The definition of genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. There are currently two kinds of genocide in the world. First, there is the genocide that occurs in war, it is illegal, prohibited by law, and prohibited by the United Nations. It occurs against the conscience of the world. Then, there is genocide that occurs in peace, it is legal in most countries, and is encouraged by the UN. This type of genocide is abortion.
Since its arrival to our country in 1973, abortion is responsible for the deaths of 49,551,703 babies. All major American War’s from The American Revolution to the War in Iraq have accounted for 1.3 million deaths. Let’s do the math. The total number of aborted babies (in a span of 36 years) is 37.8 times more than the total number of deaths in every American war since 1775 (234 years).
The targets of American genocide are disproportionately found among children from poor families, handicap children, and African American children. In fact, ninety percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. The ability to decide the fate of someone in the womb based of real or perceived life challenges or parental preferences is a scary thought. In China, this has lead to gender selective abortions that are at epidemic proportions. In black communities: for every baby born three are aborted, that is over double the abortion rates of white babies. “The abortion industry plants their [abortion clinics] in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope. The greatest irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.” Alveda King (Niece of Rev. Martin Luther King)
The scourge of abortion is caused from a lack of love and hope. The lack of love is the selfless love exhibited by Jesus Christ on the cross. This love, which calls us to sacrifice our self, our time, and our money, is the only antidote to abortion that will win in the long run. Not until we value people regardless of what their health prospects are, their poverty level, or above our own convenience, will we be able to overcome this American Genocide. As Mother Theresa said: “It is poverty to DECIDE that a child must die so that you can live as you wish”.
Finally, we must be vigilant against the “Culture of Death” identified by Pope John Paul II. This Culture of Death is a political, social, and economic thought process that wants to control our culture by maintaining access to abortion, supporting Euthanasia, and preventing mentally, physically, or economically challenged babies from seeing the light of day. We must protest against this stain on America’s culture and PRAY to end abortion!

–Michael Costello

Irish bishop is first to quit over child sex abuse scandal

An Irish bishop flew to Rome yesterday to hand in his resignation after days of angry and intense pressure over his handling of cases of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.

Donal Murray, Bishop of Limerick (pictured), gave every sign of acting with great reluctance, after spending some days apparently playing for time in the hope of keeping his post. But the wave of shock and horror which followed publication of a damning report, which revealed a systematic high-level church cover-up of the abuse of children by priests, is in effect sweeping him from office.

The report revealed that archbishops of Dublin had over a quarter of a century ensured that the activities of paedophile priests were kept secret. The result was that in many cases priests were left free to continue their abuse. The report concluded, and the Irish public has accepted, with dismay and sustained rage, that the church routinely placed its own image ahead of the protection of vulnerable children. In the case of Bishop Murray, pictured, the report concluded that he had acted “inexcusably” in one case, and that he had handled other complaints and suspicions badly.

One attempt at mitigation, pleading that he was a relatively inexperienced bishop, has been undermined by the fact that he was a professor of moral theology with a particular expertise in ethics.

The sense of outrage against the church is so strong that although he is the first clerical casualty of the affair he may not be the last. The report concluded that various other churchmen were also guilty of acts of both omission and commission.

Most unusually, criticism has not been confined to the Irish church but is also being made of the Vatican itself.

Rome did not respond to repeated letters from the commission which produced the report, and since it appeared has refrained from offering any detailed response beyond generalised expressions of sorrow.

This has not been enough for the Irish government, with Foreign Minister Micheal Martin expressing “deep disappointment” at Rome’s response. He complained: “The Pope has not responded yet to the appalling revelations of the Murphy inquiry.”

The papal nuncio, who is in effect the Vatican’s ambassador to Ireland, has been summoned to the Irish foreign office to give an explanation. Mr Martin said: “We will be pointing out that we need a substantive response.”

–David McKittrick, Ireland Correspondent, The Independent

Dear Church Leaders of Today,

I come to you with a very serious problem: corruption in our church. All over, there are stories of sexual assault and molestation, scandals and cover-ups, political campaigns, and more.  Since when did our church’s mission be to gain power, to abuse authority, and to make money?  Is this truly what God wants?

I come to you answering a call from God Himself.  He, in all of His infinite and divine wisdom, wishes me to beg you to repent and to reconsider your devious acts of malice.   Remember, it is never too late to be liberated from your sins, for God is a loving and forgiving God.

The Roman Catholic Church has had corruption and struggles since its conception.   From the time of King Henry II and Pope Gregory I, the Roman Catholic Church has been caught in scandalous situations, conning its followers.  Whenever Church and state intermix, detrimental effects ensue.  So why must the church become a political campaign?  Although God wants us to spread His message, I’m sure it is not His intention to have us brainwash people into agreeing with His ‘infallible’ Church on all subjects. The truth of the matter is, the Church is not omniscient.

Everyday it seems you hear a new story of a priest sexually abusing a parishioner; oftentimes a child.  These stories are sickening to read, and too vulgar to comprehend.  Furthermore one is assailed by stories of rampaging bishops persecuting the gay community.  Bishops use their power to further their careers, wealth, and personal objectives.  You even hear about priests caught up in scandals including drugs, money, and adultery.  Practically all of God’s commandments are being shattered.  If one cannot even look to priests for a  standard of moral conduct, then whom CAN we look to?

We need to change our ways.  I am not saying it will be easy, for I am aware that it will not be.  A solution may be to make it more difficult to become a priest as to thwart off any potential candidates that may be unscrupulous.

I do not think that Bishops, Archbishops, and the Pope should have as much power and control as they do.  Power makes man go mad, no matter how levelheaded he may be.  I also think that women should be able to enter the priesthood, or at least some equivalent to it.  Who are we to say that women are not equal to men? What is the theological basis for this assumption? It is  proven that women have an exponentially lower tendency to commit sexual abuse along with a more common tendency to be more tender and docile than their male counterparts.

If we do not make these vital changes, the Church will continue to fall, be overcome with nefarious activity, and lose followers daily.  If changes are implemented, this transformation will bring  honor and respect back to the Catholic Church. We  then may begin the mission of spreading the great word of God.  For remember, there is no time like the present.

Sincerely,

Concerned Catholic

There are 100,000,000 Americans suffering with diseases that could possibly be cured with stem cells.  It is the fault of closed minded, ill-informed Americans that President Obama is not getting full support on the issue of governmental funding for this invaluable research about embryonic stem cells and their uses.  Don’t let yourselves be one of those individuals standing directly in the path of cures to diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, and paralyzation.  The possibilities of cures to the diseases that plague society today using stem cells are enumerable, and everyone should support President Obama in his decision to initiate governmental funding of stem cell research.

What are stem cells?  Well, stem cells are a base cell of sorts, that have the possibility to grow and develop into almost any type of cell in the human body; even the cells we as humans can’t grow back naturally.  Stem cells can be collected from bone marrow, embryos, and umbilical cord blood.  How is this helpful?  Well, say you were in a bad car accident, and now you are a paraplegic; you can’t move your legs.  Using stem cell therapy, there is a possibility that your damaged nerve cells can be replenished, gaining back your full mobility and use of your once marred legs.

Many people are ill informed when it comes to embryonic stem cells.  Some people are misled to believe that aborted fetuses are used for this research, but this is not the case.  Scientists use egg cells donated by willing women and then fertilize them in the lab.  Once the artificial embryo is about a week old, scientists do research on these newly formed cells.  The fact is that these cells have no brain, no organ systems, and are laboratory generated.  How is that morally wrong?

You may be wondering, “If stem cells are so useful, why are people opposed to the funding of such research?”  The controversy is whether or not it’s morally correct to use embryonic stem cells, or cells from embryos.  Many staunch pro-life advocates say that using these seven-day-old embryos is wrong and degrades the value of life, but think about this:  Would you find it morally wrong to test on a week old cluster of cells to help save say a 40 year old woman dying of breast cancer?  Or how about to help an old sick grandfather with Parkinson’s disease who can’t stop shaking?   These are all things to consider before you yourself come up with your stance on stem cell research.

In summation, the benefits of stem cell research go beyond anything that we can imagine.   There is a possibility that the deadly diseases we face today will be obsolete to the new generation.  All we can do is support these scientists who are working tirelessly to find the cure to the afflictions that affect our loved ones everyday.

–Anonymous

These days, a lot of people seem to think of Thanksgiving is nothing but a warm-up for Christmas.  The commercials for all the new gift ideas have started already, and one local radio station is even playing Christmas music round the clock.  Don’t get me wrong, Christmas is great; but Thanksgiving is a different holiday.

The stories we have of the first Thanksgiving are largely exaggerated, but we do know that at some point, the Pilgrims and their Pokanoket allies gathered and had a feast to celebrate their new alliance.  This was a difficult time for both of them, as the Pokanokets had just been ravaged by a plague and the Pilgrims had lost most of their friends and shipmates during the hellish ordeal of reaching America and surviving their first year here.  Still, they found something to celebrate.

Abraham Lincoln made Thanksgiving a national holiday while the Civil War was raging.  It was a hard time for all Americans, but Lincoln realized that the only way we could survive was by remembering the good things we still had.  During the toughest of times, our forefathers always found something for which to give thanks.

So why, on a day set aside for giving thanks, do we think only about eating and about the presents we will receive in a month’s time?  Don’t we have enough material possessions already?  This Thanksgiving, let’s all try to remember the real meaning of the holiday.  Lets savor the time we spend with our families and, rather than just gorging ourselves, let’s savor each bite of Thanksgiving dinner and remember the hard work that went into making it.  Once we realize how much we really have to give thanks for, we will be able to enter into the next holiday season with joyful hearts, ready to give rather than just receive.

–Kevin Jones

Protesting parishioners agree to leave St. John the Baptist Church in Akron

AKRON, Ohio — For the first time since the Cleveland Catholic Diocese began closing churches this year as part of a major restructuring, parishioners and protesters tried Saturday to prevent one from being shuttered.

A small group of people — many from other parishes slated for closing — gathered after the final Mass at St. John the Baptist Church on Saturday and announced they were holding a vigil.

Barbara Piurkowsky, a member of the parish, said the decision to merge St. John with another Akron church was shortsighted and illogical.

About a dozen people sat for nearly two hours before a cadre of Akron police officers told them they would be arrested if they stayed. The group complied. The diocese, after getting wind of the vigil plans, got a temporary restraining order signed by a Summit County magistrate ordering that the church be vacated.

In March, Bishop Richard Lennon unveiled a plan to downsize the eight-county diocese by 50 parishes. So far, about a dozen parishes have closed or merged with others. In his final words to the St. John congregation, Lennon said, “You are greater than any temple, church or cathedral that can be built by human hands.”

Some in the protest group — including Nancy McGrath of Endangered Catholics, a local coalition fighting the closing of churches — said they would find another way to further the fight.

Before they were escorted out, Lennon approached the group sitting in pews and asked them to “kindly leave the church.”

That request instigated a heated exchange as the protesters accused Lennon of trading “souls for cash” and of not including parishioners in the consolidation decision.

“We have the responsibility to the many people who never were heard,” McGrath said.

“The people are the church, and we’re taking the church back.”

Lennon shot back that the group did not represent the people of the church. Hundreds attended the final Mass, but only a few stayed to support the vigil.

“You have claimed this on your own,” he said.

Lennon, who was a bishop in the Boston archdiocese before coming to Cleveland, began closing Boston churches in the summer of 2004. Currently, six churches in Massachusetts are under occupation by parishioners. Five are in Boston and one in Springfield.

Attempts to occupy a church in New York and two churches in New Orleans were quashed as parishioners were arrested and removed from the sanctuaries.

Lennon made it clear in his conversation with the protesters that the situation in Boston would not be repeated.

St. John the Baptist is set to merge with Annunciation a few miles away and form a new parish next week called Visitation of Mary. The etched bronze front doors, made by a parish member, and the communion chalice, used for more than 100 years, will follow the church to the new location.

Monica Fanady was born two blocks away from St. John and attended for 75 years. She was baptized and married in the church, and her children attended the now-closed school.

Fanady, who came early to hang bows on the pews of the 102-year-old church, said that the closing was bittersweet but that she thought the protest was uncalled for.

“We could see that we were slowly slipping away,” she said. “There were more funerals than baptisms.”

She said many of the faithful had migrated away, leaving only 250 families, though the church was financially sound. “It was not about how much money we have. That means nothing without people.”

–Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer

The Cleveland Catholic Diocese is currently experiencing what many people see as a crisis.  Due to a shortage of both funds and parishioners, many Catholic parishes are being forced to combine or close.  This has raised concerns about what will become of the beautiful architecture and valuable artwork that adorns many of the closing churches.  In addition, many churchgoers feel sentimental about their parishes and are unwilling to move to a new church.  However, Catholics often forget that the beautiful buildings that we must now say goodbye to be only bonuses, and that the Church is about more than the temples it builds.

Beautiful temples are important to almost every major religion.  They help set the mood for worship and express the devotion of the congregation.  However, it wasn’t always that way.  Look at just about any religion, and you will find a time when they were persecuted.  The Jews were enslaved in Egypt.  Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was driven from his home because of his beliefs. Jesus of Nazareth and many of his early followers were murdered by the Romans.  During these troubled times, believers did not dare to build anything more elaborate than a simple chapel or a secret room to worship in.  And yet today these are three of the largest religious groups ever.  How is this possible?  Because the true believers realized that a basement, a tent, or even a stretch of open ground was all they needed to worship.  As long as there were believers, there was a church.  If modern Catholics could remember the struggles that their forefathers went through, maybe they wouldn’t be so concerned about the fate of the closing churches.

Losing the beautiful artwork in Cleveland’s churches would indeed be tragic, but it would not be the end of the Church.  Temples can be rebuilt, and new works of art are made every day.  But people can’t be recreated.  The solidarity of Catholics around the world is more important than buildings that will eventually crumble anyway.

–Kevin Jones

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

–Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

If there was only one injustice in the world that you could eliminate, what would it be and why?

–Nathan Peereboom

“Injustice can be eliminated, but human conflicts and natural limitations cannot be removed. The conflicts of social life and the limitations of nature cannot be controlled or transcended. They can, however, be endured and survived. It is possible for there to be a dance with life, a creative response to its intrinsic limits and challenges … [A Feminist Ethic of Risk]”

–Dr. Sharon Welch, Associate Professor of Theology and Applied Theology, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Author of Communities of Resistance and Solidarity.

RE:

If I could only eliminate one injustice it would be the flawed egocentric structure of the mind. The Greek philosopher Protagoras, (praised by Plato as a ‘teacher of virtue’) famously exclaimed that “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. That is, man is the standard of all things, even of man himself. One measures another man in relation to another. Because of this, life must exploit itself in order to continue. The tall man is so in relation to the short man. The rich man is so in relation to the poor man. This causes the best consolation of your fellow man to be the reality of those in a plight far worse. ‘Oh, you don’t have X? Well at least you aren’t a starving African living in the Republic of Liberia.’

This applies anywhere from Wall Street to the jungle. A panther must kill just as a man must exploit his own kind. The former case is propelled by a means for survival, and the latter, by unfettered greed and insatiable ambition as a means of alleviating the boredom of life. I would not eliminate life itself, as such a wish is an endeavor of folly, but I would eliminate the design of it, being an injustice unto itself.

–Blake Thomas

Republican Plot to Make Obama Look Like a Socialist: (blogs.law.harvard.edu/)

Yesterday’s New York Times: “the government is the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker and guarantor against risk for investors large and small. … government spending accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy — 26 percent — than at any time since World War II. The government is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States. … To Mr. Obama’s critics, thousands of whom took to the streets of Washington this weekend to protest a new era of big government, all these efforts are part of a plan to dismantle free-market capitalism.”

Who decided to print trillions of dollars and give them to banks? The Bush Administration. Who decided to print hundreds of billions of dollars and give them to AIG? The Bush Administration. Who decided not to tell General Motors and Chrysler to work out their problems in bankruptcy court like any other company not smart enough to recognize the implications of pension and health care guarantees (see While America Aged)? The Bush Administration started with the Detroit bailout.

A theory consistent with the facts is that King Bush II knew that the next president would be a Democrat, due to the endless depressing Iraq/Afghanistan war. He therefore intentionally wrecked the economy and then took over much of it in order to make the next administration look like socialists.

Going by the numbers and facts, an economic historian would have little choice but to classify the U.S. circa 2009 as a socialist nation. Government at all levels spends a greater percentage of GDP than does China’s (source), for example, and the government either directly owns or assumes financial risks for a lot of our largest enterprises. How did we get here? It was a Republican plot to make Obama look like a socialist, by the clever strategy of converting the U.S. into a fully socialist economy prior to January 20, 2009.

–Philip Greenspun (philg@mit.edu)

I believe our country is becoming too Socialistic. Of course there is some socialistic aspects of our government but is it being taken to far? For those struggling to understand the definition of socialism I found this definition which sums it up pretty well: “Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”

Now, is this not beginning to sound more and more like our country’s new government? The government has enough power. The government’s taking over industry means that we the people will not be able to flourish on our own. Do you like coco puffs? Eat them while you can because if socialism takes anymore steps forward in overcoming our government. You will not have a choice in which cereal you buy: we will all be eating cheerios (or some type of regulated sugar free cereal).

The government should not be allowed to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own hard earned money. If I want to buy a gas guzzling hummer instead of a Prius then that’s my choice, not the government’s.

What do you think? I want everyone who read this to give their opinion.

–Wes Weber

Most people are both right and wrong in their assumptions about truth being relative. They’re right in the essence of their questioning whether the statement “Truth is Subjective” includes itself. They’re wrong because they fail to comprehend the true nature of a relative universe. The idea of a relative universe is based on a relative understanding of truth.

Without this understanding, we cannot truly view a relative universe at its barest form, that is, as relative. We must subscribe to the true knowledge (note, knowledge, not belief, for in a relative universe, one must know, not believe) that the universe is inherently relative. Once one does this, it is feasible that the statement “All truth is relative” is simply obsolete. Because, with a relative understanding of truth, one sees that whatever one knows to be true is true. Therefore, if one knows there is an objective reality that our reality is modeled after and subscribes to completely, then that person’s reality becomes an objective reality. You see that, if one knows that the statement “All truth is relative” is absolute, then it becomes absolute.

However, one does not need to know that the universe is relative. In fact, they can honestly know that the universe is objective, and it will be. That is the essence of relative truth. You see, their logic is flawed on the most basic presumption that a relative truth denies absolutes. In fact, it does just the opposite. It confirms absolutes. However, these absolutes are not absolutes in the objective sense of the term, but subjective absolutes, meaning that whatever one truly and completely knows becomes their absolute. So, indeed, all truth could be relative, and we would not even have to believe that it is.

Cam Colella