I wonder what our founding fathers and those who fought and died for America would think now. They believed in America’s greatness: through its freedoms, by checks and balances on power and unwavering commitment to strong Judeo-Christian values. They were willing to die for “faith, hope and the American way.”

The sad truth is their heirs have squandered that inheritance. We have embraced socialism maintaining only a facade of democracy. We have surrendered our freedoms without a shot being fired. The constitution has been replaced by whatever the ruling class deigns.

Most Americans falsely believe that our founding documents enshrine a doctrine separating church and state. The Establishment Clause actually prohibits the government from creating a state religion, yet it is establishing a religion of radical secularism. The Free Exercise clause prohibits government meddling in religion, yet it does exactly that by restricting any such exercise in the public sphere. It wasn’t always this way.

Now God is a threat to be managed in the new order. As with past socialist regimes, one approach is to rewrite history or in this case, the Declaration of Independence. Our president habitually omits the words “endowed by their Creator” when quoting it on the source of all truth.

A new tact was unveiled this week – co-opting God. God once again exists (sometimes), but now is called upon to shower His blessings upon those murdering the most defenseless among us. This, done on a scale far exceeding anything the Nazis ever thought of. Our president has jumped from denial of God to unabashed, in-your-face blasphemy.

This heralds a new and more aggressive attack on religious freedom. As Robert Royal explains in his piece yesterday, the direction is doubling down on big government’s prohibition against actually living your faith (as illustrated by the HHS mandates). The new attack demonizes you for simply having your faith. From Royal’s article at The Catholic Thing:

Many things happen in modern societies that render a decent human being all but speechless. So many, in fact, that sometimes it seems the better part simply to let them pass and to move on. That seems to be what has already happened with President Obama’s outrageous speech just three days ago to Planned Parenthood – the first such speech by a sitting president in American history. But it must not be allowed to pass or be forgotten. Not for a moment.

It’s not just the historical precedent that’s worrisome, bad as that is in a country deeply divided over abortion. It’s the way the President of the United States has settled into describing all those Americans – more than half of the population, if recent surveys are to be believed – who call themselves pro-life and act on their belief as threatening “basic rights when it comes to women’s health.” He has used similar language on multiple occasions in defending the HHS mandates.

The president may not regard this as “demonizing opponents,” something he professes to abhor. Way back when the powers at Notre Dame were still innocent enough to invite Obama to receive an honorary degree – which is to say, before the university had to join other institutions, Catholic and not, in a lawsuit to defend themselves from Obamacare – he said:

Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause. . . .the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

It sounded nice, but I myself did not believe he meant it then. And now, it’s even clearer. One slice of American citizens regards the rest of us as the functional equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan. Who else would dream of denying others “basic rights”? By using this sort of inflammatory language and pushing it hard on wedge issues – Obama and others use it increasingly on gay “marriage” as well – he may be gaining brownie points in certain places, but he is sowing discord in the body politic. Remember when there weren’t red states and blue states, only the United States?

The Catholic bishops and anyone else worried over religious liberty should not take this latest development lightly. You can live with a person you think mistaken on one or more issues, who is essentially of good will. You cannot tolerate the Ku Klux Klan.

Read the whole article Coming Soon: The KKKatholic Church.

There is much written about the Church of Our Lord. Everything from history (in Protestant influenced history books) to current events (in the liberal, anti-Catholic mass media). Much of it is uninformed or agenda driven crap problematic reporting.

The New York Times for example, known for its attacks against the Church, proves this wisdom: never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. A classic example was their reporting on Easter Sunday (they “mischaracterized” Easter as the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection into heaven instead of his resurrection from the dead). Basic stuff.

Good books are available for those seeking more than slanted or ignorant, secular viewpoints. One such is Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, A 2,000-Year History by H. W. Crocker III. Author Crocker has recently made a “top 10” list on Catholicism for Catholic Exchange. Items everyone would include like truth and hope are there, as well as some surprising ones like the inquisition and crusades. I like that Crocker tackles them head-on, briefly explaining why they are far from the embarrassments typically portrayed.

What’s so great about Catholicism? Here are ten things – in countdown order – to which one could easily add hundreds of others.

10. Hope

Classical paganism, as we know, always ended in despair — a noble despair sometimes, but despair nevertheless. Eastern religions don’t offer much in the way of hope, as they are tied to doctrines of fate, cycles of history, and a nirvana of extinction. Reformation Protestantism is pretty despairing, too, with Calvin’s belief that it would have been better for most people if they had never been born, predestined as they are for damnation. Secularism and materialism are no better, as wealthy secular societies tend to have the highest rates of suicide.

But in the Catholic Church, there is hope. Salvation is open to every man willing to take it. And though Jesus warned His apostles that following His way meant enduring inevitable persecution and hatred, He also gave them this promise: The gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Even outsiders recognize this. Who ever heard of a deathbed conversion to Methodism? Hope comes from the Real Thing.

9. The Inquisition

The Inquisition? Yes, let’s not be shy. The Inquisition is every Catholic-basher’s favorite tool of abuse – though it is one that is very much not in the basher’s favor. There were several Inquisitions. The first in order of importance in Catholic history was the Inquisition against the Albigensians – a heresy that encouraged suicide, euthanasia, abortion, sodomy, fornication, and other modern ideas that were distasteful to the medieval mind. The struggle against the Albigensians erupted into war – and a war that could not be carefully trammeled within crusading boundaries. So Pope Gregory IX entrusted the final excision of the Albigensian heresy to the scalpel of the Inquisition rather than the sword of the Crusader.

Did this Inquisition of the 13th century strike fear into the people of western Europe? No. Its scope was limited; its trials and punishments more lenient to the accused than were those of its secular counterparts. Inquisitional punishment was often no more than the sort of penance – charity, pilgrimage, mortification – that one might be given by a priest in a confessional. If one were fortunate enough to live in England, northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, or, with the exception of Aragon, even, at this time, Spain, the risk that one might be called before an inquisitional trial was virtually zero. The focus of the Inquisition was in the Albigensian districts of southern France; in Germany, where some of the worst abuses occurred; and in those parts of chaotic Italy rife with anticlerical heresy. In all cases, inquisitional courts sat only where Church and state agreed that peace and security were threatened. Nevertheless, the courts were abused. The Church could not modify an ironclad rule of life as true in the 13th century as it is today: Every recourse to law and the courts is a calamity. But the Church then, and people today, seemed to assume it is better than vigilantes and war. There’s no accounting for some tastes.

More famous, certainly, is the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was a state-run affair, where the Church’s role was to act as a brake of responsibility, fairness, and justice on the royal court’s ferreting out of quislings (who were defined, after centuries of war against the Muslims, as those who were not sincere and orthodox Catholics). Recent scholarship, which has actually examined the meticulous records kept by the Spanish Inquisition, has proven – to take the title of a BBC documentary on the subject – The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. We now know, beyond all doubt, that the Monty Python sketch of inquisitors holding an old lady in “the comfy chair” while they tickle her with feather dusters is closer to the truth than images of people impaled within iron maidens. (One of the standard works of scholarship is Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, Yale University Press.) In the course of an average year, the number of executions ordered by the Spanish Inquisition – which covered not only Spain but its vast overseas empire – was less than the number of people put to death annually by the state of Texas. And this at a time when heresy was universally considered a capital crime in Europe. The myth of the Spanish Inquisition comes from forged documents, propagandizing Protestant polemicists, and anti-Spanish Catholics, who were numerous. The fact is, far from being the bloodthirsty tribunals of myth, the courts of the Spanish Inquisition were probably the fairest, most lenient, and most progressive in Europe.

8. The Crusades

7. The Swiss Guards and the French Foreign Legion

6. Art

5. Freedom

4. The Saints

3. Unity

2. The Sacraments

1. Truth

Nothing else would matter about Catholicism if it weren’t true. But it is our firm belief as Catholics that it is true. And, indeed, I believe that the historical case for the Catholic Church is virtually irrefutable, as irrefutable as it was to Cardinal Newman. And there is something else. We know that the Church affirms that its members and servants are all subject to original sin. But while men might falter, the teaching of the Church does not. That has been our rock, tested through the tempests of centuries and undiminished through time.

Innumerable secular and other forces are against us. Even within our own midst we have been painfully reminded of the work that needs to be done to cleanse and purify our Church. Evil stalks the world. But then, it always has. And the Church has survived, and in the heat of persecution, it has grown in numbers and strength. Let us remember that fact. And let us always keep in mind the immortal words of Auberon Waugh: “There are countless horrible things happening all over the country, and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible.”

Amen to that. Keep the faith, dear readers, and remember that our ultimate destination is heaven.

Read the whole article at Ten Great Things About Catholicism.

I do not know all that I would choose for my own top-10 list, but I agree with Crocker on #1 — truth. The Church is certainly not perfect and others may have parts of the truth, but only the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ and is protected by the Holy Spirit until the end of time. Chesterton said it very well:

There are a thousand reasons to leave the Church and only one reason to stay:   it’s true.

Pope Francis is a faithful Catholic. Duh. That is his most important characteristic, it says a lot and the faithful are overjoyed! This seems to surprise and disappoint the New York Times who published with the headline: “Argentine Pope Will Make History, but Backs Vatican Line.” They apparently hoped for a non-Catholic who would not “back” the “Vatican line.” So clueless and biased are they.

Being 2 years younger than Pope Benedict when he was elected 8 years ago, many had excluded Archbishop Bergoglio never-the-less as too old. He was below the radar. Except for the Cardinal Electors, at least 2/3 of who voted for him on only their 5th vote.

Jorge Bergoglio had been considered a front-runner as a future pope long ago (2002), well before Pope Benedict’s election. An Italian weekly (L’Espresso) even published a good article about him entitled Bergoglio in Pole Position:

Midway through November, his colleagues wanted to elect him president of the Argentine bishops’ conference. He refused. But if there had been a conclave, it would have been difficult for him to refuse the election to the papacy, because he’s the one the cardinals would vote for resoundingly, if they were called together to choose immediately the successor to John Paul II.

He’s Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires. Born in Argentina (with an Italian surname), he has leapt to the top of the list of the papabili, given the ever-increasing likelihood that the next pope could be Latin-American. Reserved, timid, and laconic, he won’t lift a finger to advance his own campaign – but even this is counted among his strong suits.

John Paul II made him a cardinal together with the last group of bishops named to the honor, in February of 2001. On that occasion, Bergoglio distinguished himself by his reserve among his many more festive colleagues. Hundreds of Argentinians had begun fundraising efforts to fly to Rome to pay homage to the new man with the red hat. But Bergoglio stopped them. He ordered them to remain in Argentina and distribute the money they had raised to the poor. In Rome, he celebrated his new honor nearly alone – and with Lenten austerity.

He has always lived this way. Since he was made archbishop of the Argentinian capital, the luxurious residence next to the cathedral has remained empty. He lives in a nearby apartment, together with another bishop, old and sickly. In the evening, he himself cooks for both of them. He rarely drives, getting around most of the time by bus, wearing the cassock of an ordinary priest.

Of course, it’s more difficult now for him to move about unnoticed, his face becoming always more familiar in his country. Since Argentina has spun into a tremendous crisis and everyone else’s reputation – politicians, business leaders, officials, intellectuals – has fallen through the floor, the star of Cardinal Bergoglio has risen to its zenith. He has become one of the few guiding lights of the people.

Yet he’s not the type to compromise himself for the public. Every time he speaks, instead, he tries to shake people up and surprise them. In the middle of November, he did not give a learned homily on social justice to the people of Argentina reduced by hunger – he told them to return to the humble teachings of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. “This,” he explained, “is the way of Jesus.” And as soon as one follows this way seriously, he understands that “to trample upon the dignity of a woman, a man, a child, an elderly person, is a grave sin that cries out to heaven,” and he decides not to do it any more.

Reed the entire piece at www.chiesa.espressonline.it. Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard built on that story in his own 2003 piece Gentle and humble anticipation: is a new Saint Pius X coming?.

Today, on this sad 40th aniversary of Roe v. Wade, one of the rays of hope are all those who have left Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion industry. Not only have they left their old positions in promoting and performing abortions, but have often become highly active members of the pro-life community.

One of the most wildely known stories is that of Abby Johnson who was previously a director at one of Planned Parenthood’s “clinics”. Her story is recounted in the book unPlanned.

There are many more. The Catholic World Report tells the story of just 3, beginning with Annette Lopez. Like many, she wanted to help women and youth. Like far too many people (inside and outside the industry), Annette did not initially understand what Planned Parenthood was really all about. Here is her story:

Annette Lopez worked as a program assistant for Planned Parenthood in the Los Angeles area for five years. Her job was to visit high schools and teach teens about “responsible choices” relating to sex.

She first learned about Planned Parenthood while in college. A nominal Catholic, her views were rather vague on the abortion issue, and she was assured it was a small part of Planned Parenthood’s business.

Lopez initially liked her job. “I wanted to help youth,” she explained. “I had a niece who got pregnant at a very young age, and I wanted to help them avoid making her mistake.”

As Lopez was seldom at clinics she rarely saw pro-life demonstrators, and what little she knew about them was negative. Her perspective on pro-lifers came from such media depictions as the 1996 HBO movie If These Walls Could Talk, in which pro-life demonstrators are angry and violent. (Cher portrays the caring and kind abortionist, Dr. Beth Thompson, in the movie, who is harassed relentlessly by pro-lifers. At the close of the movie, she has just performed an abortion on a relieved Anne Heche, and is gunned down by a pro-lifer who bursts into the procedure room.)

In her final year at Planned Parenthood Lopez began dating her future husband, a pro-life Catholic who gently queried her about her work. “He’d ask, ‘Don’t they do abortions there? Is that right? You’re a loving person and you love your family, why are you there, where they hurt babies?'” she recalled. “He got me thinking.”

In her final six months of employment, she began working in a supporting role at a clinic. Her new manager suggested she train to become a medical assistant, as budget cuts could eliminate her education position. He also suggested she watch an abortion. Lopez recalled, “He said, “That’s what we do. Every staff member should know what it is.” I knew I didn’t want to work there anymore.”

Lopez also was involved in “counseling” women with unplanned pregnancies. She’d tell them that they had three options: keep their babies, put them up for adoption, or have abortions. If the patient expressed any interest in abortion, she was instructed to schedule one. She said, “We wouldn’t really tell them about alternative options. We were trying to push them towards having abortions.”

Lopez attended a pro-life conference, and one of the speakers was Abby Johnson, who told the story of how she left employment at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. As she sat listening, Lopez prayed for guidance. She said, “I knew I had to go talk with her. I spoke with her after the talk, and she gave me the strength I needed.”

The next day she quit.

She began volunteering for Los Angeles Pregnancy Services (LAPS), a pro-life clinic in a poor Hispanic neighborhood which offers women alternatives to abortion. The pro-life facility is surrounded by abortion clinics that advertise their services in the neighborhood. “It was an amazing experience,” Lopez said of her time at LAPS. “I’m so happy I got involved. I discovered that pro-life people are compassionate and loving, and not the way Planned Parenthood portrays them.”

Lopez married, and has a child with another on the way. Wanting to better understand fertility cycles, she and her husband took Natural Family Planning (NFP) classes. Realizing that NFP could benefit LAPS clients, she and her husband are now training to become NFP instructors.

Astrid Bennett Gutierrez, director of LAPS, was grateful for Lopez’s time at LAPS: “She is awesome. She saved many babies.”

The article goes on to detail the similar story of Sue Thayer and well as that of Dr. Anthony Levatino. Read about them and more in: Abortion Insiders Turn Their Backs on the Industry.

What would be the reaction to a significant, on-going sex abuse scandal in a Catholic diocese? Would the national media cover it for weeks, or years, if there were 18 new (not decades old) reports? How big would the outrage be if those 18 cases were at a single Catholic elementary school?

You can bet that it would occupy the national media’s attention for a long time. Calls for swift and stiff prosecution would be shouted from the rooftops. Who were the priests involved, are they in custody, who covered it up, how many lawsuits have been filed, what can be done to clamp-down?

If this were the case, such outrage would be *justified*. I have written about sex abuse before (see sex scandal).

The situation is much worse. Not 18 cases but more than TEN TIMES THAT – 189 (so far). ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE.

Why have you not heard about it then? Because it is not damaging to the Church but is damaging to a public school. To the completely biased, political agenda driven national media, public schools and their teacher unions are a protected class. The story simply does not fit their narrative. Shameful, completely shameful.

The Media Report (a media watchdog) has the story:

Reports of rampant child sex abuse committed at an elementary school in Los Angeles continue to explode. On the heels of other recent shocking reports involving child sex abuse in L.A. schools, NBC4 in Los Angeles has reported:

“On the same day that attorneys for students at Miramonte Elementary School announced that four additional lawsuits have been filed against LAUSD [Los Angeles Unified School District] over alleged sexual abuse at the school, the district said it faces 189 claims resulting from the scandal…

“The claims are on behalf of 126 students, with the remainder from their family members, [LAUSD general counsel David] Holmquist said.”

189 claims?? 126 students? From just one school?

Is there any doubt that if there were 189 claims at a single Catholic parish that there would be screaming front-page headlines in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Huffington Post? One can easily imagine the folks at the Times becoming hysterical and calling for the federalization of the Catholic Church.

Once again: Double …   standard.

The article and comments are here: Where’s the Outrage? Another L.A. School Sex Abuse Shocker: 189 Abuse Claims at Just ONE School!.