Colleen Hammond

Texas FLDS Sells Clothing

2008-07-03T06:31:00.002-05:00

Smart move on their part to raise money...

The FLDS folks in Texas have come up with a clothing line for children!

Calumny in the Blogosphere

2008-07-03T05:11:00.003-05:00

On a personal note, we've been offline due to computer problems, then our home was struck by lightening AGAIN so we were (and still are) without many things around here. But I do have the computer back...however temporary.

This article is timely and a must read. Here are a few paragraphs:

Calumny is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (1992) as a “false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church
(1994) places calumny as a serious sin under the Eighth Commandment,
“Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The Catechism
states, “He becomes guilty of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the
truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false
judgments concerning them” (2447). The Catechism notes that calumny offends “against the virtues of justice and charity” (2479).

Calumny and its close relative detraction (derogatory comments that reveal the hidden faults or sins of another without reason) have been part of life since the dawn of time. But opportunities for breaking theEighth Commandment have proliferated with the advent of the Internet,especially since the rise of the phenomenon known as “blogging.”

An especially compelling element of blogging is the
ability to project one’s ideas, observations and opinions with
near-complete anonymity. It is common blogger practice to adopt an
online persona—usually some cute name or title with relevance to the
main focus of the blog. Likewise, readers who comment on blog postings
or participate in discussions can set their views before the world
without revealing themselves. Service providers that host blogs
routinely permit such anonymity, and the law has upheld the practice
(in only a handful of court cases have providers been forced to unmask
their blogging clients).

But the power to reach a wide audience while remaining in the shadows hasproven a source of great temptation. All too many online commentatorshave been dazzled by this technology that magnifies personal identityand stokes the ego while providing a shield from the consequences oftheir words. Whole new avenues of calumny have been the result.

Calumny does not exist apart from the other realities of life. Like all
sin, it is nurtured by social conditions and the particular
circumstances in which individuals find themselves, circumstances that
can provide the rationalizations and self-deception that blind us to
the seriousness of our words and actions. For instance, we live in a
society that puts a high premium on winning. It’s easy to convince
ourselves that anything goes, as long as we achieve the results we want
and don’t get caught doing what we know in our hearts we shouldn’t do.

This is the social climate in which calumny is
blossoming. Calumny is cheating. It does not play by the rules. It is
unsportsmanlike in the extreme, even viciously so. It uses half truths,
innuendo, misrepresentation, disregard for context and downright lies,
all in the hope that some negative bit of mud, no matter how distorted
or absurd, will stick to the person or organization under attack. It is
abetted by the unethical use of technology, including visual
technology. Verbal abuse is readily supplemented by unflattering or
embarrassing images easily crafted and instantly disseminated through
the use of digital cameras, Photoshop, cell phones and YouTube.

Such devices and tactics have been used to discredit public figures and private persons alike, to disparage companies, institutions, government agencies, political movements, and of course, churches and religious groups. And the impact is multiplied by other bloggers who link to the original posting or pick up a story and disseminate it further, even around the world.

There are bloggers who present their calumny under the guise of “allegations,”
applying evasive constructs like “some people are saying” or “it has
been alleged.” Such writers are often well educated (sometimes with a
law background), skilled at parsing words in order to avoid culpability
for legal defamation. In this they rely for protection on the high
standard of proof required to bring a libel action.

Others recognize the evil in calumny, but see it as a compromise that
must be made for the sake of a noble cause. They hope that by
destroying an opponent’s reputation they will de-legitimize the
position that opponent represents. This is the “greater good”
rationalization, the thinking of terrorists willing to kill innocent
people (even sometimes themselves) in pursuit of lofty goals. In such
manner, “cyber-terrorists” are often willing to tolerate a certain
amount of “collateral damage” for the sake of what they perceive as
good. They will employ pernicious lies concerning sexual matters that
can wreck marriages, allegations of legal impropriety that can destroy
careers, or statements demeaning the moral probity of civic leaders
that can weaken society as a whole.

Bloggers of such a mindset ignore a basic precept
of morality: evil means may never be employed to achieve a good end
(perhaps their skewed thinking can be compared to that of people who
believe it’s moral to kill abortion doctors in order to end the horror
of abortion). They forget that the standards of the world—or of law
courts—don’t apply when we’re judged in the highest court: at the
throne of God. Jesus warned the Pharisees against legal dodges and
contrived justifications. God sees the heart.

But here we return to the concept of anonymity. Hiding out in cyberspace provides a certain emotional distance and avoids direct confrontation. This gives calumnious bloggers some distinct advantages over their victims. They can declare someone guilty without evidence, forcing them to defend themselves by having to disprove a negative. And they can be as outlandish and judgmental as they like while remaining shielded from the reactions and reproaches they would encounter in signed commentary or face-to-face debate. This contradicts the two foundational principles of American justice: (1) assumption of innocence until proof of guilt and (2) the right of the accused to face the accuser. But it tends to liberate bloggers from moral constraint by anesthetizing conscience.

There
is a certain self-defeating aspect of calumnious blogging. The
titillation of malicious gossip and the thrill of tearing down other
human beings do have their limits. Insinuations and outrageous charges
often provoke counterclaims that are just as wild. Mutual misquoting,
distortion, hearsay and condemnation can spiral to heights of
ridiculousness that strain credulity and eventually make readers lose
interest. Even the element of anonymity can have counterproductive
effects, highlighting the Kafkaesque unreality of the “kangaroo court”
assembled in cyberspace. Readers can begin to suspect cowardice at
work, or even to speculate about the psychological health of a blogger
who will only comment from behind the mask of a fictitious name.

Still, the practice persists, and with the
ubiquitous presence of the Internet, it touches the lives of believers
in every parish today. Indeed, it presents us with a situation of
serious moral conflict that pastors should address, because it violates
the dignity of persons and undermines truth. And in the end, truth is
the only basis on which a good society can be built. Thus, I offer the
following recommendations about points that should be made regarding
blogging:

Pastors should speak on the Eighth Commandment and its corollary injunctions against calumny and detraction.

People should be warned that what they read on blogs is not necessarily true.
Any anonymous blog or unsigned response has the weight of an unsigned letter and so should be quickly dismissed.
A blog that is particularly vicious toward persons can be indicative of
psychological illness, or simply an evil person, and is therefore
suspect.
Any blog that is unedifying and demeaning to another person should not be read. It is the equivalent of pornography.
Responding to these calumnious blogs, even for defense of the
individual or for clarification, only encourages the offender and
prolongs the life of the calumny.
Those
who suffer calumny on anonymous blogs are, for the most part, better
off enduring it. Seeking to correct misrepresentations usually has the
effect of keeping controversy alive and adding to its interest value.
While reading such blogs is damaging to its target (since it causes
unwarranted negative speculation about another’s character), it also
hurts the reader since it causes scandal, sowing pessimism and
despondency.
Calumnious blogging is a
serious offense against God’s law. Those who engage in it are
jeopardizing their immortal souls and the souls of others.
For
anyone to make a judgment concerning a person’s character based on what
is read on a negative blog is to be a formal cooperator in the evil
perpetrated by the blogger.

Those involved in blogging would do well to keep in mind the words of Isaiah
33:15, which says of the good person: “He who acts with integrity, who
speaks sincerely …, shuts suggestion of murder out of his ears, and
closes his eyes against crime, this man will dwell in the heights.”

People--Not Population

2008-06-09T11:50:00.001-05:00

Today: Bl. Anna Maria Taigi

2008-06-09T07:30:00.003-05:00

My favorite saint's feast day is today: Blessed Anna Maria Tagi.

Blessed Anna Maria Taigi was born in Siena on May 29, 1769 and baptized the following day. Because of financial difficulties, her parents, Louis Giannetti and Mary Masi, moved to Rome when Anna Maria was six years old.

In the Eternal City, Anna Maria attended the school conducted by the Flippini Sisters for two years. Following her schooling, she worked at various occupations--even that of a maid--to bring financial assistance to her parents.

When still a young girl, she married Dominic Taigi, a pious young man but of difficult and rather coarse character. Disregarding these defects, Anna Maria was more concerned with his virtue. For the forty-nine years of their married life, she conducted herself with the greatest affability and delicacy, finding ample opportunity to exercise continually the virtues of patience and charity.

Their marriage was characterized by the highest Christian principles. Understanding the profound social and moral values of Christian marriage and considering it, above all, as one of the highest missions from Heaven, Blessed Anna Maria transformed her home into a real sanctuary in which God had the first place. Docile to her husband in every way, she avoided anything which might irritate him and thus disturb the family peace. Serious and hardworking, she saw to it that nothing was lacking to her family and, in so far as one in her impoverished circumstances could, she was generous to the poor.

Blessed Anna Maria bore seven children, three of whom died in childhood. Two boys and two girls grew to maturity and she provided them with the most accurate and complete religious and secular education.

Having sought to correspond to grace from her childhood, Blessed Anna Maria now began to live a life of intense spirituality. She had one desire only: to love God and to serve Him in everything; she had only one preoccupation: to avoid the least shadow of the slightest voluntary imperfection. She was greatly devoted to the Holy Eucharist, to the Most Holy Trinity, to the Infant Jesus, to the Sacred Passion of Our Lord and ever had the tenderest devotion to our Lady.

Anna Maria Taigi is one of the great mystics of the last century. Yet, she achieved her sanctification by living the ordinary life of wife and mother in a spirit of Christian mission and compliance with God’s will. Her daily attendance at Mass, her total surrender to God, her readiness to help anyone in need, and her being an active member of the Third Order of the Most Holy Trinity were, at the same time, the sources and the fruits of her intense spiritual life. She entered the Third Order of the Most Holy Trinity on December 26, 1808.

God enriched her with many supernatural gifts. The most unusual of these was the apparition of a luminous globe like a miniature sun which shone before her eyes and in which, for forty-seven years, she could see present or future events anywhere in the world as well as the state of grace of individuals, living or dead.

Anna Maria died on June 9, 1837. In testimony to how an ordinary housewife an mother could become a saint and positively affect society and the lives of those who come in contact with her, Holy Mother Church declared her Blessed on May 30, 1920. Her incorrupt mortal remains lie in the Chapel of the Madonna in the Basilica of San Crisogono in Rome, Italy. The Trinitarians are actively promoting the cause of her canonization.

Here are some pictures I took of her when I went to visit her in Rome:

Girl's Swim Suits

2008-06-07T07:39:00.003-05:00

A friend showed me these rash-guard swim suits yesterday...currently on sale at Lands End. Cute!

The black rash-guard top in the pic would be a bit hot, but all the options at Lands End are bright colors.

Lessons in Manliness and the Pursuit of the Virtuous Life

2008-05-29T06:29:00.003-05:00

An interesting series. Start here.

When most people today hear the word “virtue,” they usually don’t think “manliness.” Having virtue or being virtuous is looked at as being sissy or effeminate. In fact, we sometimes use the word in today’s vernacular to describe a woman’s sexual conduct.

However, virtue is far from being sissy or effeminate. The word “virtue” is actually rooted in “manliness.” “Virtue” comes from the Latin virtus, which in turn is derived from vir, Latin for “manliness.” Cicero, a famous Roman statesman and writer, enumerated the cardinal virtues that every man should try to live up to. They included justice, prudence, courage, and temperance. In order to have honor, a Roman man had to live each of the four virtues. When Aristotle encouraged men in the ancient world to live “the virtuous life,” it was really a call to man up.

One man took up Aristotle’s challenge to live the virtuous or manly life with particular fervor: Benjamin Franklin.

The key to Franklin’s success was his drive to constantly improve himself and accomplish his ambitions. In 1726, at the age of 20, Ben Franklin set his loftiest goal: the attainment of moral perfection.

In order to accomplish his goal, Franklin developed and committed himself to a personal improvement program that consisted of living 13 virtues. The 13 virtues were:

“TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.”

“SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.”

“ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.”

“RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.”

“FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.”

“INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.”

“SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.”

“JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.”

“MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.”

“CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.”

“TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.”

“CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.”

“HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.”

Pope: Communion ONLY on the Tongue!

2008-05-27T08:22:00.002-05:00

Hat tip to MC and DT.

If you look at this video, taken at a recent Papal Mass, you will see the Pope distributing Communion only on the tongue & only to those who are kneeling. This was the subject of the sermon yesterday at one of the Traditional Latin Masses in Rome.

Life Support Unplugged, Woman Comes Back to Life!

2008-05-26T07:42:00.003-05:00

I've written about "brain death" before...and here is an example! Did they want her organs? Further proof that a life support system only keeps a LIVING patient alive, NOT a DEAD BODY.

Velma Thomas's heart stopped beating three times and she was clinically brain dead for 17 hours. Her son had left the hospital to make funeral arrangements, having been told she would not survive.

But ten minutes after her life support system was shut down and doctors were preparing to take her organs for donation, the 59-year-old woke up.

He said Mrs Thomas had no pulse, no heartbeat or brain activity after her admission to hospital. She had been found unconscious after suffering a heart attack at her home in West Virginia.

While at the Charleston Area Medical Centre she suffered two further heart attacks and was placed on a life support system.

SUBWAY: no home schoolers accepted

2008-05-26T07:37:00.006-05:00

Subway is having a writing contest, and will NOT accept submissions from Homeschoolers.

One suggestion? Write a story on their entry form that indicates your displeasure that Homeschoolers aren't welcome. Or use Subway's email contact form.

Contest is open only to legal US residents, over the age of 18 with children in either elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.

UPDATE: Sent in by a reader of this Blog (but I can't confirm it on the Web...anyone else?):

Regarding your concerns about the Subway contest that excludes home schools from contest eligibility, Scholastic and Subway apologize to all individuals who have taken offense at this. Our intention was never to make independent schooled children feel discriminated against or excluded from this specific promotion.

Throughout the course of the year Scholastic runs a number of contests and sweepstakes that are open to all teachers and students. The eligibility of this contest in particular was solely put in place to award a large group of children with the grand prize of $5,000 worth of athletic equipment. We do however understand how home-schooled children could benefit from this type of prizing and will make sure eligibility is open to everyone in future promotions.

We appreciate your feedback and will make sure a similar situation does not happen in the future.

If anyone has any additional comments to make regarding this contest, please email Scholastic directly at P&Cconnects@scholastic.com and we will respond promptly to your concerns. Other email addresses or phone numbers shown in this blog will not reach individuals who are equipped to help you. Again, please direct all comments/inquiries to P&Cconnects@scholastic.com and we would be more than happy to speak with you regarding this. Thank you!

5 Greats Reasons for 18+ Year Olds to Live at Home

2008-05-23T06:19:00.002-05:00

Our soon to be 16-year-old was asking why people would move out when they got to be 18, then I saw this article yesterday. Common sense from a 25 year old! And it's not about mooching off your parents...

Here are some highlights:

Over the years, I've realized five key benefits of living at home as a young adult — whether with my own family or with another. Family life offers many blessings for the stay-at-home single adult, provided that we use this stage to actively and responsibly build a future. Living at home is especially helpful for single women, but guys can benefit from it as well.
. . .
Living alone, or even with other singles, promotes independence in ways that are not always good. In practice, "independence" often translates to "self-centeredness." This is bad training for life. It's bad training for marriage especially, when we'll need to deal with the intrusions of others, look out for them, and handle changing circumstances with grace.
. . .
When it comes to finding a mate, both guys and girls can benefit from the community protection of a family home. I may be blinded by some guy's charm, but my father isn't likely to be. My brothers may flip over a vain beauty, but my mother will see right through her. Because we care about each other and know one another well, my family provides amazing accountability and protection in this area. In fact, the unworthy may not even bother to approach a girl who is still at home with an involved father and an aware mother.
. . .
I'm not advocating mooching off your parents! ... A few years ago, I decided to take the road less traveled and become a freelance editor and writer. Because I lived at home, I was free from pressure, debt, and the need to work several jobs while overloading on stress. ...When I started freelancing, I gave my parents a small percentage of my earnings. Now, I voluntarily pay them as much as I would to live on my own. I also have a credit card and several monthly financial commitments. By next summer I will have saved enough to buy a minivan outright (my prime choice for a first vehicle, as I hope to regularly cart people around!) — no car payments.
. . .
The older I get, the more I thank God for the community of family. At 25, I still have people who make hot meals and bring me tea and cookies. I can come in from a long day and be asked how my day was, if my driving evaluation went well, or if I've heard back from that freelance job yet. I also have the opportunity to be actively involved in the lives of others: asking questions, spending time together, doing small acts of service, and working toward common goals. ...Men and women were not designed to live alone. ...By staying at home, we're able to live within the blessings of that multiplication — trading a cold, empty living room at the end of the day for a household full of warmth. This is healthy, good, and right.
. . .
Finally, living at home allows me to do what every Christian is called to do: serve. I don't have to fight to preserve my independence, so I can focus on the needs of others. Living at home makes me aware of needs under my own roof, in the lives of friends and relatives, and in the community around me. It also gives me the personal flexibility to meet them. My family provides accountability and prayer when I'm considering a big commitment. With lighter financial pressure than many people my age, I have more ability to give, to take time off work, or even to make a major lifestyle change if I need to.

All Christians are called to service, and no matter where we live, we should look for ways to fulfill that calling. However, a quick perusal of St. Paul's letters to the early church will reveal that most of his lifestyle instructions related to life within community. Community gives us a context for service and rich resources on which to draw. Living at home is an excellent way to tap into this.

To date, I've lived away from home for only seven months. During that time, I lived with another large Christian family. If the Lord were to lead me away from home again, I would seek out a similar situation.

As Christians, it behooves us to question the independent lifestyle and ask ourselves if that's really where want to go. It's just possible that living at home can move us much more effectively toward our goals than life on our own ever could.

Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics

2008-05-07T07:15:00.003-05:00

Interesting Blog by Damian Thompson commenting on this news story.

The Vatican said last night that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient sacramental Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told the Catholic Herald that the Anglican Communion must “clarify its identity” and stop hovering between the Catholic and Protestant traditions.

He said: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong? Does it belong more to the Churches of the first millennium – Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

"At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."

You can read the full story on the Catholic Herald website here. It’s pretty controversial stuff, coming on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury was meeting Pope Benedict in Rome to discuss inter-faith relations.

The cardinal is clearly hoping for some sort of breakthrough – or break-up? – at this summer’s Lambeth Conference, which already promises to be a spectacular disaster. But I don’t think we should jump to the conclusion that his views represent those of Pope Benedict.

Kasper is the Catholic Church’s worldwide head of ecumenism, committed to a search for formal unity between Rome and Canterbury. That can only come about if the Anglicans eventually decide to stop ordaining women. Well, dream on.

The Pope, on the other hand, recognises that old-style ecumenism is dead in the water, and that a degree of unity is most likely to be achieved by large numbers of conservative Anglicans becoming Catholics. That possibility is growing stronger by the day.

The Red Sea Crossing: Ron Wyatt

2008-05-06T17:20:00.002-05:00

Interesting. Does anyone know anything about this? Evidently a Christian archeologist found where Moses and his people crossed the Red Sea...complete with human bones and chariot wheels!

Additionally there were mountains obstructing their escape. To the south the mountains came down to the sea, as mentioned by Josephus, "For there was [on each side] a [ridge of] mountains that terminated at the sea, which were impassable by reason of their roughness, and obstructed their flight" Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 2, 15-3. You can see the mountains at the beach today. The people were about to turn against Moses because he had led them to an area where they were trapped and would surely die, or so they thought.

If one looks on a map for a beach area large enough for 2 million people to encamp on the gulf there is only one candidate: Nuweiba, Egypt (which means "Waters of Moses Opening"). The beach at Nuweiba is extremely large and could have accommodated a large number of people at the time of Moses. Pi-Hahiroth means, mouth of the hole, which we would apply to the mouth of the canyon above, as mentioned in The Exodus Revealed DVD. Migdol is a fortress, which we would apply to the ancient fort which is located at the narrowest point on the beach where the gulf and the mountains are in close proximity. Today you will find many hotels there and a village.

The Granite Column of Solomon

This column matches one on the other side of the gulf in Saudi Arabia which had the inscriptions intact. The Hebrew words Mizram (Egypt), death, water, pharaoh, Edom, Yahweh, and Solomon were on that column. Apparently one can conclude King Solomon had these columns erected 400 years after the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land. Solomon's sea port was at the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba at Eilat (I Kings 9:26) and he was very familiar with the Red Sea crossing site, as it was in his neighborhood. The Bible even mentions this column! Isaiah 19:19, "In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border." You can visit the beach today and see the column in person, as I was able to do in Oct. 2005.

There are numerous chariot wheels, plus human and horse bones at the crossing site.

More here...

A look at fashions...

2008-05-06T17:14:00.001-05:00

Hilarious!

NEW "Brideshead Revisited" Trailer

2008-05-06T05:57:00.002-05:00

Um, well, hmmm... Not quite the 659 minute version with Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews! (How can one condense this book into a two hour movie?!?!? First clue? "Based on the novel".

Is Evelyn Waugh rolling in his grave? Isn't the story supposed to be about Charles Ryder's reconciliation with God? This trailer makes it look like a power struggle between Charles and Lady Marchmain and/or a love triangle with Charles, Julia and Sebastian. And it seems Lady Marchmain is more interested in talking about finances instead of raising her children Catholic...where was God? Basically “libido dominandi”.

Off to Michigan and Indiana!

2008-05-01T19:03:00.003-05:00

I'm heading to my home state of Michigan and then to Indiana this weekend for book signings and conferences. Your prayers for our safe travel are greatly appreciated!!!

Creation Stories from Many Cultures

2008-05-01T18:27:00.003-05:00

Are any of them similar? Interesting read!

Many of you are probably familiar with the Creation stories in the Bible. Even so, I suggest you reread the first three chapters of Genesis to refresh your recollection. If you want to read more, you can find it on the Electronic Bible Page or you may have a copy at home.
After reviewing this myth, which is important in Jewish and Christian culture, read some myths from other cultures. Do they express the same archetypal patterns of thought? How would you describe these archetypes? Here is a selection:

Jim & Kerri Caviezel: Putting Their Faith into Action

2008-05-01T15:54:00.006-05:00

Jim and Kerri Caviezel encourage others to adopt, saying, "You have no idea the blessings that you have coming".

But now, the Caviezel's have adopted two children with brain tumors. It all started as a 'dare' from a pro-choice friend. He said that if Jim was truly pro-life he would adopt a disabled child and if he did so, the friend said he'd become pro-life. He later backed out of the deal, but Jim and Kerri and thrilled with their two children.

I've met and worked with Jim and found him to be sincere, down-to-earth, and striving to learn more about his Catholic Faith every day.

Read the entire story here on LifeSiteNews, and/or listen to his recent interview on "Christopher Closeup". (If link isn't working, go to this website to download the podcast.)

Jim Caviezel, the star of the blockbuster film The Passion of the Christ, told an interviewer that he had been challenged by a friend who was not pro-life to live up to his professed pro-life convictions and adopt a disabled child. The friend told Caviezel that if he did that, then he would change to the pro-life position. When Caviezel and his wife, Kerri, went to China to adopt not one, but eventually two orphans suffering from brain tumours, the friend reneged on the deal. Caviezel, however, said, "It didn't matter to me because the joy that we had from (Bo) - he's like our own."

The couple's first child, Bo, had been abandoned on a train, grew up in an orphanage until he was five and was diagnosed with a brain tumour. The Caviezels nursed Bo through his surgeries and he remains today at the centre of the family.

About the adoption of his children, Caviezel was frank about his feelings, saying the challenge "completely terrified" him at first. "Yes, you do feel fear, you do feel scared but you have no idea the blessings that you have coming to you if you just take a chance on faith."

When the Caviezels went to adopt their second child, they were first offered a healthy baby girl, but a five-year-old girl with a brain tumour from the Guangzhou region of China also needed a home. The Caviezels reasoned that a healthy baby would be more likely to be adopted by another family and that the child with the tumour had a greater need for a home.

Caviezel's optimism and self-confidence showed early in his acting career, when many people in Hollywood told him to change his surname, "because no one will be able to pronounce it." He responded, "Well, you've learned to say Schwarzenegger." He was also told that as a devoutly believing Catholic he should be prepared to keep his beliefs quiet. But it was his openness about his faith that attracted the attention of Mel Gibson and led him to offer Caviezel the role of Christ.

The strength of Christian faith, he said, is "in just giving it up and saying I'm going to be a servant of Jesus Christ, and my Father in heaven."

"We were not awarded any Oscars for the Passion, but do you think that's the important thing for God? Certainly if we received ten Oscars, it would not bring any more peace into the world."

Caviezel said, "When you live in holiness, when you really try to stop sinning, you become braver. You become more courageous, you become a man of your word. You become a man of conviction that you're not willing to sell out and you're really a true knight in shining armour."

Focus on the Family: new website, new logo

2008-04-30T17:36:00.003-05:00

A great organization!!! Here's the press release:

Focus on the Family rolled out its new Web site and new logo today after 18 months of work.

"We've been busy making substantial changes to this Web site, with a lot of new and exciting features yet to come," John Fuller, vice president of audio and new media, said in a special welcome video on the Web site. It's "jam-packed with helpful information on family and faith."

The new site offers forums, blogs and polls. It includes a searchable archive of audio, video and text. In the new media center, visitors can browse the audio and video archive — and even create their own playlist.

Focus on the Family's new logo makes its debut on the new Web site, as well.

"This is the first new logo we've had since 1977, so I hope it's clear we are not an organization that's all about change just for change's sake," said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media relations at Focus. "We made this change, after much prayer and planning, to reflect to today's families what it is we stand for.

"Quite simply, what we stand for is helping families thrive, through practical tools, spiritual resources and emotional support from the same Christian perspective we've offered for the past three decade."

Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, has his own corner of the Web site.

"You can get to know our founder even better," Fuller said. "Visit Dr. Dobson's corner by clicking the 'Learn More' link next to his picture. You'll be able to read his newsletters, listen to his podcasts and broadcasts, watch his commentaries, and stay regularly connected with him."

Share on Facebook

"The Nest in the Honeysuckles", Chapter One

2008-04-30T16:00:00.008-05:00

A story from the early 1800's...enjoy Chapter One!

"Do come here, mother," said Eddie, carefully tip-toeing from the window, and beckoning with his hand. "Here is something I want to show you. Come carefully, or I am afraid you will frighten it."

Mrs. Dudley laid aside her book, and stepped cautiously forward, Eddie leading the way back to the window. "What is it?" she inquired.

"It is a bird with straw in its mouth, and I do believe it is going to build a nest."

Mrs. Dudley stood by her little boy a few minutes, looking from the window. Presently a robin alighted on the walnut tree, directly before them, with a bunch of dry grass in its mouth. It rested a few seconds, and then flew in among the branches of a honeysuckle which twined
around the pillars, and crept over the top of the porch. A fine, warm place it was for a nest, sheltered from the north winds, and from the driving rains, and from the hot rays of the noon-day sun.

Eddie and his mother watched the bird for some time. It would bring straws, and arrange them in its nest, as only a bird can; and then it would away again, and come back, perhaps, with its bill covered and filled with mud, which it used for mortar in fastening the materials in their places. Then it would get in the nest, and, moving its feet and wings, would make it just the right shape to hold the pretty eggs she would lay in it, and the little robins she would love so well, and
feed so carefully.

The robin was industrious, and worked hard to get the house finished in season. I think she must have been very tired when night came, and she flew away to her perch to rest till morning. I do not see how she could balance herself so nicely on one foot, as she slept with her head turned back, and half-hidden beneath her wing.

Eddie often watched the robin during the day. He was careful not to frighten it. "I wonder how the robin could find so nice a place. I should not have thought it would have known about it,"--he said to his mother, as he saw the bird fly in, almost out of sight, among the clustering branches.

Mrs. Dudley told Eddie God taught the birds where to build their nests, and that he took care of them, and provided food for them.

Is it not wonderful that God, who has built the world in which we live, and all the bright worlds we can see in the sky, should attend to the wants of the robins and sparrows, and other birds which he has made? We should forget them, if we had much of importance to attend to, or we should be weary of providing for their wants; but our heavenly Father never forgets, and never grows weary. He hears the ravens when they cry, and not even a sparrow falls to the ground
without his knowledge. "Are ye not much better than they?" our Saviour said to his disciples, when endeavouring to teach them to trust in the love and parental care of God, and not to be anxious in regard to their temporal welfare.

If God so cares for the birds, whose lives are short, and who have no souls to live in another world, will he not much more care for those who are made in his image, and for whom the Saviour died?

No good thing will he withhold from those who walk uprightly, who try to obey his commandments, and look to Christ for salvation from sin. I hope, my dear children, when you see the birds, you will remember God's love to them and to you.

I have given you all I know of the history of one day of the robin's life, but Eddie will observe it while it lives in its house in the honeysuckle, and will tell me all he sees of its domestic arrangements. I hope to tell you with what kind of a carpet it covers the floor, and what it hangs on the walls, and how it brings up its little children, if it should be so happy as to have any to gladden its quiet home, and cheer it with their chattering tongues. I am sure it will have pretty flowers and green leaves for pictures to look at, painted by One whose skill no artist can rival; and it will need no Cologne for perfume for the breath of the honeysuckle is more delicious than any odour which the art of man could prepare.

"Bombing Catholics": more hate speech

2008-04-30T14:59:00.002-05:00

Can you believe he puts it in writing...?

I watched the pope’s recent appearance at Yankee Stadium with great sadness. The reason for my sadness was because I missed an opportunity to do some good in the world.

See, I had a fantastic plan.

Ever since I learned the pope was going to hold mass in front of nearly 60,000 Catholics in Yankee Stadium, I had this idea to invent a bomb and drop it on them. Not an exploding-shrapnel-death-and-destruction type of bomb—rather, a bomb that bombs only righteousness and goodness to humankind.

The plan was to make a device that, upon detonation, releases some sort of intelligence gas, then fly it over Yankee stadium and drop it, thereby bringing common sense and rational thought to a stadium-full of Catholics at once.

Then the last quote (on the JumboTron) appears: “Religion does three things effectively: divides people, controls people, deludes people.” And all 60,000 formerly faithful simultaneously understand their lives to have been a sham, and they begin to murmur, grumble and stomp until the entire stadium rumbles on its foundation.

But then, because they have common sense, they realize this is a good thing, that they’re unshackled now, liberated, free to live their lives as they see fit. So the formerly faithful rejoice, and they sing and dance and start a wave—a wave of rational thought that ripples around the whole stadium.

There's more, but it's not fit to print. More hate speech here...

Chelsea Campaigning for Her Mom

2008-04-30T14:57:00.002-05:00

Chelsea Clinton looks on (above left) prior to delivering a speech (top right) at the Our Lady of Providence elderly home, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tuesday, April 29, 2008. Greeting residents (bottom right), Clinton is spending two days here campaigning for her mother, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., ahead of the June 1 primary.(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

Transcript of the Margaret Sanger Interview

2008-04-30T10:14:00.005-05:00

Share on Facebook

Read the transcript here, or watch the interview here.

POWERFUL.

Fact: ignore the Phillip Morris ads! :-)

WALLACE: Mrs. Sanger, you have helped to spread the Birth Control Movement, not only here in the United States, but in Europe, and the Orient as well. Why? Why is Birth Control of such vital importance internationally? Is it just to save womens' suffering is that the only reason in your mind?

SANGER: Well, not entirely, the population question is a great concern today and the a the rate at which the birth - births come-in to the a we're saving them now - at one time the children died…they didn't have the food. Today our population all over the world is getting certainly better consideration and better conditions than they had at the time when I was there. I went to every country because I was invited and a--I didn't spread--go into the country myself--I was invited to go to Japan and to speak there, have eight lectures on the question of Birth Control and Peace.

WALLACE: Well, do you believe that Birth Control is essential if we want to keep millions of people across the world from starving is that your thesis?

SANGER: Well, I think that Birth Control--if you keep the population more or less static until you pick up your resources, certainly you'll-- keep--prevent their starving.

WALLACE: Well, what's more important -- Birth Control or picking up the resources?

SANGER: Well, picking up the resources there's just a limit to that too. There's just so much -- take Japan -- and she cannot feed they've had the best experts come there when MacArthur was there and the best experts would say that they have twenty million more people than they can feed; she's got to be fed outside in some -- in some way. She's got to have that kind of help if she's going to keep from fighting.

WALLACE: You say that originally the opposition was in all law and you had to fight against that. Today your opposition stems mainly from where, from what source?

SANGER: Well, I think that the opposition is mainly from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

WALLACE: Of the hierarchy of the church. You feel that the parishioners themselves, the lay--people of the church are not against it.

SANGER: They come to all of our clinics just the same as the non-Catholics do. Exactly the same.

WALLACE: Well let's look at the official Catholic position...opposition to Birth-Control. I read now from a church publication called "The Question Box" in forbidding Birth Control it says the following: It says the immediate purpose and primary end of marriage is the begetting of children, when the marital relation is so used as to render the fulfillment of its purposes impossible--that is by Birth Control--it is used unethically and unnaturally. Now what's wrong with that position?

SANGER: Well, it's very wrong, it's not normal it's -- it has the wrong attitude towards marriage, toward love, toward the relationships between men and women.

WALLACE: Well the natural law they say is that first of all the primary function of sex in marriage is to beget children. Do you disagree with that?

SANGER: I disagree with that a hundred percent.

WALLACE: Your feeling is what then?

SANGER: My feeling is that love and attraction between men and women, in many cases the very finest relationship has nothing to do with bearing a child. It's secondary. Many, many times and we know that --you see your birth rates and you can talk to people who have very happy marriages and they're not having babies every year. Yes, I think that's a celibate attitude...

WALLACE: Surely, a celibate attitude but you agree that Catholicism according to the tenets of Catholicism they rule that birth control violates not only the church's position --it isn't the church's position but they say it violates a natural law as I have just explained, therefore birth control is a sin no matter who practices it. Now the violation of the natural law--you certainly can take no issue with the natural law as the hierarchy of the Catholic Church regards it...

SANGER: Oh, I certainly do take issue with it and I think it's untrue and I think it's unnatural. It's an unnatural attitude to take --how do they know? I mean, after all, they're celibates.They don't know love, they don't know marriage, they know nothing about bringing up children nor any of the marriage problems of life, and yet they speak to people as if they were God.

WALLACE: Let me let me ask you this question. Suppose a healthy, well-to-do couple decide for some reason never to have children, use birth control all their lives. Would you say that your methods are being misused, Mrs. Sanger?

SANGER: Not if they were intelligent people and they had some reason for thinking of children as a responsibility, or they -- some disease that they might have, that they wouldn't like to pass on to a child and I think it would be a very unselfish attitude for them to take if there is a disease.

WALLACE: No, I say a healthy, well-to-do couple. A couple that just doesn't want children and for that reason they use birth control all the way. Do you think that is a misuse of your methods?

SANGER: I don't think it's a misuse. I think if they're intelligent adults that they must know what they want, they must manage their lives themselves and certainly there's nothing birth control--than there is in other things that you might deny yourself.

WALLACE: I asked you your motives a little while ago, at the beginning of the program--your motives in working for birth control as hard as you have for as many years as you have. You reject the principle Catholic argument against birth control as being totally invalid. Well what do you think is the reason, the motive of the Church in forbidding birth control?

SANGER: You'd have to ask a Catholic that, I couldn't say what their motive is.

WALLACE: Well ah -- you couldn't say officially what their motive is but you certainly must have an opinion about it, Mrs. Sanger.

SANGER: Well, I don't have much to do with the--with the hierarchy and I know that the people that come to our organization and want to have the same methods, or whatever it is that one can have, to prevent a pregnancy that those women say to us--I, we ask their religion very often and they say, "I am a Catholic, I was raised in the Catholic Church, on this my Church is wrong, on this, this is the the one thing, I will never be anything else but my Church is wrong on this one thing" and that is said over and over and over again. So what the motive is...

WALLACE: But you won't hazard a guess.

SANGER; I don't care to, thank you.

WALLACE: May I ask you why? Now I know that in private and...in--actually in public discussions, I think, prior to this time--you have been willing to state your understanding of what the motives of the Church are and now you would you would rather remain silent. May I ask you why?

SANGER: Well, simply because I don't think that a -- that the Church has changed in its attitude, some of the hierarchy have changed their attitude. You can't say the same thing that you might have said a year ago or two years ago as to your belief, as to your opinions. I'm not going to --

WALLACE: Have you heard it said, that the reason that the Church is against birth control is because they want more Catholics?

SANGER: I've read it.

WALLACE: Do you believe it?

SANGER: Well, if you read their papers, where they point out Boston, that that's what had happened in Boston in Massachusetts. They had simply out-bred the Protestants and they're -- they -- in Boston in Massachusetts they have control. I read that in their own papers

WALLACE: I see...of course the Church's answer--the Church's answer, and I read now from a pamphlet published by the Redemptionist Fathers in Missouri, says as follows: It says "that point of view about wanting more Catholics is nonsense. Quote, "The Catholic Church does not command Catholic husbands and wives to have even one child. The Church considers it more than normally meritorious for them to have no children if they mutually and perpetually give up the use of the marriage right for the Love of God."

SANGER: Alright, I have no quote what they do, so they...I think that the question in my mind is that they may do and order their own people to do as they wish but I object to their having the same rules for people who are not of the same religion.

WALLACE: Well, they believe, you see, that it was a natural law, not a Catholic Law, but a "natural law," and therefore a sin not just for Catholics, but a sin for all peoples...and I think that there are other religious groups, the very very Orthodox Jews, feel the same way about birth control.

Let's look at another argument against Birth Control, Mrs. Sanger, published in Red Book Magazine, in March of 1956. It says "Birth Control is a devastating social force, which tends to weaken the moral fibre of the community. Immunity from parenthood encourages promiscuity, particularly when unmarried persons can so easily avail themselves of the devices." Do you doubt that?

SANGER: I doubt it.

WALLACE: You do…

SANGER: Certainly.

WALLACE: Then let me read from a news story in the Philadelphia Daily News on June 10th, 1942.The story quotes you as urging the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps to give its members quote preventive measures against pregnancy end quote and you add,quote abortion and illegitimacy are bound to result if the Government doesn't recognize human nature. End quote.In other words you were not advocating Christian morality, but rather ways for single women to avoid bearing illegitimate children.

SANGER: Where was it taken from.

WALLACE: Philadelphia Daily News -- June 10, 1942 direct quote from Margaret Sanger.

SANGER: I doubt it. I don't believe I ever made such a remark.

WALLACE: Well, in the same vein in your autobiography --which you cannot disavow-- you wrote the following about Sexologist Havelock Ellis. You said "he's been able to clarify the question of sex and free it from the smudginess connected with it from the beginning of Christianity". Now why --what do you mean by the smudginess connected with sex and why do you blame it on Christianity?

SANGER: Well, there's many reasons of course -- if we had more records of it to go on with Christianity and I think I was speaking of Havelock Ellis as having clarified the question of homosexuals...making the thing a --not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth...that he didn't make all homosexuals perverts--and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that. That was one of things that I meant in that.

WALLACE: Mrs. Sanger do you disagree that Catholics or do you feel that Catholics should not have a right to have a say when the city administration contemplates spending their tax dollars on birth control or the dissemination of birth control information? Something that Catholics believe is sinful.

SANGER: That they have a right to say --

WALLACE: Do you feel that they don't have a right to have a say when a city administration contemplates spending their dollars -- tax dollars on birth control? For instance here in New York Catholics comprise about 45% of our population -- they're the largest single group. Well, don't you think that they should have the democratic right to lobby against having their money spent their tax money spent on something that they consider evil?

SANGER: I suppose they have a right. And they certainly do it -- but so have the others and yet they're only 45% of the population -- and that is not the majority.

WALLACE: But they have a right to get up and...

SANGER: Certainly. I'd have no objection to their having a say about it--but I think we should have the same right. I say "we", I mean non-Catholics .

WALLACE: Well, of course this is a little bit of variance of something you have told our reporter earlier this week, you said earlier this week --"it's not only wrong it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control -- even among its own members". In other words you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense.

SANGER: Honestly, -- where are these strange things coming from -- that I said them (LAUGHS)..I should like to know when.

WALLACE: Well, now you know that my reporter spent a good deal of time with you. He's a very accurate young man...

SANGER: Yes..

WALLACE: And this is a this is a specific quote.

SANGER: Well, I don't think I put it quite that way.

WALLACE: What are your religious beliefs, Mrs. Sanger? Do you believe in God in the sense of a Divine Being -- who rewards or punishes people after death?

SANGER: Well, I have a different attitude about--the divine--I feel that we have divinity within us, and the more we express the good part of our lives, the more the divine within us expresses itself.I suppose I would call myself an Episcopalian by religion and there's a--many other, if you travel around the world you get quite a bit of the feeling of all--all religions--have so much alike in the divine part of our own being. And I suppose you just couldn't just put that into a book or you couldn't put it to a phrase or a sentence.

WALLACE: Do you believe in sin -- When I say believe I don't mean believe in committing sin do you believe there is such a thing as a sin?

SANGER: I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world--that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin -- that people can -- can commit..

WALLACE: But sin in the ordinary sense that we regard it -- do you believe or do you not believe.

SANGER: What-what would they be?

WALLACE: Do you believe infidelity is a sin?

SANGER: Well, I'm not going to specify what I think is a sin. I stated what I think is the worst sin.

WALLACE: Yes, but then you asked me to say what--and I said what and ah--you refuse to answer me?

SANGER: I don't know about infidelity, that has many personalities to it--and what a person's own belief is--you can't, I couldn't generalize on any of those things as being sins.

WALLACE: Murder is a sin...

SANGER: Well, I naturally think murder, whether it's a sin or not, is a terrible act.

WALLACE: In just a moment Mrs. Sanger I'd like to ask you about another social problem here in the United States -- Divorce. Nearly four hundred thousand couples get divorced in this country each year. And I'd like to get your views on the cause and possible prevention of this problem. We'll get Mrs. Sanger's answer to that question in just sixty seconds.

Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger (1957)

2008-04-30T09:57:00.003-05:00

Hat tip to PP.

I'm trying to find a way to embed this...

FYI, it was recorded in 1957, so you may find the Phillip Morris ads throughout a bit unusual!

The Mike Wallace Interview
Margaret Sanger
9/21/57

Margaret Sanger, the leader of the birth control movement in America, talks to Wallace about why she became an advocate for birth control, over-population, the Catholic Church, and morality.

Strength Against Slander

2008-04-30T09:53:00.000-05:00

From Thomas á Kempis

"MY CHILD, do not take it to heart if some people think badly of you and say unpleasant things about you. You ought to think worse things of yourself and to believe that no one is weaker than yourself. Moreover, if you walk in the spirit you will pay little heed to fleeting words. It is no small prudence to remain silent in evil times, to turn inwardly to Me, and not to be disturbed by human opinions. Do not let your peace depend on the words of men. Their thinking well or badly of you does not make you different from what you are. Where are true peace and glory? Are they not in Me? He who neither cares to please men nor fears to displease them will enjoy great peace, for all unrest and distraction of the senses arise out of disorderly love and vain fear."

(The Imitation of Christ Book 3, Chapter 28)