Saturday, July 25, 2009
they call this the "Ritual Dance around the coffin at liturgy" just click on the Thomas Berry funeral tab and get an eye full
Their idea of a proper funeral for their founder Fr Thomas Berry. In their goodness they never refer to him as Fr. How wonderfully informal
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for the government's economic stimulus package to include a healthy increase in spending for what she called “family planning.” (If you didn't already know, “family planning” is generally code for abortion.) Pelosi said that this would save state and federal governments the cost of having to pay for the health care and education of poor children. Of course, it's pretty hard to argue with that sort of logic. After all, dead children are less expensive to care for than live children.
In any event, Pelosi's remarks came on the heels of Barak Obama signing an executive order allowing money taken out of the paychecks of American workers to be used for abortions in foreign countries! In other words, the Obama administration’s position is that we are running out of money to take care of our own children but we have enough to pay for the executions of other people's children. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood (America's number one abortion profiteer) continues to be given approximately one million dollars a day in taxpayer funding and there are calls within our government for that amount to be doubled.
So let's recap. In last year's presidential campaign, Obama labels babies a “punishment” and, now, one of his co-degenerates is claiming that babies contribute to our country’s financial woes. In this environment, it is probably no coincidence that the abortion lobby is ratcheting up its rhetoric that the faltering economy is a justification for abortion. The sense of evil is palpable when you hear them almost gleefully predict that the abortion rate is going to increase as women rely on it to compensate for bad economic conditions.
But the question is, are babies really to blame for our economic collapse? And the answer is that they are.
Let me explain. It has long been known that as consumers approach retirement they spend less money. The two areas where this is felt the most is in the sales of cars and houses – the two industries that form the backbone of the American economy. The good news has always been that, as older people began to buy less they were replaced by younger consumers who bought more. It was a cycle that was repeated from one generation to the next. But here’s the problem we face today. The American baby-boomer is the wealthiest generation of people in the history of the world and they spent money like there was no tomorrow. In that process, they created an economy that was (a) the envy of the world and (b) completely dependant on that level of spending in order to survive.
While doing this, however, they aborted more than one-fourth of the next generation of consumers. This guaranteed that, once the baby-boomers started reaching retirement, the spending frenzy of the last forty years would be over. And now, that is precisely what has happened. In 2008, baby-boomers began reaching retirement age, the sales of cars and houses plummeted and that put the entire economy into a tailspin. Further, we are just at the very beginning of this phenomenon. By any realistic measure, there is a financial tsunami rolling toward the United States that will make our current environment seem like “the good ole’ days.” From now until 2026, baby-boomers are going to reach retirement age at the rate of 10,000 a day! And even if we learn how to live with less consumer spending, the effect of that is going to bankrupt our social services infrastructure.
One obvious place you can see this is in the area of Social Security. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore bored us to near suicide with his incessant droning about the need for a "lock box" to protect the funds being held by the Social Security system. Of course, he was lying. He knew good and well that there is no need for such a lock box because Congress was running a Ponzi scheme with Social Security and there is no money left to lock up. Over the years, Congress grabbed it, left an IOU in its place, and then squandered it to buy votes. While Bernie Madoff rightly deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, the only differences between Madoff and Congress are that his crimes were on a far smaller scale and he got caught.
Now we’ve reached the day of reckoning. The money to fulfill the government’s social obligations to the baby-boomers is long-gone. The result is that we will soon be at a point where younger taxpayers will be forced to send in boxcars full of their money to pay for the services that were promised to them. The fact that this money has already been collected once is irrelevant. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to be taxed into oblivion replacing money that was stolen by Congress. What most Americans don’t realize is that this problem has been made exponentially worse by abortion.
The designers of Social Security based it on an assumption of an ever-growing, or at least stabile, workforce. They could not have foreseen that America would one day legalize the wholesale slaughter of its own children. But on January 22, 1973, that’s what happened. The result has been that, over the last 36 years, over 25 percent of the taxpayers needed to replace the money baby-boomers paid into the system were executed. To appreciate the impact of this, consider that since abortion has been legal, birth rates in the United States have often been below replacement levels. In fact, if one removes immigration from the census figures, America's population has been at best flat or, by most reliable estimates, in decline. For the Social Security system, that has been a disaster waiting to happen and the wait ended in 2008. Like nations all over the world, America is beginning to discover why the shrinking populations they wanted are a barometer of economic disaster.
This reality is also going to have a devastating effect on the Medicare and Medicaid systems. I think this is probably the main reason why there is this sudden panic in Congress to implement socialized medicine. They know that the money to take care of the baby-boomers was stolen. After all, they are the ones who stole it. But they certainly can’t afford for the voters to find that out, and a perfect way to make sure they don’t is to dump the boomers into to a government run universal healthcare system.
Another way abortion affects the economy is seen in the immigration issue. Today, there is a vigorous national debate about whether illegal immigrants are only taking jobs American workers don't want anyway. While that may or may not be true, what is undeniable is that illegal immigrants are replacing the millions of workers who were killed through abortion. The problem is, beyond the financial burdens that illegal immigration imposes on the U.S. economy, it also contributes to the diminished demand for American consumer goods – including cars and houses. That’s because a very high percentage of America’s illegal immigrants live in poverty conditions so they can send money back to their families in Mexico. Over the years, this amount has grown to the point that it is now consistently one of the largest sources of income for the entire Mexican economy. And any way you look at it, this is money that, without abortion, would have been earned by Americans and spent in America. But those Americans don’t exist so it ends up being earned by Mexicans and spent in Mexico.
Sadly, this has also eliminated any chance for the Mexican economy to become as strong as it should be. It is time for someone to point out that there is no reason for Mexico to be a poor country. It has a wealth of natural resources, a good climate and a population made up of decent hard-working people. However, it is not possible for any nation to have a vibrant economy while sending millions of its youngest and most productive workers out of the country.
In the final analysis, this is a system that costs the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, threatens the stability of the U.S. economy, keeps Mexico poor, and cynically exploits the illegal immigrant. But it will continue because every
"The sisters are great folks, but I often find myself asking how they can separate themselves from the museum that they have upstairs? I mean if the things they did back then were right then- they are right now."
And they have the chutzpa to get upset about an apostolic visitation, what is needed is a witch hunt
you know who you are Anonymous
From the The Heresy Hunter
- OR -
THE UNPARALLELED ADVENTURES OF SIX HABITLESS HUSSIES
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
My apologies to Sr Barbara, who is a wonderful person, but some of the other ones just bug me
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Honestly I loved the Low Mass, it was so quiet and reverent, the High Mass at Our lady was a overload of the senses, once I gave up on following along and just relaxed, I really started to enjoy the spectacle. I do not remember a true High Mass at our little country parish where I grew up, just the Low Mass, what I served was the half English half Latin Mass post Vat ll that was used until the Novus Ordo and the turned altar. I still remember the communion rail and we servers turning the rail cloth over the top just right for the few faithful who came to communion, positioning the Paten under the chin of the parishioner to catch any crumbs (and there were always crumbs) each crumb is as much the body of Christ as the whole Host, to allow a morsel to hit the floor and be walked upon was sacrilege, they were swept off into the chalice and consumed by the priest, today we are so flippant about the Body of Christ. I have watched in disbelief as altar servers pick up the corporal (?) alter cloth and literally shake it off before they fold it, no one seems to remember that the cloth is to be folded up carefully like an envelope to protect the crumbs on it so they can be disposed of reverently. This reverence was so apparent at both of these Masses.
However the real eyeopener for me was at both masses the priest was in the confessional 45 minutes before mass and during the Rosary and afterward to finish up any who did not have time before. Instead of glad handing the parishioners, he was allowing them to make use of a sacrament that is little used today because of limited times and bad timing. There was a line before mass and the line returned as soon as he was back inside the confessional, yeah I said CONFESSIONAL, SCREEN AND ALL, I loved it, I will not go to confession face to face, just hate it, the confessional was set up to allow either use depending on the side you entered, no one was going face to face. Ran into a fellow from home my area at Our lady and he told me he goes there once a month just to go to confession for that reason. On the same theme many did not go to Communion, see my rant from June 17th, is it just the traditionalists that get it?
The one thing that really stood out to my family was that the priest was not the center of attention, the Mass was, several priests in the area have set up a throne for themselves where the Tabernacle should be, placing themselves at the center of attention, the Latin Rite priest sat off to the side and bowed his head in prayer wearing his biretta. i have seen one local priest set in his throne leaning on one elbow looking like a rendering of Julius Ceaser from the movies. PUT CHRIST BACK, PLEASE. see here for Bishop John M. D’Arcy's directive to his parishes on the location of the tabernacle, may others follow suit
I hope to attend again soon, but I truly believe several more Low Masses will be in order first to get the feel of it