tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16314233121988258412024-03-13T03:07:25.562-07:00Upper Canada CatholicA. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-54686786562535451522007-10-30T04:18:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.694-08:00No Exorcisms for Toronto<span style="font-family:verdana">From the </span><a href="http://www.archtoronto.org/contact_us/FAQ.html"><span style="font-family:verdana">website</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"> of Toronto's Archdiocese:<br><br><em><strong>"The Archdiocese of Toronto does not have an exorcist nor does it perform the rite of exorcism."</strong></em><br><br>How's that go again? Oh yes, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he does not exist, viz this extract from an <a href="http://www.thecatholiclibrary.org/Documents/orders/ssp/article1.php">interview</a> with Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the chief exorcist of the Vatican:<br><br></span><blockquote><p><span style="font-family:verdana">Question: You fight against the demon every day. What is Satan's greatest success?<br><br>Fr. Amorth: To succeed in making people believe that he doesn't exist. And in this he has almost succeeded. Even within the Church. We have a clergy and an episcopate who no longer believe in the devil, in exorcisms, in the extraordinary evil that the devil can cause, nor in the power that Jesus has given us to drive out demons.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana">For three centuries, the Latin Church - in contrast with the Orthodox Church and various Protestant confessions - has almost entirely abandoned the ministry of exorcism. As the clergy no longer practice exorcisms, as they no longer study them and have never seen them, they no longer believe in them. And nor do they believe in the devil either. We have entire episcopates who are hostile to exorcisms. There are countries in which there is not a single exorcist.... A terrifying deficiency.<br></span></p></blockquote>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-88693996341811373992007-10-27T04:37:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.683-08:00Judges Too Stupid For Charter: Crown Attorney<span style="font-family:verdana">Anyone seeking out the biggest understatement of the week need look no further than </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.thestar.com/article/271053">here</a><span style="font-family:verdana">:</span><br><br><blockquote style="font-family:verdana"><span style="font-style:italic">When guilty people go free because their constitutional rights have been violated, there's a danger the public will begin to see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as little more than "a game of snakes and ladders," a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal says. …"It seems to me if you get to the point where there's a perception the Charter has, in fact, become a game of snakes and ladders, where criminal trial results depend on things that have nothing to do with the merits of the case, the public perception will be these rights are not really rights that are important to us," he said.<br><br>Despite an astonishing array of legal rights, <span style="font-weight:bold">its citizens are reaching the point where few genuinely believe in those rights</span> and don't expect them to be enforced, he contended.</span></blockquote><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">My personal favourite quote is this one from a Crown Attorney:</span><br><br><blockquote style="font-family:verdana"><span style="font-style:italic">"The Charter gave Constitutional jurisdiction to every mutt in the country,' he said, with each of those judges aquiring power to strike down laws or toss out charges for individual rights violations.<br><br>"<span style="font-weight:bold">The first thing that had to be recognized was there was going to be a huge spectrum of intellectual ability that was going to be addressing these very important questions</span>, and that was going to lead to results that were all over the place."</span></blockquote><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">For those not fully initiated into legal-speak, let me translate for you:</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">“huge spectrum of intellectual ability” = “lot of really stupid judges out there who are going to screw this thing up but good.”</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-47401480968954219062007-10-24T23:28:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.672-08:00Baby Names: A Precocious Feminist War on Children<span style="font-family:verdana">I think it’s time we stop this nonsense of married women hyphenating their names and inflicting same on their unfortunate offspring. Too many hyphenated progeny are populating today’s grammar schools and will shortly be unleashed on society at large. What an unfortunate example of the precocious me-generation, which insists on labelling their children as personal possessions without any thought of the later burden they will have to carry.<br><br>What happens, exactly, when Nathaniel Buford-Somerville weds Mary McNaughton-Hutchings and they produce children? Do they become Christopher Daniel Buford-Somerville-McNaughton-Hutchings? Shall we start producing drivers licenses on legal sized photo cards? Will Tamils end up having the shortest names?<br><br>Please. Society has had this one nailed for generations. Lineage flows through only one surname, traditionally the male’s. Bury this feminist canard now. </span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-10809091677716381892007-10-22T15:30:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.663-08:00Traditional Anglicans Defect, Seek Union with Rome<blockquote style="font-family:verdana"><span style="font-style:italic">The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See. The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded.</span></blockquote><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">More </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.themessenger.com.au/news.htm">here</a><span style="font-family:verdana">. Discussion </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/stribe/2602267932763723461/">here</a><span style="font-family:verdana">.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">This is what happens when you muddle your "brand" with what you think people want to hear - gay sex and marriage is as normal as straight sex and traditional marriage, abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, etc.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Roman Catholics stand for something. Many things actually. And we don't change them every time somebody starts writing editorials of a different flavour.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Welcome home Anglicans. </span><span style="font-style:italic;font-family:verdana">Peace</span><span style="font-family:verdana">.</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-47005242284189514642007-10-21T18:07:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.653-08:00Causation 101: Those Wacky Europeans<blockquote style="font-family:verdana"><span style="font-style:italic">Abortion is becoming commonplace and people are insufficiently troubled about terminating pregnancies, the Archbishop of Canterbury said on Sunday. There were nearly 200,000 abortions in England and Wales in 2005, according to the Department of Health, and a recent survey by the medical journal Lancet reported that one-third of pregnancies in Europe ends in abortion.<br><br>The archbishop said that when the Abortion Act was passed in 1967, it was never meant to usher in a period of "easy abortion", but to provide an option for women in extreme cases.</span></blockquote><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Gee, <a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/article/268942">never saw that coming</a>.</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-36748598786347351952007-10-10T20:33:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.643-08:00Conservatives Elected, Red Tories Defeated - TAKE THE HINT<span style="font-family:verdana">I'm just sayin.</span> <span style="font-family:verdana"><br><br>Leadership sometimes means falling on your sword.</span> <span style="font-family:verdana"><br><br>Bye John.</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-1772780571960915342007-10-08T17:15:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.633-08:00Sorry, no vote here for Tory<span style="font-family:verdana">For the first time ever I will not be casting a vote my local conservative candidate in an election. The reasons are many:</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">1) I want the party led by an actual, you know, conservative and a really poor showing will bring the knives out. By “actual conservative” I mean pretty much anyone who doesn’t </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/263152">cry during meetings with the Toronto Star’s editorial board</a><span style="font-family:verdana">. </span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">2) Tory has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and the people of Ontario will be saddled with Premier Pinnochio for four more years because he screwed up. I wish to punish him for that by, at the very least, not rewarding him with my vote.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">3) Remember Roger’s attempt at reverse-billing with cable fees. Tory ran the company. I’m still pi**ed about that.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana"><a href="http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/">Family Coalition Party</a> – you got my vote.</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-33930705073826544892007-10-04T03:45:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.621-08:00As you were: No dead baby here, no sir<span style="font-family:verdana">People have a sense of right and wrong, no matter how much they try to suppress it. That’s why everybody, from the police to news commentators to politicians, spoke of the stabbing murders of Aysun Sesen and her seven month unborn child as two murders with two victims. Everyone spoke of the doctors who tried to save the “child” but couldn’t. There will be two caskets at the funeral. As soon as I saw the news reports on TV and read them in the paper I said to my wife “just wait, there will be big climb down tomorrow as the word foetus crops up everywhere.”<br><br>Now, today, they are no longer speaking of two victims. There is no mention of a dead “Mother and child.” As the </span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/263548"><span style="font-family:verdana">Star explains today</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana">, correctly, under Canadian law even a full term baby is just a clump of cells until such time as it has the temerity to draw a breath on its own, whereupon society is immediately inconvenienced by having to afford it protection under the criminal law.<br><br>Now everyone knows this is nonsense. That’s why we all understood that two murders had taken place. But the pro-choice chill has made us once again shutter what is right and true up into the deep recesses of our consciences.<br><br>Let me make another prediction: At this scumbag’s trial, no one will be able to even mention that the victim was pregnant.<br><br>That might inflame the ordinary folks on the jury. And we can’t let a little thing like dead babies get us all hot and bothered after all, now can we?</span><br><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span><br><span style="font-family:Verdana"><em>(<strong>Hint:</strong> Maybe we should stop and ask ourselves <strong>why</strong> the fact that the victim was pregnant is so inflammatory? I mean, if the child really just was a clump of cells, no more deserving of legal protection than a cyst, then no one would be inflamed, would they? Think about it....)</em></span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-26035130024464169472007-10-02T09:59:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.606-08:00Fat Lady Clears Throat in Ontario<a href="http://media.smays.com/blog/blogimages/trainwreck450b.jpg"><img style="float:left;margin:0px 10px 10px 0px;width:200px" alt="" src="http://media.smays.com/blog/blogimages/trainwreck450b.jpg" border="0"></a><br><div><span style="font-family:verdana">My Prediction:<br><br>Liberals 71<br>Tories 27<br>NDP 9<br></span></div>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-90291663885126542972007-10-01T03:04:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.596-08:00Tory Train Wreck in Ontario<span style="font-family:verdana">I only seem to disagree with Warren Kinsella when he’s shilling for someone. When Warren’s just speaking for Warren, he’s usually right. Like last month, when he wrote this:<br><br><em>September 24, 2007 – …This thing is getting worse every day. Why doesn’t John Tory simply admit he made a mistake, and drop his private religious schools plan?</em><br><br>Naturally, on this - the day of the big climb down - he now writes this:<br><br><em>October 1, 2007 - Here's a memorable way to start October: blow what is left of your credibility to bits. Amazing. As John Tory and his desperate gang gather for a conference call at 10 a.m., they can reflect on their putative leader's own words: "I will not be backing off." That's a quote. That's what he said in the St. Catharines Standard on September 27, 2007. Now, he's getting ready to "back off." Now he's getting ready to do - to use his own phraseology - the biggest flip-flop in the history of the world. Now, I know that I should be sort-of happy, because I posted something about it at 3:30 yesterday. A promising career in fortune-telling awaits, etc. But, seriously, I am angry. Tory rips the province's social cohesion to shreds - he runs around screaming about people breaking promises for months - and now he says: "Oh, never mind." That's leadership?That's not leadership. That's the beginning of the leadership campaigns of Tim Hudak and Jim Flaherty. But it isn't leadership. </em><br><br>Warren was right before and wrong now. Here’s why:<br><br>Leadership means admitting you made a mistake before the election, not after like McGuinty did. The voters will have the opportunity to cast their ballots on the basis of the "new" platform, which is a heck of a lot more honest than what McGuinty did when he imposed the largest tax hike in Ontario history after getting elected by promising – in writing- that he wouldn’t.<br><br>Now the Tory campaign’s still a train wreck, of course. But I’m just sayin. </span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-43141515918503114552007-09-30T06:38:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.585-08:00Sunday Rants<span style="font-family:verdana">I'm so conflicted. On the one hand, Jamaican rap music constitutes my own personal vision of hell, but </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.thestar.com/News/article/261932">on the other hand</a><span style="font-family:verdana">....</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">I've changed my mind. </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.thestar.com/News/article/261983">We can leave now</a><span style="font-family:verdana">....</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">I'm </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/262012">sorry</a><span style="font-family:verdana">, I thought we motorists paid for the %$#@ing roads?</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-17771391117116345572007-09-28T07:32:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.576-08:00Choose Change in Ontario<a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_VMnakV3w_0g/RrnQDuJXX2I/AAAAAAAAAEE/BRDmJ-DO4Qk/s1600-h/img_ballot_big.gif"><img style="float:left;margin:0px 10px 10px 0px" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_VMnakV3w_0g/RrnQDuJXX2I/AAAAAAAAAEE/BRDmJ-DO4Qk/s200/img_ballot_big.gif" border="0"></a><span style="font-family:verdana"><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Amazing how two people can have identical reasoning on this issue, yet arrive at opposite conclusions, viz <a href="http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/261461">Urquhart in today's Star</a>: </span><br><p><span style="font-family:verdana"></span> </p><p><span style="font-family:verdana"> </span></p><br><br><blockquote><em>And, of course, existing fringe parties like the Greens (quirky environmentalists), the Freedom Party (for abolition of income and property taxes and introduction of two-tier medicare), and the Family Coalition Party (pro-life and anti-gay marriage) could also meet that threshold. Then, after the election, the major parties would have to bargain with some or all of these lesser parties for support in order to form a government.<br><br>So we might end up with another Mike Harris who becomes premier with the support of a pro-life party and/or a northern party that is against gun control and for logging in provincial parks.<br><br>That's why I'll be voting against MMP in the referendum.</em></blockquote><br>And that's precisely why I'm voting for it. Thanks Ian.<br><br><strong>My original post and reasoning is here:<br></strong>I’ll be voting in the next Ontario election, but not the way you think; I’m not particularly enthralled right now with either of the two main parties or their leaders for reasons I won’t bore you with, so no vote from me for any of them will be forthcoming. That said, there’s another reason I will make the trip to the polls:<br><br>Ontario, you see, will also be holding a <a href="http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx"><span style="font-family:verdana">referendum on our electoral system</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana">.<br><br>Voters will be asked whether they wish to keep their current system (person will the most votes wins the riding), or opt for a new proposal called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). In MMP, as proposed in Ontario anyway (there are many versions of it worldwide), our Legislature would be made up of MPPs chosen like this:<br><br>Voters would vote twice: once for the local candidate of their choice (just as they do now), and again for their favourite political party. It is possible, for example, for you to really like a particular candidate, but not their party, and you could then vote for the person, but not the party they represent. Or perhaps you know that locally it is a tight race between A and B, and while you personally support candidate C and his/her party, the local reality is that they simply don’t stand a chance. Under the new system, you would be free to help tip the balance in favour of A or B (choosing the lesser of two evils) while also voting for Party C. This would allow your votes for Party C to be be added together with all the other votes for Party C to help elect more Party C candidates, notwithstanding the fact that Party C’s local candidate will have lost in your riding.<br><br>Here’s why: Most MPPs in the Legislature will still be locally elected members, but some would now be from Party lists. If a party wins fewer seats in the legislature than its percentage of the popular vote, it will get extra seats to make up the difference. If a Party ends up with 35% of the vote, it should end up with about the same representation in the Legislature.<br><br>So, why is this a good thing? Well, as you’ll know from my previous posts, I am not a lukewarm kind of voter. I hold to be true certain moral staples that, while they have stood the test of time, are not currently in fashion. The result is that mainstream political parties tend to gravitate towards the middle and run campaigns based not on what they believe to be true, so much as what they believe to be least offensive. This leads to what I call “tyranny of the squeaky wheel”, ably abetted by their Charter-chuckling lackeys on the bench and the Op Ed pages.<br><br>Under the new system, voters like me could for the first time vote for a party that truly speaks to them, and for them – or at least comes closer to doing so than other parties. For example, the </span><a href="http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/"><span style="font-family:verdana">Family Coalition Party of Ontario</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"> is a pro-life, pro-family political party. It has never won a seat in any election, and under the current system it never will. So I, and others, never vote for them. A nasty, self-fulfilling prophesy, n’est-ce pas? Under the new system, if just 3% of Ontario’s voters voted for that party, it would automatically be allotted about 4 seats in the legislature. Think about it – a tiny caucus of militant pro-life, pro-family MPPs that could tip the balance in minority parliaments one way or the other in exchange for small concessions of great import to voters like me. The same, of course, could be said of the Green Party and others who would also win leverage on behalf of voters currently on the outside of the electoral process, looking in.<br><br>So go the polls this October and, to borrow a phrase, “choose change.” </span><br>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-54567685772565990302007-09-26T14:41:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.566-08:00Catholic Voters Guide: Ontario Election 2007<div><span style="font-family:verdana">Ok, Ok, so it's not a voter's guide, <em>per se</em>. The Ontario Bishop's have, however, put together a number of resources to assist Ontarians at the polls in a few weeks. As expected they are a bit heavy on the social justice stuff, and tip toe around harder issues like criminal justice. </span></div><br><div><span style="font-family:verdana"></span> </div><br><div><span style="font-family:verdana">Worth a read though, especially if you're a old school type like me who needs a few edges smoothed off. Here they are:<br><br></span><a href="http://www.archtoronto.org/election/pdf/elect07-7.pdf"><span style="font-family:verdana">Election 2007: Counting on Your Vote</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"><br><br></span><a href="http://www.archtoronto.org/election/pdf/TAKING%20STOCK%202007.pdf"><span style="font-family:verdana">Taking Stock 2007</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"><br><br></span><a href="http://www.archtoronto.org/election/pdf/Choosing%20a%20Government.pdf"><span style="font-family:verdana">Choosing a Government</span></a></div>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-22386079712333066772007-09-25T15:04:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.551-08:00Not all Conservative Candidates are Rocket Scientists<blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana">[Willowdale PC Candidate David Shiner] </span><a href="http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/News/NorthYork/article/31333"><span style="font-family:verdana">pointed out</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"> Zimmer presented a petition to the legislature in June 2006, titled Petition to Ontario Legislature to End Discrimination, in which he calls for government funding for all faith-based schools. "He presents a petition to the legislature in support of faith-based education and then speaks against it," Shiner said. "My question is, where does my opponent stand? He tells his constituents one thing and others something else. It takes away the integrity we all have as representatives."</span></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">I thought MPPs were required to submit petitions they receive to the Legislature as part of their duties, and that tabling a petition from one's constituents does not necessarily mean that the MPP personally supports its contents. Why is such a basic democratic touchpoint like petitions being spun is such an underhanded way? Is this seriously Shiner's best attack on his Liberal opponent? If so, perhaps Mr. Zimmer ought to be returned. At least we know our petitions would get tabled....</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-57799295097498403652007-09-24T15:14:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.541-08:00Reality Check: De-funding Ontario's Catholic Schools<div><font face="verdana">Here’s a few things nobody’s talking about when it comes to the whole funding for faith based schools / end funding of Catholic schools debate raging in Ontario:<br><br><strong>"Why can’t Ontario do what Newfoundland did and pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Catholic school system?"</strong><br>Because it won’t work here. Newfoundland, pre-amendment, had two systems: Protestant and Catholic. There was no secular, publicly funded alternative, and this was a key rationale for acting at the time. Ontario’s Protestant system self-immolated years ago, and has now morphed into what we call the public system – sort of a lowest common denominator education system. Another key difference is that Newfoundland doesn’t have a middle class – at least not in the same sense as Ontario does. In Ontario, a very significant proportion of parents already send their kids to some form of private or independent school, whereas in Newfoundland that opportunity is simply not there in any comparable sense. The new secular system works in Newfoundland, therefore, because parents have no choice; they have to send their kids there. In Ontario, where private education is a thriving, mature enterprise, parents could more easily pull their kids out of a secular system and find a mature, privately funded parallel system ready to expand and absorb them at all price points. De-funding Catholic schools in Ontario, therefore, would mean that parents seeking a Catholic education could simply withdraw entirely from the public system.<br><br><strong>"But where would Catholic kids go if their schools were secularized? There’d really be no capacity anywhere else that quickly."</strong><br>Not true. Do you know who owns the schools in Ontario – bricks, mortar and land? In the public system, schools are owned by public school boards. In the Catholic system, however, it’s a mix: some are owned by Catholic boards, but many others are only run by the Board under a lease. These schools are, in fact, owned lock, stock and barrel by religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church. If a constitutional amendment were to be enacted on Monday, on Tuesday all of this educational capacity (schools, land, textbooks, and many teachers) would become <em>de facto </em>private schools as leases were ripped up all over Ontario. The point not to be missed here is that de-funding Catholic schools would have the immediate effect of shrinking the public system. Fewer, not more, students would be in public schools in a post-constitutional amendment Ontario.<br><br>Just a few things to think over before October 10, or while reading anything the CCLU prints.</font></div>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-33044438986527288622007-08-29T10:39:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.530-08:00Man of the House: Why the Husband Rules the Roost in Christian Marriages<span style="font-family:verdana">I was re-reading C.S. Lewis' <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity">Mere Christianity</a> the other day, and was once again struck by the clarity with which he articulated controversial topics in ways that illustrated obvious points we all intuitively know to be true. One of the most interesting Chapters dealt with the man’s role in marriage. First, Lewis defines his terms, starting with marriage:</span><br><span style="font-family:verdana"></span><blockquote style="font-family:verdana">The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism-for that is what the words "one flesh" would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact-just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.</blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Next, he asks this central question:</span><br><blockquote style="font-family:verdana">In Christian marriage the man is said to be the "head." Two questions obviously arise here, (1) Why should there be a head at all -why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?</blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">His answer, reproduced in full, is below. As you read it, ask yourself truthfully: does this not ring absolutely true? In my own marriage, for example, my wife has <span style="font-style:italic">de facto</span> charge over things internal to the family (sort of a Minister of the Interior), while everything to do with External Relations is my charge. For example, my wife may very well go out and choose, say, a new table for the living room but it is I who will then haggle the price. If there’s a return to be made, it’s me again. But which table, and where it will go, and what can be placed upon it is her purview. Likewise, if our family ever finds itself in conflict with others (a speeding ticket and trip to court, or a fender-bender in which my wife was involved), the entire mess falls to me. Another woman hit my wife in the parking lot – how do you suppose the whole thing was resolved? The two women exchanged phone numbers, and I dealt with the other husband on the phone to sort it all out. No doubt his wife was crabbing about the high cost of the repairs, while mine did the same about how we really should have used the dealer for a better (and pricier) fix. Can anyone really imagine the wives sorting this out? They call it a catfight for a reason.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Anyway, here’s Lewis in his own words. You won’t be disappointed:</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana"></span><blockquote style="font-family:verdana">(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.<br><br>(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as 1 can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say "Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine." I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own "headship." There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world-what might be called its foreign policy-must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?</blockquote>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-51621731064748124292007-08-24T08:31:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.519-08:00Toronto Abortion Clinic Hit Hard<span style="font-family:verdana">There was some controversy at a Toronto abortion clinic yesterday, as a group called </span><a href="http://www.showthetruth.ca/"><span style="font-family:verdana">Show The Truth</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"> blitzed the street with a photo Burma shave-style protest. For the uninitiated, this means that dozens of people lined the street holding giant (4x6 foot), full colour photographs of aborted children at various stages of foetal development. Each placard was clearly (and accurately) labelled (e.g. 21 weeks, 4 weeks). Each photo was very graphic and clearly showed what pro-abortion types call the "products of conception" as they appear when removed from the mother during an abortion.<br><br>The typical reaction this group receives (they’ve even been called terrorists) is highly negative. These photos are very disturbing (pictures of murdered babies are about as offensive as you can get, after all) and no one is more disturbed than, naturally, pro-abortion advocates.<br><br>But I do not understand why. On what basis could anyone pose any rationale objection? If they object on the basis of offensive aesthetics, the reply is that our courts have consistently ruled that people living in a free and democratic society do not have the right to live free from offence, especially where peaceful demonstration is involved. On a more subjective level, I suppose the reply would simply be that, as abortion itself is offensive, it’s quite natural that photographic records of it would also be offensive.<br><br>What if they object on the basis of truth or factual accuracy? Well, they can’t; the photos are accurate, real and correctly labelled. They are, in every sense of the word, "true".<br><br>How about an objection on the basis that these photos may deter women from having an abortion, or make their decision more difficult? Well, that’s the whole point of the exercise, isn’t it? Surely pro-choicers are in favour of an informed consumer? A woman seeking an abortion, when confronted with new, factual information about the procedure, is placed in a superior position to a less-informed one, surely? A woman so informed may indeed choose not to have the procedure. Another may press on regardless. Surely the latter would be viewed as all the more virtuous by abortion advocates, and all the more hellish by the rest of us? But at least the decision, and the moral choices involved, were all the more informed for the new information? And the associated consequences more clearly chosen?<br><br>That is the troublesome nature of truth: it can be decried as very inconvenient, or even as offensive, but it can never be successfully attacked – on any front.<br><br><em>Res ipsa loquitur</em>. </span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-47063679716669373672007-08-15T04:25:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.509-08:00Toronto Star: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People<span style="font-family:verdana">Or, at least their version of it:<br><br></span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/246318"><span style="font-family:verdana">"What killed ... wasn't panhandling; it was a violent attack with a knife."</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"><br><br>All part of an editorial explaining why panhandling shouldn't be banned just because some people are violent while begging. The plug in support of Mike Harris' <a href="http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_99s08_e.htm">Safe Streets Act</a> was an especially nice touch.<br><br>The case is sad, but the irony just...kills me.<br><br></span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-32795188628428586632007-08-11T18:10:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.496-08:00Ontario (Progressive) Conservative Leader John Tory: Picture = 1000
words<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_VMnakV3w_0g/Rrs87eJXX3I/AAAAAAAAAEM/e_QVZkv_1Ts/s1600-h/jt.jpg"><img style="margin:0px auto 10px;display:block;text-align:center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_VMnakV3w_0g/Rrs87eJXX3I/AAAAAAAAAEM/e_QVZkv_1Ts/s400/jt.jpg" border="0"></a><br><div></div><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Ontario Conservative (sorry, <em>Progressive</em> Conservative) Leader John Tory at Gay Pride festivities in Toronto.<br><br>My mother said if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...so I'm just leaving you kind folks with the photo. <a href="http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/events.htm#past">H/T</a>.<br></span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-34675731212700295422007-08-02T09:33:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.482-08:00To The Person Who Stole My Flip-Flops From the YMCA:<span style="font-family:verdana">I suffer from </span><a href="http://www.aestheticsinpodiatry.com/images/plantar_warts.JPG"><span style="font-family:verdana">Plantar Wart Fasciitis</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana">.<br><br>Good luck with that.</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-38112234498108096222007-07-30T07:15:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.471-08:00The Chill of Intellectual Laziness<span style="font-family:verdana">Of all the intellectual sins, the <em>ad hominem</em> attack is perhaps the greatest. For the uninitiated, this means seeking to refute or condemn an argument by attacking the personal character or attributes of the person proffering it. Many examples abound:<br></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana">The pro-life message is attacked because its proponents are sometimes kooky-looking old men waggling their fingers while thumping bibles and carrying poorly-spelled placards;</span></li><br><li><span style="font-family:verdana">Conrad Black contributes some </span><a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Franklin-Delano-Roosevelt-Champion-Freedom/dp/1586482823/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/702-7750113-1807245?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185805053&sr=8-3"><span style="font-family:verdana">extraordinary work</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"> on the life of FDR, or makes a speech about economic policy, and we are reminded of his vanity or piques and quarrels in the business, legal or political realms;</span></li><br><li><span style="font-family:verdana">Warren Kinsella </span><a href="http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm"><span style="font-family:verdana">contributes insightful political commentary</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana">, and his enemies (which he collects with some regularity) respond with rather boring reminders about all the times he’s been taken down a peg (i.e. the stupid cookie cartoon, apologies on his website to settle threatened or actual defamation actions – oh heck, now I’m doing it!);</span></li><br><li><span style="font-family:verdana">The Catholic Church preaches the truth about human sexuality, marriage, or the dignity of human life and our opponents remind us of the child sex abuse scandals.</span></li></ul><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Here is my problem: a thing is either true or it is not. It does not become more or less true by virtue of the character or personal failings of the person espousing it. We have to allow for the possibility that the world’s greatest blithering idiot may occasionally drop a pearl of wisdom from which the whole of mankind could benefit, if we only just paid attention. Since becoming a Christian, I have discovered a few things about my fellow humans:<br><br>First, they are (just like me and you) prone to sin; that is to say, they will from time to time exhibit moral failings that will hurt and disappoint others unjustly. If we take any given two people, one of whom is known to sin and another who is held in higher esteem, I submit the latter is no better than the former; his sin simply remains hidden, or he is perhaps in a phase of his life where his sin is less than it has been before, or will be in the future. The moral differences between them are largely illusionary.<br><br>Second, we can learn something from anyone. If we ever find ourselves in one of those dreary conversations with someone we consider to be loathsome, annoying or stupid, we should push those thoughts out of our heads and try – for as long or short a period of time as we can stand it – to shut up and <strong>listen to what is being said</strong>. You will learn something, I guarantee it.<br><br>There’s a reason we are called to be practicing Christians – because we'll never get right! </span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-83481456474187977082007-07-16T13:09:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.460-08:00That would be the sound of a cracking whip....<span style="font-family:verdana">Proving once again that to stand for everything is to stand for nothing, </span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/235812"><span style="font-family:verdana">even The Star has noticed</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"> Pope Benedict’s quiet pursuit of a new, robust Roman Catholic brand:<br></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana">"Benedict is very progressive about his brand," says Patrick McGovern, vice-president of Blade Creative Branding, a Toronto-based marketing agency, who gives the Pope credit for clearly expressing the values a core constituency holds dear. "If everybody is wishy-washy, (the institution) will wash away."</span></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Two recent moves only reaffirm Benedict’s shrewd strategy: the revival of the Traditional Latin Mass and reaffirmation of the supremacy of the Catholic Church. In the former case, the Pope has allowed for expanded use of the old liturgy, which is very different from the current Mass which mimics many Protestant services. Benedict clearly intends that the Mass should be easily differentiated from other Christian services, while supporting a clear Catholic identity (brand). In the latter case, Benedict recently affirmed that Protestant churches are schismatic and deficient, and should only be considered “ecclesial communities,” while affirming the original church (his), as the one, true church (Newsflash: Pope Catholic!).<br><br>Both moves have sparked controversy in the media (much of it ill-informed) and the predictable Chicken Little cries from the usual quarters about how this will “split” the church and drive people away from the pews. It comes as no surprise to marketers, however, that the facts prove precisely the opposite:<br></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana">The Vatican's financial statements for 2006, Benedict's first full year as pope, show a huge leap in donations to the papal charity known as Peter's Pence, ($101 million U.S. in 2006 versus $64.4 million the year before) in 2006, and the numbers of faithful flocking to St. Peter's Square in Rome are soaring. While marketing is likely the last thing on the Pope's mind, experts in that worldly field say Benedict's actions serve very powerfully to brand the Catholic Church in the eyes of the world, bringing a muscular "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to church positioning.</span></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">What should ordinary Catholics take from all this? A few things: first, being Catholic means something; you cannot, for example, be a Catholic and support abortion. The church may very well be one house with many rooms, but none of them are labelled “pro-choice”, “gay marriage” or “women priests.” Second, the Catholic Church is not going to be a cafeteria – you don’t get to pick the parts you like, and leave the ones you don’t; everyone at the table partakes of the same meal. There are to be core values around which all Catholics are called to rally, regardless of their political or economic preferences. Third, the church has very real authority that binds the whole community together through a chain of command instituted by Christ Himself, and obedience is to be rediscovered as an underappreciated virtue.<br><br>The Catholic Church. Universal. Apostolic. And kicking butt. </span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-52090534045741429072007-07-08T12:56:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.449-08:00The Perfidious Jews, and Other Lies About The Latin Mass<span style="font-family:verdana">For those of us (like me) who care, </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.summorumpontificum.net/">Pope Benedict has significantly liberated the Traditional Latin Mass</a><span style="font-family:verdana"> (also called the Tridentine Mass) for use by Catholics. One of the <a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/233495">media “angles”</a> often sensationalized is how this liberation of what is now called the Extraordinary Rite is that it undoes Catholic-Jewish relations because one of many Good Friday prayers calls for the conversation of “the Perfidious Jews.” </span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Two small problems here: First, there’s no such prayer in the approved Extraordinary Rite, and second there’s nothing wrong with calling others to conversion; if fact, if you’re a Christian, it’s actually required to do so.</span><br><br><span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana">What the Prayer Really Says:</span><br><span style="font-family:verdana">The version of the Extraordinary Rite approved for use is the </span><a style="font-family:verdana" href="http://www.baroniuspress.com/">1962 Roman Missal</a><span style="font-family:verdana">. The now approved relevant section of the Good Friday prayer pertaining to the Jews is as follows:</span><br><blockquote style="font-family:verdana"><span style="font-style:italic">Let us pray also for the Jews: that God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they may also acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. </span></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Other prayers call for the conversion of pagans, heretics and others. The phrase “Perfidious Jews” appeared in the 1953 Roman Missal, but the word “Perfidious” was removed because its original meaning (faithless) had since garnered the unfortunate connotation “treacherous”, which was clearly far removed from the original intended meaning. So we can dispense with the anti-Semitic canard that the newly liberated Extraordinary Rite contains a slur on the Jewish people.</span><br><br><span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana">Convert all Nations:</span><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Now to the second error: What, exactly, is objectionable about seeking and praying for the conversion of others to the Christian faith? I would expect (perhaps naively) that followers of any religion are persuaded that their faith is true and good and holy, and would therefore seek the conversion of others. If you consider yourself to be a person of religious faith, but do not believe others should be encouraged to discover the same gift you have received, then you should re-examine why you remain a member of your church. </span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Faith is not a social club; it is an acknowledgement, through grace and will, of the special relationship between you, other people and your creator. Indeed, the only allowable reason for joining a faith community is that you believe the basic tenets of that faith to be true. No other reasons could possibly justify a profession of faith.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:verdana">In the case of Christians, our duty to encourage and pray for the conversion of other is made quite clear by Christ Himself:</span><br><blockquote style="font-family:verdana"><span style="font-style:italic">Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. </span>– Matthew 28:19<br></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">So let us rejoice in the liberation of the Extraordinary Rite. It is a celebration of Christian heritage and a sound liturgical basis upon which to truly seek the conversion of all nations.</span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-36021069692575771882007-07-06T11:32:00.000-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.438-08:00Supremes Get It Right, but the Mounties Sharpen their Knives<span style="font-family:verdana">Two very significant developments on the Justice front today; both are unbelievable, but for very different reasons:<br><br></span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/233192"><span style="font-family:verdana"><strong>Supremes Get it Right on Police Search and Racial Profiling:</strong></span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"><br></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana">Setting up a roadblock and searching two men in a black Jaguar was a justifiable response to a "gun call" outside a Brampton strip club, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today in a case that helps define the limits of police powers. A 911 call reporting 10 "black guys" with guns outside the Million Dollar Saloon gave police reasonable grounds to believe a serious offence had been committed and there was risk of genuine bodily harm to the public, the court said in a 9-0 decision.<br><br>The ruling overturns a powerfully-worded judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2005 that acquitted Troy Farmer and Wendell Clayton, who were both found carrying loaded handguns after Farmer's Jaguar was stopped at the club's rear exit on Sept. 24, 1999. Ontario's appeal court was highly critical of Peel Region police, saying they case revealed the force had an "institutionally ingrained" disregard for individual liberties.<br><br>Writing for the Supreme Court majority today, Justice Rosalie Abella said requiring police to stop only those vehicles described "would impose an unrealistic burden" on officers.</span></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">Incredible – the </span><a href="http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/entries/canadian%20supreme%20court%20canada%20supreme%20court%20merry%20christmas.jpg"><span style="font-family:verdana">Nine Santas </span></a><span style="font-family:verdana">coming down on the side of good old fashioned police work at the expense of gun-toting visible minorities. Sad commentary on western society though – what should have shocked us is that the lower court let two obviously guilty, gun-packing street punks walk. Oh well, score one for the good guys….<br><br></span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/233163"><span style="font-family:verdana"><strong>From Our Dead Man Walking File:</strong></span></a><span style="font-family:verdana"><br></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana">A career bureaucrat with longtime Conservative ties was named today as the first outsider to head the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the force’s 134-year history. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced that William Elliott will become commissioner of Canada’s national police force on July 16. …Elliott, a lawyer who has never been a police officer, has been around government since 1988, either as a political staff member of the Conservative Party or in the civil service. </span></blockquote><br><span style="font-family:verdana">I’m a former copper, and let me tell you how this will end: death by a thousand cuts for Commissioner Elliott. Do the horsemen need their stables cleaned out? You bet. But quasi-military organizations need to be led from the very top, by someone the rank and file know will get their backs because they share a common background. If you’ve never been swarmed at a picket line, pelted with bottles at an arrest, had the sh*t kicked out of you by bandits, lost your own cool or nerve at some point and gotten away with it (or did the kangaroo court two-step), or woken up with the night sweats over that dead baby you delivered, then you cannot and will not ever command the hearts, minds, or respect of the men and women on the front lines.<br><br>He will be set up and hung out to dry on a thousand little things, by the people who invented all of the tricks the rest of us just watch on TV. </span>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1631423312198825841.post-67692805816169641492007-07-04T13:58:00.001-07:002011-03-10T15:29:03.429-08:00Smug Liberal HomiliesThe one thing about aging, white liberals is that they like to rage against old, irrelevant wrongdoings and ignore contemporary ones.<br><br>I attended a Mass a while back that contained a very disappointing homily. For those who don’t know, a homily is the “sermon” delivered by the priest during a church service. It is usually a short speech, tied in with that day’s Bible readings, that makes some important point or imparts a moral lesson. My local parish priests are among those, however, who don’t like to talk about sin a whole lot; I gather they consider it to be real downer or something. In any event, it’s a big deal therefore when they actually do talk about sin in a homily. So which sin did they pick?<br><br>Slavery.<br><br>Yup – not the metaphorically-speaking-as-an-analogy slavery – but the full-blown slave ships from Africa slavery. That one.<br><br>We actually sat through a 15 minute diatribe, railing against a sin no one in the entire parish actually commits. It was a smug, little, condescending white-guilt platitude designed to make all the old, white liberals feel morally superior.<br><br>What ever happened to that whole <a href="http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&amp;ch=7&l=3&f=s#x">beam in the eye thing</a>?<br><br>Here we had a packed Mass attended by ordinary working people who are challenged by sin every day of their lives. Present no doubt were adulterers, drug users and alcoholics, men who beat their wives, women who nag and spurn their husbands, children who swear and disrespect everyone – and we get a homily on how evil the slave trade was.<br><br>What a bloody disgrace.<br><br>Here’s a newsflash – <strong>a priest’s job isn’t just to comfort the afflicted, sometimes it’s to afflict the comfortable</strong>. Christ founded His church to bring salvation to sinners, not to make sinners happy about the status quo.<br><br>Christ told people the truth, and they chased Him out of town. We need more priests who are prepared to run fast after a good homily….<div><img width="1" height="1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1631423312198825841-26139733757598292?l=uccatholic.blogspot.com" alt=""></div>A. Carlton Sallethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01647879365501020292noreply@blogger.com0