Profanation of the Eucharist in Malaysia: Undercover Muslims spit out Host

It's been a while since I've blogged. Been busy and uninspired. But I had to post this as I'm outraged and terribly offended. Living in a Muslim country which has had it's secular identity, as enshrined in the constitution by it's founding fathers, slowly eroded over the years and a strong, concerted and conscious effort in imposing Islamic culture, beliefs and teachings on us in school and in our public life, we are used to being offended and having our religion discriminated against. Body snatchings are common. Someone is claimed to have been converted to Islam and then upon death, their mortal remains are corpsenapped and taken away for Islamic funeral rites. Even First Holy Communions are not exempt as the kids huddle in Church for their first taste of the Lord as Muslim mobs surround their Church. This we know.

But this is a new level as this is sacrilege of the highest degree.

Read the rest Here

Pupils told they have a 'right' to a good sex life: That's the advice for youngsters from the NHS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

The NHS is telling school pupils they have a 'right' to an enjoyable sex life and that it is good for their health.

A Health Service leaflet says experts concentrate too much on the need for safe sex and loving relationships, and not enough on the pleasure it can bring.

But family campaigners last night condemned the guidance, saying it encouraged underage sex and could increase rates of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Under the heading 'an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away',(Nice to see the NHS promoting pseudo medicine) the leaflet says: 'Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?'

The advice, which also claims regular sex is good for cardiovascular health, has been circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers.

It came to light just a week after it emerged that teenagers who took part in a £6million Government initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies were more than twice as likely to fall pregnant as other girls.

The scheme tried to persuade girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.(How much more does this approach have to fail before the govenrment will have the courage to admit they made a big, big mistake?)

The NHS leaflet has been drawn up by Sheffield primary care trust and is entitled Pleasure.

Its author, Steve Slack, director of the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS Sheffield, defended it by saying the advice could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity(Because self abuse does not make you as much of a degenerate right? At least fornication is natural.) until they are sure they will enjoy the experience.

He added that as long as teenagers are fully informed(How is telling them its all about pleasure fully informing them?!) about sex and making decisions free of peer pressure as part of a caring relationship, they have as much right as an adult to a good sex life.(These people jsut love to make up new rights about everything, the only criteria it seems been that they want to do it so they have a right to do it!?!?)

But Anthony Seldon, master of Wellington College, Berkshire, who introduced classes in emotional well-being at the public school, described the approach as 'deplorable'.

Dr Trevor Stammers, of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, said the leaflet would encourage 'risky' behaviour and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

'It is unbelievable that this is being sent to schools', he said.

'I'd like to know what scientific evidence there is to back this up. There are an awful lot of overpaid and under-occupied health promotion officers around who are obsessed with sex.'

He added that inciting underage sex was 'nothing less than encouraging child abuse'.

'If the NHS wants to promote a healthy heart, as it says it does in this leaflet, it should put the money into reducing smoking and alcohol,' he said. 'Underage sex is as dangerous as underage drink and usually leads to sexual ill-health.'

About 40,000 teenagers become pregnant every year in the UK - the highest level in western Europe. More than half end in abortion.

CARITAS IN VERITATE

"To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth." CARITAS IN VERITATE, 67

Why is the Pope URGENTLY calling for a one world government and an increase in globalisation and then at the same time trying to suggest that this will lead to an increase in subsidiarity?

At least 8 killed in Philippines cathedral bombing

http://www.catholicculture.org/

At least 8 people were killed (by the latest count), and 30 injured, by a bomb that exploded during Sunday Mass at the Immaculate Conception cathedral in Cotabato City. Archbishop Orlando Quevedo-- who was just finishing his homily when the blast occurred- remarked: "This is not just a crime; it is a sacrilege." At his midday public audience Pope Benedict XVI referred to the bombing as an "ignoble act," promising to pray for the victims.

Police in the Philippines believe that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is responsible for the attack.

Conscious Birth Restriction

Are we brutes, or have we fallen to a level below the brute, for which there is no name but perversion? A brute may be held in some respects a noble creation, swift of foot it may be, glossy of coat, a delight to the eye. Even your hog with ringed nose tip-tilted above the swell of the mire, is as God made him. He has no rational soul; but he is absolutely true to his instincts. Within his lowly sphere, he fulfils, by the compulsion of nature, it is true, Falstaff's resolution to live cleanly as a gentleman should. For he is no pervert. He has no desire to limit or end his kind. In comparison with the beast which the harpies of modern social progress would make us, he is a ministering angel, kindly, gracious and lovable.

In the pages of certain American newspapers and magazines, this social progress is "gabbling like a thing most brutish." We are regaled with details hitherto confined to the pages of textbooks on veterinary science. Whether or not the methods of birth restrictions therein recommended are fit and profitable may be left to the decision of the expert stock raiser. They are intended for brutes, and they may be suited for brutes, but man is not a brute. He has a rational soul. Independently of divine revelation, he knows the difference between right and wrong, and he can not free himself from the responsibility attaching to acts freely posited. He differs, therefore, and essentially, from the beast of the field. To apply the methods of stock raising to the human race is a thing more vile and stupid than any plot cooked in the befuddled brain of drunken Caliban, at home in his mud. For Caliban, be it remembered, very like a hog in many respects, like a hog was no perverter of the law of his nature.

The ostensible purpose of these vampires of society who promote birth control is to improve the human race. This they will do by popularizing a practice which directly and primarily makes the continuance of the human race impossible. Without restricting marital rights, this practice will relieve the contracting parties of the burden incidental to the rearing of children until such time as husband and wife are able to perform these duties satisfactorily. When this stage, economic, physical or moral, has been reached, it is proposed to allow the law of nature to operate without interference. It is also plain that a general knowledge of effective contraceptives will be of great value to persons contemplating or sustaining illicit unions.

It may be remarked at the outset, that no proof is offered, or can be offered, tending to show, first, that the physical organs functioning in procreation, are made fitter for their office by deliberate, habitual misuse; or, secondly, that the moral and psychic changes induced by this practice, and affecting the domain of the will, strengthen the individual to assume the necessary burdens of parenthood. But apart from these considerations, and granting for the moment that, year by year, thousands of human beings come into existence diseased and crippled, to fill our foundling homes, or to pass from surroundings of poverty and vice into hospitals, lunatic asylums and jails, let us come to the fundamental point at issue: Can men and women freely posit the act of which procreation is the natural term, and licitly shirk parenthood?

To this question, a negative is the only possible answer. No interference with the law of nature can be tolerated, whether the act leading to procreation be promiscuous, or sanctioned by the bond of marriage. If, in a given instance, valid reasons make the natural result of the union of the generative principles inadvisable, this end must be attained, not by a perversion of the functions of nature, but by abstinence.

This position, championed notably by the Catholic Church, is founded neither upon an arbitrarily chosen basis of man-made morality, nor upon changing reasons of expediency. It rests upon the natural law, the rule of conduct found in the constitution of our being. It was to this law that Cicero referred when he spoke of that ordination "not written, but born within us; which we have not learned or received by tradition, or read, but which we have sucked in, imbibed, from nature itself." St. Augustine, one of the master-minds of time, defines it "as the reason or will of God, commanding the observance of the natural order and forbidding its violation"; St. Thomas, as "the rational creature's participation in the eternal law." It is not given by supernatural revelation; both in being and in point of time, it is prior to revelation, strictly so called. It presupposes, as Kant admits, that knowledge of God which is acquired, not through revelation, but by reason; and its purpose is to guide all contingent beings to their natural end.

A master of jurisprudence, Blackstone, offers the following illuminating comments upon the natural law:
As man depends absolutely upon his Maker in all things, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will.... This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... When He created man and endued him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature.... He laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept.... These are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil.... which He has enabled reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.... This law of nature.... is binding all over the globe, in all countries and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.

It is not necessary, then, to invoke supernatural revelation to show that acts militating against the preservation of the human species are in violation of the natural law, for, as Blackstone points out, this law is made known to man "by reason, so far as is necessary for the conduct of human nature." Man has, by his nature, the propensity and power to propagate his kind. This power, unless we are to accept a philosophy of hedonism and anarchy destructive of all society, is not given primarily for the good of the individual, but for the good of the species. Man can not attain the development suggested by nature without society; society can not exist if the generative function be perverted. The preservation of the human race, imperatively demanded by right reason and order, can be secured only by the means provided by nature. According to nature's law, the effect of the union of the generative principles is, de se, procreation. But the use of contraceptives effectively prevents procreation. It is, therefore, a violation of the natural law, and of its nature, forbidden.

To this argument, the following rebuttal has been offered. It is not intended to advise a permanent use of contraceptives. Like every human faculty, the generative power is to be exercised only under a wise restraint and with full understanding of its consequences to the individual and to society. But the natural law is not defeated by a single isolated act, or, indeed, by a series of such acts, restricted to a given pair. On the contrary, the true purpose of the law, the conservation of society, is best served by producing, through selective processes, a stock which will evolve a more highly perfected race.

In reply, it must be said that the time limits proposed by the advocates of birth restriction have no bearing on the argument. Common sense bears witness that the essential morality of an act is determined by its agreement or disagreement with a fixed norm; and this without reference to past conduct or to resolutions for the future. Lying is lying, whether I propose to give over lying after a single isolated infraction of the truth, or whether I have the unalterable determination of lying as long as I have breath. An individual is rightly called a thief, despite his intention to tread the ways of honesty after he has acquired a competency by thieving. Furthermore, it is nothing less than anarchy to sanction a violation of law on the ground that a single infraction does not effectively destroy the general purpose of the law.

Equally outside the question is the avowal of these advocates, that their sole intention is to improve the human race. The end does not justify the means; and it is with their methods, not with their intentions, that precise issue is raised. The order that is in the essence of things postulates that a faculty attain the end to which its nature impels it, and for which it is primarily and essentially intended. Such interference, then, as effectively prevents the faculty from attaining its end, violates the nature of that faculty. To uphold the contrary of this proposition involves a denial of the existence of the natural law. Now, no argument can obscure the fact that the primary end, intended by the very nature of the generative principles, is procreation; for these principles by their nature tend to this end and to no other. But the use of a contraceptive directly and effectively prevents the generative principles from attaining the end for which they are primarily and essentially intended, and is, therefore, an act specifically prohibited by the natural law.

Times have changed from the days when mother, wife, child, were terms which bore about them a sweetness and a sanctity almost supernal. We have thrown God out of our literature, our philosophy, our politics, our schools, our practical lives, and now we are taught that it is holy to eliminate Him completely from our very nature. Hence we are brought face to face with that most horrible of corruptions, the unnatural rottenness that is worked by fleshly lust unchained. In the first chapter of Romans, St. Paul bears witness to the fearful perversion of a once hardy, virile people. What stands between us and like ruin, if the counsels of these modern apostles of unutterable vileness, "whose very name it is a shame to speak," prevail? The truth of the living God, the law expressed in their nature, they made a lie; for this cause God gave them over to shameful affections. It is inevitable. Blot out God, and eternal night descends; and through the reeking vapours, the harpies hasten to feast upon this decadent mass that once was decency, high-mindedness, the purity of womanhood and the honour of man.

Modesty of Dress and the Love of God: An Effective Way to Defend the Family

http://www.tfp.org/

The Face of Vulgarity.

“I love vulgarity. Good taste is death, vulgarity is life."^[1] These words by English fashion designer Mary Quant, who took credit for inventing the miniskirt and hot pants, reveal one of the most important, though rarely pointed out, aspects of the “fashion revolution” that started in the sixties: vulgarity.

Indeed, fashions have increasingly tended toward vulgarity. It is a vulgarity that tramples upon not only good taste and decorum but which reflects a mentality opposed to all order and discipline and to every kind of restraint, be it esthetic, moral or social, and which ultimately suggests a completely “liberated” standard of behavior.

Are Comfort and Practicality Supreme Criteria?
The rationale for introducing ever shorter skirts was “to be practical and liberating, allowing women the ability to run for a bus.”^[2] The notion that comfort, practicality and freedom of movement must be the only criteria for dress has led to a breakdown in the general standard of sobriety and elegance, not to speak of the norms of modesty.

Thus, casual dress, being more comfortable and practical, increasingly becomes the norm regardless of people’s sex, age and circumstances. Jeans and the T-shirt (formerly a piece of underwear) became part of common attire.

Though one can wear less formal clothes at times of leisure, these clothes should not convey the impression that one is abandoning one’s dignity and seriousness. They should not give the idea that one is actually on vacation from one's principles.

In the past, even leisure dress, though more comfortable, maintained the dignity that one should never abandon.

It is curious to note that many companies require employees to wear business suits to convey an image of seriousness and responsibility. This is proof that clothes do transmit a message. They can express seriousness and responsibility or on the other hand, immaturity and a carelessness.

Unisex Garb
The premise that comfort and practicality must preside over the choice of clothes had yet another consequence: clothes no longer reflect one's identity. In other words, they no longer indicate a person’s social position, profession, or even more fundamental characteristics such as sex and age.

Thus, unisex garb has become widespread: jeans and shorts have come to be worn by people of both sexes and all generations. Young men and women, the youth and the aged, single and married, teachers and students, children and adults, all mix together and wear one and the same clothing which no longer expresses that which they are, think or desire.

The Habit Does Not Make the Monk but Identifies Him
One could object that “the habit does not make the monk.” The fact that a person dresses with distinction and elegance does not mean, of itself, that he has good principles and good behavior. Likewise, the fact that a person always wears casual dress does not necessarily indicate that he has bad principles or a reprehensible conduct. At first sight, the argument appears logical and even obvious. However, analyzed in depth, it does not stand.

True, the habit does not make the monk. Nevertheless, it is a strong element that identifies him. Furthermore, it influences not only the way people look at the monk but the way he looks at himself. No one will deny that the loss of identity by many nuns and monks that took place over the last forty years was largely due to their shedding the traditional habits, which adequately expressed the spirit of poverty, chastity and obedience, as well as an ascetic lifestyle proper to consecrated persons.^[3]

The Need for Coherence Between Dress and Convictions
Given the unity that exists in our tendencies, principles, convictions and behavior, the way we dress cannot fail to influence our mentality.

Wearing a certain type of clothing constitutes a form of behavior; and when clothing no longer adequately reflect our tendencies, principles and convictions, one’s mentality begins to undergo an imperceptible change to remain ‘in sync’ with the way one presents oneself. This is because human reason, by the force of logic inherent in it, naturally seeks to establish consistency between thought and behavior.

This rule is magnificently summed up in the famous phrase of French writer Paul Bourget: "One must live as one thinks, under pain of sooner or later ending up thinking as one has lived."

The process of transformation or erosion of principles can be slowed down or impeded by a person’s religious fervor, deeply rooted tendencies or ideas, and other factors. However, if inconsistency between behavior - reflected in the way one dresses - and one’s principles and convictions is not eliminated, the process of erosion, no matter how slow, becomes inexorable.

The beautiful, simple, and modest dress of the Belle Epoque.

Living Faith, Inadequate Clothing
This subtle erosion is often manifested by a loss of sensitivity regarding the fundamental points of one’s mentality. One example would be the respect one must have for the sacred.

In some way, concessions to the principle that comfort must be the only rule of dress have ended up by giving a casual note to more serious and holy activities. How can one explain, for example, that persons who have true faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, and who make admirable sacrifices to frequent perpetual adoration, nevertheless see no contradiction in presenting themselves before the Blessed Sacrament wearing shorts as if they were on a picnic?

The same person who shows up thus dressed for perpetual adoration would never don those clothes for an audience, say, with Queen Elizabeth II. This contradiction shows how, though the person has maintained his faith, to a certain degree the notion of the majesty of the Sacrament of the Altar -- the Real Presence -- has vanished from his soul.

Egalitarianism...
There is a general tendency in our times to establish a most radical egalitarianism at all levels of culture and social relations between the sexes, and even, in the tendency of egalitarianianism, between men and animals.^[4]

In dress, this egalitarianism is manifested by the growing proletarianization, the establishment of unisex fashions and the abolition of differences between generations. The same garb can be worn by anybody no matter his position, age or circumstance (e.g. in a trip, a religious or civil ceremony).

Chaos reigns in the domains of fashion today. It is often difficult to distinguish, by their clothes, men from women, parents from children, a religious ceremony from a picnic. Haircuts and hairstyles follow the same tendency to confound age and sex and to break down standards of elegance and good taste.

...That Leads to Infantilization
One of the aspects that stand out the most in the modern dictates of fashion is the desire to create an illusion of eternal youth, even perpetual adolescence with no responsibility, a phenomenon that has been called the “Peter Pan Syndrome."^[5]

Modern fashion shows a tendency to infantilize people. A Brazilian fashion critic thus expressed herself: “For a long time now, we have seen on catwalks, both international and domestic, fashions that should be displayed at the Children’s Expo, such is the level of infantilization they suggest. Stylists over 25 years old were designing (and wearing) clothes that could be worn by children in a day care center.”^[6]

Modesty is Essential to Chastity
In addition to the extravagant, egalitarian and infantilizing tendency of modern fashion, one needs to consider the attack on virtue and the complete lack of modesty.

The human body has its beauty, and this beauty attracts us. Due to the disorder which Original Sin left in man, the disorder of concupiscence, the delight in contemplating bodily beauty, and particularly of the feminine body can lead to temptation and sin.

That is not to say that some parts of the body are good and can be shown and others are bad and must be covered. Such a statement is absurd and was never part of Church doctrine. All parts of the body are good, for the body is good as a whole, having been created by God. However, not all body parts are equal, and some excite the sexual appetite more than others. Thus, exposing those parts through semi-nudity or risqué low cut dresses or wearing clothes so tight as to accentuate one’s anatomy poses a grave risk of causing excitation, particularly in men in relation to women.

Therefore, clothes must cover that which must be covered and make stand out that which can be emphasized. To cover a woman’s face, like Muslims do, shows well the lack of equilibrium of a religion that does not understand true human dignity. The face, the noblest part of the body because it more perfectly reflects the spiritual soul, is precisely the part that stands out the most in the traditional habits of nuns.

Just as masculine clothes should emphasize the manly aspect proper to man, feminine fashion should manifest grace and delicacy. And in this sense, having longer hair is a natural adornment to frame a woman’s face.

Immorality in Fashions and Destruction of the Family
Garb that does not show a person’s self-respect as an intelligent and free being (and, through baptism, as a son or daughter of God and a temple of the Holy Ghost), contributes to a large extent to the present destruction of the family. It does this by favoring temptations against purity. It also does this by its vulgarity and childishness that corrodes the notion of the seriousness of life and the need for ascesis (self-discipline), all of which are fundamental elements that maintain family cohesion and stability.

The struggle for the restoration of the family by opposing abortion, contraception, and homosexuality will be much more effective if done together with efforts to restore sobriety, modesty and elegance in dress.

Dress and the Love of God
The role of clothing is not only to protect the body from the elements but also to serve as adornment and symbolize someone’s functions, characteristics and mentality. Garb must be not only dignified and decent but also as beautiful and elegant as possible (which requires more good taste than money).

If the “way of beauty” leads us to God by seeing Him as the exemplary cause of Creation, the “way of ugliness” turns us away from the Creator and places us on the slippery slope of sin. That is why ugliness is the very symbol of sin and is so well expressed by the expression “ugly as sin.”