Outright Propaganda

You know what I'm talking about. Obama's speech tomorrow.

I've read the text. It seems innocent enough, doesn't it? He's telling kids to be good and study hard and not give up. Those are good things, I'll admit.

But there's a problem with this entire thing.

Firstly, what Obama is doing is actually illegal; it is an action that violates Federal statutes, which is a fancy way of saying Federal Law.

Secondly, it's been clear for a long time that Obama has an agenda. Although he controlls the media and they're all at his beck and call, even some of the more liberal columnists have cited his ruthlessness, and not in complimentary terms. I sense fear among those who are coming out in his support. They are guarded in what they say, but it's clear the "O" has lost his shine in their eyes.

Thirdly...this is outright propaganda. This is how it starts, at least in how it applies to the children. It's a perfect strategy that couldn't be better written by the con artist baiting his prey.

Start with a simple greeting. Kids are raised to respect the President, and after all, he's arguably the "most powerful man in the world." It's a big deal for anyone to meet the President, and suddenly he wants to talk to KIDS? Kids go nuts over stuff like that because, well, let's face it; powerful people usually don't give a rat's petard for kids, especially in this culture.

So what he is doing is trying to elicit TRUST from these children and in so doing, soften up their parents who may be against him. Because his message is innocent and it's what parents tell their kids, too, and of course, Obama has a couple daughters and we all know it.

I don't know if his message will be seen in Minnesota; I'm cringing as I consider work tomorrow, for I work in a Catholic school and am pretty sure the principal and many, if not all of the

teachers, were O supporters (although I am not sure of this. We don't discuss politics there.)

I do know that our Governor Pawlenty has come out against Obama's indoctrination speech and calls it "uninvited." God bless him.

So yes, the text seems pretty innocent, but then again, the serpent in the Garden of Eden seemed pretty innocent at first, too, didn't he?

Audience Hostility

A comment by Maureen in the previous post brought something to mind, and I have to wonder if it is what has made me more sensitive to audience dynamics.

Anyone who has spent any time on stage knows the phenomena; each audience has its own personality, its own dynamic. I was playing Ms. Minchin in "The Little Princess" as an 8th Grader when I first learned about this. Because that was one of the principle roles, I was on stage a lot, and got an inkling, even under my nervousness, of the energy of the audience that fed my own performance.

A couple years later, in Community Theatre, I got an even stronger sense of "audience participation" in their responsiveness or lack thereof. There was no heckling, but rather, a sense of performing to a brick wall or to a living breathing organism. Sometimes the audience was so appreciative it was literally felt and absorbed by us, and returned to them in our renewed enthusiasm. A dismal audience dampened us just as thick fog inhibits echoes.

Speaking to a hostile audience is similar, and in looking back, I have to wonder if my time on stage, as long ago as it was, gave me the ability to tune in to that group dynamic. I know that when I'm at work and speaking to a group, I can tell when they're bored, not paying attention, etc. I can feel it when they've disengaged with the topic.

And boy, if I'm the speaker, I sure can feel it when I'm being heckled! (Yes, literally!) Last fall, I remember preparing for my talk, hoping it was engaging, informative, and useful. Hoping that this group would be as receptive as RCIA had been the year before. But I hadn't accounted for the fact that the parents I was speaking to didn't want to be there, they had questions I didn't know to anticipate, and even as they sullenly arrived, the pre-speaking butterflies multiplied in my stomach.

That first night was worse than speaking to a brick wall..it was more akin to whistling in a dark alley as I waited for Freddie to appear with five razors on his left hand. There was a palpable WALL meeting my every word. In desparation, I was looking around the room, making eye contact, and connecting with the people who were nodding, or neutral, or even slightly smiling. There were some who literally had turned their chairs around so that only their backs were to me. I remember one in particular who spent the time chatting with her best friend at her table.

The absolute rudeness was shocking to me. I was amazed at the brazen disrespect. Even though throughout my life I've attended things I didn't particularly care about, and maybe even disagreed, somewhere along the line I learned to, at worst, just be bored. I've never glared at a speaker. I've never turned my back on a speaker. Maybe it came from having to give speeches in Jr. High...we all knew we had to be up there next, and we all knew how hard it was.

The next time I speak, I may address this head on for the benefit of those who might be hostile; I have to wonder, if I reveal this human side of me, maybe they'll be softened enough, remembering their own Jr. High experiences, and be willing to listen even if they disagree. It's a tactic that might be worth trying.

But it's hard to know how to handle hostility, for we don't always know WHY people are hostile. We can be certain there's a reason, and usually that reason comes from a direct personal harm, or at least something taken personally.

We are part of a Church that has, for a couple generations, not been well catechized. A week ago in class, one of our professors remarked that he's always amazed by people who make fun of the memorization methods used with the Baltimore Catechism. They could quote the entire Catechism chapter and verse, question and response. Yet they ripped on the method, stating they never learned anything, they weren't changed by it...maybe so. And he would agree...rote memorization isn't sufficient when our faith should exist to change us interiorly, not just intellectually.

But he had a good response, one I feel as well. To those of you who condemn the Baltimore Catechism and joke that you can quote it to this day: AT LEAST YOU HAVE THAT! You know more than those of us who weren't even taught the most rudimentary articles of faith. AT LEAST YOU HAVE THE ANSWERS, IF YOU WERE TO BOTHER TO TRULY ASK THE QUESTIONS.

It makes me want to cry; we are so lost. And there are so many who are lost who haven't even BEGUN to question their faith and learn about it, content with the seductive relativism of our society that pitts sports against church activities and "fun things" against God. Most of the time, the "faithful" are choosing worldly endeavors because church is a "Sunday thing", if even that.

So it stands to reason that if someone comes along and actually provides real Church teaching, the audience, even a claiming-to-be-Catholic audience tends to get very hostile. They don't know the Catechism. They get their Catholicism from the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and they learn Social Justice from groups that do social work devoid of the necessary Moral teachings that have ALWAYS guided Social Justice.

Of COURSE they're angry! Of COURSE they're insulted! But if they had the time to sit down in the presence of Our Lord, they'd realize that the source of their anger wasn't the speaker, or the teaching itself, but the anger at the spiritual poverty thrust upon them that allowed them to be without God for so long. To not know God. To give lip service but with a forked tongue.

And because they never learned, they are living a privation of good...they are living evil, and it makes them angry, because EVERYONE knows they deserved better formation.

That doesn't really help us, though, does it? Because it means that Priests who speak up, their Faith Formation staff that speak up, the average Lay Catholic who speaks up is going to take a beating from nearly everyone.

I've lost friends, and so have most of my Catholic friends who take our faith seriously. It's not because we're "judgmental" or mean about our beliefs. It is that we've been forced by the friends we thought we had to take a stand...and we can't be a part of something evil. To distance ourselves from, say, being a proxy on a Living Will that asks us to murder our friends...no, we can't do that. And so, rather than our friends hearing us out and simply taking our names off of a form, those "friends" remove us from both the form and their lives.

That's another type of audience hostility, albeit it's a smaller audience, but one that is a LOT more painful.

I truly, truly encouage those of you who are crying out for your Priests and Bishops to "have a spine!" to put your own words and lives where they put theirs. Get involved in RCIA, in Faith Formation. Are your children receiving the Sacraments this year? Offer to give a testimony, and don't mince words. Speak the Truth in love, don't be afraid to do EXACTLY what you expect your Priests and Bishops to do...and then stand up and take the backlash.

You'll have a whole different and better appreciation of what you're asking...rightfully asking. And you'll be spending a lot more time praying for those you so love to criticize, because only by experiencing that lash can you ever appreciate the agonizing pain.

If you're not a public speaker, then take your concerns and pray Stations of the Cross for the person you think should be speaking in a certain way, and withhold your unjust criticisms as a penance in honor of that person. You may be amazed at what is revealed to you through such a devotion, and the power it has for the person for whom you're praying.


It's hard to be a faithful, practicing Catholic in our world, and sooner or later we're all going to suffer for it in some way. As I've said before...make it worthwhile.
*

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

I keep hearing about how men are fleeing the Church, how men are not involved in worship, how men of today find the Church to be too feminized.

I agree that it seems to be women who run almost everything, and historically it has been women who lead men into the faith. We seem to have that power, but is this a surprise? For wasn't it Eve who lead Adam, even though it was Adam who was created first?

This is part of the gift of femininity; we have an affinity for God, for contemplative communication, a need to be nurtured so that we, in turn, can be nurtured.

But somehow, this beautiful gift of God has become warped, and what we are seeing today has to do with the introduction of the demonic ideology of radical feminism.

The Church has become overly - feminized in a political manner, completely divorced from the true function of the Church and completely ruptured from the true meaning and representation of feminism. What we see today is a host of innovative liturgies, citing "Vatican II", which clearly speaks against innovation and, in fact, the document "Sacrosanctum Concilium" was written to reform the innovations that had appeared in what is now referred to as the Tridentine Mass.

This current dysfunction has everything to do with rejection of Tradtion, rejection of Truth, rejection of all that is Holy in favor of all that is "here now, gone tomorrow." It has been the radical feminists who have introduced New Age components into the churches and liturgies we now witness or experience. We hear references to "Gaia", God as a "she", and "homilies" by lay women crying out for female ordination, betraying the poor catechesis and lack of understanding of the solid theology of the Church. We see an outright rejection of the beauty of true human sexuality, resulting in a disordered objectification of immoral sexual union outside of the sacredness of marriage as a replacement for understanding of human dignity.

We see that the "feminization" of the Church is nothing but a twisted deception, for the Church, at her nature, has ALWAYS been feminine, for the soul of the Church is Marian. The soul of the Church projects us all as the Bride of Christ, of which Mystical Wedding was consummated upon the Cross. It is the place of the Church as a whole to be receptive to Christ, who gives everything for us, thus for we, His Bride, to give fully of ourselves.

Not so surprising, then to see in the actions of radical feminism so prolific today, the rejection of authority, of Christ, of God the Father, by those who also reject life through use of contraception, who advocate the slaughter of children in the womb. We see a complete rejection of all of the holiness of womanhood. We see a full rejection of all things feminine as women seek to make themselves "equal" to men, although their definition of "equality" is more synonymous with androgyny.

I've been hearing for most of my life about the "mysogynist" tendencies of the Church, about how "patriarchial and oppressive" the Church is, but over time, I have come to see how those very terms apply more to the resulting tyranny of women who have followed Eve and listened to the lie of the serpent, set to lead Adam into the sin that rejected us all from the Garden of Eden.

For you see, the Serpent went after Eve because he knew that if he had her, he had Adam. Eve actually resisted the serpent, seeing his lie, and responded with the truth...so he dug deeper and lead her into temptation and sin. If you read Genesis again, you'll see that Adam didn't even bat an eye. Rather, he simply accepted what he was given without question.

What a lesson. We see the gift of man and woman here; we see as we do even today how, although men have strength and leadership, it is the women who build them up and bring them down. Our roles are complimentary, and our powers cannot be abused, for when they are, we see the actual de-feminization of the Church proclaimed under the guise of "feminization".

The Church has always been feminine in nature; from the music, the trappings, the contemplation and mysticism, the beauty and serenity in architecture and in liturgical practice. Amazingly, men have also been drawn into this, as they cannot help but be drawn into the mantle of Our Lady who comforts them and gives them the strength they need to be true men after the example of Christ.

What we see today, however, are churches stripped of beauty, music divested of devotion and artistry, lyrics which sing to the people and not to the God we are there to worship. We see a complete de-personalization of Truth. We see bland, lackluster worship which cries out for innovation. We see masculinity in style rather than what is intended, that of the trappings of the Bride waiting to receive her Beloved.

Ironically, the radical feminists, under the guise of their ideology, have put our Mother Mary into the back seat, choosing to ignore her humble fiat in favor of seeking the secular understanding of power in the form of "ordination" and their misguided sense of "participation" stemming from their misreading and misinterpretation of Vatican II documents.

The Church has, as a result, actually been stripped of her feminine nature, which has resulted in the mass exodus of many worshippers, especially men. Men who are Marian remain and become involved as defenders of the feminine, which is what they are wired to be. But when the feminine mystery is stripped from the Church, what is left to defend? Where is the honor and the beauty? Where is the purity? Why should the men remain when there is nothing apparent to identify the Bride as what she is? Why defend an androgynous anomoly? From what?

These are strong words, but I state them as truth: Radical Feminism has penetrated and defiled the Church and has left her violated and bereft. Is there any surprise, then, that men are not engaging in worship? The very violence of the rape of the culture, the destruction of the feminine mystery, the propagation of death in secularity has invaded the Church and has violated us. Can we really be surprised that our Churches which have come to mimic secular "values" are no longer a haven to men or to women, but rather have become temples to the false idols of self-worship?

The Church has been violated to her very soul, and if we cannot keep the world out, how can we heal and become restored and remain the haven to which all can flee in order to be empowered to proclaim the love of Christ?

What is needed is a true renewal, a return to Truth, to Traditions, and to the embrace of our Mother. We need to reject the ideologies of the world which do not have our needs at heart, those ideologies which seek only to destroy life wherever it is found.

We need to truly re-feminize the Church, get rid of all the innovation and New-Ageyness that has permeated many liturgies and parishes, and bring back true liturgical music and Catholic prayers. We need to rebuild the Bride, recognize our roles in the Mystical Body, and seek once again the unsurpassable beauty which has been so abused and forgotten.

Then the men will embrace what it means to be men, what it means to defend the honor of the Church, what it means to stand up before the culture and proclaim the Kingdom of God.

Curtain Down on Pope and the Witch

...at least for tonight.

God has spoken, and in his justice, he has sent a terrible snowstorm which has decimated Iowa and Southern Minnesota, and now the Twin Cities, resulting in the cancellation of tonight's opening night.

Unfortunately, it's set to go on tomorrow. So be it.

This morning the Pioneer Press ran an article written by Paul Tosto with regard to this play which has so rightfully been condemned by Catholics and our leadership.

Cathy at Recovering Dissident has a great analysis of this article, and as I have no desire to be an echo chamber, I will direct you there for her great synopsis.

However, I do have a few statements of my own to share. (Big surprise!)

To quote:

The play's director says it's a political and social farce, not an attack on the faithful.

Written by Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo, the play includes a pro-abortion witch, revelations of evil in the Vatican hierarchy and a paranoid pope who is convinced that thousands of orphans massing in St. Peter's Square are part of a plot by birth-control supporters to embarrass the church.

The play is purposely outrageous but deals with "real things, real tangible issues," director Robert Rosen said. "Sometimes when you do that, take an extreme view of something, you can say, 'Gosh it made me look at that a certain way.' "

Rosen said the play isn't about the Vatican and disagreed with those who don't see the Vatican as a political body.



First of all, again, Dario Fo did not win a Nobel Prize for this play. The fact that this keeps coming up is a red herring to make it appear that he has credibility with regard to his barbs. He does not. He's a hack, and the play is a result of his hacking.

Rosen is dead wrong; the content of the play is about the Catholic Church's teachings, which have been consistent for the last two millenia. The fact that these issues have become politicized in the current day does not change the moral reality and graveness of abortion and contraception. The Church has ALWAYS had an obligation to speak out on moral issues; the current social view of abortion and contraception does not negate the immorality of the acts, or the immorality of the U of M's presentation of this play.

It is, in fact, not an attack on the Vatican, but a direct attack on the Catholic faithful who uphold these teachings, and what's more, UNDERSTAND them.

This is my FAVORITE part:

On Monday, P.Z. Myers, a University of Minnesota-Morris biologist who writes Pharyngula, an internationally known science blog, castigated people who are angry at the U for producing a "blasphemous" play.

"Blasphemy is highly educational, and I hope our university can do more of it, Myers wrote."We are not here to reassure you that "your ignorance and prejudices are alright, we're supposed to shake up our students."

I'm sorry, I have to say this. What a blithering fool, but I have to give him credit for hitting the nail on the head; this is how the larger society sees the teachings of the Church. Unfortunately, I don't think this poor man has any idea what he is saying. He's pretending at being enlightened, but in reality, he's ignorant and suggesting that the propagation of ignorance in U of M students is something to be admired.

He must be a product of the U of M himself. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.

Note that he's attacking moral teachings that he has not bothered to even attempt to understand, finding it more pleasurable to directly attack Catholics in a personal way. Note the use of direct object in his statement: "We are not here to reassure you that "your ignorance and prejudices are alright,.

Catholics are not ignorant and prejudiced; we are not the ones killing children in the womb who have been deemed "imperfect" by flawed medical testing. We are not the ones euthanizing people we find to be "inconvenient" in their disabilities. We are not the ones suggesting that women pump their bodies full of hormones which do nothing to correct medical conditions but rather, cause an entire host of medical problems, emergencies, and actual infertility. We are not suggesting that babies be concieved ala "The Matrix" and used in inhumane, immoral, and unpromising medical experiments.

If this guy and others like him would actually take some time to understand, first of all, what philosophy is, what it is meant to be, and the true meaning of tolerance and prejudice, they would understand the validity of the moral teachings of the Cathlic Church and they would be as outraged at this blatant attack as we are.

I congratulate Mr. Tosto on finding an actual anti-Catholic to display and speak for the ignorance of the U of M in full, truthful glory.

The Renunciation of Truth does not Heal Man

Check out this article!

Yet other Catholics feel he did make a slip in his speech.

"He should apologize," said Jennifer Ferreris, 20, a theology student at Boston College who went to see the pope on Wednesday during her trip to Rome.

"Too much emphasis is placed on the fundamentalists of Islam, the militants, and not enough on the faith. We adore the same God. They have respect for the Virgin Mary."

Even if he suggested something many believe is true - about a link between violence in Islam, especially after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - critics say it is not necessarily the pope's job to say so. It could, they say, undermine his authority as a figure above conflict - or even feed a hatred against Muslims that they say is contrary to Christianity.

"I lost a little respect for him," Ferreris added. "Inadvertent as it might have been, he's the head of our church. He should be the most tolerant."



Did anyone catch the irony in the punch line here? Let me repeat it for you, and let me set the stage...a THEOLOGY student, referring to comments made by Pope Benedict XVI, thinks that he should be "THE MOST TOLERANT".

Apparently this "theology student" has never heard of a little gem by the title of "Truth and Tolerance", authored by none other than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Pherhaps some excerpts from the Pope's own words, when writing as the Cardinal, will assist this "student" in further understanding of what tolerance is really about:

" There is nothing else for it; reason and religion will have to come together again, without merging into each other. It is not a matter of preserving the interests of old religious bodies. It is for the sake of man and the world.... yet persuasion can only be achieved with difficulty amid the multitude of pressures and demands to which people are subjected. We must venture an attempt to find the way, however, so as to make plausible once more, through various converging indications, something that for the most part lies far beyond the horizon of our own interests. (p. 84)


Now, the following REALLY sums it up:

Yet even Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism. And there are, of course, as we all know but too well, diseased forms of Christianity--such as when the crusaders, on capturing the holy city of Jerusalem, where Christ died for all men, for their part indulged in a bloodbath of Moslems and Jews. What that means is that religion demands the making of distinctions, distinctions between different forms of religion and distinctions within a religion itself, so as to find the way to its higher points. By treating all content as comparably valid and with the idea that all religions are different and yet actually the same, you get nowhere. Relativism is dangerous in quite particular ways: for the shape of human existence at an individual level and in society. The renunciation of truth does not heal man. How much evil has been done in history in the name of good opinions and good intentions is something no one can overlook. (p. 204)



"The renunciation of truth does not heal man"

That may very well be one of the best things anybody ever said. Thank you, Pope Bendict XVI. Stand strong, Holy Father! You owe no apology!