Media Watch Archives

There is no index as yet, just click NEXT at the bottom of each page.

CUI BONO?
Filed May 22, 2006------PAULY FONGEMIE

Whenever someone attempts to discourage you from taking a particular course of action to address either a legal or moral wrong, it is a wise policy to ask two questions: To whose good----cui bono?  And is the proposed action morally licit and if so, even mandatory?

Most people mean the attempt to dissuade from the action in terms of the second question, claiming the best of intentions. But I have come to understand that with few exceptions, whether the explicit reason is the second, implicit in the first question is the answer that tells more about the person wanting you to desist, than any actual concern for your welfare and or that of society. However it is phrased, the issue behind such an issue is that person's own discomfort with being confronted with another's willingness to go an extra step to address an injustice, unless the matter of concern is popular, in other words, meets the requirements of the current politically-correct standard of practice. Note, the discomfort is almost always stated in terms of the public good, not their own "good", or with the proverbial yawn, "So what else is new?" as if the injustice----grave injustice to another, not personal slights----ought to be accepted or ignored, that we are making too much of things. Qui tacit consentit.

Having set the background in place for our framework of thought, let us commence with a few pressing queries for the gatekeepers in the media who are in the perennial business of deciding who is permitted moral outrage or political dissent and on the terms they and they alone deem reasonable:

The topics of discussion are the movie, "The Da Vinci Code" and illegal immigration, the two most hotly debated issues this past week; and the election year perennial straw man: "single issue voting".

Repeatedly media people have told us that in their estimation the only reason why you and I are not seeing the movie is that "you must be weak in your faith." Then it is not so subtly suggested that we see the film to prove that we are strong in our Catholic faith. QUERY: Cui bono?

Surely, people who have so little regard for actual blasphemy and the misrepresentation of history, although placed within a fictional setting, as if this would render lies and insults to God acceptable, surely, such people can not possibly have our continuation in faith in mind. People who do not care about Truth do not have noble motives. It is patently obvious to me that they themselves have little or no faith in Jesus Christ and may want to have some help from us in confirming them in their disbelief if we can possibly be demoralized enough to join their hate-filled ranks. How can I be so certain you ask? Because these are the very same people who claim that if we witness to Christ by protesting the movie, more people will flock to it. Methinks they doth protest our protesting too much. In other words they expose their own charade: on the one hand they are urging Christians to see the movie and everyone else, too, yet they are feigning concern that a little protest here and there might swell the ranks of film-goers. Now which is it? If they really want people to see the film, and indeed, they do, then they should welcome any and all protests because they say protests heighten interest and it is interest in others seeing the film that is their aim, by their own admission. Well-meaning Catholics who caution along the same lines unwittingly aid and abet the infernal Enemy who is directing this monstrosity.

Cui bono? Well now we know, don't we, as I just outlined above.

Of course they miss my [our] point altogether. Seeing this movie would not challenge my faith, although it is likely to challenge my faith in the basic decency of most people, including most media Catholics; it is the matter of blasphemy, period, loud and clear, simple and standing alone! Jesus Christ has told us that if we refuse to acknowledge ["deny"] Him before men, He will "deny" us before His Father. It is in fact, that it is our very faith in every word of Christ and the reality of the meaning behind each and every word that commands us to denounce the book and the film. To remain silent or join the unholy chorus while the Divinity of Christ is denied is to deny Christ, in essence, in His very Essence. Qui tacit consentit. The protest has less to do with the fear of losing my faith----although I do my best to safeguard it even more than I would a precious pearl----and much more with my wanting to witness to the power of the faith that lives in me through Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. The New Testament tell us that faith comes from hearing [witnessing]. To fail to do so when all around me the Great Apostasy is spreading like a malignant cancer is to fail that faith. If I continue with this approach I will lose God's grace and eventually even my faith because He will "vomit me out of His mouth" for my lukewarmness. Most especially, I cannot be silent even if no one else shall abide with me, for I am commanded "to go as one sent" because I am so loved by God that He gave me the greatest gift of life: the gift of the Catholic faith. It is gratitude for His love, and love of His love, not fear, that propels me, and I proclaim it here as if upon the highest roof tops! I repeat, it is Love Himself, not fear!

To state it another way, my purpose is not to convince others from refraining to see the movie. In fact, even if I were certain [and I am not convinced of this ¹] that more would go rather than not go because of my protest----modern man being as contrary as he is confused----still I would protest "the Code", simply because my purpose is to defend the honor of Christ, my King, my Sovereign, my only Good, my All, and nothing more, for this is more than enough. "Anything more" is beyond my power and I suffer no delusion of ambition. Principle, the maintaining of one's duty and traditional mores are in shorter supply than common sense and unknown to millions who do as much to dishonor their own God-given dignity as they do to go out of their way to spurn Him before men.

Cui bono? The Truth's sake.

A related outrage involves a state university in Oregon. One of the student run, tax-supported newspapers featured a grotesque, blasphemous series of images of Christ, one of which is that of Christ on the Cross engaged in a homosexual embrace! Beyond outrage actually. A few students protested to the student government but with no success as I write this column. And the ubiquitous ACLU, the Anti-Christ Litigating Union [of Satan] is nowhere to be found. Generally these rogues who wage guerilla warfare on normalcy with taxpayer money can be found hot on the trail, able to sniff a lawsuit a mile away, even if they have to search for a litigant with minimal standing. Despite the publicity within their itching earshot, not a peep. They like to tell the public that tax-supported institutions cannot have any promotion of "a religion" even by students which is why Christian prayer initiated by the players before football games is forbidden, but not an Aztec god carving adorning a government school ground in California. By now we have figured out that they are supreme liars. It is Christ and His teachings they despise, any vestige of Christianity, not religion itself. Otherwise they would be flocking to aid the Christian students who have thus far not exhibited much political savvy.

With gusto enter the feisty Bill O'Reilly of FOX News and tiptoe in a Knights of Columbus leader and a sorry excuse for a Catholic priest. O'Reilly is justly outraged and wants to be of help. He is courageous, bold, and persistent. The spineless priest offers his version of the "Yawn", that is, what else is new. He thinks that Catholics think a protest would be counter-productive in so many words. One of the editors of another student paper admitted under intense questioning by O'Reilly that if any other group's beliefs or personages were so attacked there would be vehement public protest and in numbers. But all the poor benighted Father can come up with is that a protest is useless and he sort of shrugged his shoulders. The Dominican was visibly uncomfortable, slinking back in his seat, rather than leaning forward with enthusiasm. See what I mean, folks? The Columbus guy said that his fellow Knights offered to help the students form a committee. A committee, now. By the time that gets off the ground and limping World War III or some other national emergency will be in full mode. O'Reilly appeared to be genuinely confounded and I can't blame him. He again proffered his help in whatever way he could and for this he is to be highly commended. Yet, just when I was really beginning to be proud of the Factor for coming out fighting in defense of Christ, this time not in the role of philosopher, but actually really as God the Son, Divine and Sacred, I soon learned that even defense of the Divinity of Christ has its limits in those quarters. You see, folks, the Factor thinks that we are making too much of "the Code" because he says it is all fiction while the student outrage was something else. Again, he completely missed the point. Fiction versus non fiction is not the issue at all. But if it were, the sketches of Christ would count as fiction also because Christ most assuredly did not come down from Heaven, get back up on the Cross and pose for these perverts with a crayon: the drawings are fiction, too. But as I said this is of no import whatever. What matters is Jesus Christ. He is real, He is the same today and tomorrow as He is yesterday, He is as He says He is and He means what He says. His word is His bond for He is the very Word of God made Flesh. No serious Christian with even a rudimentary faith can remain silent while the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the one True God in Three Divine Persons, is blasphemed and mocked. Nor can he contribute a single penny to such impiety! Period! Cui bono, Bill? On the one but not the other?

Now, of course, no one can do all things each and every time, but we can all do something as our vocations in life permit. We must do more than throw up our hands, and lament, "What else is new!"

Souls are falling into Hell by the thousands and many thousands according to Our Lady of Fatima because sinners and unbelievers have no one to pray for them. A recent poll conducted among non-Christians who profess to have read the book revealed that 66% believe the lies, etc. Of those describing themselves as Christians, just under 20% believed some of the lies about Christ. Cui bono, Bill?

. . . . . . . .

I will take the third issue next, preferring to tackle illegals last.

The political operatives are out and about in our vicinity putting up the signs of causes and candidates in the November election. As always some pro-abortion candidate will contact me and when abortion comes up, without fail, the response is "You don't want to be a single-issue voter, do you?" Heaven forbid! Imagine an issue of such importance that a citizen could actually take it as paramount and then proceed with principle firmly in hand. Imagine such heresy! The simulated outrage from such a candidate masks real fear and not a concern for "my wasting my vote", the tag line that inevitably follows. Dispensing with the deceitful stratagem designed to draw attention to the voter who is made to appear unreasonable and away from the real issue, government sponsored mass murder and those who profit from it, politically and otherwise, is actually easy. The media foists this fabrication on the voters all the time. It is time to end it, once and for all.

Simply reply to such a declaration, "Do you mean to say that there is no single issue that is so important you would refuse to vote for a candidate unless he stood where you stood?" The answer is usually, "No, of course not." They have to say this or else look like the fraud they are going to look like in a moment. Now ask the person, "If so and so stood for peace, welfare, more taxation, etc., but was firmly pro-life re abortion would you then say, 'I can't be a single-issue voter.'?" He might counter, with "I do not answer hypothetical questions." He knows he is stuck and is trying to buy time. Then you simply say, "I do not also, which is what the question that you put to me was, strictly hypothetical, because you did not actually mean it the way you conveyed." He will then say, in all probability, "What do you mean?" Then you restate the hypothetical to him, saying "that you will answer his if he will first demonstrate goodwill as the candidate by answering mine." Usually the candidate does, admitting he could not in "good conscience" support such a pro-life, otherwise liberal on other issues candidate. He has to because the logic is so clear even to a charlatan who makes his living with deception. Of course, I answer the same and the sleight-of-word is exposed. The rabid pro-abortion candidate who has sold his soul a little at a time may not change his allegiance, afraid to lose "human respect" but if he is just a bit human----and they are mostly----he will have to work at quelling his conscience on the matter of the moral licitness of voting single-issue. He will be reluctant to intimidate a voter with this nonsense again! Once in a while a candidate just dodges the issue because he foresees the trap he has placed himself in, chicanery being its own reward. He will still protest that he does not answer the hypothetical and then attempt to press on thinking he has evaded the issue he raised in the first place. You only have to persist, insist, inform him that all politicians have to deal with hypotheticals since this is a crucial part of the work of governing, such as hypotheticals about the consequences of legislation. Since he insists that he can't and or won't answer a hypothetical, you tell him that you cannot vote for such a candidate, all other things being equal because such a candidate does not have the character it takes to lead and govern. This will give him pause as in the first scenario. He, too, will be reluctant to use this tactic again.

A cautionary note here: our purpose is not to demonstrate one-upmanship vis a vis a candidate but to challenge unexamined assumptions that affect the common good. Otherwise we are being too clever by half and not at all Christian. Scripture commands us to be cunning, but only to engage in spiritual warfare against the Foe. Now all of politics is essentially about whose religion prevails or if any religion does, all disclaimers notwithstanding, just as culture----and civilization----is about cult, religion. Politics is about cultural arrangements when all is said and done. And we are engaged in a horrific battle and must sharpen our wits, but not for the sake of anything but the Social Kingship of Christ. Now, since most of us have little actual power or prominence, our vocation as soldiers of Christ is to do small things well. Exposing these frauds on the way make the challenges ahead less daunting and is a very Christian undertaking, so long as it is for the sake of the soul of the person we engage in debate and for the common good, which can only be served ultimately, when the common good is service to the Social Reign of Christ the King. We must never lose sight of our objective. I will never forget one such candidate. He later told me that I had touched his conscience. Before he could admit this to me he necessarily had to admit it to himself. A good beginning. He did not go on to win the election but he may have saved his own soul. Love, love of one's country, patria, love of our neighbor, caritas, because God loves us, is largely a task of patience, as we learn of Him, Who is meek and humble of Heart, and Who is patient with us, beyond our deserving. It is in such small things done well wherein come our victories.

It is imperative to remain here a while to consider that the mushy "moderate" so-called conservatives who support mass murder will always feel confident that we will support them if they can get us to fall for the ruse, "don't waste your vote", alias the "Where else can you go?" ploy. If they can convince us that this false dilemma is authentic, we are helpless before them. Again ask Cui bono? Or in other words, to whose gain if I go along with this self-fulfilling proposal? Only the ones making it. If we are willing to compromise so easily, then they never have to be accountable for theirs. Ironically they will not compromise but will stick to their principle: give them enough but no more than necessary, the poor dolts. And we, thinking we have no choice but to go along, always settle for the ride at the back of the bus. Always. Actually we always have a choice. If enough people would follow their conscience without reserve and stand pat, as if standing alone, for one election, this deception would die the death it merits. Think of all the fed-up voters willing to stand alone for the sake of helpless little babies, by the millions perhaps? God will not ask us if we were on the "winning" side, but did we do the right thing? Let God keep score, it is His universe. Do you know who, poll after poll, falls for the subterfuge in overwhelming numbers? Catholics. QUERY: Cui bono?

The problem with a democracy is that human nature, given Original Sin, is the eternal battle within any war. One has to appeal to large numbers who are unknown. With a monarch, one only has to reach one person who can be known  . . . . . .

The invasion from Mexico in such numbers, invasion from any country is a new experience for Americans and we are woefully unequipped to deal with it. Part of the problem of our paralysis [Congress' refusal to do its sworn duty and a President who has imbibed liberally of the spirit of open borders, despite any denials and smooth double-talk] is the notion of democracy itself, the democratic spirit of egalitarianism whereby we worship the equality of cultures, refusing to set limits on human expectations and behavior, while under reproducing ourselves and thereby "importing" alien cultures that are not----refusing to have babies in numbers, that is: What Pat Buchanan referred to as the "Suicide of the West", although his profound insights involved more than can be addressed here. Michelle Malkin in her book, "Invasion", and Melanie Philips' just released "Londonstan" take up where Buchanan left off. I am not going to go over ground I have covered in other columns. I state this by way of introduction to a few queries:

What is the meaning of nationhood? Do we understand what will be lost if we permit supra-nationality ala Europe to hold us in its death grip? There is no such thing as "world citizen", just as there is no such thing as a nation with open borders. The international or world citizen is a concoction of those who despise Western tradition and mores. We only have to look at Great Britain, France and Germany and their dissolution through the Islamic world view that predominates in the Muslim immigrants that are the largest wave. Britain has essentially lost control of its unity of culture and ideals in just a single generation and this from a legal "invasion" if you will. Philips, in a speech on C-Span said that England was in paralysis, its institutions are not equipped to deal with its loss of the idea of nationhood precisely because it gives top priority to free speech without limits in order not to appear racist. The despotism of anarchy, diverse cultures and creeds competing with one another for dominance. In other words, a spiraling civil war. She also referred to the decadence of the British religious spirit, comparing the English condition with the American, where she thought the churches were still vibrant. I beg to differ, our churches indeed speak of God and the polls show the vast majority retaining belief in God. She does not understand as yet that we Americans believe in God, but we no longer believe Him because we have recreated Him in our own diverse image. We call on His name then act as if He does not matter unless He is politically correct.

 Meanwhile, the English courts refuse to accept the limits of jurisdiction of Parliament, thus England is ruled neither by Queen nor by Parliament but by a few renegade judges who in turn are ruled by a fear of appearing xenophobic with the British losing appreciation for their own tradition. Note I wrote "rule", nor "govern", because the notion of self-government and the rule of law are virtually non-existent there as it is coming to be here. Judge Andrew Napolitano's books, "Constitutional Chaos" and "The Constitution in Exile" are eye-openers in this regard. The thorough explanation why the English people do not rise up and recall these thugs is too complicated for a column. Suffice it to say for the same reasons just presented for the sake of brevity. I will add, though, that in Britain the liberals have a tighter stranglehold on the dissemination of ideas. Philips says that Americans have more variety of outlets, talk radio and a conservative press on American campuses, just two examples.

In America the invasion is both legal and illegal, the latter a state of emergency and we, too, are in paralysis mode with a twist. The judges have yet to be the dominant power as yet, all bets being off where our nine and their lesser cohorts on the bench are concerned.

George Bush addressed the country [I am not sure the word nation still applies]. All talk, with backtracking and little or no walk. Tony Blair writ large. Bush wants English to be the language of the country but gave no precise plan for this, while the Senate pussyfoots around the issue because it is racist don't you know. There are 260 million Americans and 83 per cent of those want English only, which means that millions and millions of Americans are racists according to the Senators we elected, who came from out of us. How did they escape the stain?

QUERY: Well, if we are all so racist, why does everybody and their cousins want to emigrate from their homelands?

Bush wants aliens with homes and families and a stay of ten years or more to be eligible for citizenship and he wants to deal with the bleeding border at the same time as he wants us to accept millions of "documented" workers, etc.  Before he talked down to us, he had a cozy little chat with his other pal, Vincente Fox of Mexico who convinced him to reduce the presence of the national guard from 10,000 to 6,000. Vincente Fox, secret co-President [SCOP]. Even after Bush gave him what he thought Americans would swallow, SCOP threatens to sue the US for being a country with borders.

QUERY: When do we get to have a cozy little chat with Bush, up close and personal, each and every one of us, all children and grandchildren of legal immigrants who obeyed the law?

QUERY: Why are we deploying the bulk of our troops to defend Iraq, essentially to make Iraq safe for Islam "democratic" or not, while leaving our own borders vulnerable? Iraq is one of the few Muslim countries with a sizable Catholic minority. For all his evil ways, Sadam at least left the Catholics relatively unmolested. Now we do not hear of them. Where are the press reports about their welfare? Why the media blackout? I thought Bush was elected President of the United States and not the Regent of Iraq. Ultimately, Cui bono?

QUERY: Bush says English must be the language of the land, in order to unite us as it always has been. If this is still true, that is, if every new citizen must know English to be naturalized and if only citizens can vote why are we using valuable tax monies to print millions of ballots in several languages? Cui Bono and why is it necessary? If citizens are not proficient enough in English to vote, where the ballots are posted weeks in advance to study, are they also not proficient enough to be citizens? Or is the English language requirement on the books only but disregarded for another agenda?

QUERY: if all these illegal aliens are needed to fill jobs we Americans refuse to do, that is, work in substandard conditions for subsistent wages, then how come Bush says there are millions that we can not deport because they have homes and families? If this is true, and I do not doubt it, then by definition they are no longer working for those slave wages. One cannot support a family and a home on that. I know because I receive the most heart-wrenching e-mail from lots of Americans who are working two and even three jobs to maintain a family in near poverty. They cannot afford homes, believe me. One of the reasons their wages are so low is that all wages of a certain skill level are reduced, if they are there in the first place. NAFTA was supposed to fix things, but all it has done has given Mexico the economic advantage by which to squeeze us dry at both ends, outsourcing and insourcing, shall we say? The ladies and gentlemen of Congress, of course do not come from such ranks, largely the elites, legal and other professions. They write oppressive, unjust laws drawn up by lawyers which cause us to have to hire lawyers---too often ex-Congressmen---to lobby otherwise and on and on it goes. Built-in job security for the lawyers while the little people are mere pawns in the game of foreign intrigue and high-finance, otherwise known as domestic intrigue. No, something is very wrong here and we are not being told all the truth. I receive prayer request after request from legal immigrants who cannot find work, at any pay scale and are desperate. Something is very very wrong.

Could it possibly be that the first waves of migrant workers came to harvest the crops out of actual necessity and not the greed of business owners, but which eventually implanted the idea in the greedy and corrupt that if we can do this with harvests, why not with the rest of unskilled work? Was a bad idea germinated to flourish in the minds of the people as if it was inevitable for the economy and a self-fulfilling prophecy came true? Slowly did Americans, who were told that we did not want these jobs come to believe it? Then did owners get into the habit of hiring illegals before even searching for legals, human nature taking the path of less effort? What I want to know is why did this happen just on southern border states and states bordering those? It did not happen so much in Maine where we are used to working low-paying jobs even for skilled positions. During harvests we employ documented, legal migrants. The lumber industry has had some problems with Canadians supplanting American jobs, but not as an invasion with a demand for rights as Americans thrown into the mix. Could it be the opportunity was not present here as it is there and thus the urgency could not be manufactured, thereby reducing the wages even lower? Could it just be that employers routinely advertise in Spanish-only publications and in such media? Could it be that American citizens with little education are being deliberately boycotted, discriminated against?

QUERY: What about justice for legal immigrants and American citizens. Justice for aliens is a matter for their homelands. America cannot solve the world's problems and take in every economic refugee as much as we might want to----and instinctively, strictly humanly-speaking, we want to. The poor people of Mexico are not being helped by their countrymen who won lucrative trade agreements at our disadvantage; they are being kept deliberately poor: Mexico has fired at us with both barrels, using weapons as lethal as bombs, human cannonballs, taken from the misery it created, so that they can exploit us for its sake, while being exploited here as peons, just until they make more money than many Americans and can buy homes at reduced mortgage rates in Illinois and be invited by some universities to have their children educated at reduced cost vis a vis Americans. Disadvantaged you say? Not for long.

QUERY: Why are we so willing to become a third-world nation? Why are we willing to tolerate a million illegals demonstrating for rights in our country while the country they come from is not expected to solve its own problems? Why are not the illegals here back there making demands on their own country? This is the normal way of conducting affairs for men still with the use of reason. Mexico is rich in natural resources and apparently rich in corruption and lassitude. Vincente Fox wants the illegals to keep pouring in----we are Mexico's economy essentially, sort of a reverse balance of trade, so to speak. Cui bono? To ask the question is to answer it.

Bush says that we must continue with the tradition of immigration. He did not define it traditionally, how ironic.

QUERY: If he were really sincere and serious about keeping to the American tradition of immigration should not he follow it as it was always followed instead of changing the rules of the game in midstream while the American people are in crisis which is opportunistic at the very least? Let us briefly look at the principle of immigration in of itself. Almost every nation in the world is composed of immigrants simply because prehistorically human beings were wanderers and gatherers. It was only with the advent of sound farming techniques and other such advances and the notion of the rule of law and rights that peoples could settle in one place and that nationhood came to be. Before this a type of "nationhood" was embodied not so much in territory but in families and clans. Yet in time arrangements came to be settled with defined borders. America's experience was later simply because during the succession of America from England there were but vast territories still to be settled. In due time a defined border for the continental portion of the United States came to be. Immigrants in large numbers were welcomed as the new land was growing. Those immigrants were mostly European, with the same over all culture and tradition of thought and customs. The languages were different but English was readily, enthusiastically adopted as was expected with no disruption in familial bonds and everyday concourse and commerce. Strength was not in diversity but in unity, simply because this is the normal way of human cultures. There was no history of cultures coming in large waves from a non-Western tradition, except for the forced migration of the slaves from the African continent, but slavery is not germane to our argument here. The Chinese maintained their traditions and dialects within their conclaves without making demands that disrupted everyday life and that led us to lose confidence in Western tradition and no longer appreciate or even refuse to know our history. That was our tradition and with good reason: assimilation and common customs of law, governance, social mores. And the immigrants were limited by law so that assimilation could occur with the least amount of social dislocation as could reasonably be anticipated. From ordered liberty to ordered citizenship. Of course this is decidedly not the tradition Bush speaks of. His tradition of immigration is anti-tradition, anti-common sense. He wants it both ways without seeming to realize that he is asking us to agree to our own cultural suicide and to utter chaos. Apparently his cozy chats with Blair have taught him nothing, but then Blair has learned nothing to teach as he is a victim of his own peculiar prejudices that equates nationhood itself with xenophobia and racism. Cui bono?

I close with an excerpt which I paraphrase, taken from Sunday's sermon given by one of the holiest of men, a humble parish priest who preached on the necessity and power of prayer, all text in green:

We must first report for duty to God . . . our first duty is to become holy and we cannot be holy without prayer. When we pray we should speak to God and Our Lady and the Saints like we speak to other persons, we should call them by name, ask in His holy Name. And what we ought to ask for is a hierarchy of needs and responsibilities. Our first duty to God Who created us is to adore Him . . .

The second is to thank Him, for all that He has given us because He owes us nothing . . .

The third is to ask His forgiveness for our ingratitude and other sins just like we would do with a good friend whom we have offended, which is contrition . . .

Then and only then, may we approach him for our daily needs, that is petition . . .

Father reminded us about the importance and necessity of the daily Morning Offering, without which our day is wasted, and for which we will have to account to Him . . .

Our first duty as good citizens is to report to God also, by sanctifying ourselves as Father has just taught each one of us. A nation or country is only as good as its people, a homeland only as holy as those who dwell within the homes of the land.

We are faced with an uncertain future at home and abroad, confronted with an enemy that seeks to destroy goodness itself. There are many Americans, some our neighbors who disagree most strongly with those of us who know what is really happening while all around most people are content with cake and circuses, distractions of decadence and debauchery. We do not know why they do so as individuals. We must judge the situation and count ourselves as sinners, too, perhaps worse than they for we have been given the gift of faith and therefore more is expected of us. God owes us nothing and we owe Him everything.

We also owe our country the duty of telling the truth and offering up our daily sufferings as reparation for our own sins and the sins of men who are blind. We must pray and tell the truth, and pray again, and always, love much, our betraying leaders, our feckless neighbors, the aliens among us, some who really want to take back whole regions of America for Mexico as they so openly tell us through their myriad organizations. Love is not blind, it is not meant to be, we must not be foolish virgins caught with no oil to light the way, but we must still love with every fiber of our being, our whole souls and minds and hearts and strength. To love well, one must pray well, make each day a prayer of our work and everything else except for sin---we cannot offer sins without sarilege---by consecrating it every day by the Offering. We must consecrate America to Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Immaculate Conception, we will have to do it ourselves, in our homes, in quiet because the hierarchy is on a liberal social quest that is sheer folly and it has no time for the better things in life.

This site has over a thousand prayers, for any occasion or need. God also wants us to speak to Him from the heart in our own words. For this you do not need Catholic Tradition, just your Catholic faith.

Cui bono? God sent His only Son that all men might be saved; that salvation is not automatic. We have to do our part . . .

1. The reason that I am not convinced that a few protests in isolated theaters will cause people to come to see the movie is that most of the movie-goers will be those who have read the book. Of those who haven't read it, most of these will be people who saw the build-up in the media prior to our protests. You see, traditional Catholics and traditional Evangelicals have little use for modern entertainment and the popular culture. It is all around us and we cannot hope to avoid it, but we do not exert ourselves to learn any more about it for it is largely nihilistic, full of violent death or rage against normalcy, and repulsive. Until the news channels began broadcasting hyped promotions of the film and before that, the book, I never knew of its existence. By the time the film was being distributed to the mass market most people had already decided whether they were going or not. I know this with certainty because of the polls conducted on the controversy and people I know who have told me they had read it and expected to see the film. A few changed their minds when the reviews told how poorly done it was, its length and boredom factor. They had hope for more excitement, why they read the book in the first place. In fact they knew nothing of any protest and could not have cared if they did. People contrary enough to pay 8.00 for a movie just to spite someone they do not agree with is a bit much even for today's degenerate standards. The contrariness in these people is in their disdain of Christ, Whom they realize is Divine, but wish it were not so. They know of the blasphemy and do not care. They are attending the movie because they care about not caring, protests or no protests. The protest is for the sake of truth and I hope and pray, for my salvation, and has nothing to do with a runaway train bent on Hell. The Great Apostasy is well under way.



HOME-------E-MAIL--------NEXT--------SOUND-OFF--------[OLDER] MONITOR

www.catholictradition.org/media-watch2.htm