Yesterday afternoon, Bishop collapsed. It started when he staggered into his water dish. This has never happened before, but I thought it was just a moment of clumsiness until I saw him lurch and reel into the couch and the bookshelf. Then his legs buckled. He began to shake convulsively and I began to hyperventilate. I managed to half-carry him to the door and tried to call my friend Kate, who had already set out to pick me up for lunch. I dialed the wrong number (her old, disconnected line), which probably ended up being fortunate, because I was trying to lift a by-now unmoving 57-lb dog enough to slip his harness under his chest at the same time I was panting and sobbing semi-coherently to the voicemail. I ended up dropping the phone, and when I picked it up again I saw the call had been cut off. I was too frantic and in too much of a rush to call back. But more on that in a moment.

Bishop was alert enough to watch me, but I couldn’t coax him into trying to stand or even to shift his muscles in the direction of the car. I managed to sort of carry and sort of drag him outside, thinking (perhaps absurdly) that you always hear about people having sudden, inexplicable surges of strength when they’re adrenalized by panic, so where was mine? Later–when I realized that I had no sore muscles, just an achy knee; I must have dropped onto the cement driveway with the dog in my arms–I thought perhaps I’d gotten it after all.

I managed to dump Bishop’s front half onto the passenger seat and scooted his legs onto the floor. He remained in that exact position for the 10-minute drive to the emergency vet. If you’ve ever met or know anything about Bishop, you can probably imagine how totally and alarmingly atypical this is. I drove with one hand stroking his head, his eyes on me, and I said over and over, “Don’t die on me, bunny rabbit [a silly nickname based on his propensity to do exaggerated jackrabbit sprints when he wants to gallop on the leash and I refuse to go faster than a walk]. I’ll be so mad if you die. You can’t die. What would I do without my Bishop?”

I called Kate when I couldn’t find the emergency vet (right street, wrong block, as will come as no surprise to anyone who knows what my sense of direction, or lack thereof, is like). I dialed the wrong number but this time had the presence of mind to realize almost right away. Kate wasn’t yet at my house, and she gave me directions and stayed on the phone until she knew I was at the right place.

Bishop perked up miraculously while I was on the phone with Kate. He sat up and looked out the window when we pulled into the emergency vet’s parking lot, and he started whining when he saw a scottie going inside. By the time we went in, he was pulling and straining and barking–in other words, acting like the Bishop I know, love, and find completely exasperating. But because we were already there and something had clearly been wrong, we stayed to get him checked out.

I thought maybe he had eaten a frog or a lizard. He was exuding a strong, fishy smell. I’d concluded he had eaten a toad a month ago when he had a similar incident and perked up just as suddenly. I wasn’t sure, though, that made sense; he hadn’t vomited or had diarrhea or done anything else to purge poison from his system. He’d just gone precipitously and in a few minutes from listless and flat on the floor to his normal, excited, tail-wagging self.

The vet could see he was fine, but she questioned me about the incident. She concluded that he probably had suffered a seizure. There’s no way to know what brought it on, if he’s susceptible to them, if he’ll ever have another one or when. There’s medication, but it makes seizures less frequent and severe rather than stopping them entirely, so at this stage putting him on that would be premature. All I can do is watch him and, if he has a grand mal seizure that lasts more than a few minutes, get him to the nearest vet ASAP because, she told me soberly, “They don’t always come back out of that.” She added that that’s a worst-case scenario and he seems fine for now, and since I’m quitting my job soon and driving across the country with him, I’ll be able to observe him closely.

I’m still shaky and prone to tears. I hate the uncertainty and the helplessness and the wondering whether he’s had more seizures while I’ve been at work. I’m undeniably doing worse than he is; he’s the same happy-go-lucky, insane Bishop as always.

Last night, though, as I fell asleep with him sprawled across my legs as usual, I was thankful–and I still am–that he’s okay, at least for now. I’m thankful that this entry isn’t his eulogy, because I’m not sure I could write that. I’m thankful he licked my face while I was crying about what could happen to him. It sounds totally cheesy, but I’m trying to remind myself to take one day at a time (heh) and be grateful for every day I have with him. I know he’s “just a dog,” but he’s my dog. I don’t have a spouse or kids, but I have this lovable companion who makes me laugh, and I can’t imagine life without him.

I’m trying not to. I’m trying to focus hard on being thankful instead.

Surprise, surprise,  Catholic bishops involved in politics when church and state are supposed to be separate.  Now, this Bishop backtracks and expects confidentiality from Patrick Kennedy because he knows it’s frowned upon to use communion as a political/religious stronghold against people. 

Just a sidenote, when discussing confidentiality between parishoners and clergy, isn’t it the CLERGY that’s supposed to keep what parishoners tell them confidential and NOT the other way around????  This Bishop has the nerve to claim that Kennedy should have kept their conversation confidential.  The only reason I could think of is that the bishop knows that it’s frowned upon to use communion as political threat and is embarrassed that it became public.

Now, this bishop is trying to stand behind the argument that Kennedy chose to take this statement public, but public or not, he made it and surely made it to intimidate Kennedy into either giving up a part of his faith due to his political beliefs or changing his political beliefs in order to participate in a certain aspect of his religion.

The conference of catholic bishops lobbied to control federal funding of abortions.  The only purpose this serves is to make sure that poor marginalized women don’t have access to abortion.  Rich women who can afford to pay out of pocket will still be able to have abortions.  Only women with money will be able to access to full healthcare that includes reproductive health.  Fair, isn’t it???

I know, I’m ranting.  That is all.

I don’t guess this is a good time to give thanks to the Christian God for much of anything.  Especially since He watched as hundreds, if not thousands of children were molested.  The Christian God heard their cries for help and did NOTHING to stop it for decades!  It seems we can’t trust the Christian God to watch over our children and keep them safe.  He can’t even do it in his own house with his own servants. Just in time for Thanksgiving and Christmas, no wonder they now prefer to say “happy holidays”.  Not much Merry in the Christmas for those kids.

The full list of reports can be found at the following link:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

The summary of the report is provided below:

The Roman Catholic Church is said to have covered up DECADES of child abuse by priest in an attempt to protect the church’s reputation.  This was discovered after a three year investigation into the matter.

Several government investigations into chronic child rape, beatings and other cruelty in Catholic-run schools, children’s workhouses and orphanages in 1975-2004 were conducted.

The government indicated their investigations “shows clearly that a systemic, calculated perversion of power and trust was visited on helpless and innocent children in the archdiocese.”

With respect to the abuse cases the government stated: “The perpetrators must continue to be brought to justice, and the people of Ireland must know that this can never happen again,”

The 720-page report – delivered to the government in July but released Thursday – analyzes the cases of 46 priests against whom 320 complaints were filed. The 46 were selected from more than 150 Dublin priests implicated in molesting or raping boys and girls since 1940. Eleven priests convicted of child abuse are named in the report, but 33 are referred to by aliases and two have their names blacked out because they have yet to face justice.

The report also rejected past bishops’ key claim that they were ignorant of both the scale and criminality of priests’ abuse of children, showing that the Dublin Archdiocese negotiated a 1987 insurance policy for future legal costs of defending lawsuits and compensation claims.

The report states that  ”the taking out of insurance was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost to the archdiocese.”

Investigators spent three years poring over 60,000 previously secret Dublin church files. Among the files were more than 5,500 that Martin’s predecessor, retired Cardinal Desmond Connell, had tried to keep locked in the archbishop’s private vault.

“One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years.”

“A few (priests) were courageous and brought complaints to the attention of their superiors. The vast majority simply chose to turn a blind eye,” the report said.

In May, the government published a report on decades of child abuse in Catholic-run schools, workhouses and orphanages. More than 12,000 victims of rape, beatings and mental abuse have received compensation payments from a government panel exceeding euro800 million ($1.2 billion).

I am surprised that anyone can feel it moral to follow this Christian belief after what has already been exposed.  It is likely this is not all we will come .

Yet, fools (dumb sheep) will still look to the Church for answers on “morals”.   We have Christians of all types now making excuses for child abuse, child rape, child labor, and in America we have Christians supporting the re-election of a Christian President that sent American troops to die for his war based on lies of WMD and ties to 9/11.  A President that used God as an excuse for it all, to include torture.  Christians in overwhelming numbers supported and re-elected Bush and thus approved, supported and condoned his immoral acts.  Yes, they are just as accountable for those acts.

Just because these people follow some superstition that millions respect doesn’t mean they are above the law or that they can commit any immoral act and get away with it.  Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, Vittner, John Ensign to name a few high profile Christians, seems to slide past any real accountability.

Imagine how many low profile individuals are getting through the cracks.  If the most “moral” of the “moral” are doing such sick acts, then the Christian idiots that come here and leave comments like “fuck off you piece of shit” are likely hiding many other vile acts while they claim to follow a “moral” God.

What happened Christians?  You attempt to tell us that we have no morals without religion and it appears the opposite is true.  With religion, we discover how to be immoral and claim it is moral, hide it with money and power and praise God while we tell others how they should live!

Pathetic!!

It is time for the world to wake up to these superstitious claims, stop believe the lies that are spread because threats are made of terrible harm that will come if you don’t follow.  Grow up, stand up and be honest to the children.  Stop threatening them with your God’s great punishment and torture for eternity.  Let them have a chance at life and escape the lies you are forced to live with.

I’ve decided to highlight various Grenadian genealogical information I’ve come across online.  The first of this “series” is the extensive information collected by Desmond Preudhomme of  Toronto on the following families (this is an abridged list as the full list is very long):

BANFIELD

BISHOP

BOURNE

CAMPBELL

DATE

DE FREITAS

DE GALE

DONALDSON

DUNCAN

FARMER

GIBBON

GILL

GOLTON/GOULTON

GOODING

GRANT

HUGHES

JAMES

JOAN

LOFTUS

LUSAN/LUSSAN

OTWAY

PREUDHOMME

MARSHALL

MIGNON

MINORS

PATERSON

PAYNE

PETERKIN

RENWICK

According to the page Desmond’s contact information is…

Desmond T W Preudhomme

78 Mayfield Ave

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1K8

416 760 7492

d_preudhomme@hotmail.com

I am sure he would appreciate being able to connect with more relatives and discover additional family information.

This Past Saturday the Pope met with Artists in a special address in the Sistine Chapel.

I think you will find in the words that follow, an exhortation that many artists have been dying to hear. I know that as a charismatic, and a once ultra-Charismatic, i hated that we had no way to talk about beauty really. Worship services came in mass produced packages with the trappings of lights and smoke machines, all attempting to recreate something that the church has always been about and failing horribly. While comfortable, pretty, or even quaint, these scenes are not scenes of undying beauty, they will pass with cultural fads and something else will take their place.

It is my hope that you’ll take the time to read the whole address, since in it are words of profound insight, with quotes from some of my favorites, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and even a lesser favorite worthy of respect, Plato. The Holy Father launched this address on the 10th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s address to artists, attempting to reestablish a stronger communication between the arts and the church and highlight the interdependence of each on the other.

It is my hope that these words encourage artists, theologians and the faithful, because they encouraged me, and have lifted my spirit.

Just some highlights from the address before I give you the full text:

“Unfortunately, the present time is marked, not only by negative elements in the social and economic sphere, but also by a weakening of hope, by a certain lack of confidence in human relationships, which gives rise to increasing signs of resignation, aggression and despair. The world in which we live runs the risk of being altered beyond recognition because of unwise human actions which, instead of cultivating its beauty, unscrupulously exploit its resources for the advantage of a few and not infrequently disfigure the marvels of nature.”

“Indeed, an essential function of genuine beauty, as emphasized by Plato, is that it gives man a healthy “shock”, it draws him out of himself, wrenches him away from resignation and from being content with the humdrum – it even makes him suffer, piercing him like a dart, but in so doing it “reawakens” him, opening afresh the eyes of his heart and mind, giving him wings, carrying him aloft”

“Too often, though, the beauty that is thrust upon us is illusory and deceitful, superficial and blinding, leaving the onlooker dazed; instead of bringing him out of himself and opening him up to horizons of true freedom as it draws him aloft, it imprisons him within himself and further enslaves him, depriving him of hope and joy.”

“What is capable of restoring enthusiasm and confidence, what can encourage the human spirit to rediscover its path, to raise its eyes to the horizon, to dream of a life worthy of its vocation – if not beauty?”

Here is the Full Text of the Pope’s address to artists:

Dear Cardinals,
Brother Bishops and Priests,
Distinguished Artists,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

With great joy I welcome you to this solemn place, so rich in art and in history. I cordially greet each and every one of you and I thank you for accepting my invitation. At this gathering I wish to express and renew the Church’s friendship with the world of art, a friendship that has been strengthened over time; indeed Christianity from its earliest days has recognized the value of the arts and has made wise use of their varied language to express her unvarying message of salvation. This friendship must be continually promoted and supported so that it may be authentic and fruitful, adapted to different historical periods and attentive to social and cultural variations. Indeed, this is the reason for our meeting here today. I am deeply grateful to Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture and of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Patrimony of the Church, and likewise to his officials, for promoting and organizing this meeting, and I thank him for the words he has just addressed to me. I greet the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests and the various distinguished personalities present. I also thank the Sistine Chapel Choir for their contribution to this gathering. Today’s event is focused on you, dear and illustrious artists, from different countries, cultures and religions, some of you perhaps remote from the practice of religion, but interested nevertheless in maintaining communication with the Catholic Church, in not reducing the horizons of existence to mere material realities, to a reductive and trivializing vision. You represent the varied world of the arts and so, through you, I would like to convey to all artists my invitation to friendship, dialogue and cooperation.

Some significant anniversaries occur around this time. It is ten years since the Letter to Artists by my venerable Predecessor, the Servant of God Pope John Paul II. For the first time, on the eve of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, the Pope, who was an artist himself, wrote a Letter to artists, combining the solemnity of a pontifical document with the friendly tone of a conversation among all who, as we read in the initial salutation, “are passionately dedicated to the search for new ‘epiphanies’ of beauty”. Twenty-five years ago the same Pope proclaimed Blessed Fra Angelico the patron of artists, presenting him as a model of perfect harmony between faith and art. I also recall how on 7 May 1964, forty-five years ago, in this very place, an historic event took place, at the express wish of Pope Paul VI, to confirm the friendship between the Church and the arts. The words that he spoke on that occasion resound once more today under the vault of the Sistine Chapel and touch our hearts and our minds. “We need you,” he said. “We need your collaboration in order to carry out our ministry, which consists, as you know, in preaching and rendering accessible and comprehensible to the minds and hearts of our people the things of the spirit, the invisible, the ineffable, the things of God himself. And in this activity … you are masters. It is your task, your mission, and your art consists in grasping treasures from the heavenly realm of the spirit and clothing them in words, colours, forms – making them accessible.” So great was Paul VI’s esteem for artists that he was moved to use daring expressions. “And if we were deprived of your assistance,” he added, “our ministry would become faltering and uncertain, and a special effort would be needed, one might say, to make it artistic, even prophetic. In order to scale the heights of lyrical expression of intuitive beauty, priesthood would have to coincide with art.” On that occasion Paul VI made a commitment to “re-establish the friendship between the Church and artists”, and he invited artists to make a similar, shared commitment, analyzing seriously and objectively the factors that disturbed this relationship, and assuming individual responsibility, courageously and passionately, for a newer and deeper journey in mutual acquaintance and dialogue in order to arrive at an authentic “renaissance” of art in the context of a new humanism.

That historic encounter, as I mentioned, took place here in this sanctuary of faith and human creativity. So it is not by chance that we come together in this place, esteemed for its architecture and its symbolism, and above all for the frescoes that make it unique, from the masterpieces of Perugino and Botticelli, Ghirlandaio and Cosimo Rosselli, Luca Signorelli and others, to the Genesis scenes and the Last Judgement of Michelangelo Buonarroti, who has given us here one of the most extraordinary creations in the entire history of art. The universal language of music has often been heard here, thanks to the genius of great musicians who have placed their art at the service of the liturgy, assisting the spirit in its ascent towards God. At the same time, the Sistine Chapel is remarkably vibrant with history, since it is the solemn and austere setting of events that mark the history of the Church and of mankind. Here as you know, the College of Cardinals elects the Pope; here it was that I myself, with trepidation but also with absolute trust in the Lord, experienced the privileged moment of my election as Successor of the Apostle Peter.

Dear friends, let us allow these frescoes to speak to us today, drawing us towards the ultimate goal of human history. The Last Judgement, which you see behind me, reminds us that human history is movement and ascent, a continuing tension towards fullness, towards human happiness, towards a horizon that always transcends the present moment even as the two coincide. Yet the dramatic scene portrayed in this fresco also places before our eyes the risk of man’s definitive fall, a risk that threatens to engulf him whenever he allows himself to be led astray by the forces of evil. So the fresco issues a strong prophetic cry against evil, against every form of injustice. For believers, though, the Risen Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. For his faithful followers, he is the Door through which we are brought to that “face-to-face” vision of God from which limitless, full and definitive happiness flows. Thus Michelangelo presents to our gaze the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End of history, and he invites us to walk the path of life with joy, courage and hope. The dramatic beauty of Michelangelo’s painting, its colours and forms, becomes a proclamation of hope, an invitation to raise our gaze to the ultimate horizon. The profound bond between beauty and hope was the essential content of the evocative Message that Paul VI addressed to artists at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council on 8 December 1965: “To all of you,” he proclaimed solemnly, “the Church of the Council declares through our lips: if you are friends of true art, you are our friends!” And he added: “This world in which we live needs beauty in order not to sink into despair. Beauty, like truth, brings joy to the human heart, and is that precious fruit which resists the erosion of time, which unites generations and enables them to be one in admiration. And all this through the work of your hands . . . Remember that you are the custodians of beauty in the world.”

Unfortunately, the present time is marked, not only by negative elements in the social and economic sphere, but also by a weakening of hope, by a certain lack of confidence in human relationships, which gives rise to increasing signs of resignation, aggression and despair. The world in which we live runs the risk of being altered beyond recognition because of unwise human actions which, instead of cultivating its beauty, unscrupulously exploit its resources for the advantage of a few and not infrequently disfigure the marvels of nature. What is capable of restoring enthusiasm and confidence, what can encourage the human spirit to rediscover its path, to raise its eyes to the horizon, to dream of a life worthy of its vocation – if not beauty? Dear friends, as artists you know well that the experience of beauty, beauty that is authentic, not merely transient or artificial, is by no means a supplementary or secondary factor in our search for meaning and happiness; the experience of beauty does not remove us from reality, on the contrary, it leads to a direct encounter with the daily reality of our lives, liberating it from darkness, transfiguring it, making it radiant and beautiful.

Indeed, an essential function of genuine beauty, as emphasized by Plato, is that it gives man a healthy “shock”, it draws him out of himself, wrenches him away from resignation and from being content with the humdrum – it even makes him suffer, piercing him like a dart, but in so doing it “reawakens” him, opening afresh the eyes of his heart and mind, giving him wings, carrying him aloft. Dostoevsky’s words that I am about to quote are bold and paradoxical, but they invite reflection. He says this: “Man can live without science, he can live without bread, but without beauty he could no longer live, because there would no longer be anything to do to the world. The whole secret is here, the whole of history is here.” The painter Georges Braque echoes this sentiment: “Art is meant to disturb, science reassures.” Beauty pulls us up short, but in so doing it reminds us of our final destiny, it sets us back on our path, fills us with new hope, gives us the courage to live to the full the unique gift of life. The quest for beauty that I am describing here is clearly not about escaping into the irrational or into mere aestheticism.

Too often, though, the beauty that is thrust upon us is illusory and deceitful, superficial and blinding, leaving the onlooker dazed; instead of bringing him out of himself and opening him up to horizons of true freedom as it draws him aloft, it imprisons him within himself and further enslaves him, depriving him of hope and joy. It is a seductive but hypocritical beauty that rekindles desire, the will to power, to possess, and to dominate others, it is a beauty which soon turns into its opposite, taking on the guise of indecency, transgression or gratuitous provocation. Authentic beauty, however, unlocks the yearning of the human heart, the profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the Other, to reach for the Beyond. If we acknowledge that beauty touches us intimately, that it wounds us, that it opens our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence, the Mystery of which we are part; from this Mystery we can draw fullness, happiness, the passion to engage with it every day. In this regard, Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to Artists, quotes the following verse from a Polish poet, Cyprian Norwid: “Beauty is to enthuse us for work, and work is to raise us up” (no. 3). And later he adds: “In so far as it seeks the beautiful, fruit of an imagination which rises above the everyday, art is by its nature a kind of appeal to the mystery. Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul or the most unsettling aspects of evil, the artist gives voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption” (no. 10). And in conclusion he states: “Beauty is a key to the mystery and a call to transcendence” (no. 16).

These ideas impel us to take a further step in our reflection. Beauty, whether that of the natural universe or that expressed in art, precisely because it opens up and broadens the horizons of human awareness, pointing us beyond ourselves, bringing us face to face with the abyss of Infinity, can become a path towards the transcendent, towards the ultimate Mystery, towards God. Art, in all its forms, at the point where it encounters the great questions of our existence, the fundamental themes that give life its meaning, can take on a religious quality, thereby turning into a path of profound inner reflection and spirituality. This close proximity, this harmony between the journey of faith and the artist’s path is attested by countless artworks that are based upon the personalities, the stories, the symbols of that immense deposit of “figures” – in the broad sense – namely the Bible, the Sacred Scriptures. The great biblical narratives, themes, images and parables have inspired innumerable masterpieces in every sector of the arts, just as they have spoken to the hearts of believers in every generation through the works of craftsmanship and folk art, that are no less eloquent and evocative.

In this regard, one may speak of a via pulchritudinis, a path of beauty which is at the same time an artistic and aesthetic journey, a journey of faith, of theological enquiry. The theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar begins his great work entitled The Glory of the Lord – a Theological Aesthetics with these telling observations: “Beauty is the word with which we shall begin. Beauty is the last word that the thinking intellect dares to speak, because it simply forms a halo, an untouchable crown around the double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.” He then adds: “Beauty is the disinterested one, without which the ancient world refused to understand itself, a word which both imperceptibly and yet unmistakably has bid farewell to our new world, a world of interests, leaving it to its own avarice and sadness. It is no longer loved or fostered even by religion.” And he concludes: “We can be sure that whoever sneers at her name as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past – whether he admits it or not – can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.” The way of beauty leads us, then, to grasp the Whole in the fragment, the Infinite in the finite, God in the history of humanity. Simone Weil wrote in this regard: “In all that awakens within us the pure and authentic sentiment of beauty, there, truly, is the presence of God. There is a kind of incarnation of God in the world, of which beauty is the sign. Beauty is the experimental proof that incarnation is possible. For this reason all art of the first order is, by its nature, religious.” Hermann Hesse makes the point even more graphically: “Art means: revealing God in everything that exists.” Echoing the words of Pope Paul VI, the Servant of God Pope John Paul II restated the Church’s desire to renew dialogue and cooperation with artists: “In order to communicate the message entrusted to her by Christ, the Church needs art” (no. 12); but he immediately went on to ask: “Does art need the Church?” – thereby inviting artists to rediscover a source of fresh and well-founded inspiration in religious experience, in Christian revelation and in the “great codex” that is the Bible.

Dear artists, as I draw to a conclusion, I too would like to make a cordial, friendly and impassioned appeal to you, as did my Predecessor. You are the custodians of beauty: thanks to your talent, you have the opportunity to speak to the heart of humanity, to touch individual and collective sensibilities, to call forth dreams and hopes, to broaden the horizons of knowledge and of human engagement. Be grateful, then, for the gifts you have received and be fully conscious of your great responsibility to communicate beauty, to communicate in and through beauty! Through your art, you yourselves are to be heralds and witnesses of hope for humanity! And do not be afraid to approach the first and last source of beauty, to enter into dialogue with believers, with those who, like yourselves, consider that they are pilgrims in this world and in history towards infinite Beauty! Faith takes nothing away from your genius or your art: on the contrary, it exalts them and nourishes them, it encourages them to cross the threshold and to contemplate with fascination and emotion the ultimate and definitive goal, the sun that does not set, the sun that illumines this present moment and makes it beautiful.

Saint Augustine, who fell in love with beauty and sang its praises, wrote these words as he reflected on man’s ultimate destiny, commenting almost ante litteram on the Judgement scene before your eyes today: “Therefore we are to see a certain vision, my brethren, that no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived: a vision surpassing all earthly beauty, whether it be that of gold and silver, woods and fields, sea and sky, sun and moon, or stars and angels. The reason is this: it is the source of all other beauty” (In 1 Ioannis, 4:5). My wish for all of you, dear artists, is that you may carry this vision in your eyes, in your hands, and in your heart, that it may bring you joy and continue to inspire your fine works. From my heart I bless you and, like Paul VI, I greet you with a single word: arrivederci!

Here’s an image just to remind you of the context of these words:

Vatican Official Transcript

Patrick Kennedy revealed this week that Bishop Thomas Tobin has asked him to not receive communion, back in 2007, due to his support for abortion rights. Kennedy felt the need to make this public because the Catholic Bishops have recently taken a stance against health care reform based on the fear that federal dollars will pay for abortions. To me this is a typical grandstand move by a politician and comes as no great shock. If Kennedy’s beliefs do not line up with the RC Church then leave the church, it is pretty simple. If you are pro-choice you cannot pretend that your faith and politics do not collide, they do. If this was a private request Kennedy could have easily kept it so while still questioning the political stand being taken by the hypocrites that are the Catholic Bishops. Him not getting a host is completely irrelevant to the health care debate. Yes it does show willy nilly stances that the Catholic Church takes, but that is no surprise to anyone. As far as this bishop is concerned, I wonder if he will be denying communion to any involved in aiding and abetting child rapists or those who committed the horrific acts, any supporting aggressive wars, and any supporters of the death penalty. I doubt he will. As far as the Catholic Bishops making a political stance against health care, I find it sickening that a group of people who spit on the laws of this country at every turn feel they have the right to push their politics through religion. Pay all the taxes the rest of us do, then you can participate politically, until then spread your faith not your politics, that goes for all churches left and right.

I’ve posted a blog at TulareCountyAtheists.com about Rhode Island’s Bishop Thomas Tobin and his recent order to deny communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy.  Kennedy recently voted against the Stupak amendment to the health care bill currently before Congress, and the Bishop decided that this meant Kennedy was supporting abortion in violation of the Church’s orders to Catholic politicians.  Read my blog here.

Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin has instructed priests under his control to refuse communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy, on the same day as the 46th anniversary of the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy.  Since 2004, Roman Catholic Bishops have threatened to withhold communion from politicians who vote in favor of issues the Catholic Church has decided they should be against.

With this action, Bishop Tobin continues the Church’s march away from fighting poverty and oppression,  and towards shrill demagoguery over social issues like stem cell research, abortion, and same sex marriage.

Catholic services in Washington D.C. have threatened to pull out of the city, abandoning the poor, after the District approved legislation recognizing same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.    Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. wrote an article in today’s (Nov 22, 2009) Washington Post that essentially says they will halt many of their projects if the law comes into effect (Congress must approve first).  Read the Bishop’s article here.

So now it appears that in the name of “religious freedom”, that no Catholic can have a political position that conflicts with the Church’s beliefs, and political jurisdictions that recognize or allow same sex marriage will be without the Church’s programs.  Essentially, if you won’t play by their rules, they’ll take their toys and leave.

I wonder what Jesus would think about that.  If he existed.

Communion article here.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

Didn’t the pilgrims come to America originally to escape religious persecution in England,so they would be free to practice whatever religion of their choice…and didn’t they claim that we have a government that separates church from state, simply because of the fact that we practice ”religious pluralism” in our society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism

Many years ago, when John F. Kennedy was running for President in 1960, the concern with many Americans was that he would be taking his orders from the Pope in the Vatican,and that he would base his policy decisions for the country primarily based on what the Pope told him to do.

Obviously that would mean that America would become a principality ruled by the Vatican, and that goes against every basic fundamental belief that our country is built upon, and it is the very thing that separates our country from the religiously conservative countries that can not progress forward into the future, because they are still basing their laws and beliefs on ancient outmoded teachings.

Do we want our laws to be governed based on the beliefs of the Catholic church even though every citizen in America may not be a believer of Catholicism?

What is the difference between Catholic law and Sharia Law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Today, the AP is reporting that  Rep.Patrick Kennedy said that Bishop Thomas J. Tobin “instructed me not to take communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me communion.”…

The reason for barring him from receiving communion is because of his support of abortion rights.

The New York Times is reporting…that Michael K Guilfoyle a spokesman for the diocese, said Sunday that the Bishop has “never addressed matters relative to public officials receiving Holy Communion with pastors of the Diocese of Providence.”

The Bishop added that his instructions to Rep. Kennedy came more than two years ago in a letter on February 21, 2007, he sent to the congressman privately and pastorally.

“In light of the Church’s clear teaching, and your consistent actions,” the letter said, “I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”

The dispute between the men began when Kennedy criticized the nation’s Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the health care system unless it included tighter restrictions on publicly financed abortion.

 Tobin asked for an apology and questioned Kennedy’s faith.

Tobin has refused to speak publically about the ban on Rep.Kennedy, or to discuss what he expects from Congressman Kennedy in exchange for his religious freedom to worship in the Catholic church.

I find out separation of church and state to be an effective way for our country to recognize all the religions that are here currently in America, and the ones that are coming.

As long as any religious practice does not limit the Civil Rights of others to not worship in the state mandated religion ,then it is of no concern to the masses,…but when one religion is treated like a head of state,and our Presidents kiss the ring of any religious leader, then we are on a slippery slope into a fundamental religious government, where all non-believers will be persecuted by the religious zealots.

Our country must reject this latest attempt to overturn our Constitution, and we must eliminate any religious organization from threatening our Congressman with such a personal attack as the one that is being launched against Rep.Kennedy by the Catholic church.

I call for all Catholics to write your Bishop’s,and urge them to voice their opinions as all American citizens are free to do, but any attempt at a quid pro quo in exchange for a vote in the Catholic church’s favor, should be discontinued immediately, as it is an attack on our all of our personal religious beliefs.

America is not a Christian country, rather a religiously plural country, where no one religious belief or practice is put before any other religious practice, whether that is Islamic,Hindu,Jewish,Scientology,Catholic, or Protestant.

Any other path, will lead to the end of our American freedoms as we know it…

Follow full story here…

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/22/kennedy.abortion/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23kennedy.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/rep-patrick-kennedy-banne_n_366750.html

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is billed as “the domestic anti-poverty, social justice program of the U.S. Catholic bishops.”  CCHD was founded in 1970 and grew out of late 1960s radicalism and “social justice” movements.

Every year, CCHD solicits money from Catholics under the official cover of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), raising $7 to $9 million from Catholics each year.  These fund-raising efforts generally come from “second collections” at Catholic churches throughout the United States.  Most parishes hold the second collection on the Feast of Christ the King (new calendar) and often accompany it with an appeal letter from the Diocesan bishops exhorting Catholics to contribute generously to the CCHD.

Unfortunately, like most “social justice” and “community organizer” programs, CCHD is more concerned with pushing a socialist agenda instead of promoting Catholic theology.  Socialism undermines God’s plan of freedom and is completely incompatible with Catholic Theology.  Not only does CCHD go against Catholic Theology, many of its programs provide funding for programs which completely go against Catholic moral teachings, such as organizations which promote homosexual “marriage” and abortions (including groups campaigning to allow underage girls to receive abortions without parental consent or notification).

While for years, many warned of problems with CCHD and its choices of programs to fund, their voices were generally ignored.  However, a story broke in 2008 making problems with CCHD impossible to ignore.

Thanks to solid investigating reporting, it came to light CCHD was providing, and had been providing for years, funding to the corrupt “community organizing” group ACORN.  In 2007 alone, CCHD provided just over $1 million in grants to ACORN, more than double the dollar amount in any one of the previous three years.  In June 2008, CCHD authorized another $1.2 million in grants.  2007 and 2008 just happened to coincide with Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.  When confronted with the evidence, CCHD officials were unable to provide a reason for the significantly higher funding levels for ACRON in 2007 and 2008, but admitted CCHD funds “undoubtedly were used for voter registration drives.”

It took being “found out” for CCHD to sever ties with ACORN.  Ralph McCloud, CCHD executive director told the National Catholic Register, “We’re not funding them [ACORN] at any level.”  Problem solved.  Move on, nothing to see here most of the bishops tells us.  All is well with CCHD.  You no longer have to worry about CCHD they tell us as they ask us once again to give our money to CCHD.

However, even as bishops and parish priests once again take up the collection for CCHD, new evidence surfaced showing that CCHD continues to fund organizations with agendas counter to Catholic moral theology, including pro-abortion groups.  The Reform CCHD Now Coalition reports CCHD provided $1.3 million to groups opposed to Catholic teachings this year alone.

Only two bishops had the moral courage to stand up against the USCCB and the CCHD by disallowing the CCHD collection in their diocese this year: Bishop John O. Barres of the Diocese of Allentown (PA) and Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison (WI).  Instead, the second collection in these diocese will fund charities which operate in step with Catholic teachings.

The Catholic faithful, priests, and our Holy Bishops need to follow the example of Bishops Barres and Morlino.  Either CCHD is reformed to ensure it is no longer funding organizations with agendas in direct opposition to Catholic teaching or all the Catholic faithful MUST withhold donations to this organization and instead provide donations to charities which operate in line with Catholic morals and theology.

Please see the following links to learn more about CCHD and its problems:

http://www.madisondiocese.org/Outreach/JusticePastoralOutreach/Outreach/CatholicCampaignforHumanDevelopment/tabid/184/Default.aspx

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=4685

http://www.reformcchdnow.com/

http://bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=12307

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2850

      This is probably going to get some media attention, so I decided that this would make a good first post.  To make a long story (article) short, a bishop from Rhode Island told Representative Patrick Kennedy to avoid communion, because of Kennedy’s beliefs on issues like abortion.  Bishop Thomas Tobin even asked priests to refrain from giving Rep. Kennedy the sacrament. 

So. That being said, I think it’s unfair for a church to discriminate against its followers based on political perspective.  Church is a place to worship, and worshipping together doesn’t mean we all have to agree.  A lot of my family is Catholic, but some of the Catholics are also Democrats.  You don’t have to fit one specific mold to be a “Good Christian”, or any other religion for that matter!  I’m sure I’m not the only one who has disagreed with my church’s or community’s stances on important issues!  If I were a bishop, in this situation (I’ll never get to be, though, seeing as I’m a girl– but that’s an issue for a later post), I’d extend some form of peace to the representative.  The Catholic church has been getting a ton of attention lately, and not all of it has been good.  I’m not exactly suggesting “lying low”, but the next piece of big news should probably be something positive.

To try to see from the other point of view, however, I can see how it would be difficult to know that you disagree so strongly with someone.  Plus, when you have enough power, you’ll barely hesitate to use it in a situation such as that.  I understand why the Catholic church does not let visitors of different religions take part in communion.  A lot of churches have an “Open hearts, open minds, open doors” policy, which I respect and half-agree with.  On the other hand, something you hold sacred is not something you want to share with someone who shuns the practice entirely.

Being my first post, I’m wondering now if I spelled anything incorrectly, if all the words were used in the correct context, etcetera, etcetera.  Aside from that, I’m wondering if, a) anyone will read this, b) they will disagree, and, c) if those disagreeing viewers will leave angry comments.

Please, leave (polite!) comments about this issue, and visit again!

To see the full article in its original context, please click HERE. The link will open in a new window.

Christ the King Church

Are you interested in the Traditional Latin Mass but not sure what to expect or the Latin Mass isn’t said near you?  Through their website, Christ the King Catholic Church in Sarasota, Florida, presents a live webcast of Sunday and daily Masses.  Christ the King Catholic Church is an apostolate of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and operates under the blessing and consent of the Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, the Most Reverend Frank J. Dewane.

Rompoy and Ashton have no legitimacy. When they spend our money and speak on our behalf throughout the world there will be no way for us to hold them to account for what they do.

Queen Elizabeth is an unelected, unaccountable head of state, not just of the United Kingdom, but of dependencies and former colonies scattered across the globe; the remnants of a long gone empire.

The monarchy has a place in history, but no legitimacy in a modern democracy. All that could be said for the monarchy is that its powers have been effectively removed.

This is not the case for the unelected and unaccountable members of the House of Lords, including the bishops of the established church, who happily lie about where they live to collect massive ‘expenses’
 while passing laws to interfere ever more in our lives. This affront to democracy is an even greater anachronism than the monarchy.

Monarchy, aristocracy, state religion and a secretive, establishment judiciary all have the excuse of history and tradition to justify themselves. That is a weak excuse which freedom lovers should reject.

When it comes to the United Nations, which is a clique of the victorious powers of 1945, having no democratic legitimacy; the EU, which has been cobbled together in an authoritarian way, to prevent the re-emergence of German nationalism and then to consolidate the victory in the cold war we have anti democratic affronts growing up in our own times and we should be far more ashamed of that.

To cap it all, our daily lives are run by 800 quangos spending £35 billion pounds every year. Appointed by cronies, accountable to nobody, these people are the embodiment of the snooper, nanny state that steals our money and controls our lives.

Rompoy is a parasitic nonentity put in place by a cabal of Euro oligarchs. Give him the respect he deserves. At the same time help us get rid of the unrepresentative parasites on our doorstep who really control our lives.

Obama And Bishops At Odds On Abortion Coverage

The elitist progressive Barack Hussein Obama’s White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind Obamacare socialized health care..continued…

Also join us at MomsAndDadsBeHeard.org a new forum for you to express your views and concerns. Help us and be part of bringing our Great Christian country back.

Oh dear… The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in a speech that is best described as embarrassing in the extreme, suggests (perhaps out of sheer desperation) that the Catholic Church needs to rethink her position on female bishops?!

The Guardian (UK) has the report:

The archbishop of Canterbury today pleaded with Roman Catholics to set aside their differences with Anglicans over the issue of female bishops, insisting there was more uniting the denominations than dividing them.

Like what? Is the good Bishop unable to see his Church’s flagrant disregard for and alterations to the received faith?

Rowan Williams was giving a lecture in Rome before Saturday’s meeting with the pope, their first encounter since the Vatican’s surprise announcement of a special institution for traditionalist Anglicans wanting to convert to Catholicism.

Well with this speech, as I don’t think he is off to the best of starts…

In his address at the Gregorian University, Williams said the Anglican communion was proof that churches could stay together in spite of their differences.

The communion has teetered on the edge of schism for nearly a decade over the issue of gay clergy but has retained a sliver of fellowship. Williams urged Roman Catholics to continue their 35-year dialogue with Anglicans in spite of theological and ideological divisions…

What a sad sight this makes for.

You can read the rest of the report here. 

The full text of the speech here.

It is no great wonder that the Anglican Church is falling to pieces…

The Catholic and Orthodox churches both claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Both have theological doctrines that rest upon this claim. They use this claim to help establish apostolic succession–the idea that the lineage between the original apostles and the current church remains unbroken. This is an especially important issue for Catholics who claim that Peter was not merely the first bishop of Rome but the first Pope, the sole leader of the Christian church. But what evidence is there that the historical Peter held such a high ecclesiastical position in Rome? It turns out that there is none. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

The earliest evidence that we have as to the existence of a church in Rome is the letter Paul wrote to them sometime in the mid 50’s. In that letter he indicates that it is a church primarily (exclusively?) made up of Gentiles (1:13) and thus it seem unlikely that Peter—the apostle to the circumcised—was the founder. Even more telling is the list of Christians Paul mentions at the end of the letter. Out of the twenty of so Christians he greets, he does not mention Peter. In fact, he doesn’t mention Peter anywhere in the entire letter. This is not something you would expect if Peter was the founder and leader of that church. In the late second century, the church father Irenaeus claims that the church in Rome was founded and organized by “the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” This is unlikely, however, seeing as Paul himself claims in his letter to never have visited the Roman Christians (1:13). There is little reason to assume Peter had either.

The fact of the matter is, we have no idea who founded the church in Rome. However, this doesn’t exclude the possibility that Peter arrived later and was eventually given the role of bishop. Is there evidence that this happened?

Polling Our Sources

According to Irenaeus (c. 180), the first bishop of Rome was not Peter but someone named Linus who had been appointed by both Peter and Paul. Shortly afterward, Tertullian (c. 200) tells us that it was actually Clement who was the first bishop, appointed by just Peter. A century later, Eusebius (c. 325) tells us that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and it was only after his death that Linus and then Clement became his successors. It’s clear that there is not universal agreement on this issue among the early church leaders. So what do our earliest sources tell us about this issue?

All of our early evidence points to a situation in the early Roman church in which there was no one leader. As mentioned before, Paul himself does not write to any one person but to the entire congregation. Forty years after Paul’s letter, there was a letter—entitled 1 Clement—composed by Roman Christians to the Christians in Corinth. It is assumed within Clement that the leaders of theses churches are not particular individuals but a group of individuals called presbyters. This seems a bit odd if these churches already had bishops.

Furthermore, sixty years after Paul the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, writes a series of letters to the churches around the empire. In six of them he presupposes that a bishop presides over those churches. But when he writes to the Roman church, he does no such thing. Instead, he speaks to the entire congregation, never mentioning any one leader of the church.

Lastly, consider another document, cited as scripture by both Irenaeus and Tertullian, written after the life of Ignatius entitled the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas was a Roman Christian living around the middle of the second century. It is interesting that in this document we find that Clement—the supposed bishop of Rome—is actually some sort of foreign correspondent for the church. Furthermore, Hermas speaks not of a single bishop who holds sole authority over the congregation but of presbyters and bishops (plural).

Let’s return to the question at hand: is there evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? First, there is no agreement among the church fathers of the second, third, and fourth century that Peter was the first bishop. Irenaeus seems to flat out deny it and not until Eusebius do we hear it explicitly. Second, there is no evidence from Paul that Peter was the first bishop. Finally, and perhaps most telling,  there is no evidence that the Roman church even had a bishop until the later half of the second century. Thus, Peter could not have been the first bishop of Rome precisely because there was no bishop of Rome until one hundred or so years after his death.

Each piece moves in a different pattern.

• The rook moves any number of vacant squares along rows or columns (forward, backward, left or right). It also is involved when castling.
• The bishop moves any number of vacant squares diagonally. Consequently a bishop stays on squares of the same color throughout a game.
• The queen moves any number of vacant squares in any direction along a row, column, or diagonal.
• The king moves only one vacant square in any direction. It can also castle in conjunction with a rook.
• The knight moves to a vacant square in an “L”-shape (two spaces forward, backward, left, or right and one space perpendicular to it). The knight can jump over other pieces when moving.
• The pawn can only move forward one space, or optionally two spaces when on its starting square, in a straight line away from the player. When there is an enemy piece one square diagonally ahead from the pawn (either left or right), then the pawn may capture that piece. A pawn can perform a special type of capture of an enemy pawn called en passant. If the pawn reaches a back rank of the opposite player, it undergoes promotion to a rook, bishop, queen or knight.

Additional queens, rooks, bishops or knights may be produced by promotion of the pawns (so in theory a player may have up to nine queens, ten rooks, ten bishops, or ten knights).