Sunday, March 31, 2013

Lucia Kidnapped priest clears Pope Francis of accusations of participation

The story that Pope Francis was somehow responsible for two Jesuit priests being captured and tortured by the Argentinian dictatorship just will not die.  Today, a person called Yoza who posted a comment in KiwiBlog accusing the pope of just that, and a few other things.  When challenged, he seemed to be aware of a statement one of the surviving priests had made recently in the media, but not aware of the following story, whereby the priest made further clarifying statements clearing the pope, as what he had previously said had been misinterpreted by the media:

CNA STAFF, Mar 21, 2013 / 04:08 pm (CNA).- Clarifying previous comments, a priest who was kidnapped during Argentina’s dictatorship in the 1970s is emphasizing that Pope Francis was not responsible for his detainment.

In a statement published on the official website of the Jesuit order in Germany, Father Francisco Jalics said that while he once believed his 1976 kidnapping was due to a denunciation by then-Father Bergoglio, he realized some 20 years ago that this belief was incorrect.

Following the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy on March 13, several media reports attempted to connect the new Pontiff to the Argentine dictatorship of Rafael Videla. At the time of the dictatorship, Fr. Bergoglio had been provincial of the Jesuits in Argentina.

Father Jalics – who is now retired in Germany – issued a statement sending his best wishes to the new Pope and offering assurances that the two are on good terms.

The 86-year-old priest said that his earlier statements were misinterpreted by the media. He adamantly denied that then-Father Bergoglio played any role in causing his five year-long captivity alongside another priest, Father Orlando Yorio, who died in 2000.

“Since my statement on March 15 of this year, I have received many questions, so I would like to add the following. I almost feel obliged to do so, because some commentaries contradict what I wanted to say,” Fr. Jalics said.

“These are the facts: Neither I nor Orlando Yorio or were denounced by Father Bergoglio.”

“As I made clear in my previous statement, we were arrested because of a catechist who worked with us first and later joined the guerilla,” he explained.

“For nine months we never saw her again, but two or three days after she was detained, we were detained as well,” he continued. “The official who interrogated me asked for my papers. When he saw that I was born in Budapest, he thought I was a Russian spy.”

“In the Argentinean Jesuit congregation and in Catholic circles, false information spread in the years prior that claimed we had moved to the poor barrios because we belonged to the guerilla. But that was not the case. I suppose these rumors were motivated by the fact that we were not immediately released,” Fr. Jalics said.

“I was once inclined to think that we were the victims of a betrayal. But at the end of the 1990s, I realized after many conversations that this assumption was baseless,” the priest explained.

“For this reason, it is wrong to assert that our capture happened because of Father Bergoglio,” he declared.

For those having trouble following what is going on here, Father Bergoglio is now Pope Francis, the current pontiff of the Catholic Church. During revolutionary times in Argentina, lots of bad stuff happened to lots of people. The left in particular is trying to tie Pope Francis with directly causing some bad stuff that happened in Argentina, given that they need something to cudgel him with. Especially since people like David Farrar of KiwiBlog are finding that they like him, and a likeable pope is dangerous.

Related link: Priest kidnapped in Argentina clears Pope of accusations

ZenTiger The Right to a Mother and a Father

I came across this post where it was suggested that fathers going off to war meant that a child didn't have a right to a father, because his actions trumped that right. [Full post here] It lead me to a discussion on the redefinition of marriage. Part of the divide in this debate is that gays define marriage as a "right", whereas traditionalists see it as an ideal, one that excludes gay people. I can see why this causes so much tension. After all, if looking at this as an ideal for heterosexual marriages - how close to that ideal is the reality anyway? How many marriages survive intact nowadays? How many remain a life-long commitment? Unfortunately, not nearly enough, for all sorts of very human reasons. Anyway, I reproduce my comment here because this issue is the current debate, and whatever the outcome, I think it a duty in a democratic society to have the debate - to consider all angles and attempt to see all perspectives.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

ZenTiger Whaleoil and the need to demonize

I have a theory that Whaleoil needs to make anyone who disagrees with him evil, so he can justify to himself his own bad behaviour and the vitriol he heaps on others, like Lucia and Andrei. It would be a refreshing change of character to see Whaleoil act with a little more common decency, instead of this incessant character assassination.

It was like this on the smacking debate, where any parent that would consider physical discipline one option out of many as part of parenting had to be cast as a child abuser, and on this particular debate it is equally important to cast any one who thinks the word marriage has a specific definition, has to be cast as homophobic to justify their own intolerance for different view points. Personally, seeing genuine debate of different perspectives reduced to calling people "haters" is of major concern to me when looking for signs that liberal/progressive intolerance for anyone against their views is increasingly fundamentalist and in very marked contrast to what being liberal was once about. Which is why "progressives" is increasingly a label that suits people such as Whaleoil.

I heard Whale on the radio once that he thought the internet was increasingly becoming a place where rude people shouted their opinions and behaved very badly towards others.  I was somewhat gobsmacked when I heard him lamenting on the state of his own behaviour. Incredible.

Whale, rather than just declaring what you think Lucia's opinion is on a matter, how about at least posting a direct quote with a link back (so others can read the full context). Also, don't fall into the convenience of suggesting Andrei, Lucia or whoever else you feel like slandering have identical arguments and identical beliefs - there is variation on substance and degree, so again, quote and reference rather than just exaggerate your point.

Your absolutism on ”When challenged about infertile couples or indeed older couples and their right to marry they gloss voer the argument or ignore it entirely." is false. Lucia has covered this before, and certainly hasn't glossed over it. Equally, your reductive argument manages to ignore a very different emphasis and focus that Lucia argues against the redefinition of marriage. But then again, that fits my theory that you need to demonize people or groups in order to justify your own style of vitriol and "holier than though" condemnation.

The way you go about doing what you are doing isn't doing your character any good Whale.

Whaleoil and the need to demonize to justify his own bad behaviour

Friday, March 29, 2013

Lucia Death on the Cross

About 1983 years ago, Our Lord allowed Himself to be nailed to a cross and killed by human beings. All our sins across time; past, present and future contributed to His agony.

I normally watch the film, The Passion of the Christ, on this day to help me be with Him across time and space, so that I really appreciate what He has done and to help me love Him more. It doesn't seem to be a mere intellectual exercise as I think what must happen is that my reaching towards Him results in His Grace pouring down to really connect me to that event. I can't really explain it better than that, except that something happens that transcends emotion and intellect.

I'm a bit late with this post as tradition holds that Our Lord died at 3pm.

ZenTiger Lynch Merrill

I still think it has to be satire, but truth is stranger than fiction they say, and this story sums up the way society is changing. When we discuss children becoming tradable commodities, the idea seems preposterous, but tradable commodities they must become, for some marriages to acquire children. Meanwhile, this is a story of a person who sold himself on the sharemarket. He'd let his new shareholders decide what to do with his life. Vasectomy? Well, they thought it would maximise his earnings potential not to have children, and his girlfriend being a minor shareholder, got voted down. Sleep deprivation experiments to increase his output? Why not. Shareholders also voted him vegetarian, and eventually decided a different girl friend might yield better economic results.

The Man who Sold His Fate is the title of the article, but it would be more accurate to say "The Man Who Sold His Humanity". And you can follow the twit on twitter:

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Lucia Paschal Triduum

The Paschal Triduum starts now.

Safe driving to all those who are leaving to go on holiday, especially to those passing through Kapiti.

And was Easter originally a pagan holiday? No.

In the original language of the gospels, the Greek word pascha is used for the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word pesach, which means Passover. During the first three centuries of the Church, Pasch referred specifically to the celebration of Christ's passion and death; by the end of the fourth century, it also included the Easter Vigil; and by the end of the fifth century, it referred to Easter itself. In all, the term signified Christ as the new Passover Lamb. Together, the mystery of the Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday and the resurrection of Easter form the new Passover - the new Pasch.

Latin used the Greek-Hebrew root for its word Pascha and other derivatives to signify Easter or the Easter mysteries: for instance, the Easter Vigil in Latin is Sabbato Sancto de Vigilia Paschali and in the First Preface of Easter, the priest prays, "...Cum Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus" ("When Christ our Pasch was sacrificed"). The Romance languages later used the Hebrew-Greek-Latin root for their words denoting Easter: Italian, Pasqua; Spanish, Pascua and French, Paques. Even some non-Romance languages employ the Hebrew-Greek-Latin root: Scotch, Pask; Dutch, Paschen; Swedish, Pask and the German dialect along the lower Rhine, Paisken.

However, according to St. Bede (d. 735), the great historian of the Middle Ages, the title Easter seems to originate in English around the eighth century A.D. The word Easter is derived from the word Eoster, the name of the Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and Spring, and the annual sacrifices associated with her. If this is the origin of our word Easter, then the Church "baptized" the name, using it to denote that first Easter Sunday morning when Christ, our Light, rose from the grave and when the women found the tomb empty just as dawn was breaking.

Another possibility which arises from more recent research suggests the early Church referred to Easter week as hebdomada alba ("white week"), from the white garments worn by the newly baptized. Some mistranslated the word to mean "the shining light of day" or "the shining dawn," and therefore used the Teutonic root eostarun, the Old German plural for "dawn", as the basis for the German Ostern and for the English equivalent "Easter". In early English translations of the Bible made by Tyndale and Coverdale, the word "Easter" was substituted for the word "Passover," in some verses.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Lucia Daylight Savings is lasting too long

Yet again I find myself longing for the end of Daylight Saving.

It never used to be this way. I found that when Daylight Saving ended in the past, it was just right. Autumn was always a pleasant drift into winter. I never looked forward to the end of Daylight Saving because it ended at the right time, the third Sunday of March.

Right now, I'm really, really wanting it to end. It's still too hot in the evenings for too long and then too dark and cold in the mornings. At night I have the fans on to try and help the kids go to sleep and in the mornings, I'm having to turn the heater on. When it gets dark and when it gets light and when we go to sleep and wake up just seems completely out of kilter.

We are already past the fourth Sunday of March, and we still have a fifth Sunday, the 31st of March before we get to the first Sunday of April when it finally ends, and that's still another week and a half away.

When Daylight Saving does end, so will Autumn. That gradual change over from lighter evenings that gradually get darker will be a massive plunge into winter darkness, making it feel like we've gone from a strange type of Autumn straight into winter. That shock wouldn't occur if Daylight Saving ended in the middle of March, but by April, the change is massive. So, while I'm longing for the end Daylight Saving, I'm also dreading it.

I blame Peter Dunne for this. All it took was 40,000 signatures and Peter Dunne in order for this unnaturally long Daylight Saving to be passed into law. It should be taken back to the old third Sunday of March. Please end the torture!!!

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Fletch Some Honesty From a Lesbian on Gay Marriage

This is from a radio debate held as part of a writers conference in Sydney, Australia last year. As reported by the Stand To Reason blog -

Last month, at a Sydney Writers Festival panel discussion on the question, “Why get married when you could be happy?” Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen had this to say about same-sex marriage:

It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [cheers from the audience].

That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….

[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three…. And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
So, yeah, they are already getting into complicated groups of parents. I feel sorry for the children. It's nice to hear some honesty for once about where this decision is taking us.

You can download the audio of the debate from HERE

Lucia Same-sex marriage support declining

This is the sort of issue that most people don't really think much about, so that when it was first floated here in New Zealand, the reaction of a number of people would be to support it as it seemed harmless enough, letting two same sex get a marriage certificate that says they are married.

As time went on however, and the counter-arguments got into the mainstream and people who don't tend to take much notice of changing trends took the time to think about some of the issues, there has been a change in opinion. This is not a huge change, but it is significant because it shows that the arguments against same-sex marriage are more persuasive than the arguments for and that will be worrying the same-sex marriage supporters.
Public opposition to same-sex marriage has grown significantly since a law change to legalise it came before Parliament, a Herald DigiPoll survey shows.

Same-sex marriage campaigners blame scaremongering by religious groups for the increase in opposition, saying lobbying has intensified as the bill progresses through Parliament.

Opponents of gay marriage say the jump shows people are waking up to the negative social effects of changing the Marriage Act.

Asked what best fitted their view on marriage law, 48 per cent of those polled said marriage should remain between a man and a woman - an increase of 7.5 percentage points from a poll last June.

The number of people who supported a law change to allow same-sex couples to marry fell 4 percentage points in that time, but still outnumbered the opponents by a small margin.

The Marriage Amendment Bill is expected to return to Parliament tomorrow for the committee stages after easily passing its second reading by 77 votes to 44. It could become law next month.

Passing the bill to redefine marriage will not make this issue go away, either. Like the anti-smacking legislation that goes against natural justice, redefining marriage will have all sorts of consequences which will increase opposition to it as time goes on.

One such consequence is the State interfering in what can be taught to children about their religion. Canada, which redefined marriage in 2003 through court decisions, and then formalised the arrangement in 2005 with a law change is now moving very strongly in the direction of active persecution of religious faith. Ten years is all is has taken for a federal territory in Canada to tell Catholic schools that the Catholic position on homosexuality is not to be taught in state funded Catholic schools. The following (from the Catechism) is most likely what the Yukon Education Minister said could not be taught to Catholic children in Catholic schools:
Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
As the Catechism shows, Catholics are to accept those with homosexual inclinations with respect, compassion and sensitivity, but not to approve of homosexual acts which are intrinsically disordered.  In other words, love the sinner but hate the sin.  However, only full approval of homosexual activity will be accepted by the activists.

Canada is one of the countries to watch with regards to how they oppress those who oppose the redefinition of traditional morality.  If it's happening now in Canada, it could happen here in New Zealand in five to ten years.

This has never been just about same-sex marriage, it's far bigger than that.

Just watch.

Related links: Shock poll over gay marriage bill ~ NZ Herald (vote in the online poll today)
Yukon Education Minister forbids Catholic schools to teach Catholic doctrine on homosexuality ~ LifeSiteNews

Other bloggers opinions: Marinating in radical leftist cultural Marxist indoctrination ~ PM of NZ

Monday, March 25, 2013

Andrei Biting my tongue

This Post was written Thursday 21st March 2013 but held until today

We all know that the New York Times is no friend of the Catholic Church and will produce stories to undermine her and the Faithful's morale in any way they can and at every opportunity.

And there are Catholics who will seize on these stories to spread disharmony among the Faithful, including those of us on the other side of the divide of the divided Church.

But it is Lent and Lent on this side of the divide began on Monday but not only on this side but for some on the Catholic side Lent began then as well.

And on the first Thursday of Great Lent the fourth part of Canon of St Andrew of Crete, the first three parts being read on the preceeding nights.

And there are Eastern Catholics who will be singing this on this night as well as shown below. We need to put aside all the nonsense and pap of the world as often as we can and not allow others to mislead us to further their personal agendas.

Fletch Hundreds Of Thousands Protest Gay Marriage in France

Huge protest in France (again) with hundreds of thousands of people marching against same-sex marriage.

 AP reports -

Paris riot police fought back crowds who pushed their way onto Paris' landmark Champs-Elysees avenue as part of a huge protest against a draft law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children.

Hundreds of thousands of people - conservative activists, children, retirees, priests - converged on the capital in a last-ditch bid to stop the bill, many bussed in from the French provinces.

The lower house of France's parliament approved the "marriage for everyone" bill last month with a large majority, and it's facing a vote in the Senate next month. Both houses are dominated by French President Francois Hollande's Socialist Party and its allies.

Sustained protests led by opposition conservatives in this traditionally Catholic country have eroded support for the draft law in recent months, and organisers hope the march will weigh on the Senate debate.

The first few hours of the protest were peaceful. But as it was meant to be winding down, about 100 youths tried to push past police barricades onto the Champs-Elysees, the avenue that cuts through central Paris and draws throngs of tourists daily.

Will they listen? Doubtful. The liberals have hearts (or is it something else?) set on this gay marriage agenda and the wishes of the people don't come into it.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Lucia Pope Francis stands with Benedict

It's moments like these where faith pays off ...

Folks, Pope Francis has done it.

He has taken his stand.

He did it this morning, about three hours ago.

And his stand is with… Pope Benedict, his predecessor, with whom he will meet tomorrow.

The importance of Francis’s words today cannot be overestimated.

Francis today took his stand with the essential spiritual vision of Pope Benedict. (And note: in this talk, unlike in several previous talks, Pope Francis adhered strictly to his prepared text; he made no “off the cuff” remarks. So, this was thought-out in advance and intentional.)

If one were to summarize in a phrase, one might say that Francis today said: “I stand with Pope Benedict.”

But on what, precisely?

Francis today said he stands with Pope Benedict on the Christian conception of truth: that the truth of the Christian faith, the truth of the Christian vision of man, leads mankind toward life, more abundant life, toward justice, toward true joy.

What Francis said today was critical, and should be read carefully by all who want to understand “where he is coming from.”

So far, the “pundits” — and really, all of us — have been “circling” Pope Francis, like the group of blind men circling the elephant, one touching the rope-like tail, one the smooth, sheet-like ear, one the hard, ivory tusk, all “seeing” only a small part… none seeing the whole.

One pundit notes the Pope’s simplicity, his actual poverty, his love for the poor, and says (wrongly): “He is the people’s Pope, the Pope of the poor, so… he is a liberal, he may very well be a social revolutionary, a ‘liberation’ Pope… and perhaps also breaking with Church teaching on sexual matters…” Another pundit notes that Francis has strongly defended Church teaching on the family, on sexual morality, and says (wrongly) “he is a conservative, he won’t ‘rock the boat’ at all…”

Francis cannot be captured by these political categories.

He transcends them.

As Jesus transcended all categories, reaching out to sinners — and all are sinners — but also, asking them not to sin. Loving the sinner, but not the sin…

As Pope Benedict transcended all categories. Ceaselessly reminding all of us that our destiny transcends all worldly categories, that we are made for eternity, not just for time…

Read more: Letter #56: Holding to Benedict ~ The Moynihan Letters

Friday, March 22, 2013

Lucia Did the Pope really endorse civil unions in Argentina?

A story has been making the rounds that Pope Francis put forward an idea to promote civil unions in Argentina as an alternative to redefining marriage, and that he was voted down by his more conservative bishop's conference. The New York Times had a quite prominent article promoting this view and it was quoted to us here on this blog by one of our readers. At the time, I said that it would be better to wait and see what clarifications are forthcoming as I found it difficult to believe that Francis would be so out of step with the Church's official position on civil unions.

Turns out he most likely did not:
BUENOS AIRES, March 21, 2013 ( - Miguel Woites, a confidant of Pope Francis while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, is denying a widely publicized claim that the then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio suggested the endorsement of gay civil unions as an alternative to "homosexual marriage" during a private meeting with fellow bishops in 2010.

In an interview granted to the Catholic news agency ACI Prensa, Woites said that the story "isn't true. It's a complete error."

The principle source of the claim, Bergoglio biographer Sergio RubĂ­n, "never said who told him, when they told him," said Woites. "It's not correct to write something like that out of thin air. That (New York Times) article was very criticized by the bishops. He certainly would have referred to unions of convenience but not that anything be legalized."

Related link: Bergoglio didn’t suggest endorsing homosexual civil unions in 2010, says confidant of new pope ~ LifeSiteNews

Lucia Same-sex marriage supporters have toned down their face book event page

When it was originally set up, the pro same-sex marriage face book event looked like this:

Now, it's been toned down tremendously:

From: "Let's swamp the haters at their anti LGBT Marriage Vigil"
To: "Support Love at the anti LGBT Marriage Vigil".

Quite a dramatic difference in tone.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Lucia Yet another attempt at posting a comment on Stuff [UPDATE]

In response to Marriage equality bill : How MPs voted, I commented:

Given that New Zealand threw out the last Labour Government in a big part, to their social engineering policies, why are National politicians, including John Key, allowing Labour to govern from the rear with more social engineering?

Let's see if they will continue to discriminate against bloggers with pseudonyms.

[UPDATE]: Yes, they let it through. Looks like this is what I need to do in order to have a comment of mine published - write it up in a post as well.

Lucia NZ man's horrifying ordeal in a Chinese prison

I have to say at the outset that I believe, based on what I have heard of this man's story, that he should never have been found guilty of manslaughter, given that he was set upon by a number of men who wouldn't stop attacking him. In any sane jurisdiction he would have been either not charged at all or been found innocent and let go. But not in the Chinese justice system which from what I have read and heard, does not have justice at it's mandate.

What was supposed to be a business trip instead became a stint in a Chinese jail for Danny Cancian after a restaurant fight took a lethal turn.

He was charged with manslaughter and, although the judge at his trial acknowledged that he did not start the fight, he was deemed to have used excessive force on one of his attackers, who died of a brain bleed.

Danny Cancian phoned NewsTalkZB this morning (the Tim Fookes Morning Show) and explained that at that point in the fight, he had been hit in the back of the head with a chair and could hardly see. He felt he was fighting for his life against men who would have killed him had he done nothing.

"My lawyer wasn't allowed to speak up and say anything," Mr Cancian said yesterday. "He [would be] told to shut up by the judge."

Good behaviour and hard work gained Mr Cancian enough reward points in prison to apply for his sentence to be reduced, and he arrived home on November 29.

Good on him for speaking out. We are doing a lot of trade with China, however these sorts of stories need to get out there so New Zealanders know what type of country we are dealing with. A whole lot of things that New Zealanders take for granted, such as respect for human life, do not exist in same degree in China. This is because New Zealand is a Christian country (despite the secularists trying to deny it) and China is not. Compare Christian countries with non-Christian countries and you get something pretty alien, such as basic standards of justice that just don't exist.

Related link: 'I didn't see the Sun or the stars for four years' ~ Stuff

Related reading: The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West ~ Amazon (Kindle book not available for some reason right now).

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Lucia Pope Francis: His role - to protect

Another wonderful blog post letter from Dr. Robert B. Moynihan in Rome:
Today a new pontificate officially began. [Tuesday night, NZ time]

The essential message in the homily given by Pope Francis to open his pontificate draws on the work and image of St. Joseph, spouse of Mary, head of the Holy Family. And that message is to “protect.”

This message is important at a time when the figure of the person who “protects,” be he a father, a mother, a priest, a scholar, a leader, is under attack — in a time when the “protection” is entrusted to others, or to none, when the “protectors” are anonymous, or hidden, or when they simply don’t exist.

To “protect” means to make sure what one protects is not harmed, not hurt.

And so this emphasis on “protecting” seems to recall a passage in the Book of Revelation which focuses on “not hurting,” that is, protecting.

In Chapter 7 of Revelation, an angel ascends from the east, bearing “the seal of the living God.”

This angel cries out in a “loud voice” to the other “angels,” who had been “hurting” the earth.

Now, we know that St. Bonaventure considered St. Francis, who had received the signs of Christ’s wounds on his body, the stigmata, in 1224 A.D., this angel, the “angel having the seal of the living God.” Bonaventure writes about Francis in this way in his biography of Francis, the Legenda Major.

And we know that this new Pope has chosen the name Francis in honor of St. Francis.

Here is the relevant passage from the Book of Revelation:
7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

So, this pontificate begins under the sign of St. Joseph, the father, the protector.

And under the sign of St. Francis, the protector of the earth, and all who are on the earth, the man of peace.

I note also that today is the saint’s day (celebrated in Italy almost like a birthday) of Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI. A blessed “nameday” to the Emeritus Pope, Benedict XVI.
A lot of symbolism there.  While many are rejoicing that this pope is all about the "poor", the fact that he is actually a real Catholic escapes them.  But as Fr Z. points out, they will discover this and turn on him.

Read more: Letter #53: Protect ~ The Moynihan Letters

Lucia Offending Catholics is fine, but not the Chinese Government

Powershop ad: Chairman Mao doing Gangnam Style

An advert depicting Chairman Mao performing the Gangnam Style dance has been banned from Auckland bus stops for fear it will insult Chinese residents.

The ad, for online electricity store Powershop, shows the Chinese former dictator surrounded by Chinese people and soldiers posing with guns, and carries the slogan 'Same Power Different Attitude'.

The above picture doesn't show soldiers with guns. Looks like that part has been cropped.

Advertising on the shelters is managed by Adshel on behalf of council-owned Auckland Transport.

Adshel managing director Nick Vile said it always flagged content that could be controversial.

"The reason we do that is our network of bus shelters is deemed to be a service provided by the city council to their constituents," Mr Vile said.

"Obviously that constituent group are wide and varied in terms of their ethnicity, and as a result I guess it's prudent for them to take a conservative approach."

Auckland Transport communications manager Sharon Hunter said as a general rule they did not want to have adverts on shelters that were designed to "shock, offend or be controversial".

"Something which may be funny to one person can easily be offensive to another.

"On this occasion we believed Powershop's advertisement may potentially cause offence to Auckland's Chinese population."

Strange, how potentially offending the Chinese Government (I mean, come on, this is not poking fun at Chinese people - Chairman Mao represents the Chinese Government, not the people!) immediately creates a proactive reaction from the Council-owned company, while as an ad poking fun at the Pope Emeritis (supposedly marrying two men when the Catholic Church is totally against same-sex marriage) who represents almost as many Catholics as Chinese people (1.1 billion vs 1.2 billion) does not result in a ban on that other ad!

Hattip: Brendan Malone

Related links: Chairman Mao Gangnam Style ad banned from bus stops ~ NZ Herald
Powershop advertisement offensive to Catholics ~ NZ Conservative
The New Anti-Catholicism: the Last Acceptable Prejudice ~ Amazon

Lucia National and Labour and Referendums

Yesterday David Farrar wrote a post condemning Labour for their asset sales referendum when they were not interested in the the results of the anti-smacking referendum that was driven entirely by the people and not by parliamentarians and their staff and their government money.

Oh the irony.

There can be no doubt that the majority of New Zealanders want correctional smacking to be legal, and there was a referendum that said so by a massive 7:1 margin.

Now one can have the view that a party’s policy should triumph over a non binding referendum. I certainly hold that view.

But what is absolute hypocrisy is to be a party that ignored the results of this 2009 referendum, and then two years later to then demand that the Government should break its election policy on the basis of the asset sales referendum.

What many do not know is that a bill was selected for first reading in Parliament in 2010, just a couple of weeks after the referendum result. The bill would have implemented the referendum result by amending the law so that:

it is no longer a criminal offence for parents, and those in the place of parents, to use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children’s behaviour and there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force

The law was basically identical to what the referendum called for. Now how did Labour and Greens vote on this bill, just three weeks after the referendum? The voted it down (along with every other party except ACT) at first reading.

Now I think National should have voted for the bill, but at least National is consistent that their party’s policy over-rides a referendum result. They have never ever said that referenda should trump elections.

National was not consistent on the anti-smacking law, as they fought tooth and nail against it until John Key made a deal. Many people would have assumed (I was one of them who was hopeful) that once National got into power, given it's record on opposing the law change, they would overturn it irrespective of their party policy, ie do the right thing.

However, that's not what this post is really about. I was astounded to read that Kiwiblog post trying to use the smacking referendum against Labour when National is not squeaky clean with regards to how they treated it. To try and make political mileage out of it when National could overturn that terrible law tomorrow, is far worse in my mind than whatever Labour is up to with their asset sales referendum.

Both parties are just a joke.

Related link: A tale of two petitions ~ Kiwiblog

Monday, March 18, 2013

Lucia Papal Inauguration, why isn't our PM going? It's history in the making!

The Papal Inauguration for Pope Francis is on Tuesday, 19 March on the Feast of St Joseph.

The Americans are sending Vice President, Joe Biden to the Papal Inauguration, German Chancellor Angela Mercal is going, and so is Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and the EU President Herman Van Rompuy.

VATICAN CITY - The Roman Catholic Church will roll out the red carpet for world leaders and crowned heads attending the inauguration Mass Tuesday of Pope Francis as he embarks on a ground-breaking papacy.

The occasion promises to contrast with the pomp and circumstance normally associated with grand Church occasions given the disarmingly humble style the new pope has shown in his first few days as the first Latin American leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.

An event that poses an inevitable protocol headache for the Vatican -- no official invitations are involved, and some VIPs may turn up unannounced -- will also be a first test of the former Buenos Aires archbishop's ability to navigate choppy diplomatic waters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault are among key European leaders expected to attend, along with EU President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission head Jose Manuel Barosso.

US Vice President Joe Biden, a practising Catholic, arrived late Sunday to represent Washington at the event precipitated by the shock resignation of Francis's predecessor Benedict XVI.

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, with whom the former Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as Buenos Aires archbishop, has had tense relations because of opposing views on homosexuality and birth control, is also already in Rome.

Not bad. I do remember when Pope John Paul II died, just watching the sheer number of world leaders who turned up, including American President George W. Bush and even ex-Presidents, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Did NZ Prime Minister, Helen Clark go? I don't recall. No, according to Wikipedia, only the Governor General, Dame Silvia Cartwright and her husband went.

I would have thought our Prime Minister, who seems to turn up at every Big Gay Out in New Zealand might like to head off to Rome to rub shoulders with a number of the world leaders, but strangely enough, he's only sending Chris Finlayson.  Does it not fit with John Key's image to attend a Papal Inauguration?  Probably not as he's championing a same-sex marriage bill that is in line with what Pope Francis says is a machination of the Father of Lies (ie the devil).

Taiwon's President is going, which seems to be causing a little tension with China:

TAIPEI: Taiwan’s leader plans to visit the Vatican for the new pope’s inauguration mass, officials said on Friday, prompting China to warn Taipei against doing anything to inflame their delicate relationship.

In light of the planned trip by Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou for next Tuesday’s mass, Beijing also renewed its demands for concessions from the Vatican in their long-running battle for supremacy over China’s Catholics.

Even Constantianople's Patriarch will be there, first time in almost 1000 years!

Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has announced that he plans to attend the inaugural Mass of Pope Frances on March 19.

The appearance by the Ecumenical Patriarch--the "first among equals" of all the world's Orthodox leaders--is an unprecedented gesture. The Patriarch of Constantinople has not attended a papal installation since 1054, when Constantinople split from Rome.

This is history in the making!

Related links: World leaders head to Rome for pope's inaugural Mass
Finlayson to represent Govt at Papal Inauguration Mass ~ TVNZ
Taiwan leader to attend papal inauguration ~ The Gulf Today
Unprecedented ecumenical gesture: Patriarch of Constantinople will attend Pope's inauguration ~ Catholic World News

Lucia Counter Marriage Vigil being organised on Parliament Grounds

About an hour ago, Fletch published a post on an uncoming event, NZers For Marriage Prayer Vigil Parliament Grounds. In no time at all, a counter-event is being planned in order to "outnumber" the vigil participants.

Facebook Event: Let's swamp the Haters at their anti LGBT Marriage Vigil

It says:

The anti LGBT marriage supporters are holding a "Vigil against the bill" on Wed 27 March, 6.45pm-8.45pm at Parliament grounds.

Let's all get our act together and head down there to outnumber them, show the MPs that the support for this Bill is huge, real and not going away.

Invite everyone, let's make this happen.

The link for the vigil being organised by the conservatives is here:

As you can see, they're planning a peaceful demo.
Hmmm .. is that some type of threat?  "As you can see, they're planning a peaceful demo." Are they going to make sure that it's not peaceful?

And, it looks like at least one of the gay marriage supporters who is helping organise this event has also 'infiltrated' young conservatives and nzers for marriage, by their own admission:

Ah, the tactics of the Enemy in full display.

Fletch NZers For Marriage Prayer Vigil Parliament Grounds

Prayer Vigil - New Zealanders for Marriage, Parliament grounds, March 27th.

More Info HERE

Lucia Smacking Poll shows NZ'ers don't like anti-smacking law

Good on Family First for continuing to keep this issue in the media. The anti-smacking law is a travesty of social engineering that allows the Government to unjustly interfere in families where there is no actual child abuse, and therefore reduces the autonomy of good families from the State. It's not just about smacking, which is why the Government doesn't want to change the law despite most of New Zealand being against it.

Three out of four people back a law change to allow "correctional" smacking of children, a poll has found. But a child advocacy group says correctional smacking remains unacceptable.

The poll of 1000 randomly selected people was undertaken by Curia Market Research for advocacy group Family First.

Respondents were asked whether the anti-smacking law should be changed to state that "parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law".

Of those asked, 77 per cent said yes, the law should be changed. Asked whether they thought the anti-smacking law had had any effect on child abuse, 77 per cent of respondents answered no.

They were also asked whether they would still smack their child to correct behaviour, despite the law.

Two out of three respondents, or 68 per cent, said they would.

"Politicians probably hoped that the opposition to the anti-smacking law would eventually disappear, but this poll simply reiterates that the law is being disrespected and flouted, and is seen of no real value," said Family First national director Bob McCoskrie.

A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Judith Collins said there were no plans to review the law "as the justice sector is focused on other priorities".

Anthea Simcock, chief executive for advocacy group Child Matters, did not want to see the law changed.

"The current act makes it quite clear that hitting children as a correctional action is not acceptable and that people cannot hurt a child and then claim as a defence that they were using 'reasonable force'."

Eventually all punishment will be banned under the guise of 'psychological abuse'.

As John Key said a couple of years back when told he could change this legislation by lunchtime, that there were 'people' whom he wouldn't name that would be against it. Considering that most of NZ would have no problem with the law being changed, one wonders who these 'people' are.

Related link: Poll: People want smacking law changed ~ NZ Herald

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Lucia Celibacy in the Catholic priesthood is not just a made up discipline

Yesterday, Cameron Slater of Whale Oil Beef Hooked posted an article reporting on a Victorian (Australian) Parliamentary Inquiry, presumably on the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations that is being held there.  A Professor Paul Mullen gave his opinion to the Inquiry that if the Catholic Church didn't require celibacy for her priests, then they wouldn't sexually molest children. Leaving aside the ridiculous idea that marriage would somehow cure paedophilia, the professor also opined that celibacy has no basis in theology:
The Catholic Church should get rid of celibacy as a way of preventing clergy from preying on children, an inquiry has been told.

Former clinical director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Health, Professor Paul Mullen, says celibacy has no basis in theology and is just a form of discipline in the priesthood.

The professor's reasoning ability seems faulty as he appears to assume that marriage will cure paedophiles.  Marriage is not a cure for anything; it requires a certain maturity and ability for self-sacrifice in order for the marriage to be a success, so a paedophile is already at a serious disadvantage there.  Anyone who is so tempted by children that they can't help themselves is not going to be particularly normal in other areas of their life. 

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Lucia Smear Campaign against Pope Francis

The usual suspects (Chris Trotter, Whale Oil) have leapt on the bandwagon.

Meanwhile, Edward Peters has a good post up pinpointing the media tactic here and why they've used it - When nothing else will work, accuse a Catholic prelate of NSO:

The mainstream media is in panic over Pope Francis.

The new pope is solidly opposed to everything big media wants (contraception, abortion, ‘same-sex marriage’, etc.), but it can’t simply write him off as an out-of-touch academic (Benedict) or as a provincial Slav suffering Nazi and Communist induced post-traumatic stress disorder (John Paul II). Worse, the first prelate of the Catholic world is a man of proven commitment to the poor (far more demonstrably than are his limousine liberal critics), and has lived his whole life in a simplicity that is utterly beyond the ken of Manhattan or the Beltway sophisticates.

So, confronted by a major Catholic prelate of such palpable integrity, what’s the media to do? Only one thing: Look up what country the prelate calls home, find out what trauma that country suffered (that’s not hard to do, all modern countries suffer from traumas, generally those organized by their governments), and accuse the prelate of—wait for it—Not Speaking Out.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Lucia Thank you to all my Christian Friends who prayed for the Conclave!

I'm very happy with the result!!!

Sorry, so much happening today, I forgot to say earlier!

In case anyone missed it, we have a pope: Pope Francis.

Lucia Redefinition of Marriage a step closer in New Zealand [UPDATE]

John Stringer makes the comment that "It is deeply ironic that the 1.2 billion strong Catholic Church last night elected a new conservative Pope (Francis I) to reiterate the orthodoxy of Catholic faith (marriage, morality, contraception, abortion, monogamy etc) while 77 NZ MPs elected to continue towards redefining marriage (to allow gay couples to marry)."

What makes New Zealand's vote last night even more ironic is that a few years ago, Pope Francis as Cardinal Bergoglio battled against the introduction of same-sex marriage in his home country, by being upfront as to who was at the root of it all.
"Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God," wrote Cardinal Bergoglio in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires. "We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

New Zealand politicians seem to be very easily deceived when it comes to moral issues.

David Farrar pointed out something Chester Borrows said about this debate on marriage, that the bad behaviour of some Christians had influenced politicians to vote in favour of redefinition when they probably would have voted the other way.
As a Christian—a conservative Christian—I find it abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate, and the threatening nature with which they have emailed colleagues. I know of colleagues who have set out thinking they will vote against this bill and who have changed their mind because of the way they have been treated by Christians, supposedly worshipping in their daily lives and witness a loving God. If they profess to worship that God, then it is a different God whom I worship and whom I believe in, because they have shown nothing of that love—that all-encompassing love—in the way that they have conducted themselves in this debate. It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, they always bring out the worst, and seek to have those people who do not hold to our faith shove us into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave.

This highlights another tactic of the Father of Lies - the stirring up of anger and hatred against opponents that then ends up working to his favour. Were NZ politicians more discerning, they would have realised the use of these tactics and not voted in a way that seems vindictive and petty, given their original positions on the bill.

Just one more vote to go, and it looks like it will be a mere formality unless there is some sort of miracle.

Related links: New Pope Francis called homosexual ‘marriage’ a ‘machination of the Father of Lies’ ~ LifeSiteNews
2nd Reading Marriage Bill (the Votes; Discussion) ~ John Stringer, CoNZervative
The Same Sex Marriage Second Reading ~ David Farrar, Kiwiblog

UPDATE: Brenden Malone, of the Leading Edge blog (listed in our sidebar) has written a fantastic post on how gay marriage has corrupted the democratic process in New Zealand. This whole thing is bigger than the ephemeral "equality" politicians think they have voted for.

Lucia Pope Francis

Live coverage from the Guardian
New Zealand Herald

Everyone's assuming he chose his name from St Francis of Assisi, but what about St Francis Xavier?

Transcript of the new pope's first words to the world:
Brothers and sisters, good evening. You know that the duty of the conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother cardinals went almost to the end of the world to get him. But here we are.

I thank you for this welcome by the diocesan community of Rome to its bishop. Thank you.

First of all, I would like to say a prayer for our bishop emeritus, Benedict XVI.Let us all pray together for him, let us all pray together for him so that the Lord my bless him and that the Madonna may protect him.

(The new pope then prayed the "Lord's Prayer", the "Hail Mary" and the "Glory Be" with the crowd in Italian).

He then continued:

And now, let us start this journey, bishop and people, bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which leads all the Churches in charity, a journey of fraternity, of love, of trust among us.

Let us always pray for us, one for the other, let us pray for the whole world, so that there may be a great fraternity. I hope that this journey of the Church that we begin today and which my cardinal vicar, who is here with me, will help me with, may be fruitful for the evangelisation of this beautiful city.

Now, I would like to give you a blessing, but first I want to ask you for a favour. Before the bishop blesses the people, I ask that you pray to the Lord so that he blesses me. This is the prayer of the people who are asking for the blessing of their bishop.

In silence, let us say this prayer of you for me.

(After a few seconds of silent prayer, he then delivered his blessing).

He then concluded:

Tomorrow I want to go to pray to the Madonna so that she protects all of Rome. Good night and have a good rest.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Lucia Even if you are not Catholic, please pray for the selection of the new pope

As one cardinal said, "It is a dangerous time. Pray for us."

Even if you are not Catholic, here are some reasons to pray for the Conclave:

1. Intercessory prayer is a duty of Christian charity. We are obligated to uphold one another in prayer. St. Paul told the Galatians to "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). Notice that he calls it a "law of Christ." Prayer is one way of sharing burdens and it's not just about kindness, but about obeying a commandment of Christ...

2. The pope of Rome is the most visible and influential Christian in the world. In our day and age more than ever, it matters who the pope is. Most people, including nonChristian and nonreligious people, have a pretty good idea of who the pope is and what he has to say about x, y, and z. Can that be said of any other Christian leader? I don't even know who to list in comparison. You might have one person, like Billy Graham, who would be familiar to a group of people in a particular time and place, but cross the border into the next country and they've never heard of him...

3. What Rome does affects every Christian. That's especially true in the day and age where communication keeps getting faster and the world keeps getting "smaller." I can't remember who it was who came up with the expression, but it was dead-on: "When Rome sneezes, Christendom gets a cold." The Roman Catholic Church (and the churches in communion with her) is by far the largest Christian community in the world--larger than every other kind of Christian put together. That carries weight and influence...

The writer goes into more detail on each point and has more points, so go read his post over there.

Lucia On sexual difference in marriage and bathrooms

Recently, Massachusetts has started enforcing the rights of confused boys or girls to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex, if they feel they are of that gender. All of this type of social engineering has been gathering momentum since Massachusetts redefined marriage ten years ago, and if you don't think both are logically connected, read this:

...if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less intimate practices. If one’s anatomical reality isn’t relevant to one’s marriage, it’s even less obvious why it should be relevant to one’s bathroom choice.

Children don't even get the choice to disagree:

The regulations suggest that students who don’t endorse a fellow student’s gender identity may be subject to punishment. After condemning bullying, the directive endorses a memorandum that a Massachusetts school principal sent to teachers instructing them to discipline students who intentionally refer to a transgender student by his or her given name, or the pronoun corresponding to his or her anatomical sex. Such behavior “should not be tolerated.”

Redefining marriage will have all sorts of impacts that today's liberals are just totally unaware of, that they refuse to even consider even though warnings have been given.  As in my previous post, they are blindly believing that history only progresses - not regresses.

Related link: Sky Fall: Gender Ideology Comes to the Schoolhouse ~ The Public Discourse

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Lucia Do we want to be on the 'Wrong Side of History'?

Yep, it's that time again. There's going to be another vote in our Parliament tomorrow for advancing the cause of 'Same-sex Marriage', which has brought out a post in favour of redefining marriage from David Farrar, who ends his post with the admonition to his opponents:
As I said, there is a global and frankly irreversible trend in the “Western” world on this issue. Future generations will be just as bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry, as today’s generation are bemused by the fact that once women couldn’t vote.

I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?

A post on The American Conservative explains just what is wrong with his labeling those who disagree with redefining marriage as being on the 'wrong side of history', and thus putting himself and those who agree with him on the 'right side':

“Right side of history” is a claim deployed in political debate to delegitimate one’s opponents. It’s one thing to claim that events and social processes are moving in a particular direction, such that this or that goal is likely to be realized. It’s something very different to claim that History is a moral, even metaphysical, force that’s progressing towards a morally desirable conclusion. There’s no reason to believe this at all.

The writer then goes onto explain where this concept of History being a moral force comes from - it's a secular version of the Christian understanding of the end of time:

Christianity teaches that history moves in a linear fashion, and that we are headed towards the final reconciliation between heaven and earth in the Parousia. This does not imply “progress,” though — especially because, in the Christian vision, the cruelest and most violent and oppressive period in the history of humanity will come into being just before good permanently triumphs. The Christian vision of history as progressing towards a final fulfillment may or may not be true, but it can’t be said to give false comfort that one’s own cause is justified by Progress. The closer we get to the culmination of History, the worse things will get for humanity, especially for Christians. Besides which, the Christian doctrine of original sin means that any concept of an earthly utopia is doomed. See A Canticle For Leibowitz for an imaginative exploration of the persistence of radical evil within the breast of humans despite material progress.

The secular version of this comes from Marx and his materialist conception of history. John Gray wrote a book, Black Mass, about how thinkers inspired by the Enlightenment took the Christian notion of history as progressing towards utopia, and secularized it. That is, Marx taught that history was inevitably leading towards a communist paradise, a restoration of Eden in which the source of human conflict — a fight over resources — will have been exorcised.

That looks ridiculous now, of course, but the worship of Progress remains deeply embedded within liberalism — including the conservative form of liberalism that sees free-market democracy as the telos of political and economic history (George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural address is a pure statement of the right-wing version of this). Whenever I hear someone today talk about “the right side of history,” I am sure they are on what Milan Kundera called “The Grand March,” the idea of which is the essence of left-wing kitsch. From The Unbearable Lightness Of Being:

The fantasy of the Grand March that Franz was so intoxicated by is the political kitsch joining leftists of all times and tendencies. The Grand March is the splendid march on the road to brotherhood, equality, justice, happiness; it goes on and on, obstacles notwithstanding, for obstacles there must be if the march is to be the Grand March. … What makes a leftist a leftist is not this or that theory but his ability to integrate any theory into the kitsch called the Grand March.

There you go David.  You've identified yourself as being firmly on the Left.

Go to the American Conservative and read the rest there. There's a fantastic update which explains why this 'being on the right side of history' concept is a secular version of saying that 'God is on their side'.

As I've said before, this same-sex marriage thing is a real win for the left.  It's being pushed by the left, promoted by the left,  voted for by the left and our governing party is just rolling over and letting it through because our Prime Minister supports it.

Yeah, I'm quite happy to be on the 'wrong side of history'.

Related links: A change in opinion around the world ~ KiwiBlog
Marching On The ‘Right Side Of History’ ~ The American Conservative

ZenTiger Climate Science 101

Some people spend hours arguing tree rings, ice core samples and moving weather stations as if that will prove AGW. Don't worry about it. Think of it as misdirection. Whilst you are reading a science journal, bureaucrats are figuring out new ways to take control of our lives by politicising the idea of Climate Change to ensure uncontested implementation of whatever policies take their fancy.

Climate Science 101 is very simple. Don't look at the problem, don't even look at the political justifications to solve the problem, instead focus very hard on what the policy implementation is going to be. If you work from there, you will get a very different perspective on the politics of climate change.

For example, our local council has resisted, time and again, the need to build a dam to store water, whilst at the same time implementing a whole bunch of changes extremely detrimental to beach front owners. Their excuse for attacking water front property owners was the "proven" threat of climate changes over the next 50 plus years.   Yet instead of building a dam to store water (something useful in a warmer and drier world), they have instead wasted 14M dollars on taking bore water, and another 7M dollars on installing water meters. The excuse for the water meters was climate change and the need for conservation.  Is relying on water meters and a steady flow of river water, whilst draining the water table a fine response to Climate Change though? Of course not - this is just an example of using climate change to justify whatever policies they wish, but ignoring it where it would matter if they had any sort of integrity.

The IPCC abounds with examples of this sort of thinking. At the heart of it, the UN wants to establish themselves as world government.  To do this, it needs some sort of imminent threat that would justify free nations giving up their sovereignty in exchange for the assurance of peace and protection. The cold war is over, China is becoming capitalistic and the left find it politically incorrect to scapegoat Islamic Fundamentalism.  Even the new breed of democratic dictators such as Mugabe and Chavez are heroes providing they have some sort of anti-middle class social welfare program running.  So the new enemy is the weather!  Every drought, every storm, every severe winter, every drop of acid rain and every sign of visible erosion justifies IPCC policies.  Key to those policies is a global taxation system to ensure a proper transfer of wealth and accumulation of financial clout that the UN can wield in establishing their own version of a NWO.  Again, ignoring the justification, consider the policy and where it leads.  An objective assessment would see that they are intending to solve a completely different problem.

Before you write this off as just another conspiracy theory, you could check out some of the taxation suggestions documented by the IPCC (covered here) and consider this before you claim our politicians would never fall for it: Have you noticed any politicians taken in by financial scams, collapsing SOE's missing hundreds of millions of dollars, enormous bailouts to keep the rats on sinking financial institutions dry, or fooled by offering massive tax incentives that do little for the country's economic growth? But don't worry about it - those guys always have a bullet proof excuse. You voted for them.

By the way, NotPC has some news: Christopher Monckton is coming to town

Monday, March 11, 2013

ZenTiger A Pox on Select Committees

The hearings process for Marriage Amendment Bill has highlighted that the Select Committee is not particularly objective, and their biases have predetermined the outcome.

That level of democracy continues with another bill in front of a Select Committee to consider changes to the Family Court, and Men who wish to recount their personal stories are being refused to be heard, or told to cut their personal testimonies out (according to a story in today's SST, not yet online AFAIK)

So if you are gay, and wish to make a personal testimony on how your life has been diminished by not being given equal rights to the word "marriage", you will get a lot of consideration from the Select Committee. The media has been covering such stories and the sympathy they have evoked from the Select Committee.

Yet, if you are a father fighting to maintain some level of access to your children, your personal testimony counts for nothing. Even worse, a quote from one select committee member suggests they are pre-disposed to characterizing these people as nutters. That attitude is unbecoming of a Select Committee member preparing to listen (supposedly) objectively and without bias. However, even if a "nutter" should turn up to speak, never for one moment, do they stop to consider what terrible event in their life may have possibly caused this condition.

A pox on Select Committees.

Family Court Proceedings Bill

SST Article: Not yet Online

Sunday, March 10, 2013

ZenTiger Name Suppression in 2013

I see that progress is very, very slow in the secular institutions that are still keen to hide offenders from the public eye, perhaps to shuffle offenders from one place to the next, and to use name suppression as a means to protect the accused, at the expense of the victims.

Story 1: Dr has sex with rape victim Patients deserve to know the name of a Canterbury GP who had sex with a teenage patient 25 years ago, a Christchurch judge has ruled.

A 16 year old girl had been RAPED by some-one, and this Doctor was asked to treat her. He used his position of authority and trust to initiate sex with her instead. At least twice, according to the report. Can we really believe that was all, and can we really believe there was only one case?  If there were no name suppression,  other victims may have stepped forward by now.  And who else knew? Perhaps colleagues and superiors knew something?

And just to prove the secular system is tough on sex crimes - a mere $1,000 fine!

On a Doctor's salary, a drop in the bucket. No calls for the Doctor to be 'defrocked'. Nothing to see here, move on.

Story 2: Medical Professionals kill some-one, and it takes 4 years to stop them hiding behind the Government run Health Board
Lance and Jenny Gravatt have been fighting in the High Court to publicly name the medical professionals involved in the death of their son Zachary, 22, who died of meningococcal disease in Auckland City Hospital in July 2009.

So this is a complicated case and yet a simple case. The judgement was that no-one was at fault. No-one was responsible.  Just a systemic failure of the organisation.  The result - professionals can hide behind the government institution they work for, and they nor their managers will be called to account.  Indeed, it seems that maybe the systemic failure should be laid on the shoulders of their managers.  Instead, a free pass from the media who this time around are prepared to report the news rather than push extreme opinions.

After 4 years in the courts, the fight may not yet be over - the DHB has 10 days to appeal

Slightly related: Secular hypocrisy on sex crimes

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Lucia An atheist explains Catholicism to a Catholic

It's a pretty funny video above with atheist author Penn Jillette explaining Catholicism to Piers Morgan, but it's also a bit sad, from the perspective that many Catholics don't seem to know what it is to be Catholic. The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll finds that American Catholics at Odds With Vatican on Many Teachings:

American Catholics want the next Pope to liberalize the church’s position on issues such as birth control, ordaining women, and allowing priests to marry, a new poll has discovered.

And two out of every three Catholics want Pope Benedict XVI’s successor to be “someone younger, with new ideas,” The New York Times/CBS News poll found.

Three-quarters thought it was a good idea for Benedict, who entered the Vatican in 2005 at the age of 78, to resign rather than remain in office until his death.

The poll indicated that many Catholics feel the bishops and cardinals are out of touch. “I don’t think they are in the trenches with the people,” Therese Spender, 51, a homemaker in Fort Wayne, Ind., told the pollsters. “They go to a lot of meetings, but they are not out in the street.”

More than half — 54 percent — want Benedict’s successor to espouse more liberal teachings; only 19 percent wanted a continuation of his teachings, and just 18 percent preferred someone with more conservative ideas, the poll, conducted shortly after Benedict announced his resignation, found.

The most important area where Catholics want change is on the question of contraception. Ninety-one percent said the next Pope should support the use of condoms to help prevent HIV, and 71 percent thought he should favor artificial methods of birth control.

On the issue of women in the priesthood, 69 percent said it should be allowed. At the same time, 69 percent of those who took part in the poll said priests should be permitted to marry. But 56 percent believe the Pope should continue to oppose abortion. However, they think it’s possible to disagree with the Church on issues such as abortion and birth control and still be a good Catholic.

The poll found that most Catholics break with church teachings on many political and social issues: 62 percent would legalize same-sex marriage, 74 percent would allow abortion, albeit with some conditions, and 61 percent favor the death penalty.

And more than three quarters, 78 percent, of the Catholics surveyed said they are more likely to follow their own conscience rather than the Pope’s teachings on “difficult moral questions.” Not surprisingly, those who attend Mass more frequently also tend to adhere to the Church’s guidance more often.

Going to Mass helps Catholics live their Catholicism and if Catholics aren't going to Mass then they are seriously lost, as the apparently Catholic interviewer and the above poll findings show.

Sine Dominico non Possumus!

Lucia The movie "Amour" is a copy of an old Nazi propaganda film promoting euthanasia

During the 1940's, the Germans released a film called, "I Accuse", a story about a woman with a debilitating disease whose husband, out of love for her, eventually kills her to spare her suffering.
Ich klage an (Eng: I Accuse) is a 1941 film, directed by Wolfgang Liebeneiner, which depicts a woman with multiple sclerosis who asks her husband, a doctor, to relieve her of her suffering permanently. He agrees to give her a lethal injection of morphine while his friend (who is also a doctor) plays tranquil music on the piano.

The husband is put on trial, where arguments are put forth that prolonging life is sometimes contrary to nature, and that death is a right as well as a duty. It culminates in the husband's declaration that he is accusing them of cruelty for trying to prevent such death.

Ich klage an was actually commissioned by Goebbels at the suggestion of Karl Brandt to make the public more supportive of the Reich's T4 euthanasia program, and presented simultaneously with the practice of euthanasia in Nazi Germany.

Amour is very, very similar to this film.  Is this just a coincidence? Barbara Nicolosi compares the two:

People are asking me if I think it is “just a coincidence” that the plot of ”Amour” is a near perfect twin to Goebbels’ film. My thinking is that true creativity is impossible to the demons. They recycle what works for them. But somebody needs to get the director to own up. It would be implausible to suggest that “Amour” just happened to get all the main beats of the Nazi film. But for the record here are some of the similarities between the two films:

  • Both films are about a husband and wife who have a seemingly perfect love and marriage.
  • In the Nazi film, the wife’s name is Hanna. In Amour, the wife’s name is Anne.
  • In the Nazi film, the wife is a piano player. In Amour, the wife is a music teacher.
  • In both films, the wife suffers a devastating illness and begs for death to a demurring husband.
  • In both films, the husband eventually gives in and kills his wife.
  • In both films, the first judgment of the society is that the act is murder. In both films, the audience is led around to the conclusion that NOT to have killed the wife would have been a greater crime.
There was a review of Amour in the 24 February, 2013 issue of NZ Catholic by Nevil Gibson, who sadly missed the main problems with the film.  Gibson's review was given the title, Amour reveals love's dimensions.  He calls it a "love story", with "no trickery or uncomfortable settings", and it's "as literal as St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians and just as compelling".  Except the whole thing is based on deception, with "love" being the cover for what it was really about, which was cowardice.

Fr. Alfred Delp, a Jesuit priest who was executed by the Nazis in 1945, wrote in detail what was wrong with the whole premise from a Catholic perspective when he takes apart the original on which Amour was obviously based:
This past week I went to see a film here in Munich, a film that, day after day, for weeks now, has been giving people a sermon about human happiness, too. In this film, too, there is much talk of happiness and redemption and the meaning of existence...I am talking about the film, I Accuse. [5] Many of you will have heard of it. It has do with a happy family life: two people made for each other; an intimate life together; growing together from one success to the next. A happy life and happy atmosphere and happy hearts. And then like a bolt from the blue in the midst of this, comes the wife's illness, the incurable, progressive paralysis. First of all, the couple's rebellious reaction and their attempt, by any means possible, to defeat this demon. However, they reach the limits of their strength, and then comes just the right solution: To "let her go". You cannot do this to a person, cannot let her suffer like that, so you—let her go. This human being dies before bearing out the term of her suffering.

That, too, is a message about happy people. Here, too, a "beatus" is expressed, a beatus, not as a promise, but as an end in itself: Man should be happy and make others happy. When he can no longer do this, then life begins to lose its meaning; and what is meaningless is basically untenable and unjustifiable, and it dies.

We have to inwardly confront these things from our viewpoint of the value of human life, and of the eight repetitions of "beati". This has to do with the ultimate foundations. This really concerns the ultimate attitudes and decisions and, with them, there is no such thing as an interim solution. "I Accuse!" This film accuses an order of life that "forces" people to go on living and—through every pore—it accuses a God who lets something like this happen.

What do we have to say to these proposals, from our holy mountain, from the viewpoint of our holy message? The details of the film are not so important to us; lots of films are shown that are trash. But here, there is an intention and an attitude behind it. And this whole attitude is, first of all, deception. Deception is the prerequisite, the space, in which the monstrous illness breaks in. This cultivated happiness, people wandering from one joyous moment to the next... Actors can play it, but look and see if life is really like that. The deception that you should spot in the background is the idea that without the monstrous illness, this life would always be on the way to this seductive total happiness here in this world. That is the first deception, and with it, the prerequisite itself is wrong on which the whole discussion is based. And the second deception is the manner and method in which – pardon the expression – a soothing appeal is made to the tear ducts of the audience, so that sympathy removes the strength to seriously question these things. That is the second deception. The third deception is the endless discussion of love and letting go, the eternal termination of all difficulties and precepts and everything lasting, for the benefit of – indeed, for the benefit of whom? Basically, for the benefit of the more comfortable solution...

And the other deception today is that this film, Amour is unique when it is so very obviously based on this old Nazi propaganda movie.
A community that gets rid of someone—a community that is allowed to, and can, and wants to get rid of someone when he no longer is able to run around as the same attractive or useful member—has thoroughly misunderstood itself. Even if all of a person's organs have given out, and he no longer can speak for himself, he nevertheless remains a human being. Moreover, to those who live around him, he remains an ongoing appeal to their inner nobility, to their inner capacity to love, and to their sacrificial strength. Take away people's capacity to care for their sick and to heal them, and you make the human being into a predator, an egotistical predator that really only thinks of his own nice existence.

The arguments in the film go like this: "This woman is no longer the same as the beautiful wife whom I loved." And from the wife's side: "My husband cannot love me anymore if I am ill and ugly; tired and wasting away." What kind of a marriage vow was it that applied only to sparkling eyes and beautiful cheeks, but did not apply to the loneliness, to the distress, to standing together all the way to the finish! Some like to call these arguments "the greater love": Rather, it would be the greater cowardice that pulled back here. Pulled back to escape from the responsibility, from the innermost attitude of commitment to another human being. It is escape. It takes away from man the last chance of his existence.

W. Corsari has written a book, The Man without a Uniform, [6] which tackles the same problems: Doctor or human being? Is it permissible for a doctor to "let someone go" someone by killing them? The doctor does it and is ruined by it. One patient escapes him. After fifteen years, he meets her again, crippled, ruined, sclerotic. "Well," he asks her, "would you have wanted to die, at that time?"

"Yes, perhaps, at that time. But not today. Not anymore. What these fifteen years of conscious suffering have revealed to me about inner values, and what I have learned to understand and to comprehend, that makes up for everything else."

Because one is fleeing from what is hard, one takes away a human being's last chance of maturing, of persevering, of proving himself. That is why the whole thing is not only a lie and an escape. It is a rebellion. It is an outrage. It is an encroachment on rights that must stand inviolable if the entire cosmos is not to fall apart. It is an outrage against the Kyrios, the one and only Lord of life. Where God, the Lord, has not set aside the right to existence, that right stands inviolably under His love, under His fidelity, and under His punishment. A nation that lets a human being die, even a human being in the most extreme situation, will die itself. It is an outrage against the human being who, through his birth and his existence alone, already has rights that no one can take from him, and that no one can touch without disgracing humanity, and disgracing himself, and despising himself.
Unfortunately in today's society there is this idea that what the Nazis did in WWII was an aberration that will not be repeated as long as we are not locking people up on concentration camps.  However, the propaganda aspect of using people's love and care for others to then justify their killing has to be something that should be studied in depth, otherwise the errors of the Nazis may very well be repeated.  The Holocaust did not occur in a vacuum.

Related links:
Amour – an award winning film with a sting in the tail ~ Christian Medical Comment
Oscar Nominated Amour is based on a Nazi Film? ~ Barbara Nicolosi
Euthanasia rears it's ugly head again ~ New Zealand Conservative