Shamefully Lame New York Times Editorial Calls Catholic HHS Mandate Lawsuits “A Dramatic Stunt”.

Read it for yourself

Editor’s note: If Freedom of the Press was treated the same way in this country as Freedom of Religion, Barack Obama and his minions would be dictating the contents of New York Times editorials.

Perhaps they are!

NY Times happy to run anti-Catholic ad, but rejects virtually identical anti-Muslim version

Did you see the virulently anti-Catholic ad that ran in the New York Times last week? That ad inspired AFDI/SIOA, in cooperation with SION (Stop Islamization of Nations), to create the same ad but for one thing: different religion. The craven quislings at the New York Times rejected our ad.

Read more

New York Times writer makes a case for the existence of Hell.

Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score.

In this sense, a doctrine of universal salvation turns out to be as deterministic as the more strident forms of scientific materialism. Instead of making us prisoners of our glands and genes, it makes us prisoners of God himself. We can check out any time we want, but we can never really leave.

The doctrine of hell, by contrast, assumes that our choices are real, and, indeed, that we are the choices that we make. The miser can become his greed, the murderer can lose himself inside his violence, and their freedom to turn and be forgiven is inseparable from their freedom not to do so.

Read more

Former New York Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato speaks up for the Catholic Church

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, former New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato wrote:

To the Editor:

As a Catholic, I am appalled at the now-daily assaults by the liberal media against the church.

There is no question that certain Catholic clergymen abused children and that certain members of the church’s hierarchy failed to deal with those abuses properly. That failure was based primarily on the mistaken belief that pedophiles can be cured. At the time, that mistaken belief was supported in large measure by the psychiatric community. It has since been rejected.

For the last decade, the Archdiocese of New York and dioceses across New York State have been working assiduously to accept guilt when warranted, atone for those mistakes and, most important, to take corrective action to ensure that they do not happen again.

Over the last few months, several cases have cropped up that took place decades ago and long before the church’s all-out effort to acknowledge, make amends for and rectify its past failures. Some have seized upon those cases to attack the church anew and with frightening vigor. Those attacks are unwarranted and unfair.

Such cases, which will continue to arise, do not meant that the church’s healing crusade has been discontinued but rather are cases that took place during an unfortunate time in the church’s history that is now over.

To simply reject out of hand the church’s extensive and intense program to heal and correct suggests the possibility of an anti-Catholic agenda more concerned with Catholic teachings than with child abuse.

Alfonse M. D’Amato
New York, April 29, 2010

New York Times sadly notes the strength of the Catholic faith in Poland

The New York Times “damns with faint praise” the faith of the Polish people, and the resilience of the Catholic church there, woefully comparing it to the “norm” in nearby Germany, where things are much more secular and “comfortable” … and where the people have the “guts” to speak out against abuse.

The Times infers that if it wasn’t for the reverence and faith of the Polish people, there would be many more reported cases of priestly abuse there. Then they trot out their own “expert” to make the point again, along with an alleged abuse victim, who is not really identified (or willing to come forward.)

How can the Times know this? They first go to great lengths explaining how Poland is NOT like every other country in Europe. Then they reject their own premise and ASSUME that it must be!

Obviously disappointed, the article closes with : For now, at least, the church still has a refuge in Poland.

As if the Catholic Church needs a “refuge” in Poland … or anywhere else … when we have Jesus Christ!

What the New York Times should do is simply admit that they do not understand the Polish people, the Catholic Church, and the Christian faith, in general. Then, we might be getting somewhere!

Read the article

Various ways that Goodstein and her NY Times editors botched the “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys” story

By on 4.5.10 @ 6:07AM

Here we are among the calla lilies, many of us meditating on the eternal resonance of events in and around old Jerusalem, yet spring chores still need doing, and the crabgrass of ignorance is even more stubborn than the weeds that threaten suburban lawns.

Could anyone familiar with the people involved think the Old Gray Lady of American journalism would pass up a chance to encumber a target who rejects conventional wisdom about abortion, gay marriage, and the ordination of women?

Nothing else perfumes the air of a newsroom like a whiff of self-righteousness, or intoxicates certain reporters faster than evidence of mismanagement and hypocrisy at the Vatican.

When it comes to brand management at the New York Times, the snark of Maureen Dowd, the delusion of David Brooks, the bitterness of Paul Krugman, and the name-dropping of Thomas Friedman are well known, but recent developments mark perhaps the first time that that quartet of vices has purchased vacation property: Snark, delusion, bitterness, and shallowness — the Four Horsemen of the Obamalypse — now gallop freely between different sections of the publication.

Read more

Cardinal Levada directly takes on the New York Times for its coverage of the Fr. Murphy abuse case in Wisconsin.

VATICAN GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a statement made by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Cardinal Levada directly takes on the New York Times for its coverage of the Fr. Murphy abuse case in Wisconsin. Commenting on the news story by Laurie Goodstein, Levada writes, “The point of Goodstein’s article, however, is to attribute the failure to accomplish this dismissal [of Fr. Murphy] to Pope Benedict, instead of to diocesan decisions at the time.”

Cardinal Levada has it just right. The wrongdoing in this case rests in Wisconsin. Why did the victims’ families wait as long as 15 years to report the abuse? Why were the civil authorities unconvinced by what they uncovered? Why did Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland wait almost two decades before he contacted the Vatican?

Weakland’s record in handling sex abuse cases is a matter of record. In 1984, he branded as “libelous” those who reported cases of priestly sexual abuse (he was rebuked by the courts for doing so). Ten years later he accused those who reported such cases of “squealing.” And, of course, he had to resign when his lover, a 53 year-old man, revealed that Weakland paid him $450,000 to settle a sexual assault lawsuit (Weakland took the money from archdiocesan funds). It’s a sure bet that if Weakland were a theological conservative­–and not a champion of liberal causes–the media (including the National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal) would be all over him.

We also need to learn from Laurie Goodstein why she waited until Wednesday, March 30, to interview Fr. Thomas Brundage, the priest who presided over the Murphy trial. Brundage has said that the pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger, had absolutely nothing to do with the Murphy case. And we need to know why Weakland never gave Brundage a letter he wrote asking him to call off the trial.

There’s dirt in the Murphy case, but it sits in the U.S.A.–not Rome.

Why the Mainstream Media Hates the Catholic Church

Bill Donohue, one of the staunchest defenders of the Church in this country, fought back against this latest attack from the very first blow. The president of the Catholic League calls the New York Times story on Father Murphy the “last straw,” but no doubt there will be more to ignite Donohue’s flaming pen.

I asked him and a number of other experts a question: “Why do media like the New York Times and the Washington Post hate the Catholic Church and the pope? What’s the source of the animus?”

Donohue replied, “As I said in today’s New York Times op-ed page ad, it stems from three issues: abortion, gay marriage, and women’s ordination. So, when they can nail the Church on promiscuity, they love it. The goal is to weaken the moral authority of the Church so it won’t be as persuasive on issues like health care.”

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, agrees that the media want to weaken the Church. He echoes what his friend the late Bob Novak used to tell me about the mainstream media: It is “the most secular, liberal group in the country. The Catholic Church stands for everything you and I believe (though I’m not a Catholic) and for practically nothing the media likes. But the media cannot ignore the Catholic Church because it is so strong, popular, and enduring. That leaves the media one avenue of attack: Jump on any mistakes or scandals involving the Church and don’t let go.”

Read more

The abortion holocaust in words and photos, courtesy of the New York Times

The photographs are graphic and detailed, showing the fingers or toes of aborted fetuses whose entire frames are no bigger than a cellphone. Since the mid-1990s, they have appeared all over the country — carried as posters by protesters, handed out with pamphlets or, in some cases, mounted like billboards on the sides of trucks.

Like many others, I often wondered about the source of these images. Who took the pictures? Where did the fetuses come from?

I had a chance to find some answers while reporting in late September on the death of James Pouillon, the anti-abortion protester who was shot and killed in Owosso, Mich. [See Saturday’s presentation on the subject in The New York Times.]

Read the article. See the pictures.

NYT Dowd’s Anti-Catholic Piece is Riddled With Errors, Deceptions

By Dave Pierre (Bio | Archive)
October 28, 2009 – 21:33 ET

The New York Times’s Maureen Dowd spent some time in Catholic school as a youth, but judging from her latest rant/column, she didn’t learn too much about actual Catholicism.

Dowd’s anti-Catholic screed reveals that of someone who knows almost nothing about the Catholic faith. She also deceives her readers about a number of topics, including a 2004 letter issued by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI.

1. Dowd writes:

“In 2004, the cardinal who would become Pope Benedict XVI wrote a Vatican document urging women to be submissive partners, resisting any adversarial roles with men and cultivating ‘feminine values’ like ‘listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.’

Ratzinger “urged women to be submissive partners”? Uh-uh. In fact, Ratzinger opines almost the direct opposite of what Dowd implies. Among Ratzinger’s passages:

“[T]he Church, enlightened by faith in Jesus Christ, speaks instead of active collaboration between the sexes precisely in the recognition of the difference between man and woman.”

“[W]omen should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.”

And look at what Ratzinger wrote about the so-called “feminine values” of “listening, welcoming …(etc.)”:

“It is appropriate however to recall that the feminine values mentioned here are above all human values: the human condition of man and woman created in the image of God is one and indivisible.”

In other words, Dowd flat-out lies about Ratzinger’s letter. (By the way, the letter is called, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World.” Interested readers should check it out.)

Read the entire post

New York Times doesn’t know difference between Immaculate Conception and virgin birth of Jesus Christ

marybabyjesuslamb

by Doug Lawrence

The Immaculate Conception

Refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in her own mother’s womb, by normal and typical male/female human sexual reproduction … but by special privilege and provision of God, and by means of God’s super abundant grace … preserved from any ” stain” of the original sin that all human beings inherit from our fallen, first parents.

According to God’s oldest and most fundamental tenet of divine justice … the Law of Sin and Deathit was necessary for Jesus the Messiah to be absolutely free from any and every kind of sin (or his sacrifice on the cross would literally have been of no effect).

Jesus’ human flesh comes from Mary, so the Immaculate (totally sinless) Conception of Mary (and her subsequent, divine grace empowered, total  rejection of Satan and ALL his works …  is a spiritual and corporal prerequisite, as well as a theological and salvific necessity.

The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

Properly refers ONLY to the fact that Jesus was conceived of the Virgin Mary solely by the divine power of the Holy Spirit, and NOT by means of sexual relations with any human father.

Jesus’ human flesh came from the sinless Virgin Mary. Jesus’ divinity came from God, by the power of the  Holy Spirit … preserving Jesus’ humanity from any and all sin … and also preserving Mary’s own virginity.

Mary miraculously remained  a holy (dedicated solely and exclusively to God) virgin throughout the conception and birth of Jesus Christ … throughout her entire earthly existence … and now in Heaven … Mary remains a virgin, in perpetuity.

That’s why we still call her “The Blessed Virgin Mary” … and God really has done great things to her (Luke 1:48) … primarily, for the purpose of OUR salvation.

Computer users should quickly understand that we weren’t the first to utilize the concept of a “firewall” in order to avoid sabotage or corruption. Mary is God’s original “firewall” against human sin … while her divine son, Jesus … remains the ultimate protection and the exclusive, eternal  remedy … for all mankind.

More on this here

And here

And here

Read the flawed original NY Times article here