When looking something up this morning I noticed that the internet search provider I was using had a one of those ribbons (that are used to promote supposedly good causes) on its main page. I clicked on it and discovered that the little white ribbon represented the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I then discovered that, ironically, this is sponsored by the United Nations.

I want to explain why I find this ironic. But first, let me unequivocally state that I am all for ending violence against women. Women are created in the image and likeness of God just like men and therefore deserve to receive their due dignity and respect from the rest of mankind, whether male or female. No one has the right to abuse, harm or take advantage of another person for any reason.

The UN claims to believe the same thing. But, even though they sponsor this campaign to end violence against women, they ironically promote things that can only perpetuate the violence they seek to end.

First of all, they advocate for 'safe abortions' (whatever that is supposed to mean - it is certainly not safe for the baby, who is about to be killed, or the woman who is having the abortion). Why, if you want to stop violence against women, would you support abortion?What action could be more violent to a woman than for someone to shove medical instruments inside her and brutually dismember unborn child?

It should be pointed out, though, that the UN website claims that they do "not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning." And yet they try to use a scary statistic to promote 'safe abortions' saying that each year 74,000 women die each year from 'unsafe abortions'. In their mind it must seem that the only way to keep this from happening is to have 'safe abortions.' When in actuality, the only way to keep this from happening is to have no abortions!

Connected to this is the UN's promotion of artficial contraception. They support both the pill - an abortifacient - and so-called emergency contraception - also an abortifacient. Not only do both of these cause the violence action of abortion but both of these poisons are an act of violence against the dignity of women. These chemicals destroy something which is actually quite natural - her fertility. Not to mention that in addition to killing the baby she has conceived it can most certainly kill her.

Furthermore, chemical contraceptives can have a secondary cause of violence against women that is overlooked. With a so many women taking chemical contraceptives men can now almost assume that any woman is infertile. Therefore, there is no possible baby to worry about which in turn leads many men to take advantage of women, which is the very thing the UN is trying to prevent, right?

The UN - ending violence against women? More like UNending violence against women.

This post is in response to comments on one of my sermons. You can find the entire comments under the Sermons tab and scroll down to the 'Sermon for the Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity'. I will address what I feel are the most important concerns in chronological order. When I first read his comments I must admit I was a little suprised because he doesn't seem to be addressing what I actually say in my sermon but instead seems to be jumping to his own conclusions of what he thinks that I meant. I will quote directly from the comment and include all typos.

He states that I am "violating us law by talking about issues that conflict between church and state." Here he must be referring to the supposed separation of church and state that various people want to claim is the law of the land. But, according to what I have been taught, the US has no such law that says I cannot let my religious faith influence how I think in regards to politics. And, as a Catholic priest, I am obligated to preach the Truth on teachings of the Church, which is what I tried to do in this sermon and in all of my sermons.

He states that I "judge and then condemn people because they don't think like" me. He seems to be inferring something that I did not say. Nevertheless, I was doing no such thing in my sermon. Instead, I was trying to explain the Truth of the Church's teaching so that people did not commit a serious sin in how the voted.

He states "christ said first remove the beam in your eye" but I am not sure which beam he wants me to remove. Perhaps he does not like what I had to say in the sermon and therefore thinks that I sinned in saying it. But, I was not expounding my own opinion in the sermon but the teachings of the Church so how did I sin in what I said?

He states, "you condemn gay people because they want some form of union" but again, I didn't say anything that is out of line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, to say that I condemned anyone in my sermon would be a stretch.

Next, he asks a question, "what would you say if your child is gay"? This question is so loaded that it really requires a separate post but let me try to answer briefly. If one of my children were to think they were homosexual and tell me about it I would love them just like I do now. But, (and I cannot stress this enough) I would not support them in their behavior if they acted on those misguided homosexual feelings. The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear in regards to homosexual acts: "Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357)

He then goes on to state, "you condemn pro choice people". Yet again, I simply spoke the Truth of what the Church teaches. The Church teaches in a definitive manner that abortion is wrong! Look it up in the Catechism: §2270-2275.

Then, in regards to the sin of abortion he writes, "in any case it is just a sin and god forgives all sins." Yes, God does forgive all sins, as long as we repent of them. But you should never deliberately sin while thinking to yourself, "God will forgive me. I can just go to confession." To do so is to commit the serious sin of presumption.

In speaking of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in the country, he says that it is the "will of the people". Well, so what! Just because abortion is the "will of the people" (which is debatable) does not make it moral or acceptable. And, as I have said before in this post, as a Catholic priest I must stand up for the lives of the unborn. So his apparent desire for me to be silent on this point boggles the mind.

Lastly, he writes, "think of all the parishoners feelings you hurt because of your belief and political party preaching". First of all let me address his comment of "your belief". My belief, sir, is in the fullness of the teachings of Jesus Christ that He has entrusted to His Holy Catholic Church. And my duty as a Catholic priest is to protect those teachings by giving my very life if I have to do so. At no point in my sermon that you disagree with have I contradicted Catholic teaching. And yes, because of my willingness to proclaim the Truth of the Gospel someone might get their feelings hurt, as you say. Hurting someone's feelings isn't my goal in my sermons but instead preaching the Truth. And I will not withhold the Truth just because someone might disagree with it. In fact, that is all the more reason to proclaim it. If I don't proclaim the Truth to them and they go on sinning then their sin falls on my head and the sinner my be eternally lost. (See Ezekiel 33:8). Whereas, if I preach the Truth and the sinner repents then I have saved his life and my own. (See James 5:19-20)

In closing, it seems to me that the person who left these comments doesn't really want to hear the Truth, at least not the parts that he happens to disagree with. In a second set of comments he states that he will now be attending another parish, but why? Is it just to hear what he wants to hear? Whether or not another priest preaches against abortion or homosexuality does not change the fact that the Church teaches that both of these things are completely and always wrong. Out of concern for his salvation I hope he reads this post and asks himself these questions: am I Catholic; if so, do I believe everything the Church teaches as the Truth of Jesus Christ; if I do then well and good but if I do not, then why am I Catholic?

Dear sir, you closed your initial comments by saying "may god forgive you because i will not." Why are you so angry with me? I do not feel sinned against in what you have said but if there is anything done against me by you then I forgive it. My only concern for you, and for all I meet, is your eternal salvation. I pray that if I have done you any real wrong you will forgive me as well, remembering that Christ Himself taught us to say, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trepass against us." (Matthew 6:12)

The Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, the Bishop of Peoria, has issued a very strong letter to his flock and has also required that it be read at all Masses for this coming Sunday by each celebrating priest. The letter is very succinct and would not take very long to read the whole thing by clicking the link above. Nevertheless I include here in this blog the Bishop's strongest point.

Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord. They are objectively guilty of grave sin. For those who hope for salvation, no political loyalty can ever take precedence over loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to his Gospel of Life. God is not mocked, and as the Bible clearly teaches, after this passing instant of life on earth, God’s great mercy in time will give way to God’s perfect judgment in eternity.

So here we have yet another Bishop who is most certainly not namby-pamby. God willing, this courageousness will continue to spread like wildfire to all the Bishops of the United States and the world. May none of them fear death or the condemnation of this world for speaking the Truth, but only fear God and His judgment if they do not speak the Truth with boldness.