Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Politically Incorrect

The Call of Kultala

11 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by in Catholic Church, Dictatorship of Relativism, Politically Incorrect, Pro-Death 'Catholics'

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Fr. Z hits the nail on the head yet again. Read his article here to find out about the most recent pro-death 'Catholic', Kelly Kultala, that is running for political office.

Here's the first few sentences but you really should read the rest:

First, there is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic.

Catholics are not free to choose what they are going to believe and what they are going to reject when the teachings are defined by the Church.

After reading the whole article I thought to myself – is it just a coincidence that this lady's name is so similar to Cthulhu?

Advertisements

What’s right for you…

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in Josef Pieper, Morality, Politically Incorrect, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

He who wishes to know and to do the good must turn his gaze upon the objective world of being. Not upon his own 'ideas', not upon his 'conscience', not upon 'values', not upon arbitrarily established 'ideals' and 'models'. He must turn away from his own act and fix his eyes upon reality.

From Living the Truth, by Josef Pieper

The quote above is from the second half of the book that is cited. The second half is titled Reality and the Good. Although I have only finished reading the first few pages, which the author titles “The Thesis”, it appears that this essay is in regards to how mankind can know right and wrong and therefore be able to do that which is good. This is evidenced by the three sentences that precede the above quote where Pieper writes, “All obligation is based upon being. Reality is the foundation of ethics. The good is that which is in accord with reality.”

When I first started this essay I had to read those three sentences several times. They seemed to me to be disjointed – that they did not fit together. It now seems to me that the reason it seemed disjointed was because of my lack of background in philosophy. After all, you cannot really understand what someone is trying to say to you unless you understand his frame of reference. But as I continued reading the thesis statement the point the author is making began to make sense to me.

In order to understand this we must first have a correct understanding of reality. First of all, mankind is not the author or definer of what is true or good, but he can come to know it. In other words, we do not create the reality in which we live, instead we exist within an objective reality. And we experience this objective reality through our sense perception. It is through our senses that we experience the things around us. 'Things' here is to be understood as the word res from philosophy. Pieper says, “Res is everything that is 'presented' to our sense perception or our intellectual cognition, all that has being independently of our thinking.” Another word from philosophy, realis, is taken from res and denotes reality. Of this Pieper says, “Reality (in the sense of realis) is the whole of being which is independent of thought.” And elsewhere says, “Reality is the basis of the good.” Also realis means “that to be good is to do justice to objective being…the good is that which is in accord with objective reality.” “All laws and moral principles may be reduced to reality.” 'Reality' here meaning objective being outside ourselves.

As a result of all of this the author makes the conclusion that this “makes impossible the attitude of always referring to oneself and to the judgment of one's conscience*, which is considered as providing the norm in each instance. We are forced now to look through and beyond our own moral judgment to the norm presented to us by the objective reality of being.” I most heartily agree with this conclusion. [*Just a side note: here the author is referring to people who use their consciences as an excuse to do whatever they want. He is not referring to the use of our conscience in the correct sense. The Church teaches that a “human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” (CCC §1800) But the Church also teaches us that we must have a well-formed conscience that “formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.” (CCC §1798) This is completely the opposite of using your conscience as a scapegoat to do whatever you want to do.]

But our modern society most certainly does not agree. The world is no longer viewed objectively by society but instead it is interpreted in a relativistic way. What I mean can be shown through an example: people who don't want to abide by traditional norms of moral behavior seem to have adopted the slogan, “What is right for you may not be right for me.” (You can replace right with moral or with good.)

Now to a certain extent this slogan is correct. For instance, if someone has cancer it would be right for them to have chemotherapy because that is one of the only methods we have to get rid of cancer. Whereas for someone else, who does not have cancer, it would not be right to have chemotherapy because to a person who is healthy chemotherapy is poisonous. Like I said, this would be a proper way to understand the above slogan.

But in saying this slogan our modern society means something completely different. For them the slogan turns everything upside down. To use the previous example about cancer – when modern society says “what is right for you may not be right for me” it isn't talking about whether or not a person should have chemotherapy. Instead, it is trying to change the rules to such an extent as to say that there is nothing wrong with cancer in the first place and that we don't need anything to fix it. Obviously, this is just crazy talk.

With this in mind we can begin to understand why our modern society is so disordered. It has left behind any idea of objective truth (like cancer is bad for you) in favor of just doing what feels right. And obviously, the chemotherapy this society needs (that being objective standards to determine morality) to fix its diseased nature would not feel right (because it would cause people to have to let go of the fantasy world they have created for themselves where right and wrong is determined by their own judgments). But nevertheless, objective truth is the only medicine that will cure us.

 

“He” finds this to be funny!

01 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in Humor, Politically Incorrect

≈ 3 Comments

Those of you who regularly read this blog (all 4 or 5 of you) have probably noticed that I do not use politically correct language. In part, this is because I was raised in Henrietta, Texas, a part of the country that was (at that time and still to a certain extent today) unaffected by such stupidity. But today I was reading one of my newest books – Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft – and found that Dr. Kreeft has put into words a much better explanation with which I am in complete agreement. (It also happens to be very funny, which is why I typed it out in its entirety. I will be enjoying the humor of this for quite some time.)

The use of the traditional inclusive generic pronoun “he” is a decision of language, not of gender justice. There are only six alternatives. (1) We could use the grammatically misleading and numerically incorrect “they.” But when we say “one baby was healthier than the others because they didn’t drink that milk,” we do not know whether the antecedent of “they” is “one” or “others,” so we don’t know whether to give or take away the milk. Such language codes could be dangerous to baby’s health. (2) Another alternative is the politically intrusive “in-your-face” generic “she,” which I would probably use if I were an angry, politically intrusive, in-your-face woman, but I am not any of those things. (3) Changing “he” to “he or she” refutes itself in such comically clumsy and ugly revisions as the following: “What does it profit a man or woman if he or she gains the whole world but loses his or her own soul? Or what shall a man or woman give in exchange for his or her soul?” The answer is: he or she will give up his or her linguistic sanity. (4) We could also be both intrusive and clumsy by saying “she or he.” (5) Or we could use the neuter “it,” which is both dehumanizing and inaccurate. (6) Or we could combine all the linguistic garbage together and use “she or he or it,” which, abbreviated, would sound like “sh…it.”

I believe in the equal intelligence and value of women, but not in the intelligence or value of “political correctness,” linguistic ugliness, grammatical inaccuracy, conceptual confusion, or dehumanizing pronouns.

Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft, p.36 n.1

If you agree with Dr. Kreeft’s sentiments then please share this with people you know whether they be politically correct or incorrect. This will serve one of the two following purposes: 1) to hopefully enlighten those who use such ridiculous language; 2) to give those of who are politically incorrect a reason to laugh. And by achieving either of these goals you will also bring an increase in hits on my blog. (So maybe I can move up to 5 or 6 regular readers.)

 

And the winner is…

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Catholic Obligations, Politically Incorrect, Pro-Life, Repentance, Salvation, What's Wrong with the World?

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The title to today's post will make sense in a moment. First, please start with the quotes below. (Let it be known that I in no way support any of the following quotes.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. Continue reading →

And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites…

05 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Politically Incorrect, Pro-Life, Repentance, Salvation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

My first post today was in regards to how we should understand the penance of Ash Wednesday and the Lenten Season. This post is in regards to how we should not understand it. This is what our Lord has to say on the matter:

Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them…when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:1a,16-18 RSV-CE

I am sure you have noticed the pictures of the unholy trinity at top. By posting these pictures and this quote from our Lord am I thereby suggesting that these three so-called Catholic politicians are hypocrites? Yes! Yes, I am. But my reason for saying so is not just beause of the ashes on their foreheads.

It might be pointed out by someone that many faithful Catholics go the whole day on Ash Wednesday displaying the ashes on their foreheads they received at Mass in the morning. Given what our Lord had to say about the matter I am not sure how that custom came about but nevertheless that is our custom. And as such, I am willing to accept it. What I cannot accept is the above mentioned politicians, and others like them, who are so obviously insincere about their Catholic faith. These people embody the very definition of hypocrite. They claim to be faithful Catholics and yet consistently speak out against the teachings of the Church. The most obvious example of this is the pro-death, pro-abortion stance they all claim as their own.

Please understand that I would be the first to admit that I, in addition to these politicians, am a sinner. I am not saying that I am better than them. My point is that they need to repent. And of course, we all do! But those who are knowingly unrepentant in regards to serious sin are endangering their eternal souls. In addition, because these three (and others) are such public figures their unrepentance leads to scandal. The whole world hears what they have to say and it does not coincide with what they claim to believe and so the Truth is distorted. Let us all pray that we may truly repent from our sins during this Lent and let us especially pray for those who are knowingly unrepentant. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Life or Death: Which Do You Choose?

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Politically Incorrect, Salvation, Sermons

≈ Leave a comment

Sermon for the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany

Today’s lessons can be summed up with one verse we heard from Sirach today, “Before a man are life and death, good and evil, and whichever he chooses will be given to him.” Mankind knows the difference between good and evil because we have been given that ability by God Himself. But because of our fallen and sinful nature many times people choose that which is evil – that which goes against the will of God. We are not here speaking of those individuals which are mistaken about the immorality of a certain vice and are unknowingly leading a life of sin. As our Lord said, “he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating.” Meaning that if through no fault of our own, we are truly ignorant of the wrongness of something then we are much less responsible (and perhaps not responsible at all) for the wrong done than if we had known how bad something was and did it anyway. Of these two groups – those who are ignorant and those who know better – we will be focusing on those who are not ignorant. This is for two reasons: first, by knowingly living a life of sin they are endangering their souls to eternal separation from God. Secondly, many times those who knowingly live a life of sin may be committing another very serious sin without even knowing it: the sin of scandal. You see, our actions have consequences – if we do something good we may influence someone else to do something good. On the other hand, when we sin we may very well lead others into sin, which may ultimately lead them to hell.

So, in regards to the first point, why should we care if someone is endangering his soul through sinful behavior? After all, this is a free country, right? Don’t we have the right to choose to live as we see fit? And who am I to tell someone else what is right and what is wrong? All these questions you have probably heard before and they come from a nation of people who have lost sight of the basic understanding of mankind – that we are a people created by God and made in His own image and likeness. At the moment of conception God created an eternal soul for each and every person. In addition to this, each and every one of those souls that God created is unique and of the greatest importance to Him; and He wants them all to be with Him forever in Heaven.

Therefore, if we see our brother sinning – doing that which leads them away from God, then the only option is to lovingly try to lead them out of their sin. And notice I say ‘try’ to lead them out of sin because we cannot force anyone to do something against their own will, whether good or bad. But this brings up an important point: those who live a life of sin can be divided into two groups. Those who choose a sinful life without repentance and those who may be continually tripped up by the same sin over and over but who earnestly want to change. At this point, we shouldn’t try to kid ourselves because to a greater or lesser extent we all fit into this last category. Perhaps you aren’t prone to a particular sexual sin, for instance, but what about the sin of looking down on those who are afflicted with sexual sin? We must never forget that we are all sinners and that if someone perpetually sins then they need our prayers and not our self-righteous indignation. But, at the same time, that does not mean that we are to tolerate sin. Remember, God wants all those He has created to be with Him, and so for love of those souls we must try to bring back those lost in sin because if we do nothing then they may be eternally lost.

But what about those who choose a sinful life without any desire to change? Let’s take the same example I’ve already used – that of sexual sin because our Lord refers to it today. What about the man who goes on in his lust day after day? Even if he never touches a woman our Lord says that he “has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” But, if he steps over that line and actually takes hold of the one for whom he lusts, he has sinned in an even greater way. And this is compounded so often today by those who try to contract a marriage with someone who is civilly divorced. This is not possible! Marriage is until death and unless the Church has proclaimed a previous marriage to be null, then any other marriage is impossible. What did Christ say to the woman caught in adultery? Go, and have all the men you want. No, He said go and sin no more.

And of course this leads us back to the sin of scandal, which I mentioned in the beginning. Those who attempt to contract a marriage with a divorced person can lead others into this same sin by making it seem like it’s OK. The way this happens is that the general consensus becomes, “Oh well, everyone else is doing it – so it must be OK.” But the rightness or wrongness of something is not determined by how many people do or don’t do it – it is determined by God Himself. But nevertheless this has happened with so many sins in this country in addition to remarriage after divorce: abortion, contraception, homosexuality and gay ‘marriage’, cohabitation and fornication and on and on. With every one of these issues it has become a situation where people say, “It must be OK because everyone is doing it.” When in reality these issues, and the scandalous behavior which has caused them to become so prevalent, have actually destroyed the moral framework of a countless number of eternal souls created by God.

Some of you here may be either deliberately or habitually tied up in one of these sins. Please understand that they are not being brought to your attention just to make you feel bad. Instead, the Church wants you to know the Truth out of concern for your eternal soul. God wants you to be with Him and if you renounce these sins and tell God that you desire to change then He will help you to do it. You must understand, though, that the change probably won’t happen overnight and you may slip up again and again. But if you do sin again and again and every time go to confession with true contrition and earnestly tell God that you are sorry and that you want to change, then He will bring you to Himself. We must, therefore, remember the words from Sirach today, “Before a man are life and death, good and evil, and whichever he chooses will be given to him.” The question that remains is this: which one will you choose?

Excommunication Part 2 – Mother, May I Play with Fire?

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Excommunication, Politically Incorrect, Pro-Life, Thought for the Day

≈ Leave a comment

As I continue reading Excommunication and the Catholic Church I keep coming across things that I very much agree with but that leads to very serious questions. The following paragraph is one such example.

Remember – the Church is like a loving mother who does not want to discipline her children too harshly. Rather, she only wants to use the amount of punishment necessary to correct and train her children in the right path – that is, according to the truth.

I think any sane and loving parent would completely agree with the author's point in this paragraph. (Although I would go further than the author because the Church isn't 'like' a mother but instead She is our Mother, at least spiritually, who gave birth to us through the waters of Baptism.) But here is my question that necessarily comes from the author's point – what about those mothers who do not do as they ought, either by not disciplining their children at all or by giving threats they never follow through with, or by not being severe enough in making the punishment fit the crime? When a mother doesn't correct her children as she ought to what are the implications for the children?

I think we all know the answer because we see the result in many families, maybe even our own. When a mother (not to ignore the father – I'm just sticking the analogy of the Church as Mother) isn't harsh enough, her children become spoiled brats who ignore her pleading to behave and just continue to do as they please! Like the child in the mall who throws a fit for a toy until the mother acquiesces, if the Church doesn't properly discipline her children they will go on misbehaving and doing as they please. So far the author has not addressed this very serious issue.

Of course one blatantly obvious example of the Church not correctly disciplining Her children is the fact that most pro-death, pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians go uncorrected or, in the least, are allowed to continue in their sin. This is a very serious concern because it not only involves the soul of the politician but the souls of countless Catholics and non-Catholics who buy into the whole “I can't impose my morality on others” nonsense that is espoused by these politicians.

At this point someone may point out that the various ecclesiastical authorities do publically call to repentance these politicians. But, as we can all see, these pleas for repentance fall on the deaf ears of the politicians. And if the call to repentance is not effecting the change of heart necessary for them to repent then obviously, and according to the paragraph cited above, something more serious should and must be done. So why isn't something more done? To do nothing to 'get their attention' and bring them to repentance implies that we don't care about their souls or the souls of the people they mislead in their wrong way of thinking. Therefore, like a good mother who applies the appropriate correction to a child playing with matches the Church our Mother needs to correct and bring to repentance Her wayward children. Because if She doesn't those unrepentant children (and here again, I am not just referring to the politicians themselves but to the countless number of people that are influenced or affected by them and their decisions) could very well wind up getting burned in the end.

Excommunication – A Form of Brotherly Love?

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Politically Incorrect, Pro-Life, Thought for the Day, What's Wrong with the World?

≈ Leave a comment

Last Sunday, the day of the Pro-Life Rally in downtown San Antonio, I had intended on writing a post in regards to abortion. Part of my idea for that post would have included this question: why aren't pro-death 'Catholic' politicians excommunicated? But since I have a very limited understanding of excommunication I have decided to study about it before writing about it.

I already had a book on the subject: Excommunication and the Catholic Church by Edward Peters. I have only just started it but have already found something worth sharing. In the foreword to the book, written by Bishop Thomas Paprocki, he states the following:

…a censure such as excommunication is not at all vindictive, but may be seen as a sort of 'tough love,' just as loving parents discipline their children to teach them the difference between right and wrong. In fact, it would be most unloving to allow someone to persist in their wrongdoing without pointing out the fault.

That last sentence is especially important. If we knowingly allow someone we love to go on sinning without saying anything then we become at least partly responsible for their sin. And that is not even to mention the fact that their continual unrepentant sin could very well be endangering their eternal soul. Therefore it makes me wonder, if excommunication is done for the good of the sinner, why is it not applied to unrepentant pro-death Catholic politicians? And this question is especially valid in light of the fact that we are not talking about the soul of just one person (the politician) but also of countless other people that they influence with their immoral, unethical and even, dare I say, satanic beliefs. Perhaps in the remainder of the book I will find the answer.

Unbiased Media?

28 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Politically Incorrect, Pro-Life, What's Wrong with the World?

≈ Leave a comment

If you watched the Sunday edition of the 10:00 p.m. news on Channel 4 in San Antonio you would have seen a piece done by the news crew in the picture above. They were there covering the Pro-Life Rally at Milam Park in downtown San Antonio. In the very short of on-air coverage they gave equal amounts of time to both the Pro-Life and pro-death sides. The woman you see above was at the event and being interviewed because she likes to kill babies. (Well I don't want to jump to conclusions or anything of that sort, but I have to assume she likes the killing of babies because she was holding up signs with the usual pro-death slogans – pro-choice, pro-women's rights, etc.) I suppose they were giving equal time to both sides in order to 'be fair' – to be unbiased. Although, I cannot figure out why it was so important to interview this woman during the actual event. Also (if I remember correctly) they kept filming even during a prayer.

My question is this: what was so important about what this woman had to say that couldn't have waited until after the event was over to interview her? After all this was a Pro-Life and not a pro-death event. More importantly, why were they even interviewing her at all?!?! What you cannot see in this picture is that there were at least 300 Pro-Lifers at the event (and that is a very conservative estimate because I really think it was close to double that amount). Is it really unbiased to give this crazed, blood-hungry, pro-death woman equal air time when the group she represented at the event was outnumbered by 100 to 1? (Just to explain: there are five people in the picture but two of them are interviewers.)

 

Abortion is Murder!

22 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Politically Incorrect, Pro-Life

≈ 2 Comments

I think the title says it all, doesn't it? I had been planning all day to do a much longer post in regards to legalized abortion but I have run out of time. I have four “inconveniences” (in other words children: but I decided to call them what pro-abort, pro-death people think of them) that need my attention.

By the way, just so you know, and let me be completely clear – I DO NOT VIEW MY CHILDREN AS INCONVENIENCES, BUT INSTEAD GIFTS FROM GOD WHO I LOVE VERY, VERY MUCH!!!

God, please, do what is necessary to end the evil of abortion in this country!

I will try to post the longer article tomorrow.