PepsiCo, Inc. is leading corporate sponsor of homosexual advocacy groups ($75 million)

Plano, Texas, Mar 30, 2010 / 12:41 am (CNA).- Shareholders of PepsiCo should vote for a shareholder proposal that the food, drink and snack company disclose its standards for donating over $75 million in corporate assets to controversial groups such as those advocating homosexual causes, an ex-gay group says.

Read more

Reminiscent of Pontious Pilate’s hand washing, Weakland “kicked” the Murphy case up to the Vatican

In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.

However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the church. He wrote that since he had become aware that “solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation,” the case belonged at the doctrinal office.

With no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Weakland wrote a different Vatican office in March 1997 saying the matter was urgent because a lawyer was preparing to sue, the case could become public and “true scandal in the future seems very possible.”

Recently some bishops have argued that the 1962 norms dictating secret disciplinary procedures have long fallen out of use. But it is clear from these documents that in 1997, they were still in force.

But the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.

In an interview, Archbishop Weakland said that he recalled a final meeting at the Vatican in May 1998 in which he failed to persuade Cardinal Bertone and other doctrinal officials to grant a canonical trial to defrock Father Murphy. (In 2002, Archbishop Weakland resigned after it became public that he had an affair with a man and used church money to pay him a settlement.)

Archbishop Weakland said this week in an interview, “The evidence was so complete, and so extensive that I thought he should be reduced to the lay state, and also that that would bring a certain amount of peace in the deaf community.”

Father Murphy died four months later at age 72 and was buried in his priestly vestments. Archbishop Weakland wrote a last letter to Cardinal Bertone explaining his regret that Father Murphy’s family had disobeyed the archbishop’s instructions that the funeral be small and private, and the coffin kept closed.

“In spite of these difficulties,” Archbishop Weakland wrote, “we are still hoping we can avoid undue publicity that would be negative toward the church.”

Read the article

Editor’s note: Archbishop Rembert Weakland’s lame attempt to avoid responsibility in this matter  is probably the only thing that even remotely links the Pope to this scandal.

(Then) Cardinal Ratzinger would have been primarily charged with evaluating the doctrinal issues regarding Fr. Murphy’s alleged violation of the sacrament of reconciliation … not the abuse allegations.

Weakland had all the authority and evidence he needed to have Fr. Murphy removed from priestly ministry for abuse, but Weakland was simply too guilty, too gay, and too gutless to get it done. It was much easier (and politically, much smarter) for Weakland to key in on Fr. Murphy’s alleged violation of the confessional, something which gave Weakland a perfect excuse to “kick the matter upstairs” and let the Vatican “take the rap” and the “heat”.

Weakland’s own lurid personal behavior while in office is a scandal of even greater proportions, and it should be noted that it was Benedict XVI who finally demanded Weakland’s resignation.

Read some more “deep background” on this

Democratic Rep. Bill Lipinski explains his “NO” vote on Obamacare

“It’s not just about being against something, it’s believing that every individual deserves dignity and respect, whoever they are, at whatever stage of life they’re in,” Lipinski said. “That is something I hear my Democratic colleagues say. And I say that it’s self-evident that the individual is there at conception.”

Lipinski has degrees in mechanical engineering, economic systems, and political science. He’s not a biologist.

“We know that at conception, the genetic code is there, for a unique individual. This is not something that is just a religious belief,” Lipinski said. “If you look at what we know about reproduction, you can see it.”

Read more

Some liberal Catholics are thinking: It’s payback time, Ratzinger!

If I was Benedict XVI, I’d be asking myself if I even wanted to visit Britain this autumn. For, when he does, he will meet English bishops, Catholic journalists and self-appointed spokesmen for the Catholic community who did not dare offend liberal opinion by defending him properly, or whose judgment was clouded by personal dislike of the Pope and his agenda.

Some Catholics – not many, but they are prominent – are actually thinking: it’s payback time, Ratzinger. If we can make this mud stick, then we can continue to sabotage your liturgical reforms. In other words, they are using the victims of clerical child abuse to fight internal political battles. Why am I not surprised?

Read more By Damian Thompson

(2nd Vatican) Council paved the way for the diffusion of error by declining to teach the whole truth – or through teaching opposing, ‘politically incorrect’, truth.

…I have discovered that the near-silence and inactivity of the post-conciliar Church establishment regarding the Jews’ need for conversion can probably be traced to a conscious decision of the Council itself during the preparation of this Declaration. When the revised draft of NA was circulated, with the original draft in parallel columns, the Fathers found that the aforesaid section in article 4 about the conversion of the Jews, with its specific citation of Romans 11: 25, had now been totally omitted. And (unlike Bishop De Smedt) the relator for this document, the German Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea, was quite open about the reason why the original version was now considered unacceptable: “Very many Fathers,” Bea announced in his relatio, “have requested that in talking about this ‘hope’, since it has to do with a mystery, we should avoid every appearance of proselytism. Others have asked that the same Christian hope, applying to all peoples, should also be expressed somehow. In the present version of this paragraph we have sought to satisfy all these requests” (ibid., p. 648, emphasis added). The tactic of His Eminence and all those “very many” (but unnamed) Fathers was thus to tarnish the previous draft with the pejorative label “proselytism”, and to ‘elevate’ the future conversion of the Jews to the ethereal status of a “mystery”, thereby insinuating that it will somehow ‘just happen’ spontaneously one day without the necessity of any human missionary activity on the part of Catholics.

The tactic, combined with the great personal prestige of Cardinal Bea, worked perfectly. The vast majority of the Fathers duly voted in favor of the new draft, thereby relegating to the finest of fine print this particular point of our “unshakable faith” regarding the Jews. It proved to be literally unmentionable in a modern conciliar document, and so has been ‘buried’ in the middle of a much longer passage of the Epistle to the Romans which is indicated (but not cited) among various other biblical references to NA #4. What now appears in that passage is a much blander statement referring to Christian hopes for mankind in general. And in accord with the non-threatening spirit of this ‘pastoral’ Declaration, all explicit mention of anyone actually joining, entering or returning to the Catholic Church has been carefully excised. We read that “the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Soph. 3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65: 4; Rom. 11: 11-32)”.

Read more

Still Trying to Interpret Vatican II… over 40 Years Later

Why the Council’s “true interpretation” remains elusive even to its staunchest defenders should be obvious after forty years of wandering in the post-conciliar desert: Except where it simply repeated a constant teaching of the Church, Vatican II is utterly meaningless. Insofar as its supposedly “distinctive” teaching is concerned, the Council is a collection of ambiguities that tend to cancel each other out, leaving us, in essence, with nothing.  It is precisely the nothingness of Vatican II that has led to the endless debate over what it means…

Read more

When the ’60s radicals took over the Catholic church

When Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in l960, almost every bishop in the world was puzzled. Vatican Councils historically are only called when the Church is in some desperate need or is fighting a very serious heresy (a widespread attack on a dogma of faith, i.e., Mary was not the Mother of God).  But this was a time when the Catholic Church seemed to be in her glory.  We had an abundance of priests and nuns.  Seminaries were full. Catholic schools were overflowing.  It was not uncommon that attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was standing room only.  Almost every Saturday, there were lines for Confession.

So why call a council?  Pope John was warned by some Bishops that in their midst were some (not many) liberal Bishops who would use the council to “modernize” the Church. Previous Popes, especially Pope St. Pius X, had warned that the Church must never be “modern”. She must be unchangeable because what is modern in 1940 will not be modern in 1960 and what is modern in 1960 will not be modern in 1980. By remaining FOREVER unchangeable, you are always relevant.  Pope John promised it would be a PASTORAL Council and not DOCTRINAL or DOGMATIC so that the Deposit of Faith (our beliefs) and the liturgy of the Mass will not change.  It has been said that before he died, he saw the council change in a direction he was unable to stop and thus welcomed death knowing the council would die with him.  Unfortunately, it was re-opened by Pope Paul VI, his successor, who invited 6 Protestant clergy to act as “observers”.  Behind the scenes, these “observers” were allowed much more input and became unofficial participants.  Thus, the Roman Catholic Mass could become “Protestantized.”  At the end of the council, one of the Protestant ministers is quoted as saying:  “This is the best council the Protestants ever had!”

It is not our intention to give you a step by step history of Vatican II.   However, you should know that when the council closed, the wheels were in motion like a train at full speed.  In the driver’s seat were the “modernist” bishops who’d used the council like a vehicle to take it to their own destination—a more “modern” church, open to innovation, causing weakening of faith and much confusion.  Pope Paul VI seeing the end result of Vatican II said in no uncertain terms: “THE SMOKE OF SATAN HAS ENTERED THE CHURCH!”

Read more