Archives for June 2013

7 Quick Takes Friday (set #101)

7 Quick Takes Friday

This week: The 2013 Fortnight for Freedom is in full swing. Kathleen Sibelius says abortion laws get between a woman and her priest. The lasting impact of abortion on the mother. We are now getting into the Syrian war. 100,000 killed because of who they are (Christians, not gays so it is OK). Episcopalian cousins across the pond and the Sacrament of Matrimony. The IRS “refunds” over $46 million to a single Atlanta address.

— 1 —

We are in the midst of the 2013 Fortnight for Freedom. Begun on June 21st, it ends on July 4th. It is an excellent opportunity for us to study the issues and learn how new federal policies suppress Catholicism and the serious future dangers we face. See the special USCCB web page at

— 2 —

Among the “also-rans” for most non-Catholic Catholics is Kathleen Sibelius (ex-governor of Kansas and Obama’s head honcho for devising and forcing the HHS mandate upon us). It is hard to top Nancy Pelosi calling abortion sacred ground, so Sibelius has another angle in her bid to sow confusion and scandal: abortion laws get between a woman and her priest. You can’t make this stuff up:

— 3 —

Pelosi may think abortion is sacred and Sibelius may suggest it gets between a woman and her priest, but abortion obviously does real harm. Not just to the baby it kills, but to their mothers. Women talk honestly and openly about their abortion experience in this video from Life After Abortion. It is not graphic, but it may raise painful memories if you have had an abortion.

— 4 —

The administration is apparently not so much against regime change after all. We are now getting entangled into a new war — the civil war within Syria. This is not defensive nor a strategic battle we must fight. Our initial (public) involvement will be weapons to the Muslim rebels, already heavily supported by radical elements. This will force more support from Russia and China for the legitimate government, thus insuring the conflict lasts longer and the death toll rises higher than it would have been. Moreover, should the US backed rebels win, it will spell disaster for the minority Christians (reference: the Copts in Egypt). Pat Buchanan looks at this here.

Update: the rebels have attacked a Catholic monastery, killing Fr. Francois Mourad.

Update: apparently I am not alone in my read of this deadly administration blunder: Catholic Leaders Decry U.S. Arms to Syrian Rebels.

— 5 —

Speaking of bad outcomes for Christians, are you aware that over 100,000 are killed every year for their faith. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. EVERY YEAR. One person is killed every 4 minutes simply because they are Christian. Who cares? That is the question Pat Archbold asks in: Where Is My Awareness Concert?. If only we could convince the government / Hollywood / media that they were gay Christians, then there would be outrage.

— 6 —

Episcopalianism (and their Church of England cousins) demonstrates how separation from the successor of Peter and the Magisterium leads to all manner of evolution away from timeless truth. I previously wrote about this and their diminishing flock. Here is one example in a celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony:

You might presume that the misguided couple talked the good reverend into this, but the text accompanying the video notes: “when our incredibly accommodating and inspiring Vicar, Reverend Kate Bottley of St. Mary and St. Martin’s, Blyth, suggested a ‘flash mob’, we were sold!”

— 7 —

With so many Obama administration scandals, the public simply loses track. For that matter, with so many IRS scandals alone, the public loses track. Did you know that the IRS sent $46,378,040 to a single Atlanta address in 2011. No red flags. Don’t you wish you got a refund like that! Unfortunately, that is your money they are throwing away. On the plus side, it didn’t go to just 1 person but to 23,994 people living at that address. That is one big house! No red flags. Oh, the beneficiaries were “unauthorized” alien workers. Still, no red flags. has the story.

Some random thoughts or bits of information are worthy of sharing but don’t warrant their own full post. This idea was started by Jennifer Fulwiler at Conversion Diary to address this blogging need. So, some Fridays I too participate when I have accumulated 7 worthy items. Thank you Jen for hosting this project!

Baltimore Catechism: on matrimony

Baltimore Catechism

Lesson 26

282 Q. What is the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The Sacrament of Matrimony is the Sacrament which unites a Christian man and woman in lawful marriage.

“Christian,” because if they are not Christians they do not receive the grace of the Sacrament.

*283 Q. Can a Christian man and woman be united in lawful marriage in any other way than by the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. A Christian man and woman cannot be united in lawful marriage in any other way than by the Sacrament of Matrimony, because Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament.

“Lawful.” Persons are lawfully married when they comply with all the laws of God and of the Church relating to marriage. To marry unlawfully is a mortal sin, in which the persons must remain till the sin is forgiven. “Sacrament.” Before the coming of Our Lord persons were married as they are now, and even lawfully according to the laws of the Old Testament or old religion; but marriage did not give them any grace. Now it does give grace, because it is a Sacrament, and has been so since the time of Our Lord. Before His coming it was only a contract, and when He added grace to the contract it became a Sacrament.

*284 Q. Can the bond of Christian marriage be dissolved by any human power?
A. The bond of Christian marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power.

“Dissolved” – that is, can married persons ever – for any cause – separate and marry again; that is, take another husband or wife while the first husband or wife is living? Never, if they were really married. Sometimes, for good reason, the Church permits husband and wife to separate and live in different places; but they are still married. Sometimes it happens, too, that persons are not really married although they have gone through the ceremony and people think they are married, and they may think so themselves. The Church, however, makes them separate, because it finds they are not really married at all – on account of some impeding circumstance that existed at the time they performed the ceremony. These circumstances or facts that prevent the marriage from being valid are called “Impediments to Marriage.” Some of them render the marriage altogether null, and some only make it unlawful. When persons make arrangements about getting married they should tell the priest every circumstance that they think might be an impediment. Here are the chief things they should tell the priest – privately, if possible. Whether both are Christians and Catholics; whether either has ever been solemnly engaged to another person; whether they have ever made any vow to God with regard to chastity, the religious life, or the like; whether they are related and in what degree; whether either was ever married to any member of the other’s family – say sister, brother, or cousin, etc.; whether either ever was a godparent in Baptism for the other or for any of the other’s children; whether either was married before, and what proof can be given of the death of the first husband or wife; whether they really intend to get married; whether they are of lawful age; whether they are in good health or suffering from some sickness that might prevent their marriage, etc. They should also state whether they live in the parish, and how long they have lived in it. They should give at least three weeks’ notice before their marriage, except in special cases of necessity. They should not presume to make final arrangements and invite friends before they have made arrangements with their pastor; because if there should be any delay on account of impediments it would cause them great inconvenience. Let me take an example of a fact that would render the marriage invalid or null though the persons performing the ceremony might not be aware of it. Suppose a woman’s husband went to the war, and she heard after a great many years that he had been killed in battle, and she, believing her first husband to be dead, married another man. But the report of the first husband’s death turns out to be false, and after a time he returns. Then the Church tells the woman – and she knows it now herself – that the second marriage was invalid, that is, no marriage, because it was performed while the first husband was still living. She must leave the second man and go back to her husband. You see in that case the Church was not dissolving or breaking the marriage bond, but only declaring that the woman and second man were not married from the very beginning, although they thought they were, being ignorant of the existing impediment, and the priest also being deceived performed the ceremony in the usual manner. If it ever happens, therefore, that you hear of the Church permitting persons, already apparently married, to separate and marry others, it is only when it discovers that their first marriage was invalid, and by its action it does not dissolve the bond of marriage, but simply declares that the marriage was null and void from the beginning, as you now easily understand. Thus persons might unwittingly marry with existing impediments that would render their marriage invalid or illicit. Such things, however, happen very rarely, for the priest would discover the impediments in questioning the persons about to marry.

Protestants and persons outside the Catholic Church teach that the marriage bond can at times be dissolved, but such doctrines bring great evil upon society. When the father and mother separate and marry again, the children of the first marriage are left to take care of themselves, or receive only such care as the law gives them. They are left without Christian instruction and the good influence of home. Then persons who are divorced once may be divorced a second or third time, and thus all society would be thrown into a state of confusion, and there would be scarcely any such thing as a family to be found. It is bad enough at present, on account of divorces granted by the laws and upheld by Protestants; and only for the influence and good public opinion created by the teaching and opposition of the Catholic Church, it would be much worse. Again, if husbands and wives could separate for this or that fault, they would not be careful in making their choice of the person they wish to marry, nor would their motives be always holy and worthy of the Sacrament.

285 Q. Which are the effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: first, to sanctify the love of husband and wife; second, to give them grace to bear with each other’s weaknesses; third, to enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of God.

The union and love existing between a husband and wife should be like the union and love existing between Our Lord and His Church. The grace of the Sacrament helps them to have such a love. “Weaknesses” – that is, their faults, bad dispositions, etc. “Bring up their children.” This is their most important duty, and parents receive grace to perform it, and woe be to them if they abuse that grace! Children should remember that their parents have received this special grace from God to advise, direct, and warn them of sin; and if they refuse to obey their parents or despise their direction, they are despising God’s grace. Remember that nothing teaches us so well as experience. Now your parents, even if God gave them no special grace, have experience. They have been children as you are; they have been young persons as you are; they have received advice from their parents and teachers as you do. If your parents are bad, it is because they have not heeded the advice given them. If they are good, it is because they have heeded and followed it. The years of your youth quickly pass, and you will soon be thrown out into the world, among strangers to provide for yourselves, and will perhaps have no one to advise you. If you neglect to learn while you have the opportunity you will be sorry for it in after life. If you waste your time in school, you will leave it knowing very little, and an ignorant man can never take any good position in the world; he can seldom be his own master and independent; he must always toil for others as a servant. God gives us our talents and opportunities that we may use them to the best of our ability, and He will hold us accountable for these. It is good and praiseworthy to raise ourselves and others in the world if we do so by lawful and proper means. You may have the opportunity of getting a good position, and will not be able to take it because you are not sufficiently educated. Many young men live to be sorry for wasting time in school, and try to make up for it by studying at night. You cannot really make up for lost time. Every moment God gives you He gives for some particular work, and He will require an account from you, at the last day, for the use you made of your time. Besides, you can learn with greater ease while you are young. But what shall I say of neglecting to learn your holy religion? If you neglect your school lessons you will not be successful in the world as businessmen or professional men; but if you neglect your religious lessons, you will be miserable, not merely in this world, but in the next, and that for all eternity. Again, will you not feel ashamed to say you are a Catholic when persons who are not Catholics ask you the meaning of something you believe or do, and you will not be able to answer? When they tell falsehoods against your religion, you will not, on account of your ignorance, be able to refute them. Almost the only time you have to learn the truths and practices of your holy religion is during the instructions at Sunday school or day school, and after a few years you will not have this advantage. When you grow up you may hear a sermon, and if you attend early Mass, only a short instruction, on Sundays; and if you do not know your Catechism, you will be less able to profit by the instructions given. Therefore the time to learn is while you are young, have sufficient leisure, and good, willing teachers to explain whatever you do not understand.

When you attend Sunday school, bear in mind that your teachers have frequently to sacrifice their time or pleasure for your sake, and that you should not repay them for their kindness by acts of disobedience, disrespect, and stubbornness. By spending your time in idleness, in giving annoyance to your teacher, and in distracting others who are willing to learn, you show a want of appreciation and gratitude for the blessings God has bestowed upon you, and please the devil exceedingly; and as God will hold you accountable for all His gifts, this one – the opportunity of learning your religion – will be no exception.

286 Q. To receive the Sacrament of Matrimony worthily, is it necessary to be in the state of grace?
A. To receive the Sacrament of Matrimony worthily it is necessary to be in the state of grace, and it is necessary also to comply with the laws of the Church.

“The laws,” laws concerning marriage. Laws forbidding the solemnizing of marriage at certain times, namely, Advent and Lent; laws forbidding marriage with relatives, or with persons of a different religion or of no religion; laws with regard to age, etc.

*287 Q. Who has the right to make laws concerning the Sacrament of marriage?
A. The Church alone has the right to make laws concerning the Sacrament of marriage, though the State also has the right to make laws concerning the civil effects of the marriage contract.

“Civil effects” – that is, laws with regard to the property of persons marrying, with regard to the inheritance of the children, with regard to the debts of husband and wife, etc.

*288 Q. Does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all?
A. The Church does forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all.

*289 Q. Why does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all?
A. The Church forbids the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all because such marriages generally lead to indifference, loss of faith, and to the neglect of the religious education of the children.

We know that nothing has so bad an influence upon people as bad company. Now, when a Catholic marries one who is not a Catholic, he or she is continually associated with one who in most cases ignores the true religion, or speaks at least with levity of its devotions and practices. The Catholic party may resist this evil influence for a time, but will, if not very steadfast in the faith, finally yield to it, and, tired of numerous disputes in defense of religious rights, will become more and more indifferent, gradually give up the practice of religion, and probably terminate with complete loss of faith or apostasy from the true religion. We know that the children of Seth were good till they married the children of Cain, and then they also became wicked; for, remember, there is always more likelihood that the bad will pervert the good, than that the good will convert the bad. Besides the disputes occasioned between husband and wife by the diversity of their religion, their families and relatives, being also of different religions, will seldom be at peace or on friendly terms with one another. Then the children can scarcely be brought up in the true religion; for the father may wish them to attend one church, and the mother another, and to settle the dispute they will attend neither. Besides, if they have before them the evil example of a father or mother speaking disparagingly of the true religion, or perhaps ridiculing all religion, it is not likely they will be imbued with great respect and veneration for holy things. There is still another reason why Catholics should dread mixed marriages. If the one who is not a Catholic loses regard for his or her obligations, becomes addicted to any vice, and is leading a bad life, the Catholic party has no means of reaching the root of the evil, no hope that the person may take the advice of the priest, or go to confession or do any of those things that could effect a change in the heart and life of a Catholic. For all these very good reasons and others besides, the Church opposes mixed marriages, as they are called when one of the persons is not a Catholic. Neither does the Church want persons to become converts simply for the sake of marrying a Catholic. Such conversions would not be sincere, and would do no good, but rather make such converts hypocrites, and guilty of greater sin.

*290 Q. Why do many marriages prove unhappy?
A. Many marriages prove unhappy because they are entered into hastily and without worthy motives.

“Hastily” – without knowing the person well or considering their character or dispositions; without trying to discover whether they are sober, industrious, virtuous, and the like; whether they know and practice their religion, or whether, on the contrary, they are given to vices forbidden by good morals, and totally forgetful of their religious duties. In a word, those wishing to marry should look for enduring qualities in their lifelong companions, and not for characteristics that please the fancy for the time being. They should, besides, truly love each other. Again, the persons should be nearly equals in education, social standing, etc., for it helps greatly to secure harmony between families and unity of thought and action between themselves.

“Worthy motives.” The motives are worthy when persons marry to fulfill the end for which God instituted marriage. It would, for example, be an unworthy motive to marry solely for money, property, or other advantage, without any regard for the holiness and end of the Sacrament. There are many motives that may present themselves to the minds of persons wishing to marry, and they will know whether they are worthy or unworthy, good or bad, if by serious consideration they weigh them well and value them by their desire to please God and lead a good life.

Every person’s motive in getting married or in entering into any new state of life should be that he may be able to serve God better in that state than in any other.

*291 Q. How should Christians prepare for a holy and happy marriage?
A. Christians should prepare for a holy and happy marriage by receiving the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist; by begging God to grant them a pure intention and to direct their choice; and by seeking the advice of their parents and the blessing of their pastors.

They should pray for a long time that they may make a good choice. They would do well to read in the Holy Scripture, in the Book of Tobias (8), of the happy marriage of Tobias and Sara, and how they spent their time in prayer both before and after their marriage, and how God rewarded them. Advice is very necessary, as marriage is to last for life, and is to make persons either happy or miserable. They should ask advice from prudent persons, and should try to learn something of the former life of the one they wish to marry. They should know something about the family, whether its members are respectable or not, etc. It is an injustice to parents for sons or daughters to marry into families that may have been disgraced, or that may bring disgrace upon them. Sometimes, however, parents are unreasonable in this matter: they are proud or vain, and want to suit themselves rather than their children. Sometimes, too, they force marriage upon their children, or forbid it for purely worldly or selfish motives. In such cases, and indeed in all cases, the best one to consult and ask advice from is your confessor. He has only your spiritual interests at heart, and will set aside all worldly motives. If your parents are unreasonable, he will be a just judge in the matter, and tell you how to act.

I have now explained all the Sacraments, but before finishing I must say a word about the Holy Oils. We have seen that oil is used in the administration of some Sacraments. There are three kinds of oil blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday, namely, oil for anointing the sick, called “oil of the infirm”; oil to be used in Baptism and in the ordination of priests, called “oil of catechumens” (catechumens are those who are being instructed for Baptism); the third kind of oil is used also in Baptism, in Confirmation, and when the bishop blesses the sacred vessels, altars, etc.; it is called “holy chrism.” Therefore the Sacraments in which oil is used are: Baptism, in which two kinds are used; Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders.

Elsewhere: Catholic politicians


Catholics are not free to disagree with God (neither are non-Catholics, BTW). We can not pick and choose which truth to accept and which we prefer not to. Living by 7 out of 10 commandments is not “good enough.” Rejecting the teaching of His Church is rejecting God and sinful on several levels. Putting politics ahead of God is idolatry. Doing so while saying that you are a faithful Catholic adds at least the sins of lying and scandal. Receiving communion adds another one. This amounts to a cornucopia of mortal sins.

Some Catholic politicians, none-the-less, often claim to be faithful Catholics while at the same time vigorously promoting extremely grave sins. They claim either that their actions are informed by their faith or that they do not wish to “impose their faith” on others as justification. Complete, total BS either way. They have been told enough times it is BS so this is not a matter of unintentional error or astoundingly poor catechesis. It is rather, willful and insistent.

There are unfortunately many Catholic politicians who – very sadly – fit this description. Three who stand-out for holding high positions, loud and frequent proclamations of their Catholic faith and yet relentless efforts to scandalize the faithful leading people into sin are: Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden and Andrew Cummo. Their gravely sinful actions, repeated frequently over a period of decades, leave no objective room to charitably excuse.

At a press conference last week, Nancy Pelosi was asked why it is reprehensible (her word) murder to kill outside the womb (as Dr. Kermit Gosnell did in Philadelphia) but killing in the womb moments earlier is perfectly legal — or in her words “sacred”. Instead of answering, she belittled then ignored the reporter as she has done in the past when asked about her faith in practice. Calling abortion, the killing of innocent and defenseless children, sacred is outrageous.

Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life wrote the following letter to her:

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Dear Mrs. Pelosi,

Last Thursday, June 13, you were asked a question in a press briefing that you declined to answer. The question was, “What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?

Given the fact that the Gosnell case has been national news for months now, and that Congress, where you serve as House Democratic Leader, was about to have a vote on banning abortion after 20 weeks fetal age, this was a legitimate question.

Instead of even attempting to answer the question, you resorted to judgmental ad hominem attacks on the reporter who asked it, saying, “You obviously have an agenda. You’re not interested in having an answer.

Mrs. Pelosi, the problem is that you’re not interested in giving an answer.

Your refusal to answer this question is consistent with your failure to provide an answer to a similar question from me and the members of my Priests for Life staff. Several years ago, we visited your office with the diagrams of dismemberment abortion at 23 weeks, and asked the simple question, “When you say the word ‘abortion,’ is this what you mean?” In response, nothing but silence has emanated from your office.

In what way is this refusal to address an issue of such national importance consistent with the leadership role you are supposed to be exercising? Public servants are supposed to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. Apparently, you can’t. Otherwise, you would have been able to explain the difference between a legal medical procedure that kills a baby inside the womb and an act of murder – for which Dr. Gosnell is now serving life sentences – for killing the same baby outside the womb.

Moreover, you stated at the press briefing on June 13, “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.

With this statement, you make a mockery of the Catholic faith and of the tens of millions of Americans who consider themselves “practicing and respectful Catholics” and who find the killing of children – whether inside or outside the womb – reprehensible.

You speak here of Catholic faith as if it is supposed to hide us from reality instead of lead us to face reality, as if it is supposed to confuse basic moral truths instead of clarify them, and as if it is supposed to help us escape the hard moral questions of life rather than help us confront them.

Whatever Catholic faith you claim to respect and practice, it is not the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. And I speak for countless Catholics when I say that it’s time for you to stop speaking as if it were.

Abortion is not sacred ground; it is sacrilegious ground. To imagine God giving the slightest approval to an act that dismembers a child he created is offensive to both faith and reason.

And to say that a question about the difference between a legal medical procedure and murder should not “have anything to do with politics” reveals a profound failure to understand your own political responsibilities, which start with the duty to secure the God-given right to life of every citizen.

Mrs. Pelosi, for decades you have gotten away with betraying and misrepresenting the Catholic faith as well as the responsibilities of public office. We have had enough of it. Either exercise your duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them.


Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

This letter and a petition to Nancy Pelosi appear on the Priests for Life website: Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi. Pray for her conversion. Pray for those who are led astray by her “leadership”. Most importantly, pray for the innocent lives sacrificed in the name of choice.

Elsewhere: priestesses (again)


Jesus chose men to be apostles. It was not a move against women. The Church does not have the desire or authority to override Him (it seems silly just saying that). I wrote about this 3 years ago in my piece entitled women priests.

Nothing has changed and never will, because it can not. That does not stop agitators in the media, from raising this whenever possible. The Church does not meet their worldview on this, gay “marriage,” abortion, general sexual promiscuity and so on. By promoting tiny, extreme fringe groups such as “Roman Catholic Women Priests” (an oxymoron for sure) they apparently hope to inflame poorly catechized Catholics into thinking this is part of some “war on women.”

The Los Angeles Times recently offered a classic and all too typical example of this. Most sentences are factually wrong. Here are some sample fragments:

The priest will be ordained (she will never be a priest)

The Communion bread, symbolizing the body of Christ (symbolizing – maybe, but not actually the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord)

laying on of hands that turns parishioner into priest (pretend priest)

California is home to more ordained Catholic women (there is no such thing in California or anywhere else)

the church edict states (first, that is capital “C” Church and second, there is no “edict” — but we do follow Christ)

women who presume to be priests, and those who help them, are committing a grave sin (in fact, they have automatically excommunicated themselves – it is that damaging to their salvation)

The church does not acknowledge ordained women or the sacraments they offer (that is because they are not “ordained” in any sense – as if it could make it true, the piece refers to them as ordained 10 times)

bishops …   ordained the first female bishops, in turn, could ordain other women (absolutely impossible – (1) the Holy Father must approve bishop ordinations and (2) women can not be ordained any more than men can give birth)

To Eitz, the threat of excommunication is meaningless (it is not a threat, she excommunicated herself latae sententiae)

when she became a deacon in 2012 (nope, that was pretend also)

All of that is in the first few paragraphs. The rest of the piece continues along the same lines. Join the fun! Read the complete article Women becoming priests without Vatican’s blessing and see how many errors you can spot (hint: start with the title).

LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy took a shot at it in Yet Another Silly Article About Womynpreests. In an amusing follow-up, he likens the possibility of women priests to him becoming a pizza.

Fr. Z (Father John Zuhlsdorf) writes about this topic from time to time. For example here, here and here.

BTW, no one argues against women called to various forms of ministry. There are awesome religious and lay women doing great things. Ditto for many (non-priest) men. ALL Catholics are called to the common, universal priesthood of the faithful (vs. the ordained or ministerial priesthood). Additionally, it is woefully incorrect to view the priesthood in terms of “power” as radical feminists do.

7 Quick Takes Friday (set #100)

7 Quick Takes Friday

This week: The latest issue of New Evangelists Monthly is complete and ready for you. The latest Live Action undercover video. The story of a mother choosing life. Anna tells her conversion story. John Pridmore on forgiveness. IRS knowingly paying over $4 billion in fraudulent claims. The state of this scandal plagued union.

— 1 —

New Evangelists Monthly

Issue #6, June 2013, of New Evangelists Monthly is complete! Dozens of faithful Catholic bloggers have contributed their very best pieces from May. Exactly what topics did our contributing authors write about this month? Lots of great things: Alexander VI, visitations, surviving F4, biblical nuns, attachments, emotional chastity, Catholic love, contraception, an ordination, forgiveness, ex-prisoner scandal, sacramental pilgrimage, Holy Spirit, BRCA-1, hurtful words, joyful noise, pope is Catholic, guardian angels, worthy released, Jesus’ miracles, worship Mary?, Pentecost, dear Jacob, grace, Texas Rangerettes, teaching the Trinity, chivalry, finding God, 4 conversions, grandeur, spiritual mothers, family prayer, marital complacency, attachment to sin, vulnerability, old/new Mass, soldier snapshot, family rosary, virginity mistake, St. Therese, Bonhoeffer, OMG, beauty, luminous mysteries, Sacred and immaculate, eisegesis, Lumen Gentium, denominations, 3-year-olds, Leah’s hope, Sacred Heart, what is old age, impostor Francis?, wiping bottoms, a poem, lawn chair catechism, beautiful you, branding, strengths, new Jerusalem, confidence, unbrided, chastity, made whole, confirmation, ordination, through Mary, He cares, Grant the Great, book review, grandma’s girl, contemplation, loving Catholicism, chilled, being open, St. Stylianos, kissing and women.

This monthly “meta-magazine” showcases Catholicism from theology to family life and “everything in between.” Enjoy it now at

Read Now

— 2 —

in·hu·man (adj.)

  1. lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric
  2. not human in nature or character

These are real, under-cover videos in abortion “clinics” across the country. Video, after video, after video exposes the “norm” in this brutal business. Here is the latest from Live Action:

— 3 —

Seeing with the eyes of the world would have meant death to baby Christian in utero (see above). Thank God for his Christian parents.

Spotted by Matthew Archbold

— 4 —

Catholics – a statue worshiping cult – or perhaps not…   Anna tells her story:

— 5 —

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can be forgiven if they accept God’s mercy.

— 6 —

While the federal government runs up record debt, the IRS is pumping-out huge fraudulent “refunds” to 2,000,000 illegal immigrants. This illegal payout totals over $4,000,000,000 per year. Your children and their children will pay for this.

— 7 —

The actual state of this scandal plagued union…   taking stock of where we are:

Update: I know many good people still believe this stuff is just “partisan” attacks. It isn’t. While there will always be corruption in the government, what is happening now is at an extremely dangerous, unprecedented level. Worse, most of the media works to spin, hide and fluff-up what they used to dig-out and expose. Elizabeth Scalia (a/k/a The Anchoress) has a good related article today here.

Some random thoughts or bits of information are worthy of sharing but don’t warrant their own full post. This idea was started by Jennifer Fulwiler at Conversion Diary to address this blogging need. So, some Fridays I too participate when I have accumulated 7 worthy items. Thank you Jen for hosting this project!