Boissoin Victory in the Light of Day

Stephen Boissoin Is Still Not THE LETTER

As the general silence over Stephen's victory continues to deafen us, the particular commentators who have looked up from their long early winter naps to pick up on it, speak volumes. To put it simply, it appears to me once again, that those, particularly MSM types, and all those with an agenda, which makes all the rest of us, who comment on the Boissoin case do so by defining Stephen as THE LETTER.

Even Justice Wilson felt the need to let fly a negative multi-adjective barrage about THE LETTER in his mostly favourable judgment. It makes me wonder if had Premier Stelmach written the letter, a highly unlikely thing since it must be admitted that it was politically incorrect, if maybe the learned judge might have opined against the constitutionality of the hallowed Section 3 of the Alberta HRCM Act, with appropriate case law references.

I actually wrote a piece back on September 17, at the end of the Appeal Court sitting date for the case, entitled Stephen Boissoin is Not THE LETTER. Since I do not want to rehash it, I urge you to read what I wrote earlier, as nothing has changed really. There is an element here of Richard Thomas forever cast as John Boy, or Ron Howard forever cast as Opie Taylor. The good news is that they are fictional characters and the Good News is bigger than that.

So, Stephen will continue to outlive and outshine THE LETTER, and will use it and the experiences from it all to do what he wants in his heart to do most, which is minister to young people. The real depth of the man is what the youth see, not just THE LETTER, and there is real depth there. Someday we will read his life story, and it will curl your hair, to see how low he fell, and why, and to see how high he has climbed back by the Grace of a loving God.

But there were other things that have struck me over the last 2 days since the announcement of victory arrived in my email from Stephen.

I am reminded that in Mark 9:40 it says:

"whoever is not against us is for us."

So, when I read that a gay online news organisation, Xtra.ca supported the Boissoin judgment, I draw some encouragement, even though other Christians are not so quick to agree. I confess that being on the site and seeing the ads that were there was disturbing to me, and "my" understanding of what might be a "homosexual agenda" challenges me.

But, then I think of another important scripture Ephesians 6:12 which says in the midst of a discussion of spiritual armour:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

So, here is my 2 cents worth and I might be overvaluing what I am about to say.

In talking about those who support the free speech rights of 3 men who spoke about homosexuality from a Christian oriented perspective, Stephen Boissoin and Father Alphonse de Valk, who was investigated by the Canadian HRC, as well as Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who was under the thumb of the same Alberta HRC that took 7 years of Stephen's life away, those who agree with us that they, and therefor we, have a right to express opinions based on our faith are not our enemies in this instance.

Further as Ephesians 6:12 says, they themselves are not our enemies anyway, and that causes me to want to back away from any vitriol that seeks to surface, and cause deeper wounds, at a time for healing.

When I look at my own sinfulness and think of the opening verses of the 7th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I am chastened as it says:

¹"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ²For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Much of what I see happening that I think is non productive is judgment of individuals, rather than of sin, and forgetting our own sinfulness in that judgment.

We are called to love one another, and in my discussions with Stephen Boissoin, and communications with him, as well as when he has been quoted correctly, I see evidence of his love for all, and a special love for homosexual individuals. As he says, THE LETTER has brought with it a notoriety that has put him in position to witness to his faith and the love that emanates from that faith for all of God's children. It was not his original plan, nor all his choice, once THE LETTER was published.

But, too many writers have taken his words in THE LETTER out of the context in which he meant them. For Pete's sakes, it was just a letter to the editor, which garnered some responses, both favourable and unfavourable, and would have died as he carried on with his work with at risk youth, having made a point. He might have gotten some support rolling for change in education, which was the issue.

Instead it became a focus of examination for all and sundry, and took on a life of its own, as Dr. Darren Lund pushed his own agenda, and as the Alberta HRC pushed theirs. As Hamlet says: "Ay, there's the rub."

It is helpful to us all to remember that as THE LETTER does not define Stephen Boissoin, calling someone a homosexual, or a Christian or a father or whatever does not define them either. They are in essence inaccurate descriptors that give a very incomplete picture of the individual.

Take for example Homosexual. There are some homosexual individuals who are basically sexual sluts. News flash people. That is no worse than many so called Heterosexuals who swap spouses at sex clubs, cheat on spouses with other people's spouses, or lust after other people but do nothing physical about it. It's just that a heterosexual slut can present himself or herself as righteous by attending the right church or political function on the arm of a spouse and all is well, NOT.

Take our recent ex-hero Tiger Woods, for example. When the manure converges with the fan blades it is not a pretty sight. But, this didn't just happen this week. It is a long standing thing, and he looked pretty good to us all the whole way. But, he had a secret that when it came out has destroyed some of his crafted image. It, of course is sad, and he like every other sinner on the planet, especially the one you see in the mirror every morning, needs our prayerful entreaty on his behalf for healing of the sin in his life.

So, before you judge Stephen Boissoin as THE LETTER, or a man or woman who you believe is a HOMOSEXUAL by that simple moniker, I urge you to remember that he and they are our brothers and sisters, loved by Almighty God every bit as much as you or I, and in that alone worthy of our love, prayers and encouragement, not our condemnation.

If you knew Stephen as I have had a chance to come to, and if you knew some particular homosexual individuals that I know even better, you would see in each case someone who is very kind and considerate of others, who has a heart of service to their fellow man, who seek out truth in their daily lives. In each case, you would see a much loved Child of God, who carries still some woundedness and pain that leads them each to their own sinful areas, just like you and me, and blocks them and us all from seeing the fullness of God's love for each and every one of us.

Will you be an instrument of God's love for all of us, or do you have this deep seated need to judge others for what you believe to be the sin in their lives? If you are still stuck on the latter, I offer you John 8:7 as my final word:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Learning when and how to pick a fight.

Where the Rubber Hits The Road - Fr. Tim Moyle

Fr. Tim has this to say about recent blogging started when he posted a letter from Bishop Henry on Bill C-384. His posting can be found here.

The rain has been falling steadily all day, so it seems appropriate to share a few thoughts about those who have recently been raining on the efforts of others to work to promote Catholic values in our society.

It would not be so bad if these voices were coming from those who are agents of the "Culture of Death", but alas this is not the case. The criticisms have come from those who claim to be fighting for the church. Allow me to offer an example.

Bishop Fred Henry, (Diocese of Calgary, AB) has released a letter that calls for the defeat of Bill 384 which is imminently to be voted on in the Canadian House of Commons. This proposed piece of legislation would permit the widest possible application of the "right to die", a.k.a. euthanasia for everything from people suffering with terminal diagnoses through to those who suffer from depression or other mental diseases. Clearly this bill must be opposed. It is one thing for individuals to refuse treatment or to be treated with a palliative care protocol in their final days, but it is quite something else entirely to give to people the power to kill someone else (under the guise of such seductive terms as "mercy" or "autonomy").

Bishop Henry's letter quickly began to spread through various blogs and websites, even breaking through into the MSM when it was picked up and published through various papers of the Osprey Media Chain. Alas, this is where the troubles began.

Various authors began to use this powerful intervention in the cause of the "culture of life" for their own goal of becoming the arbiters of orthodoxy and purity in what it means to be Catholic. Various well intentioned blogs ostensibly working to promote the Catholic cause began to use Bishop Henry's letter in a puerile attempt to castigate priests, Bishops et al for not being "pure" enough (in their opinion) in their efforts to work for the pro-life cause. These misguided souls began to throw about any number of accusations and allegations, promoted by Lifesitenews.com, alleging that he and other priests associated with St. Peter's Seminary were countenancing and permitting abortions at the local Catholic hospital in London, Ontario.

Thus an intervention aimed at unifying and strengthening Catholic opposition to a heinous piece of legislation has matestized into bitter and divisive recriminations within the Catholic blogosphere - a situation that serves little more than weakening the voice of the Church in opposition to this attempt to legalize euthanasia.

Instead of joining forces with their voices and blogs to offer a coherent and effective argument in opposition to this attempt to offer death in lieu of a compassionate presence to people who are at the end of their life, or who are in the depths of despair and depression. Their "need to be declared right" on their interpretation of what it means to be to be ideologically pure in the cause of Catholicism.

The temptation would be to castigate these misguided souls, to perhaps to chastise them for dividing the voices of those speaking for the faith. By attacking and even perhaps slandering priests and bishops in their attempts to force their view of orthodoxy, these sites and bloggers would better make use of their formidable talents and obvious intellects by working in support of the efforts of our Catholic leaders to address the important societal debate that needs to be fought for the protection of life.

There will always be many opportunities to argue about what it truly means to be "Catholic". Using a Bishop's statement in opposition to a dangerous piece of legislation should not be one of them.

There enough rainy days ahead for all people of faith as we fight to preserve, protect and promote the Christian values we believe to be essential in our modern society. Those who are still using every opportunity to fight the battle for purity of doctrine are proving themselves too foolish to come in out of the rain and work with together to guarantee a sunny future for our country and our faith.

Fr. Tim

Amen Fr. Moyle. 'Nuff said.

"If You Look for the Bad In People

You're sure to Find it.

So look for the good in them instead." The title, subtitle and this last sentence are a direct quote from that great paragon of Christian missionary thought, Polyanna, who was actually quoting one A. Lincoln at the time. Polyanna said these words to the reverend, played by Karl Malden. The reverend character was a fire breathing preacher, who under Polyanna's tutelage saw the light.

There are days that I am ashamed to be a blogger. Today is one of those days. But, sometimes shame can be useful. I hope that today is one of those days.

The other day, I innocently posted a copy of a letter from Bishop Henry that Fr. Tim Moyle of Where the Rubber Hits The Road had reprinted on his blog. What happened after was sickening to me. Catholic Dialogue picked up on it, and then went on a rant about an issue about fatal euthanasia at St. Joseph's Hospital in London, Ontario. John Pacheco at Socon or Bust picked up on it later that day, and the crucifixion began. Socon and CD were able to quote articles in LifeSiteNews to support their position, and as ardent and diligent pro-life workers went to town. They rehashed all the information that was available to them about the matter. There was one problem, however.

Actually, they acted just like the Karl Malden character in Polyanna, before his sort of conversion at the hands of Polyanna, after her quote above.

By way of conjecture and with a distinct inability to dig up the real facts they, and in particular Socon have as of yesterday slammed St. Peter's Seminary, St. Joseph's Hospital, Fr. Michael Prieur, Bishop elect McGrattan, Bishop Henry, and Save a Family Plan, a Catholic charity that has its offices at the seminary in London. However, until now, they have forgotten to attack Bishop Tom Collins, who was active with Save a Family Plan, when he was at the seminary as well. Heck, even Fr.Tim Moyle did volunteer work there while at the seminary, as many of his fellow seminarians did.

Part of the problem is that when LifeSiteNews did its pieces on the St. Joseph "scandal", they did not get access to Bishop Fabbro, because he refused to speak to them. As his communications officer told them, he would only speak to real news agencies. I see his wisdom, which brings me to my own shame in this thing.

I have lived in London, Ontario for almost 50 of my fast approaching 60 years on this planet. I was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in 1950, and we still have reason to use their services for my health issues and those of my wife. I have also known Fr. Prieur, as well as the former Bishop of London, John Michael Sherlock, and many of the other fine priests, some now bishops, who made St. Peter's Seminary their home over the years. On numerous occasions, I met or consulted with then fathers, but now Bishop Henry, Bishop Tom Collins, Bishop elect McGrattan, and many other fine members of the ministerial priesthood, who were there at times when I did my work with both the diocesan offices and Save a Family Plan.

So, when Socon or CD take aim with a long gun at one or more of them, they are firing upon My Church, not so much in the broad sense, but in the local sense. These are people I care about. My shame in this whole thing is that in my own blogging, I fear I have done the same. In fact, I am pretty sure I have done the same. So, the pain that I feel when someone takes shots at people I value in my faith life is similar to the pain that my own words have inflicted on others. God, be merciful to me a sinner.

Up until yesterday, there was one issue on the table, and that was what they were calling fetal euthanasia at St. Joseph's Hospital. I wanted to know more, and so I did something unusual for bloggers. I picked up the phone and called someone who knew, and would speak to me. I called Fr. Michael Prieur. We chatted for a minute about the last time we met, a few weeks earlier at my local parish, and then I asked him about this issue. We spoke for about half an hour about the topic.

London, being a small town, I found that I not only knew these players, but also a mother who was quoted in one of the LifeSiteNews articles. I have known her family since she was a young child. She did subsequently meet with the Bishop to discuss what she was alleged by LifeSiteNews to have said. That meeting adds clarity to why the Bishop refuses to speak to LifeSiteNews. The Bishop was seeking to understand the issues, while working with Father Prieur to clarify and ensure that their methods were consistent with Church teaching. It has been a consultative process that has taken much of this year.

The fundamental conclusion of the consulting is somewhat as follows. Although bloggers have made much about the American Bishops stand on such matters, the procedure that is being finalised is modeled after the similar one from the Diocese of Anchorage, Alaska. This policy will be going to Rome for review shortly. It, in fact, is similar in all aspects to what has been done for the last 20 years.

As Fr. Prieur told me, he serves with fidelity to and at the behest of his Bishop, who serves Rome. At no time, has he or have they been, to the best of their knowledge, operating outside the will of the Magisterium of the Church. That has been clarified further in this process, and after the policy is reviewed in Rome, in theory everyone goes away happy.

As to the new issue that Socon has decided to attack on, Save a Family Plan, I am sad to see such a fine organisation called on the carpet, by a blogger. I have known Save a Family Plan for about 25 years, having been involved with their information systems, and been a personal friend of the founder Monsignor Augustine Kandathil, who Socon might want to slam next, though he is deceased. After him, Socon should take a run at the next head of SAFP Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath.

Here is the lesson for me, and I hope that I learn it and apply it. It is easy to slam others for their faith or lack of it, based on my limited understanding of it. It is far more work to build up the Body of Christ than to tear it down.

I fully expect to be attacked for writing this, maybe if I'm lucky, attackers will only call me a Polyanna. So, here it is.

What Is A Catholic To Do?

Haggle Over Placement of Deck Chairs?

Yesterday, I reproduced a letter that Bishop Henry had put out and sent Fr. Tim Moyle a copy of, and which he had posted, about euthanasia and urging the demise of Bill C-384. To my immense surprise Catholic Dialogue picked it up and after accepting and acknowledging it, went in another direction about an issue that is mildly related to it, as I am to my fifth cousin.

Now late last night John Pacheco of Socon or Bust picked it up from Catholic Dialogue, and an issue all four of us are surely in agreement on has spun out to something that LifeSiteNews wrote almost a year ago. Frankly, I found that National Post had a more appropriate presentation of the issue.

I have given you the links because I do not want to rehash or hash the issue, because it begets a third far more serious issue. That one I want to make a stand on.

The big problem of putting something out into the ether, is that folks of limited knowledge of what you were thinking at a particular time, now can take that and run with it, linking this to that and that to the other thing until, for me at least, it is one confusing jumble of finger pointing and waving, along with appropriate or inappropriate clucking and tsking.

Another example. My friend Stephen Boissoin, in Alberta wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate about 7 1/2 years ago, that has been beaten to death by everybody with a keyboard, with no context or understanding of the man and his ministry. Nobody seemed interested in him and where he was coming from, but they sure had opinions. He has been praised and pilloried, more pilloried than praised, and had the distinct honour of spending a great amount of money and personal effort, unsuccessfully, in the short term, defending his Christian faith to the kangaroo court of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Now bloggers I respect, for their yearning for Truth in our mutually beloved Catholic Church, are taking the piss (can't think of a milder way of saying this) out of a Catholic theologian and ethicist, Fr. Michael Prieur, that I highly regard from 30 years of knowing him personally and professionally, with no regard again for context and limited regard for his personal comments on something he agreed with 41 years ago (The Winnipeg Statement) and for a particular ethical position he has taken, very prayerfully, with the support of his current bishop and his predecessor, over 20 years at St. Joseph's Hospital here in London Ontario.

My friends over at Socon and Catholic Dialogue are showing signs of apoplexy, with John Pacheco at Socon even denying himself access to the most sacred of our traditions, sharing in the Paschal Mystery of the Eucharist. There are other issues that are troublesome to them both, so it is not about this one thing.

I fully support and agree with them about questioning things going on in our Church that seem out of whack. The People of God must ask questions, and must be free to ask questions, and deserve to have answers to those questions. John and Steve are asking tough questions, and making people in the hierarchy take notice, though there has been great angst among some in the hierarchy over some of the tougher questions asked.

BUT, this is our Church no more than in this particular instance it is Father Michael Prieur's Church and Bishop Henry's Church. Unlike us, they have the benefit of years of study of the writings of the Doctors of the Church and others, and have lived lives totally committed to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.

Who are we to question their leadership in areas of faith and teaching? We are equal members in the Body of Christ and duty bound to work out our individual salvation.

Who are we to judge their motives, their thoughts and their collective wisdom? Get behind me Satan!

Euthanasia bill should be killed

Bishop Fred Henry

Interestingly, I had dinner last evening with among others, a first cousin of Bishop Henry, himself a good man. That aside, the Bishop has sent a letter out about Bill C-384, the euthanasia bill, one that has legs, and should be cast aside like yesterday's garbage. Bishop Fred Henry sent this letter to Fr. Tim Moyle of Where the Rubber Hits the Road, which he has issued in opposition to Bill C-384.Here is what the good Bishop had to say:

Opposition to Bill C-384 has nothing to do with fear-mongering, nor special interest groups. The issue is one of wide-ranging medical, moral and societal concern but also widespread confusion evidenced in your own editorial.

A major cause of the confusion is what George Orwell, in his essay, Politics and the English Language, calls the language of "euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness." Some of the language being used in the euthanasia debate appears "designed to makes lies sound truthful and murder acceptable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

The rhetoric of "choice," "aid-in-dying," "compassion," "a new medical treatment," "self-determination," "autonomy," and "death with dignity" tend to cover up the reality that euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken by one individual with the intention and result of ending the life of another to relieve that person's suffering. Assisted suicide is the act of killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means or both.

This proposed legislation would reverse the reigning medical ethic which for more than two millenniums has insisted that doctors must heal and never kill. Legalizing physician assisted suicide would irreparably damage the doctor-patient relationship. The patient's trust in the doctor's wholehearted devotion to the patient's best interests will be hard to sustain once doctors are licensed to kill. Furthermore, such legislation would put undue stress on the conscience of the physician pressured by patients and others to take part in killing.

The unmistakable issue is the intentional killing of a human being. It has nothing to do with natural death or dignity, and everything to do with killing. We are NOT discussing letting someone die.

Euthanasia is NOT respecting a patient's refusal of treatment at any time in the course of treatment. Medical tradition and practice clearly distinguish between refusal of medical intervention and intentionally causing death by euthanasia.

Euthanasia is NOT discontinuing treatment when it serves no therapeutic purpose or the patient requests treatment to cease; nor is it abstaining from medically futile treatment.

All treatments that impose undue burdens on the patient without overriding benefits or that simply provide no benefits may justifiably be withheld or withdrawn. In making such decisions, the judgment is about the worth of treatment, not about the worth of lives. The provision of adequate medicines to control pain is not euthanasia. The administration of high doses of painkillers and sedatives to terminally ill patients may lead to a shortening of their lives. It is, however, morally acceptable to administer such drugs in doses which are linked to their painkilling or sedative effects, and not to the termination of life. It is not correct to call this "euthanasia" because there is no intention to shorten the patient's life.

Those favouring assisted-suicide have not given adequate attention to palliative care. The goal of palliative care is to give comfort and thereby enable the dying to live while dying. Letting life ebb away can in no way be equated with active euthanasia. Allowing to die is a world removed from giving a lethal injection.

Palliative care also aims at lessening or managing the suffering of terminal patients. Often they feel helpless, lonely, in the way, and a burden to others. With empathy, comfort care, and affirmation, palliative caregivers accompany patients in their suffering and by their kindness and compassion help the patient maintain a sense of worth and a feeling of belonging, and move from depression to hope.

The legislation of aid-in-dying would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, handicapped newborns and to all members of society who are unable to look after their own best interests. This kind of legislation says to them: "you're not important; you're not needed; in fact, you are a burden to others."

Canadian citizens should be assured that their dignity at every stage of life is recognized by government as important. They must be reassured by government that their needs will be met humanely. They must be shown true compassion in the care they receive from society, not through death-dealing, but by being looked after in a life-giving way.

As Canadians, we all have a duty to speak up for the rights and dignity of every citizen. In short, it is Bill C-384 that must die!

Bishop Henry is herein educating Catholic faithful about this evil, but also giving boundaries to the Catholic teaching on the matter. As a former teacher at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario, having spent many years studying and imparting the wisdom of the Church, he is in a very good position to pass that wisdom on to us.

Bravo and May God Bless You, Bishop Henry.

Life In The Spirit

Joshua Makes an Important Observation

Friend Joshua, who possesses much wisdom and very solid powers of observation, made the following comment as a result of his first telling me about Ashley Cleveland, a Christian musician he came across years ago, and my posting one of her songs from youtube here yesterday.

Here are his thoughts:

Thank you so much. In my previous communication about Ashley Cleveland, I forgot to mention that it was through Ashley Cleveland that we (my wife and I) reconnected with the Christian world. Until then, we had thought of our family as one of God's "little flocks of sheep", but socially speaking we were our own little island. After "getting into" the "Christian rock" sections in various US music stores (and online), we began to form strong connections, bonds and friendships with families like our own in the USA.

Michael, this brings up an important point. My wife, adult children and I all agree that Christian families are far more common in the United States than in Canada. And we all KEEP noticing it. It's been years now! And it's depressing to us all as Canadians. Just an observation, but maybe one that has been/could be confirmed/denied? I really don't know...

I was going to just add a comment to his, but think he has touched on a more serious issue, so decided to make a posting about it here.

I think my friend Joshua has noted something that I currently agree with, though the long term reality, I both fear and hope is likely to be different, so let me explain.

First off, I think that American Christians are far more out there and in your face with their faith, and by that I mean most particularly and in general the American Evangelical Christian family. God Bless Them. It appears to me as a snowbird, some time resident of the USA, that the American people are more demonstrative of everything that they possess, and that includes their faith. It shows up more in Evangelical Christians, and they have been a blessing to that nation, and to any of us who have reason to meet them or receive the blessing from them or their music or teaching, and preaching.

What is not so much in evidence in America is the Catholic Christian family, and not because of their weakness of faith as such, but because of the quiet way that Catholics have learned to live their faith.

In Canada, we are by our nature quieter about everything, and so are our Evangelical Christians. Canadian Catholics are quieter still, by and large, I think, and observe.

In my view, the Christian family has been under attack in this country, Canada, for a long time, and one area of that attack is the muzzling of free speech and trampling of other fundamental human rights here particularly for Christians. The HRC attacks on Stephen Boissoin, Fr. Alphonse deValk, Bishop Henry for having the temerity to speak out on Church teaching, which is unpopular in our secularized world are only some of the examples. HRC/HRT decisions that follow the secular agenda in all areas, where it is often contrary to Church teachings and the beliefs of people of good will has served to make us even more timid to speak out. At this time, the only group in this country that you can discriminate against with impunity is Christians.

From my time in the US, particularly over the last few winters, it seems that the Christian family in the US was stronger there, but I think it is reasonable to say that the Christian family is now under serious attack, and that attack is being led by the US Democratic Party. It happens in subtle ways, like the new Hate Speech legislation, and not so subtle ways, like in the vaunted Health Care Reform. And there is more on the horizon.

Christians, who now form a minority in both our countries are being handed over to be slaughtered, not in a visual holocaust sort of way, YET. It is the destruction of and manipulation of the values that we Christians hold dear. The devil is very much behind this and is only too pleased to facilitate it. Hell (and I mean that word), he has what is happening now in his end game plan.

But, we Christians have read the end of The Book, and he is not in it, certainly not in a victorious place.

God is calling us to stand up for what is truth, and to speak against injustice, even if it hurts peoples' feelings. We Christians must stand together against evil, particularly evil that masks itself as tolerance of lies and deceit.

So, in the midst of this dire situation, and it is far more dire than we believe, or want to believe, some great good is occurring. For example, Pope Benedict is on a mission to make the Body of Christ one again, inviting people of good will, to come home, to strengthen the Body as One. A serious problem that prevents Christians from making a united response to the evils that surround us and confound us is our fragmentation. Our message of truth gets watered down, since we all have different versions, not of the core principals, but on other very serious matters.

No Christian should be silent on Life, and its sanctity from conception to natural death. It is natural law, and clearly ordained by God. How can one be for Christ, and be pro-choice, for example? "What you do to the least of these little children, you do also to Me."

God loves each and every one of us just as we are, but He is not prepared to leave us that way. He wants the very best for us, and it is up to us to go out and find His best, and then claim it for ourselves, and employ it in His Glorious Name.

Which brings me to the quiet American and Canadian Catholic Family. Pope John XXIII saw ahead and so he brought new life into the Church with Vatican 2. As he said from his death bed: “The moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead". He invited the Holy Spirit, who had never left, to take an active part in the formation of the current Church, and to transform the hearts and minds of Catholics and other people of good will.

Catholics and all Christians are invited to let the Holy Spirit come alive in them, to walk in the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been available to Christians since the beginning, and for those Christians, particularly Catholic Christians who have received Confirmation of the Holy Spirit to seek release of those gifts that God has for them, and which are particularly necessary in this time and place.

So, dear readers, I believe, and am not alone in that belief, that unless we wake up to what is happening around us, we are in for worse times, and the Christian Family will face extinction, out of apathy.

Come out, dear readers, and walk in the Joy and Truth of God's Holy Spirit. You only need to invite God to give you His Spirit to guide you; to guide you to other believers who share that Spirit, to guide you to places where you can make a difference in your faith in Him, to guide you to the Cross of His Salvation.

Rumours of the death of Christianity and the Christian Family, its primary unit, in North America are premature, because there is a remnant of believers who are called to reinvigorate the faith, and when you are called by Him, who does not want to lose one of you, then you must heed His Voice.

I will be writing more soon on Life In The Spirit of God, and will share with you God's most exciting and exhilarating call on each and every one of our lives.

Likely to Expose to Hatred or Contempt

No Likely About This

George Jonas wrote something that caught my eye here. Most of his article is actually having to defend his condemnation of Roman Polanski and his sexual molestation of a minor, because he relied on reporting only the official record of the disposition of the charge, rather than other less reliable sources of information, such as a possibly authentic, but not tested in court grand jury hearing testimony. But that is not what caught my eye. What was really attention grabbing for me was this part:

I did make a mistake but it wasn’t relying on the record. It was using the Polanski case as a jumping-off point to discuss what I called “seasonal laws” as opposed to “laws for all seasons” — that is, acts condemned universally, as opposed to acts condemned in certain times and places. The Polanski affair was the wrong platform from which to dive into this pool (or cesspool). The film director’s transgression had become a lightning rod for people’s pent-up fury at the baboon society that emerged from the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

The Pill, along with the “make love, not war” generation of the Vietnam years, propelled Western societies from their quiet quasi-Victorian 1950s lagoons to a virtual Sodom and Gomorrah within a decade. The solemn pillars of misdeeds buttressing society’s moral edifice either crumbled or metamorphosed into “choices” one by one:

• Divorce “progressed” from a scandal that cost Nelson Rockefeller his political career in 1964 to a statistical commonplace (about 50% for first marriages in the U.S.);
• Pre-marital sex changed from a taboo to standard practice for teenagers (including Polanski’s 13-year-old victim);
• Adultery was reduced from a grave marital misconduct to an irrelevancy in no-fault divorce;
• Fornication grew from biblical prohibition to fashionable spouse-swapping venues at Plato’s Retreat and, eventually, the Internet;
• Abortion turned from a crime into a civil distinction (a medal for Dr. Morgentaler); and
• Homosexuality from a love that dared not speak its name into one that couldn’t shut up about it.

That is a brief but highly useful summary of the destruction of our moral values in North America starting with The Pill. It is what Paul Paul VI prophesied in 1968 when he wrote Humanae Vitae, the encyclical that went so counter to the sexual revolution that was just heating up. Take Mr. Jonas' brief summary of some of the events of the sexual revolution, and compare them to what the Pope prophesied would happen:

He first predicted a rise in marital infidelity and moral decline. Bingo on that one. Anyone want to disagree?

Second, he predicted lost respect for women. Our culture does not respect the gifts that women have as women, but values them more as sexual objects. Watch any TV last night?

Next, he predicted abuse of power. The power over reproduction is a heady power. With it you can rule nations. China has abused reproductive power significantly, and the abuses of family planning in third world countries, in the name of helping them are legendary.

Finally, he predicted that mankind would think he had unlimited dominion over his own body. We see sterilization, wide use of body disfigurement, test tube babies, and stem cell research requiring the fertilization of eggs, essentially killing pre-born infants, among other things.

That old man in Rome was so out of touch with society, eh! Not so much, as far as I can see. So, here in Canada, we have these so called Hate Speech laws administered by HRCs/HRTs that make it a no no to put forward stuff that is likely to expose people from one of the defined "do not touch" groups to hatred or contempt.

One of the effects of this sexual revolution that Mr. Jonas touched on has been the proliferation of pornography in our society. In pornography, particularly now, anything goes, at least pretty much anything that one or more men can do to one or more women, and some even use animals. Also, anything men can do to each other, or women can do to each other, with or without members of the opposite sex participating is game. You can Google any one of your favourite sexual terms, and see a plethora of images, videos, and web sites devoted to displaying what tickles your fancy. That's just the free stuff. I have no idea how gross it gets when you put money out for your titillation.

In our society today, how many men really respect women that they sleep with, and vice versa? The kids are getting into it too, and in schools they are being taught how to use condoms and how to put a reproductive organ into a garbage chute.

So, where do we look for hate speech complaints? We look at the sad sack Nazi wannabees, who don't have the brains to come in out of the rain. Then, we look at Christians, like Steve Boissoin, and Fr. De Valk, and Bishop Henry who speak out the true teachings of Christianity about things like homosexuality, not in hatred or condemnation, but in love. Exposed to hatred and contempt? Are you kidding me, if they listen up, they will be exposed to love and compassion. And finally, we look at the folks who reproduce Muslim cartoons as a news item (Ezra Levant) or write a book quoting radical Muslims around the world about jihad (Mark Steyn).

But, who condemns the real haters in our society? I mean the people who bring you all the sexual filth your mind can absorb, the filth that debases women, and even children? A lot of men and women do not treat each other with love and respect in our society, because they have become sexual objects to each other. To put it bluntly, they hate each other and use each other for sexual gratification.

Well, who do you think was "likely to expose them to hatred or contempt?" Not likely to, but actually does it on a day in, day out, night in, night out basis. And who goes after them? Nobody, not Jennifer Lynch or Barb Hall or the others who have "Likely to expositis", and look for discrimination at every askance look. Apparently, it is politically correct to allow pornography, that is likely to expose children to being sexually abused and used, and women to being raped or sexually abused by men who know them, to exist in our society. Since when do women and children not deserve protection from evil in our society?

I do not like Canada Human Rights Section 13, or Alberta Human Rights Section 3(1) and have been outspoken about it. But, if they are going to exist, they should be used for good, not for BS purposes as they have been.

While Barb Hall makes projects out of call outs on transit companies and so called discrimination in rental housing, who is looking after the sexual discrimination visited on children and women that pornography depicts and invites?

Bishop Lahey has viewed a bunch of child pornography probably, and it is wrong and he should be punished. What about the purveyors of all that filth? Who is going after them? The shmoe who reads or views that trash is being victimized, though basically willingly, and then victimizes those he should love.

What a crazy, mixed up world we live in.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

What Do You Stand For?

Alexander Hamilton, the First US secretary of The Treasury is credited with saying "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

But, frankly it is getting harder to stand for anything in this day and age. In fact, in Canada, it has become next to impossible, though there are some who will do it anyway because it is the right thing, and are prepared to suffer whatever consequences come of it.

I came across a couple of examples from our southern neighbour that gave me pause this morning, because there are parallels here in Canada that I will discuss later on.

Morehouse College in Atlanta is an all male school that has graduated Martin Luther King Jr., Samuel Jackson, and Spike Lee, to name a few. It has produced 2 Rhodes scholars and 5 Fulbright Scholars. Morehouse took a stand recently that hit CNN here. You see, Morehouse banned all clothing and other apparel that it felt was contrary to being respectful. It met with some resistance, but by and large has been well received.

An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women's clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire.

No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its "Appropriate Attire Policy."

The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.

Somebody at Morehouse took a stand, from the President on down. They are leading the young people in their charge. If they tried to do this in Ontario, I imagine that Barb Hall would accept a human rights complaint, since it appears that this all black school is discriminating against its gay, though still black students, by not allowing the cross dressers among them to continue to dress crossly. I also imagine that some adventurous black kids could claim that preventing them from wearing do rags, and having their pants sagging down to their knees, is somehow taking away their human rights, though it might be a challenge. Too bad the school president isn't white, then they'd have a case for sure.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, a justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, wouldn't marry a mixed race couple, she's white, her new husband black, because he was of the belief that mixed marriages in Louisiana are too hard on the couple and on the children that they produce. He took a stand. Was he right? Does it matter? He took a stand, from his heart. He might be wrong. He might be right. He took a stand.

Of course, the woman in the couple is offended. Why, because someone disagreed with her. He must be a racist, and God put her there to make things right. Give me a break. She got married, just not by him. Now, of course, it's been on CNN, and Bobby Jindal, the Governor, who is pushing up his political capital is on it like white on rice, oops, I mean he's on it. This is about politics now, and Keith Bardwell will be fried in the end, unless people other than just him stand up for his "unalienable Rights.".

The American Declaration of Independence said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But, in 2009 it seems it is no longer true. If Mr. Bardwell's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness gets in the way of a woman who wants to get married, for whatever reason he might have, fry him.

Now this case is not a far stretch from the case in Saskatchewan where Marriage Commissioner Orville Nichols, a Baptist refused to marry a gay couple of men, on his personal beliefs. The gay men took him to Kangaroo Court, and the CBC reported that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench supported the HRC ruling against Mr. Nichols further ruling the HRC "correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols' religious beliefs was not required." They haven't heard about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Saskatchewan. Or, if they have they must think that one of the rights is political correctness.

As the Saskatchewan Kangaroo Court responded to the ruling:

The Court of Queen's Bench decision was praised Thursday by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code," said Human Rights Commission manager Rebecca McLellan.

Crazy world we live in. "Unalienable Rights" like in the Declaration of Independence in the US, not so much. "Fundamental freedoms" like freedom of conscience and religion (that's the first one), and freedom of association in Canada as in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not so much.

It will be interesting to see who stands for what here. Don't roll over and die on these folks. Remember the Alamo. In Canada, remember the Boissoin case, and Fr. De Valk, Bishop Henry and those who will speak the truth as they understand it to be, and have a right to do so, unless you stand by and allow that right to be curtailed by our Kangaroo Courts.

Another Link Boissoin/De Angelis

Bishop Fred Henry In Calgary Links the Two

Bishop De Angelis has a brother Bishop in Calgary who knows what it means to be harassed by a Human Rights Commission for speaking the truth. In particular, he knows what it means to be harassed over gay rights, or what can be termed as gay rights by gay rights activists.

Bishop Fred Henry was for a number of years a teacher at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario, where I originally met him. Over time, he became Auxiliary Bishop of London, then Bishop of Thunder Bay, and then Bishop of Calgary, where he has been since March, 1998.

Bishop Fred is no shrinking violet and you are welcome to his opinion, and that makes him endearing. You know what you get with him, because he is also as sharp as a tack. He may not always be right, but he is seldom in doubt. If it has to do with Church teaching, he's going to be right on the money. But, you have to listen to ALL the words, and then think about them before you take offence, not just jump in and take offence first.

Well, Bishop Henry, wrote a pastoral letter against same sex marriage on May 2, 2005. He has strong views on homosexual practices, and on other things that he sees as a theologian that are harmful to leading a Christian life, and he touched on them in his letter.

But, unlike friend Stephen Boissoin, Bishop Henry got not one, but two Alberta HRC complaints at the time. Also, unlike Stephen Boissoin, for some reason, the charges against Bishop Henry disappeared for some reason after lots of noise and wasted money defending against them.

But, as I said Bishop Henry did not let it drop with him. He went on the offensive as LifeSite News reported back in June of 2008 here:

Bishop Fred Henry has asked Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act in order to protect the rights of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

In a letter to Premier Stelmach, Bishop Henry points out that in the past 18 months he has raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) several times with the Premier. "On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns."

"However," he continues, "the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive."

In particular, the recent ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Christian youth pastor Stephen Boissoin has convinced the Bishop that decisive measures must be undertaken to curtail the powers of Canada HRCs.

"Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions," writes Bishop Henry, "seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin."

I wonder what Bishop Henry thinks about this nonsense in Ontario, his old stomping grounds with his Brother Bishop De Angelis.

Consider This

Stupidity and Hypocrisy

Over the last several months, I have reviewed countless Human Rights Decisions across this fair land of ours. I must say that I was looking for bad decisions, and I must also say in my defense that I did not have to look far. My only reason for skipping over some decisions in a top to bottom review was that most were less ridiculous than the ones that I chose to review. Many Decisions were not very mentally challenging for me, though they had been all of that for the poor Respondents that were the subject of their own Lynching or Halling or gutting by the Chief Commissar of the Province, Dominion or of the particular time period. That's not to say that all the Decisions were wrong either. Sometimes, I think they got it right, and some day I might even write about one or two of them.

In looking at the work of the HRCs/HRTs, I have viewed the worker bees on up as well intentioned but narrow minded liberals, bent on creating law out of fake human rights, begat out of whimsy.

We have seen the antics of J Ly, Queen of Censors this summer as she chalks up frequent flyer miles seeking support to keep her job, from the "misinformation" being spread by the bloggers and media, without providing any correct information to help us poor misguided souls, since she can't bury all the transcripts, Moon Reports, expense reports, and other live and real data that is available.

Here in Ontario, of course, our dear Barbara Hall is chasing Bishops for gays, chasing cops for blacks, chasing landlords for unwed mothers and students, and chasing transit systems for blind people, while ignoring the rest of us. I am not disappointed that she is ignoring the rest of us, just bummed that she is weirding out on these others, and using my tax dollars to do it.

When Premier McGuinty came to the support of Popessa Barb and her latest annual report with his Attaboy, I thought I would be ill, frankly. I was thinking summer vacation, too much suds maybe, a little too much sunshine on the old cranium (him, not me). But, I think he actually believes what he said, though that is not always why a politician says something. If he thought he needed to distance himself from her, he would in a heart beat, and wouldn't issue an Attaboy first. So, she is in his good books.

Oh, and we have some pretty dull pencils in the drawer out on our western coast, delivering scintillating prose in Decisions like the Bertrend case recently, among others, in their lopsided pogrom on employers who might want to make a buck from honest labour of their employees. Perish that thought that people should have to show up and do work for pay.

As to the veracity of evidence before HRC Panels, I like the quote from Mr. Chipeur in the Stephen Boissoin Appeal document where he picked up on Justice Veit in Vantage Contracting Inc. v. Marcil [2004] A.J. No. 368:

The HRCM Act authorized appeals from Human Rights Panel decisions. In deciding that human rights panels had no particular expertise and required no particular deference, the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Dickason, that the court to which the panel's decision was appealed should examine the evidence before the panel "anew and, if deemed appropriate, make their own findings of fact".

Although this opinion of a superior court referred to Alberta Human Rights Panels specifically, it very well applies to all cases I have read, and to all tribunals and commissions.

Then it started to come to me as I read a few quotations from the famous and not so famous. Here are a few for you to ponder. See if they shed any light:

Thinking is the hardest work there is. That's why so few engage in it. - Henry Ford

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. - Elbert Hubbard

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

My wife and I were doing our daily prayer reading yesterday from Living Faith, and it was about the scribes and Pharisees, through the eyes of Jesus, and the context of the time. In Matthews Gospel 23:27 it says:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.

The writer of the accompanying meditation goes on to say:

We all get fed up from time to time. This gospel passage reminds us of the movie Network, where the people open their windows and shout at the top of their lungs: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonig to take it anymore."

Certainly we can't run around shouting at people every time we reach our limit. We have to restrain ourselves for civility's sake, peace in the family, calm in the workplace. But in the face of raging hypocrisy, terrible injustice, the strong preying on the weak, a fair dose of righteous anger is understandable. It may be exactly what Jesus expects.

Dear Lord, help me confront my own hypocrisies.

That last line kind of gets you doesn't it. I first became aware of the lopsided nature of HRC's over 25 years ago. I remember water cooler type conversations at work with other guys about decisions that were going on then, and about us agreeing that the only people you could discriminate against were white anglo saxon men. We joked about it. What they were doing then was as wrong in its time as it is now. We did nothing for 25 years. What does that make us . . . make me? Yep. A hypocrite.

It is time to stop being stupid, stop being hypocritical, and work harder to put an end to this nonsense going on in our HRCs/HRTs.