after the birth of my first child, and at first it was only his comedies with Danny DeVito. This changed after I had been lifting weights for around four or five years.

I started regularly training with weights in my second year of college, 1991/92. A couple years after graduating, I started to get serious about it, and bought Arnold’s Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding (I found out the hard way that the work-out routines in this book are not productive).

After reading this book, I became a big Schwarzenegger fan. This was just before Eraser came out, so I was renting every Schwarzenegger video I could find; some of them two or three times. I admit that there’s a lot of moral problems with most of them, but than, the same could be said for most movie stars, even Mel Gibson.

When Arnold became Governor of California, I was a little disappointed because it was unlikely he’d make anymore movies, at least until he got out of politics as his main profession. As California’s governor, my opinion of Arnold seems to drop every time I read something new about him in the news. This headline from all.org is the last straw: “Schwarzenegger signs bill teaching stem cell lies to children.”

The California Chronicle seems to have taken down the original article, but SaveCalifornia.com reports on it here:
http://savecalifornia.com/ca-release-10-11-09-new-california-law-will-teach-stem-cell-lies-to-kids.html

He seems like such a good person. How come he does such bad stuff as governor?

It sure would be nice if he followed the pro-life example of his in-laws, Sargent Shriver and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. It looks like he’s following more of the anti-life example of Eunice’s brothers. Too bad!

This is the opening paragraph to an article I just read from LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/state4423.html):

Washington University has joined forces with Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Planned Parenthood of St. Louis to train abortionists. It is called the Family Planning Fellowship Program, and its stated goal is to “develop tomorrow’s leaders in reproductive health.”

The last two words made me stop and think: “Shouldn’t reproductive health involve reproduction?”

Cardiovascular health involves helping a heart pump blood throughout the vascular system. Any doctor that intentionally stops a cardiovascular system is not engaging in cardiovascular health, but murder.

Reproductive health involves helping the reproduction of human life. Any doctor that intentionally stops the reproduction process is not engaging in reproductive health. If a life is aborted, murder is committed.

I really didn’t think Barack Obama would become President of the United States of America. I didn’t think Americans would be so foolish. In particular, I thought  Catholic Americans would listen to their bishops who did everything they could to say not to vote for Obama without crossing the line of actually saying who to vote or not vote for. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Many of these “Catholics” don’t even know who their bishop is (if you do go to Mass, the name of your bishop gets mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer).

I thought the day Obama was elected president was a very black day in American history; however, I’ve since changed my mind. According to recent polling data, Obama has had a very positive effect on Americans. It seems that Obama’s radical anti-life stance on a number of issues has wakened up sleeping Americans to these issues. What they really didn’t have an opinion on before, they are now forming an opinion, and that opinion is turning out to be pro-life.

Obama is doing a great job of showing what evil is possible within American borders, and the American public is taking note. The only problem is they have to wait a little more than three years before they can do anything about it.

I hope Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012.

On June 18, 2008, I left the following comment on Doug and Adele’s blog Journey to Therese:

Men are only a temporary necessity until women have a better technology. In the future, women will be able to clone themselves with the DNA of another woman’s egg. They’ll both have the the X chromosomes so there won’t be any more men. Face it, women will win the battle of the sexes!

I first heard of such an idea when I was in high School (last year was my 20 year reunion). LifeNews.com reports today that we’re one step closer to making this science fiction a reality.

It seems that scientists have created a human sperm using embryonic stem cells. Of course the embryonic stem cells came from an aborted child that was created with a naturally occurring sperm. However, if a number of sperm were created from one aborted child all of them could be used to fertilise a number of eggs in vitro. Once these children are implanted in to a woman, the most viable one or two could be left to live while the rest are all aborted to make more sperm. Do this over and over again and there will be no more need for men. The battle of the sexes would be over.

More seriously, judging by all the cloning results so far, if a child is ever brought to term using this method, he will have too many birth defects to live very long. Why do scientists want to cause so much unnecessary suffering and death?