PHENOMINAL ProLife short film!! You must watch this and please share it on your blogs, Facebook and Twitter!
Volition
noun
1. the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2. a choice or decision made by the will.
3. the power of willing; will.
*dictionary reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volition
Monday, August 15, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Is Perry "Bush-like"?
Earlier today I read a post by Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast. I was really surprised at how Mr. Tomasky says liberals, conservatives and Republicans viewed President Bush and President Obama. Here is what he had to say:
Wow huh? I can't speak for ANYONE else, but I'd like to say this is NOT how I ever viewed Barack Obama. My view of Obama was not good- still isn't good, but I never thought of "wine-and-cheese parties" with jazz playing or homes with too many books in them. No. My impression was more along the view of butchered babies, abortionists, inexperience, all mouth no action, spineless, backroom deals, Chicago politics, underhandedness and we can't forget the rantings of Obama's minister Reverend White who left a distinct impression on me of "Black America" hating every White American for the sins of American History. That was my view of Barack Obama when he was running for president. I can't say much of that has changed, perhaps it's only worsened.
My view of George W. Bush in 1999 was not "Southern Country clubs" or "Dodge Durangos" or "homes with no books in them". No, instead I thought we'd have a President who didn't cheat on his wife, have affairs in the Oval Office, lie under oath...to put it simply, I had hope that I would be able to respect him even if I didn't agree with all his policies. I am happy to say that I was right about my first impressions of President G.W. Bush.
Then Tomasky goes on to say that Rick Perry is "chillingly Bush-like", here is how Mr. Tomasky defines Perry as being "Bush-like"...
How does Mr. Tomasky know that Perry's "chest [was] pumped up with self-regard"? To me, he looked patriotic, with a chest swelled in pride of our great country. Interesting in how people can view the same thing and come to different conclusions and impressions.
I don't see Bush in Rick Perry at all. While they both may have come from Texas and have similar political views it is Ronald Reagan that I am reminded of each time I see Rick Perry in the media. I am not sure exactly what it is about him, but he always brings President Ronald Reagan to my mind.
"When my friends and I looked at George W. Bush in 1999, we shuddered like people who’d turned a street corner and stumbled across a dog’s corpse. We knew and had contempt for his beliefs, but it had nothing to do with them, really. It was just the way he presented himself. That puffed-out chest. That self-satisfied smirk. All that Jesus talk—even in the event that it was sincere, which we never quite bought, it was to a liberal deeply inappropriate to haul it into the public square like that. He represented Southern country clubs and Dodge Durangos and Browning bolt-actions and homes with no books in them (putting Laura to the side, since she wasn’t the candidate). He was the kind of man who, if I ran into him at a hospitality tent at a tailgate party, I’d make an effort to avoid. Liberals just couldn’t stand the sight of the guy. And that was before he ruined the country.
I understand that conservatives feel similarly about Obama. They look at him and see wine-and-cheese parties where people have jazz playing in the background and where talk turns to the merits and demerits of Jonathan Franzen, who drive Priuses (or is it Prii?) and buy espresso machines and live in homes with far too many books in them. And worse than that: for much of Red America, Dr. Frankenstein himself could not have stitched together a more perfect Other: urban, urbane, sophisticated, intellectual. “Black,” of course, may no longer be a deal breaker in this day and age, but it doesn’t help. Many conservatives clearly can’t stand the sight of him."
Wow huh? I can't speak for ANYONE else, but I'd like to say this is NOT how I ever viewed Barack Obama. My view of Obama was not good- still isn't good, but I never thought of "wine-and-cheese parties" with jazz playing or homes with too many books in them. No. My impression was more along the view of butchered babies, abortionists, inexperience, all mouth no action, spineless, backroom deals, Chicago politics, underhandedness and we can't forget the rantings of Obama's minister Reverend White who left a distinct impression on me of "Black America" hating every White American for the sins of American History. That was my view of Barack Obama when he was running for president. I can't say much of that has changed, perhaps it's only worsened.
My view of George W. Bush in 1999 was not "Southern Country clubs" or "Dodge Durangos" or "homes with no books in them". No, instead I thought we'd have a President who didn't cheat on his wife, have affairs in the Oval Office, lie under oath...to put it simply, I had hope that I would be able to respect him even if I didn't agree with all his policies. I am happy to say that I was right about my first impressions of President G.W. Bush.
Then Tomasky goes on to say that Rick Perry is "chillingly Bush-like", here is how Mr. Tomasky defines Perry as being "Bush-like"...
"Perry, on this scale, is chillingly Bush-like. I saw a clip the other day of him saluting—an off-screen soldier, perhaps, or a flag. It was a small thing. But he looked exactly like Bush. The chest pumped up with self-regard. The overly aggressive way he thrust his saluting hand out from his forehead. He even, I swear, was smirking. I shuddered all over again."
How does Mr. Tomasky know that Perry's "chest [was] pumped up with self-regard"? To me, he looked patriotic, with a chest swelled in pride of our great country. Interesting in how people can view the same thing and come to different conclusions and impressions.
I don't see Bush in Rick Perry at all. While they both may have come from Texas and have similar political views it is Ronald Reagan that I am reminded of each time I see Rick Perry in the media. I am not sure exactly what it is about him, but he always brings President Ronald Reagan to my mind.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Catechism: Saints
I've been thinking of new ways to share the Catholic faith and came up with the "What does the Catholic Catechism say about that?" feature. Weekly (hopefully) I will post quotes from the catechism either on their own or in relation to a topic discussion. Today I am starting with the topic of "saints".
956 The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness.... [T]hey do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped." 495
Do not weep, for I shall be more useful to you after my death and I shall help you then more effectively than during my life. 496
I want to spend my heaven in doing good on earth. 497
957 Communion with the saints. "It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself" 498:
We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples! 499
960 The Church is a "communion of saints": this expression refers first to the "holy things" (sancta), above all the Eucharist, by which "the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about" (LG 3).
961 The term "communion of saints" refers also to the communion of "holy persons" (sancti) in Christ who "died for all," so that what each one does or suffers in and for Christ bears fruit for all.
962 "We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (Paul VI, CPG § 30).
*The Knights of Columbus online Catechism was used for this post*
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Protestant vs Catholic issue? I think not.
I truly welcome all emails, whether you are Catholic or nonCatholic, whether you agree with me or disagree with me. But some of you who write to me to purge 
yourselves of your immense hatred of the Catholic faith are wearing blinders. I can't begin to count the number of emails my blog has received over the years from Protestants who gleefully point their fingers at the Catholic Church portrayed in the media as an evil entity out to assault children and degrade women by not allowing them to be priests. Some of you actually manage to cackle in your emails! No easy task I am sure, but you some how manage.
While I don't disagree with your outrage over the sexual abuse scandals that have tarnished the Church's reputation and destroyed countless lives, I do have to wonder at your seemingly enjoyment of hearing horrid news. Does it really bring you such joy? Do you not weep for the victims instead of taking pleasure in any and all attacks against the Catholic Church?
There are several things I'd like to address today concerning scandals and these gleeful emails. First up, do you think assorted abuses don't happen in Protestant churches? Do you think that less abuse is happening in Protestant churches?? I know from your emails that many of you blame celibacy in the Latin Rite to be the reason for sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, but statistics say you're wrong.
Since you've got your crooked fingers pointing at the Catholic Church, let me point my finger at some facts and Protestant clergy in the news just to keep things fair.
Recently a protestant Youth Minister in CA decided to make up a game that including POURING HONEY on teenage girls then while they tried to shower off the honey the minister video taped them. The four girls were 15 and 17 years old. Will he get jail time?? Probably not because the statue of limitation for such a crime is only THREE years and the offense occurred in 2007.
For the full story go HERE.
But sex abuse isn't the only crimes happening in protestant churches, there is also violence. At a Baptist church in Alabama a minister fired the choir minister, Simone Moore (who by the way ran for the senate in 2010). The choir minister Moore wasn't happy with his severance pay so he whipped out a taser gun and tased his minister! A brawl ensued in which one of the church's deacon's decided to STAB the choir minister's MOTHER!
What kind of church is it that people carry around taser guns and knives?! What kind of message is being preached that teaches you to taser or stab people when you disagree with something?
For the full story go HERE.
How about those new fangled Baptist prayers?? Let's not forget about "smokin' hot" wives and fast cars when we pray to our Lord! Boogity, boogity, boogity amen!!
Let's hear that put to music, shall we?
So that's just what's happening in Protestant news recently. Now let's look at statistics and facts.
I've posted reports from Catholic sources and Protestant sources and secular sources on sexual abuse by clergy in the past. But I think the short and to the point statistics article published by "StopBapistPredators.com" is one of the best because it includes ALL clergy and compares the "Catholic Scandal" to what is really happening in Protestant churches that the media doesn't report.
Quote:
Sexual abuse of ANYONE is a heinous crime, especially of our innocent children. They are to be protected and cared for. ANY clergy who harms them should be locked up for life with NO chance of getting out in my personal opinion. The Catholic Church's handling of abuse in the past is disgusting, with no question about it. But it was not our current Pope's blame, as many of you who've written me have declared (by the way, if you call my Pope "Rat" you will not get a response from me publicly or in email). Almost all of these cases happened years before Pope Benedict XVI was pope, and documents prove that while our current Pope was a Cardinal, he tried to make positive changes to help put a stop to abuse and remove guilty clergy. For the story on that go HERE and HERE.
Thankfully, there are new strict policies in place now to put an end to the abuses like we've seen happen in the past. As a convert to the Catholic Church, I can't help but wonder WHY the parents of abused children didn't go directly to the police? I would not leave it to the Church alone to deal with. I would inform the Church AND the police then let them handle the situation, thus making sure pressure would be put on both the Church and the police to investigate quickly, responsibly and above all else protecting other children.
I hear from my cradle Catholic family and friends "that just wasn't done back then" as if they truly believed going to the police rather than the Church would have been a sin. Perhaps they truly believed or felt that. I think maybe many parents just wanted to protect their children from having to expose themselves to questioning by police and a possible court trial where the child would have to relive the horror in front of numerous strangers, thus causing the child more pain. I can understand that.
Parents want to protect their children, but we must never forget that keeping silent only protects the abuser and makes more victims. Child abuse in any form is NOT a Protestant vs Catholic issue. The issue is the child and protecting them while punishing the guilty.
I have other emails about female priests (as if), the Eucharist and infant baptism that I will tackle soon. Until then I thank you for your comments and look forward to your emails.
God bless...
yourselves of your immense hatred of the Catholic faith are wearing blinders. I can't begin to count the number of emails my blog has received over the years from Protestants who gleefully point their fingers at the Catholic Church portrayed in the media as an evil entity out to assault children and degrade women by not allowing them to be priests. Some of you actually manage to cackle in your emails! No easy task I am sure, but you some how manage.
While I don't disagree with your outrage over the sexual abuse scandals that have tarnished the Church's reputation and destroyed countless lives, I do have to wonder at your seemingly enjoyment of hearing horrid news. Does it really bring you such joy? Do you not weep for the victims instead of taking pleasure in any and all attacks against the Catholic Church?
There are several things I'd like to address today concerning scandals and these gleeful emails. First up, do you think assorted abuses don't happen in Protestant churches? Do you think that less abuse is happening in Protestant churches?? I know from your emails that many of you blame celibacy in the Latin Rite to be the reason for sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, but statistics say you're wrong.
Since you've got your crooked fingers pointing at the Catholic Church, let me point my finger at some facts and Protestant clergy in the news just to keep things fair.
Recently a protestant Youth Minister in CA decided to make up a game that including POURING HONEY on teenage girls then while they tried to shower off the honey the minister video taped them. The four girls were 15 and 17 years old. Will he get jail time?? Probably not because the statue of limitation for such a crime is only THREE years and the offense occurred in 2007.
For the full story go HERE.
But sex abuse isn't the only crimes happening in protestant churches, there is also violence. At a Baptist church in Alabama a minister fired the choir minister, Simone Moore (who by the way ran for the senate in 2010). The choir minister Moore wasn't happy with his severance pay so he whipped out a taser gun and tased his minister! A brawl ensued in which one of the church's deacon's decided to STAB the choir minister's MOTHER!
What kind of church is it that people carry around taser guns and knives?! What kind of message is being preached that teaches you to taser or stab people when you disagree with something?
For the full story go HERE.
How about those new fangled Baptist prayers?? Let's not forget about "smokin' hot" wives and fast cars when we pray to our Lord! Boogity, boogity, boogity amen!!
Let's hear that put to music, shall we?
So that's just what's happening in Protestant news recently. Now let's look at statistics and facts.
I've posted reports from Catholic sources and Protestant sources and secular sources on sexual abuse by clergy in the past. But I think the short and to the point statistics article published by "StopBapistPredators.com" is one of the best because it includes ALL clergy and compares the "Catholic Scandal" to what is really happening in Protestant churches that the media doesn't report.
Quote:
"A Baptist-published brochure states that 35% of ministers surveyed "had engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior." It also states that Protestant clergy are "sexually exploiting their parishioners at twice the rate of secular therapists." (Broken Trust, published by the Christian Life Commission of the BGCT)
Other studies "have shown no differences" in the frequency of clergy sexual abuse "by denomination, region, theology, or institutional structure." Thus, "the problem of clergy sexual abuse is not just a Catholic issue - the problem extends to Protestant denominations as well." (Ministerial Ethics at 162*) Penn State professor Philip Jenkens reported that between 2 to 3 percent of Protestant clergy are pedophiles. His same study reported that less than 1.7 percent of Catholic priests are pedophiles. There is simply no reason to think that clergy child molesters are solely a Catholic problem.
Insurance companies receive from Protestant churches each year about 260 reports involving allegations of sexual abuse committed against minors. This is LESS than the annual number of 228 abuse incidents reported against Catholic priests. That reality is particularly noteworthy because Catholics keep track of even "credible accusations," which Southern Baptists don't even bother to determine or keep records on."
Sexual abuse of ANYONE is a heinous crime, especially of our innocent children. They are to be protected and cared for. ANY clergy who harms them should be locked up for life with NO chance of getting out in my personal opinion. The Catholic Church's handling of abuse in the past is disgusting, with no question about it. But it was not our current Pope's blame, as many of you who've written me have declared (by the way, if you call my Pope "Rat" you will not get a response from me publicly or in email). Almost all of these cases happened years before Pope Benedict XVI was pope, and documents prove that while our current Pope was a Cardinal, he tried to make positive changes to help put a stop to abuse and remove guilty clergy. For the story on that go HERE and HERE.
Thankfully, there are new strict policies in place now to put an end to the abuses like we've seen happen in the past. As a convert to the Catholic Church, I can't help but wonder WHY the parents of abused children didn't go directly to the police? I would not leave it to the Church alone to deal with. I would inform the Church AND the police then let them handle the situation, thus making sure pressure would be put on both the Church and the police to investigate quickly, responsibly and above all else protecting other children.
I hear from my cradle Catholic family and friends "that just wasn't done back then" as if they truly believed going to the police rather than the Church would have been a sin. Perhaps they truly believed or felt that. I think maybe many parents just wanted to protect their children from having to expose themselves to questioning by police and a possible court trial where the child would have to relive the horror in front of numerous strangers, thus causing the child more pain. I can understand that.
Parents want to protect their children, but we must never forget that keeping silent only protects the abuser and makes more victims. Child abuse in any form is NOT a Protestant vs Catholic issue. The issue is the child and protecting them while punishing the guilty.
I have other emails about female priests (as if), the Eucharist and infant baptism that I will tackle soon. Until then I thank you for your comments and look forward to your emails.
God bless...
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Meet Seraphim
Have you heard "Seraphim"? Do you know of Christa, Lisa and Theresa Hanson? If not you should.
Today I am sharing my love of the music produced by Seraphim. About a year ago, I received Seraphim's "Hail, Queen of Heaven" cd from a dear friend. This is one of my most listened to religious cd's of all time.
The songs included on this cd are:
-Ave Maria (Gregorian)
-Hail, Queen of Heaven
-Sing, Sing, Ye Angel of Bands
-Immaculate Mary (*my personal favorite on the cd)
-Mother Mary, At Thine Altar
-On This Day, O Beautiful Mother
-Salve Regina
-Hail, Queen of the Heavens
-O Sanctissima
-Mother Dear, O Pray for Me
-Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary
-Hail, Holy Queen
If you visit their website you can hear samples of their music from all their cd's.
http://www.hansonfamilysingers.com/seraphim/main/music.php
Enjoy!
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Mother Angelica Live Classics- Oct. 17, 1995
Did you miss Mother Angelica Live Classics this week? If you did, you missed a great episode, but thankfully EWTN shares it's programming on Youtube now.
I just love Mother Angelica. She's a wonderful teacher and inspiration to me.
God bless you Mother Angelica!!
I just love Mother Angelica. She's a wonderful teacher and inspiration to me.
God bless you Mother Angelica!!
Friday, July 8, 2011
I trusted you Fr. Corapi...
I've avoided this topic long enough. My intention was not to shove it in a closet and pretend it wasn't happening, but rather to wait and see.
I didn't want to believe it and I didn't want to slander a priest whom I have loved, trusted and respected for so many years. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe this was some horrible attack by the enemy to bring down a good priest and great defender of the Faith. I wanted to know that the trust I put into this priest was well placed. I wanted to believe that he was a victim because to believe he was guilty was just too devastating. It made me question my ability to discern the truth from lies. Who could I trust if someone I looked up to like Father Corapi was lying and leading a double life, preaching one thing and doing another? How could I fall for such deceit? Who should I trust if not a priest who preaches so well on the faith?
I'm a convert. I don't know that I would actually be Catholic today if not for Father Corapi's teaching on EWTN and Youtube. Eventually probably, but Father Corapi's teaching fast tracked me to becoming Catholic. I had so many questions about the Catholic faith and like many others before me, found them answered on EWTN (God bless you Mother Angelica). While Father Corapi certainly was not the only one teaching me the Catholic faith on EWTN, he was one of my favorites (as you may already know if you've read my conversion story on this blog).
Father Corapi not only taught the Catholic faith well, he defended it. He inspired others to defend it with knowledge. He inspired a love of the Catholic faith and a love for learning the Catholic faith. He was a great speaker. He was also a great deceiver.
As I said earlier, I didn't want to jump to any quick judgements when the "Corapi Controversy" first began hitting the media. I wanted to give it some time and see what actually came to light. Before the rumors began, I noticed a different looking Corapi. He had shaved his head, dyed his goatee and gotten an orange tan. I wondered what that was all about. It was strange to me and others I talked with. We couldn't figure out why he would do that to himself- we still can't figure that out. It's bizarre. Was Father Corapi having a mid-life crisis or something?
Like so many others, I was shocked and outraged on behalf of Father Corapi when he was suspended back in March. I was so full of absolute trust in this priest that I could not believe for a moment the rumors of him acting in anyway unprofessional as a priest. I thought "the enemy is attacking a great Catholic priest" and I stood by that belief for months.
Then the bizarre "Black Sheep Dog" story came out along with his statement that he was no longer going to be called "father", but simply "The Black Sheep Dog". Well, pardon my language here but "Just what the hell was that?" Now my shock was over-run with my anger. I shouted "Hypocrite" at his blog. He had preached and taught for YEARS about "offering it up" and "carry your cross" when we suffered, he NEVER preached about giving up and walking away! Who was THIS man and where was the Father Corapi I had come to know??
Ahh... and there lies the problem. I didn't know Father Corapi, I never had. The Father Corapi I thought I knew was a fraud. He was made up. The real Corapi was busy with prostitutes, sexting and living away from his order collecting millions from his media company. In other words he was the SAME John Corapi as he was BEFORE his conversion "back to the Church" (from his conversion story video). All the ways he described himself prior to becoming a priest are exactly what has come out now. He's the same old John Corapi he was in his youth, drinking, drugs, women, lying...boldly living in sin without thought for morality. There was no conversion. It was all a lie, a deceitful lie to sucker people in.
That is devastating to so many of us who trusted him, respected him, looked up to him and believed in him. And what of his poor mother? She must be even more devastated then the rest of us. He has spoken of his parents lovingly during his speeches, how proud they were when he "changed" his life and became a priest. What must she think of him now? I believe his father has already passed away- at least he was spared seeing his son fall so low.
This week's statement by SOLT's (the order Corapi belonged to) naming the allegations and 'proof' found are just too much to ignore any longer.
Source: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114254
You lied to us "Father" Corapi. It's not just that you did these things, it's that you continue to deny it and call yourself innocent when the proof has already been found. Admit it!! Stop telling everyone you are innocent and face up to what you've done. You need to confess, repent, do penance AND apologize to everyone. It's not that I thought the man sinless or that he could do no wrong, I'm not that naive. It's that I didn't think he would flat out lie to everyone or be the fraud he has been proven to be. To say I am disappointed doesn't begin to cover it.
Christ was betrayed by a kiss, those who believed in Father Corapi were betrayed by his lying lips. You continue to say you are innocent when the evidence is overwhelming against you. Judas gained 30 silver coins for betraying Christ, Corapi gained boats, ATV's, luxury vehicles and more for betraying those who believed in him and trusted him. Was it worth it John?
You've taught me your last lesson John Corapi... never completely trust anyone, even a priest. I'll pray for you, but I'll never trust you again.
I didn't want to believe it and I didn't want to slander a priest whom I have loved, trusted and respected for so many years. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe this was some horrible attack by the enemy to bring down a good priest and great defender of the Faith. I wanted to know that the trust I put into this priest was well placed. I wanted to believe that he was a victim because to believe he was guilty was just too devastating. It made me question my ability to discern the truth from lies. Who could I trust if someone I looked up to like Father Corapi was lying and leading a double life, preaching one thing and doing another? How could I fall for such deceit? Who should I trust if not a priest who preaches so well on the faith?
I'm a convert. I don't know that I would actually be Catholic today if not for Father Corapi's teaching on EWTN and Youtube. Eventually probably, but Father Corapi's teaching fast tracked me to becoming Catholic. I had so many questions about the Catholic faith and like many others before me, found them answered on EWTN (God bless you Mother Angelica). While Father Corapi certainly was not the only one teaching me the Catholic faith on EWTN, he was one of my favorites (as you may already know if you've read my conversion story on this blog).
Father Corapi not only taught the Catholic faith well, he defended it. He inspired others to defend it with knowledge. He inspired a love of the Catholic faith and a love for learning the Catholic faith. He was a great speaker. He was also a great deceiver.
As I said earlier, I didn't want to jump to any quick judgements when the "Corapi Controversy" first began hitting the media. I wanted to give it some time and see what actually came to light. Before the rumors began, I noticed a different looking Corapi. He had shaved his head, dyed his goatee and gotten an orange tan. I wondered what that was all about. It was strange to me and others I talked with. We couldn't figure out why he would do that to himself- we still can't figure that out. It's bizarre. Was Father Corapi having a mid-life crisis or something?
Like so many others, I was shocked and outraged on behalf of Father Corapi when he was suspended back in March. I was so full of absolute trust in this priest that I could not believe for a moment the rumors of him acting in anyway unprofessional as a priest. I thought "the enemy is attacking a great Catholic priest" and I stood by that belief for months.
Then the bizarre "Black Sheep Dog" story came out along with his statement that he was no longer going to be called "father", but simply "The Black Sheep Dog". Well, pardon my language here but "Just what the hell was that?" Now my shock was over-run with my anger. I shouted "Hypocrite" at his blog. He had preached and taught for YEARS about "offering it up" and "carry your cross" when we suffered, he NEVER preached about giving up and walking away! Who was THIS man and where was the Father Corapi I had come to know??
Ahh... and there lies the problem. I didn't know Father Corapi, I never had. The Father Corapi I thought I knew was a fraud. He was made up. The real Corapi was busy with prostitutes, sexting and living away from his order collecting millions from his media company. In other words he was the SAME John Corapi as he was BEFORE his conversion "back to the Church" (from his conversion story video). All the ways he described himself prior to becoming a priest are exactly what has come out now. He's the same old John Corapi he was in his youth, drinking, drugs, women, lying...boldly living in sin without thought for morality. There was no conversion. It was all a lie, a deceitful lie to sucker people in.
That is devastating to so many of us who trusted him, respected him, looked up to him and believed in him. And what of his poor mother? She must be even more devastated then the rest of us. He has spoken of his parents lovingly during his speeches, how proud they were when he "changed" his life and became a priest. What must she think of him now? I believe his father has already passed away- at least he was spared seeing his son fall so low.
This week's statement by SOLT's (the order Corapi belonged to) naming the allegations and 'proof' found are just too much to ignore any longer.
Fr. Corapi's Order Finds Him Guilty
ROBSTOWN, TEXAS, July 5 (CNA/EWTN News) - Father John Corapi's religious order has found him guilty of substance abuse, sexual activity and violating his promise of poverty.
A July 5 press release from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT) said that while Fr. Corapi was involved in public ministry he had "sexual relations and years of cohabitation with a woman known to him, when the relationship began, as a prostitute."
The investigative team also found that he "repeatedly abused alcohol and drugs," "recently engaged in 'sexting' activity with one or more women in Montana," and holds legal title "to over $1 million in real estate, numerous luxury vehicles, motorcycles, an ATV, a boat dock, and several motor boats."
His religious order said it is concerned "Fr. Corapi is now misleading (many) individuals through his false statements and characterizations."
"It is for these Catholics that SOLT, by means of this announcement, seeks to set the record straight."
Source: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114254
You lied to us "Father" Corapi. It's not just that you did these things, it's that you continue to deny it and call yourself innocent when the proof has already been found. Admit it!! Stop telling everyone you are innocent and face up to what you've done. You need to confess, repent, do penance AND apologize to everyone. It's not that I thought the man sinless or that he could do no wrong, I'm not that naive. It's that I didn't think he would flat out lie to everyone or be the fraud he has been proven to be. To say I am disappointed doesn't begin to cover it.
Christ was betrayed by a kiss, those who believed in Father Corapi were betrayed by his lying lips. You continue to say you are innocent when the evidence is overwhelming against you. Judas gained 30 silver coins for betraying Christ, Corapi gained boats, ATV's, luxury vehicles and more for betraying those who believed in him and trusted him. Was it worth it John?
You've taught me your last lesson John Corapi... never completely trust anyone, even a priest. I'll pray for you, but I'll never trust you again.
Is.2:22 'Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils.
Why hold them in esteem?'
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
A "Living, Breathing Document?" Try Reading It!
by Contributor Tim Siggia
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
As we celebrate another Fourth of July, it seems only fitting that we pay at least a passing tribute to the most important of our founding documents, the Constitution of the United States. Some may argue that it was the Declaration of Independence that was officially proclaimed on July 4, 1776, and that the Constitution was not adopted until 11 years later, on Sept. 17, 1787, and they would be right. However, the 11-year hiatus between our nation having declared its independence from the British Crown and adopted the Constitution which would be the bulwark of its existence stands as proof that the Constitution was not drafted overnight, and neither was it lightly considered by those who put it together. It was written, and fully intended by those who wrote it, to stand for time.
What the liberals among us regard as axiomatic, unquestionable truth concerning the Constitution is recognized by conservatives as the Biggest Lie Ever Told. On the evening of June 30, 2011, Democrat strategist Chris Hahn, a former campaign worker for Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-N.Y.), repeated the lie once again: that our Constitution is "a living, breathing document that evolves over time." Oh really? To those who not only perpetuate this lie but believe it themselves, may I put forth a question: Have you ever tried reading that living, breathing document? Do you even know how many articles it contains, and how many amendments? (There are seven of the first, and 27 of the second.)
Let me suggest an analogy here, one to which any homeowner -- or, for that matter, any responsible tenant -- can readily relate: Consider the foundation upon which your home is built. Is it a "living, breathing" structure that evolves over time and shifts with the prevailing winds and sands? Of course it isn't! If it were, it would not support your home, and you know it! Well, the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of our representative republic, and the Founding Fathers intended for it to be just that: a firm, rock-solid foundation, not a "living, breathing" anything.
But what about the amendments to the Constitution, I can hear the liberals protesting now? Aren't they evidence of the Constitution being a "living, breathing" entity? Once again, I offer the analogy of a house's foundation. Even the firmest of structures will eventually show signs of decay, and so it is with our Constitution. But note here that as the Constitution itself was not lightly drafted, so the amendment process is not likely taken. In order for the Constitution to be amended, or to have an amendment repealed, the following process must be undertaken. The amendment must be proposed in Congress, and passed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate -- which means that unless one party totally dominates both houses of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans must be in fundamental agreement with it. Next it must be signed by the president. Even then the process is not over, for the measure must then be ratified by the individual states before it becomes part of our Constitution. It is a most cumbersome process, and intentionally made so by our Founding Fathers for the specific purpose of preventing our most important founding document from becoming the very thing liberals now claim it to be: a living, breathing document that shifts with the prevailing sands of time.
So why, in the face of all this, do liberals still adamantly aver our Constitution to be a "living, breathing document"? May I suggest a translation here from politico-speak to plain, simple English? What they are really saying here is that our Constitution says whatever they want it to say, and means whatever they want it to mean. Two glaring examples of this prevail to this day. The first example is the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, in which a liberal-dominated Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a woman has a "constitutional" right to have her unborn child aborted. Yet where in the Constitution is this matter addressed, or, for that matter, even suggested? I have read the Constitution -- more than once -- and I can unequivocally state for the record that it IS NOT THERE! Yet because five liberal Supreme Court justices agreed that it OUGHT to be there, even if it isn't, it was therefore made "constitutional" by judicial fiat. To this day, Democrats and other liberals still glowing cite "a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion," though their claim has absolutely no basis in fact.
The second is a deliberate misreading of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which supposedly establishes the separation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause simply reads, "The Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion." What it means, and was fully intended to mean, is that there would be no establishment of any one religion to be the national religion in exclusion of all others. There is nothing here about any supposed separation of Church and State, though liberals continually read this into the Establishment Clause. What follows the Establishment Clause -- and about what we never hear a peep out of from liberals -- is the Exercise Clause, which states, "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the Exercise Clause, in fact, that liberals have DELIBERATELY ignored, resulting in federal regulations prohibiting school prayer, praying in public places, and displays of the Ten Commandments and other things pertaining to religion.
So where does the phrase, "separation of Church and State," originally appear? Not in the Constitution, nor in any of our other founding documents, but rather, in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut -- a private letter whose contents were never intended to become legislation.
For those who do not have pocket Constitutions (which are available upon request from the Heritage Foundation at www.heritage.org), the Constitution may be found online. May I suggest to my liberal friends, as well as anyone else who may be interested in going to the source for the truth, a reading of this wonderful document? May I especially suggest a perusal of Amendments 1-10, known to every school child as the Bill of Rights, to see what every one of these amendments has in common regarding the role of government in our lives, and then compare it to what we hear from the White House today? It all just might result in a most profound education.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
As we celebrate another Fourth of July, it seems only fitting that we pay at least a passing tribute to the most important of our founding documents, the Constitution of the United States. Some may argue that it was the Declaration of Independence that was officially proclaimed on July 4, 1776, and that the Constitution was not adopted until 11 years later, on Sept. 17, 1787, and they would be right. However, the 11-year hiatus between our nation having declared its independence from the British Crown and adopted the Constitution which would be the bulwark of its existence stands as proof that the Constitution was not drafted overnight, and neither was it lightly considered by those who put it together. It was written, and fully intended by those who wrote it, to stand for time.
What the liberals among us regard as axiomatic, unquestionable truth concerning the Constitution is recognized by conservatives as the Biggest Lie Ever Told. On the evening of June 30, 2011, Democrat strategist Chris Hahn, a former campaign worker for Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-N.Y.), repeated the lie once again: that our Constitution is "a living, breathing document that evolves over time." Oh really? To those who not only perpetuate this lie but believe it themselves, may I put forth a question: Have you ever tried reading that living, breathing document? Do you even know how many articles it contains, and how many amendments? (There are seven of the first, and 27 of the second.)
Let me suggest an analogy here, one to which any homeowner -- or, for that matter, any responsible tenant -- can readily relate: Consider the foundation upon which your home is built. Is it a "living, breathing" structure that evolves over time and shifts with the prevailing winds and sands? Of course it isn't! If it were, it would not support your home, and you know it! Well, the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of our representative republic, and the Founding Fathers intended for it to be just that: a firm, rock-solid foundation, not a "living, breathing" anything.
But what about the amendments to the Constitution, I can hear the liberals protesting now? Aren't they evidence of the Constitution being a "living, breathing" entity? Once again, I offer the analogy of a house's foundation. Even the firmest of structures will eventually show signs of decay, and so it is with our Constitution. But note here that as the Constitution itself was not lightly drafted, so the amendment process is not likely taken. In order for the Constitution to be amended, or to have an amendment repealed, the following process must be undertaken. The amendment must be proposed in Congress, and passed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate -- which means that unless one party totally dominates both houses of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans must be in fundamental agreement with it. Next it must be signed by the president. Even then the process is not over, for the measure must then be ratified by the individual states before it becomes part of our Constitution. It is a most cumbersome process, and intentionally made so by our Founding Fathers for the specific purpose of preventing our most important founding document from becoming the very thing liberals now claim it to be: a living, breathing document that shifts with the prevailing sands of time.
So why, in the face of all this, do liberals still adamantly aver our Constitution to be a "living, breathing document"? May I suggest a translation here from politico-speak to plain, simple English? What they are really saying here is that our Constitution says whatever they want it to say, and means whatever they want it to mean. Two glaring examples of this prevail to this day. The first example is the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, in which a liberal-dominated Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a woman has a "constitutional" right to have her unborn child aborted. Yet where in the Constitution is this matter addressed, or, for that matter, even suggested? I have read the Constitution -- more than once -- and I can unequivocally state for the record that it IS NOT THERE! Yet because five liberal Supreme Court justices agreed that it OUGHT to be there, even if it isn't, it was therefore made "constitutional" by judicial fiat. To this day, Democrats and other liberals still glowing cite "a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion," though their claim has absolutely no basis in fact.
The second is a deliberate misreading of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which supposedly establishes the separation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause simply reads, "The Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion." What it means, and was fully intended to mean, is that there would be no establishment of any one religion to be the national religion in exclusion of all others. There is nothing here about any supposed separation of Church and State, though liberals continually read this into the Establishment Clause. What follows the Establishment Clause -- and about what we never hear a peep out of from liberals -- is the Exercise Clause, which states, "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the Exercise Clause, in fact, that liberals have DELIBERATELY ignored, resulting in federal regulations prohibiting school prayer, praying in public places, and displays of the Ten Commandments and other things pertaining to religion.
So where does the phrase, "separation of Church and State," originally appear? Not in the Constitution, nor in any of our other founding documents, but rather, in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut -- a private letter whose contents were never intended to become legislation.
For those who do not have pocket Constitutions (which are available upon request from the Heritage Foundation at www.heritage.org), the Constitution may be found online. May I suggest to my liberal friends, as well as anyone else who may be interested in going to the source for the truth, a reading of this wonderful document? May I especially suggest a perusal of Amendments 1-10, known to every school child as the Bill of Rights, to see what every one of these amendments has in common regarding the role of government in our lives, and then compare it to what we hear from the White House today? It all just might result in a most profound education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
