Thursday, December 31, 2015

Ten Things I've Learned in 2015



With 2015 almost behind us, I thought I'd take time out to reflect on valuable lessons I've learned in the past year and make them into a list.

Quick disclosure: unlike some top ten lists, these are in no particular order of importance and I can't guarantee people learned the same lessons from it, but then again, there's a reason common sense isn't very common.

So here's what I've learned:

1. A constitutional amendment really IS the only way to put a stop to this "gay marriage" nonsense.

After all, an amendment did put a stop to the federal income tax issue as well as the women's suffrage issue.

2. It's not a question of whether or not the Church has addressed an issue; it's a question of whether Catholics have the guts to point it out.

  This goes for anything from "Protestants are not 'separated brethren'; they are heretics" to "Islam is a danger to people" to "Outside the church there is NO salvation."
And don't think for a moment I've overlooked bishops or cardinals: they most of all need to have the guts to stand up to secular nonsense and will be judged more harshly if they fail at their job.

3. Hell does exist, and you might go there in the same sense you might go to heaven.

Let me make one thing clear: I am not saying if you don't believe exactly as I do, you will be sent to hell. I don't know whether or not you'll go to hell. In fact, I don't even know if I'm going to heaven. The only one who knows for a fact who's saved or damned is God.
Yes, it is preferable if you don't commit any mortal sins but since "all have fallen short of God's glory", I don't know whether this has dawned on you or how seriously you're taking it.
Once you fully understand what I just said, then you'll understand how stupid the traditional Protestant view is.
Speaking of which...

4. Protestants really ARE to blame for the rise of religious "nones".

No…I will not back down from that statement. No, I will not change my mind on it anytime soon. No, I am not saying that out of ignorance. No, I am not going to stop using the term Protestant: if you say you're Christian and you're not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, then you're Protestant. Plain and simple.
Out of all the non-religious people I've come across, some were raised in non-religious households but the vast majority came from Protestant families.
Just look at all these errors one orthodox person put together.
If you still aren't convinced, consider this: What's to stop someone using Protestant theology to read the Bible and conclude the whole thing is nonsense? Sure, you can say their take is wrong…but how are they wrong? The Protestant mindset doesn't have a leg to stand on.

5. Atheists really, REALLY suck at mind reading.

I've learned that when you try to argue with atheists, they have no real interest in logical debate. Instead, they'll try to psychoanalyze you and accuse you of having a hidden agenda or accuse you of having some mental problem.

This is no different than the tactics used by the former Soviet Union: they too had the "if you disagree with us, you must be crazy" attitude.
News flash, atheists: when someone asks you a question, they expect an answer. If you don't give an answer, they will automatically assume you don't have one.

Speaking of which…

6. If you say atheism is a religion, atheists will have NO actual response to it.

I'm not kidding. They don't have a sound refutation to this. Sure, they'll go on about some sound-bite bull about "atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color" but of course that won't work because atheism is a religion like baldness is a physical trait.
I'll go into more detail about this in another post some time in 2016 but for now, I'll say atheists can claim all they want, but they can't deny atheism being a religion any longer.
I've seen too much about it, I have too many sources and I have observed atheist behavior myself to conclude atheism is a religion.

7. Despite what I put on my Rules list, I still will NOT read or heed anything promoting atheism.

Again, I am not kidding about this. I still have atheists messaging me as recently as a week ago telling me I should look at this atheist material or that atheist material and then by magic (symbolically speaking, of course) I'll drop this religion nonsense and be atheist.

To that I say….no.

No I will not read it and I will not heed it.

I had enough of atheist nonsense for most of my life and I will NEVER go back to that dark area.
If you think I won't read it because I'm afraid to be wrong or I'm too childish or I'm too close-minded…I refer you back to point #5.

8. The overall difficulty in finding sources for particular teachings.

Good example of this concerns the teaching about the Great Apostasy. Do any of you have any idea how hard it is to find any credible sources on this that have nothing to do with Mormonism or some fundamentalist idiot that uses the Whore of Babylon ruse?
Another example is the "Outside the church there is NO salvation" I mentioned earlier. Does anyone else have any idea how hard it is to locate solid teachings on this not written by a sedevacantist?
I can only find one that I would recommend on criteria alone.

9. A good number of traditionalist Catholic websites are run by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Note I'm saying some have no idea, not all of them. I think this can be traced back to Vatican II, but Vatican II isn't the problem: it's the lies some websites tell concerning Vatican II. These lies lead to rejecting the authority of the current pontiff, leaving one outside the mystical bride of Christ. A good way to tell is if they call any pope after Pius XII an antipope.
If that wasn't bad enough, the site owners refuse to admit their errors even if you present their error in the fraternal correction spirit.
Some websites I've found that give solid Catholic teaching fully in line with the Chair of Peter include (but by no means are limited to):

Finally, the main lesson I've learned in 2015….

                                    Atheists are a whole lot dumber than I thought.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

The Meaning of Christmas




Monday, December 7, 2015

What Happens When A Christian Country Turns its Back on its Past



After reading this, is there any doubt in your mind atheists are idiots?

Family loses appeal for reunion

NAUSTDAL, Norway ( - A Christian family in Norway has lost its appeal to have its children returned, after the government forcibly removed five children from their home. The public is reacting with outrage.
Marius Bodnariu, a Romanian, and his Norwegian wife Ruth, former members of the Pentecostal Church in Bucharest, moved to Naustdal, Norway 10 years ago, where they raised five children. As reported by Marius' brother Daniel, on November 16, Norway's child welfare services took away the Bodnarius' two oldest children, showing up at their school and removing them from class without their parents' knowledge. Police later that day arrived at the Bodnarius' home and also forcibly removed the two older boys, leaving Ruth with her three-month-old baby, who was taken away the following day by police as well. 
Two days later, child welfare services notified the parents that their children were in the care of two separate foster families and were "integrating" well. One of the officials reportedy said to Ruth, "The kids don't even miss you. What kind of parents are you?" Marius and Ruth were later informed by the government that they were guilty of "Christian radicalism and indoctrination."
Apparently, the children's removal was instigated by the school principal, who complained to child welfare services that the Bodnarius were "very Christian" and their belief that God punishes sin "creates a disability in the children." Accordingly, the principal believed the parents needed "guidance" from the government in raising their family. The principal also cited concerns over discipline in the family home, as occasional corporal punishment is used. But after physical examination of the children (the three-month-old was subjected to x-rays and a CT scan), no physical abuse was discovered. Child welfare services is claiming, however, that Marius is physically abusive, while he and Ruth are vehemently denying the claims.
A hearing held November 27 dismissed the Bodnarius' appeal to be reunited with their children. The court ruled instead that they were to remain in the care of their foster parents, while Marius and Ruth could visit their three-month-old son twice a week for two hours. They could see their two older sons as well, but the court refused to grant them visitation rights for their daughters. The parents are considering further legal action. 
Meanwhile, a petition begun in support of the family has collected nearly 30,000 signatures, and a Facebook page has been set up documenting the family's ordeal.
On December 2, Romanian senator Titus Corlatean spoke on the Bodnarius' behalfto the Commission for equality and nondiscrimination of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council (PAEC) in Paris. Corlatean condemned what he deemed abusive conduct on the part of the Norwegian government, and asked that the Assembly investigate. He also noted prior actions on the part of Norway's child welfare services that involved splitting children from their parents based on groundless accusations.
Marius' brother writes: 
I testify, and vehemently vouch, for Marius and Ruth having given birth to and raised a 'normal' family with Christian values. These parents love their children and have taken every imaginable step in raising their children with loving caring in all aspects of their well-being. The tearing apart of their family by the Barnevernet [child welfare services] is a living nightmare for Marius and Ruth. Their hope is founded, and rests, in God; He can change any situation and He is always in control!
mass protest is being urged this weekend on their behalf. Instructions for sending emails are available on the relevant Facebook page, and request as many emails as possible be sent to Norwegian officials by Monday, December 7.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

What You Never Knew about: St Nicholas



 I figured I'd do another list of things people don't know about  a particular figure, with this one being the subject of today's feast day: St Nicholas.

1. He's actually Greek.
That's right: his parents were both Greek and he was raised in Greece. Some may think he was Turkish but that's only because he was a bishop of a Turkish area. This also explains why St Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors.

So come Christmas Eve, you might want to leave ouzo more than cookies.

2. He got the name Santa Claus because the English misheard a version of his name.

It may shock some people today, but when America was being colonized, the English settlers didn't celebrate Christmas.
Why? Because they were mostly Puritans who viewed Christmas as too Catholic or too "popish." As more people started settling in the area, more traditions and customs came over as well. One such group were the Dutch who brought their tradition of a gift giver. The English children were intrigued by this but neither they nor their parents were used to hearing Dutch words, so when they heard the name Sinterklaas, they thought the name was Santa Claus.

3. He once saved three young women from prostitution.

In life, Nicholas knew a man with three daughters. At one point, he wanted to marry them off but had no money to do so. Desperate because of his situation, he was getting ready to sell his daughters into prostitution.
Nicholas, not wanting to have the young women go into a life of sin but knowing full well the man was too proud to ask for help, came by his house late in the night and put three bags of gold coins down the man's chimney.
This is why some depictions of Nicholas has him holding three coin bags (sometimes three gold balls; they stand for the same thing).

4. He signed off on one of the key creeds of Christianity.

That creed is called the Nicene Creed, one of the oldest and most widely used creeds in Christianity. I'll get to the need for writing it in a moment, but for now, I'll say the creed is used to clarify the relationship between Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Unlike the Apostle's Creed, it does address Jesus' divinity but it does not say one needs the Catholic faith to be saved. This is why some Protestants use the creed, like Lutherans and Baptists but not used by Mormons or Jehovah's Witness (then again those last two aren't real Christians anyway so what difference does it make?)

5. He is a Catholic bishop.

This is the reason why he is portrayed with red robes, as that's the garment of the bishop office---unless someone is from an area with a more Eastern Rite or Eastern Orthodox influence. In that case, he wears purple robes.

7. One of the key parts of his life has long been misunderstood.

This is going back to the Nicene Creed mentioned earlier. What I did not bring up was why the creed was written in the first place.
At the time, a bishop named Arius was promoting the idea that Jesus was less than the Father, even going so far as to extend the teaching to saying Jesus is a created being. This became so rampant in the Church a special meeting of bishops was called by none other than Constantine. Nicholas, being a bishop himself, went to the meeting to settle the issue. He with the other bishops sat back while Arius presented his case for this stand.

Now pretty much everyone gets that part right; this is the part people get wrong.

According to the ignorant, Nicholas got up, punched Arius right in the face, sat back down and suffered no consequences for his actions and since Nicholas is a saint, this supposedly shows hypocrisy in Christianity.

This is of course NOT what actually happened.

Here's what it did happen: Nicholas did go up and strike Arius but it was a slap, not a punch.
Second of all, while a bishop arguing with another bishop wasn't frowned upon (as long as it was in the spirit of fraternal correction), a bishop striking another bishop was looked down on…especially considering he did it right in front of the emperor.
Third, he in fact did not get away with it. The other bishops were so shocked and horrified, they banned him from the remainder of the council, stripped him of his bishop authority and vestments, and confined him to a make-shift quarters wrapped in chains.
When the jailer checked on him the next mourning, he found the chains unwrapped and Nicholas back in his vestments.
This was taken as a sign to give Nicholas his office back..which they did and ruled against Arius.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

My Stand on Mass Shootings



Before I begin, I would like to first address my prayers are with those killed in San Bernidino. It's sad we have to go through this tragedy again.
And I know we shouldn't go into this before all the facts are known, but I've put together something that will be applicable to this and (I fear) any other mass shootings in the future.

Many have asked quite rightly when these tragedies will stop. That is a fair question, and I do have the three point solution:

1. We need to admit gun free zones don't work and neither does any gun control law.
Even the CDC couldn't find any gun control law that actually worked at reducing gun crime.

2. We need to admit we as a nation are wrong and God does exist.

3. Once we admit #2, we must also admit every life has inherent value and life is worth living.

I'm afraid unless all three of these events happen….these shootings will never, ever stop.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Fun with Christmas Political Correctness



It's that time of year where the vast--and I mean the VAST--majority of Americans celebrate Christmas (yeah, I said it). Despite the fact the odds are good any given person you come across also celebrates Christmas, good luck trying to find any major company or shop that will wish you a happy or merry Christmas. It's almost always "happy holidays" or worse still people say nothing for fear of "offending somebody."

Yet people don't have any problems with saying other holiday names; it's like they're saying "we're willing to defend every culture in the world except our own."

So since they can't be trusted to see the folly of their own stupidity, I say have fun at their expense. I guarantee you the exchange with them will go something like this; for argument's sake, we'll call the common sense person Faith and the PC person Clueless Kate.

Clueless Kate: "Faith, here's your invitation for the company holiday party."
Faith: "Great. What holiday are we celebrating besides Christmas?"
Clueless Kate: "oh..Hanukkah."
Faith: "Hanukkah doesn't happen until long after this party."
Clueless Kate: "oh…then Kwannza."
Faith: "None of the colors we have match that. Try again."
Clueless Kate: "Ramadan."
Faith: "That was earlier this year. Try again."
Clueless Kate: "Festivus."
Faith: "This isn't Seinfeld. Try again."

Clueless Kate, rather than admit her own mistake, will either retreat or call you a bigot.

If you think I'm lying or exaggerating, consider this actual email I received from a friend when he asked his workplace this exact same question; the company's actual name has been changed to protect their sorry hides:

In an inclusive office environment such as Smith Inc, we recognize that our employees celebrate the holiday season according to their personal beliefs, and therefore we do not identify a specific holiday to represent Smith Inc as a company.

Our employees, however, are welcome to express their goodwill toward each other during this season as they see fit.

Thank you for your interest, and please let us or your agency/employer know if you have any other questions.

What makes this especially hilarious is the company in question included in the email a gift package picture that was colored red and green (colors ONLY associated with Christmas) and had a Christmas tree in their main entrance.

This is as stupid as letting two known atheists be grand marshals of a city Christmas parade.

But this is the state of affairs now. What are you going to do to stop it? Are you going to let atheists get their way?

Why would you ever do that? Atheists are idiots.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Turkey Day Quickies



I'm not going to lie: plenty of major events as well as some personal news have happened in the past few days…so many in fact if I were to give them each their own post, I'd be stuck writing all day.

So with that said, here are a few insights, news and little tidbits I've come across. I should also note these are in no particular order of importance except this first one:

                                                        Concerning the Paris attacks:

I do mourn for those lost in the attacks…unlike others who use the "you're in my thoughts" cop-out. And I do applaud any and all efforts to limit or flat out block Syrian refugees from coming to America.
For anyone who thinks that sounds racist or unwelcoming or if you're going to give me some lame interpretation of the Good Samaritan, consider this:

We have confirmed cases of ISIS fighters masquerading as refugees. In addition, one recent study showed a significant number fleeing ISIS who actually either agree with ISIS or at least think ISIS has the right idea.

Strange: when Jews fled the Nazis, I don't recall any of them agreeing with their oppressors.

                               Concerning whether this means war against Islam:

I do wish we actually could have an honest look at what Islam teaches or where ISIS got the idea their actions are justified but I'm afraid with how hypersensitive everyone is, that might not be possible. We're at the point that even suggesting this idea is considered offensive.
But let me make one thing clear: I don't think every single Muslim is a terrorist. I do think (and can show) of those who have committed terrorist acts, they are almost all Muslims.

And for those who say we are at war with Islam….you're right but not for the reasons you think.

I'm not talking about a war in the sense of guns blazing, armies going in and fighting. I don't have the authority to declare that and frankly, neither does anyone calling for war against Muslims.

What I am talking about is a war against all enemies of Christ's Kingdom and I'm not alone in that. Every Church Father, Doctor of the Church and even the Bible itself calls Islam at best heretical and at worst antichrist.

If that last one sounds harsh, consider this: The Bible sets three criteria on what is antichrist:
-Saying Christ is not the Messiah
-Saying Christ is not of God
- Saying Christ did not come in the flesh

Granted, you only need to meet one of these criteria, but based on what I know about Islam, it touts two of these.

So yes…I applaud any and all efforts to make sure Sharia Law is NEVER the rule of law in America.


                            Concerning the Stephen Colbert interview with Bill Mahar:

Normally, I would applaud any and all attempts to invite people back into the Catholic Church…as long as the person extending the invitation is not Stephen Colbert.

I have never been a fan of his work ever since he was on Jon Stewart and I don't really care for him now.
And if he was the official poster child for American Catholicism…The Church in America would be in more dire straights.
Proof positive of this: Colbert is a minister in the Universal Life "Church", that sorry excuse for a church where one can just print something and you have authority to marry people.
Legality of that aside, one of the most basic teachings of the Church---only validly ordained priests have the authority to marry people--and he doesn't follow it.

Even though Mahar is a complete prick and his film is a complete joke, if I were him, I would have turned down Colbert's invite too.


Right after the Supreme Court ruling, there were talks concerning whether to let gay family members and their "spouse" over for either Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.

I say they should be denied an invitation. After all, their "marriages" are abominations anyway and one opposed to it should not even appear to approve of it in any way.


And finally, my rant against that imbecile the "amazing" atheist remains my most viewed post. So far, I predicted what his reactions would be to the UCC shooting (he tried but failed to cover up the fact the shooter was an avowed atheist who killed Christians just because they were Christians), how he would react to the claim atheism is a religion ( it really is a religion, but that's another post for another day), and what his reaction would be to the Paris attack (predictability blaming all religion for it like an idiot).

No surprise he also supports Bernie Sanders.

So why bring him up now? It turns out I'm not the only one who thinks he's a lying, thieving, misogynistic sack of dog droppings. One particular pro-secular website lists him as a detriment to the atheist cause, going so far to say one of the three groups he appeals to is 13 year old boys.

Everyone reading this can mark my words: if I ever encounter him in person, I will tell him right to his face he's full of it and he's a babbling moron.

His parents must have messed up bad to produce someone like him.

And those are my mini-points. I do pray you all have a happy Thanksgiving.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

The Truth of the HERO Ordinance….OR The Chick Fil A Incident All Over Again



With Election Day passing and all the votes counted, it shouldn't surprise us that not everyone wound up happy at the final results. What strikes me as odd is the level of whining from the losing side, which was overwhelmingly the political left.

One case getting national attention was a ballot ordinance in Houston, TX called the HERO ordinance, also known as the "bathroom ordinance" (I'll explain why it's called that in a moment.) If passed, it would have prevented business and other organizations from discriminating against 15 classes of people, including age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity. By a two-to-one margin, Houston voters said no, and thus opened the floodgates to charges of hate, ignorance and being behind the times.

In typical secular/atheist/"this life is all that matters" form, the critics have once again missed the point because once again it never dawned on them why people voted no.

First of all, the ordinance just wasn't needed.
That's right: out of all the protected classes listed in the ordinance, it was either already illegal to discriminate against those groups at the federal level (mostly by the Civil Rights Act) or it would give protection to groups that aren't discriminated against in the first place.

Second of all, some have nick-named it the "bathroom ordinance" because the language leaves the door open  for (at least according to some of the political ads) a grown man claiming he's a woman and using the ladies room, thereby leaving the door open for him to sexually assault women or little girls.

If that one sounds far-fetched, consider this: in every city that has a similar ordinance in place, that has happened at least one time. And in every case, people get mad at the people complaining about it, accusing them of bigotry.

Having looked into the ordinance myself, I applaud Houston for saying no to this nonsense. For those who disagree, consider the timeline of events:

Sometime in mid 2014- openly gay Houston mayor Annise Parker proposed a city ordinance that would allow people to use restrooms and locker rooms they felt better represented their gender identity.
This part was later removed explicitly but was still there based on wording.
The city council passed the ordinance.

Sometime later- Houston-area pastors organized a petition in protest to the ordinance. At first, the petition passed all legal requirements but then the city attorney at the time claimed it was several signatures short and was not properly notarized. Four plaintiffs filed a suit saying the original ruling on the petition was valid…and the courts agreed with them.

September 2014- Houston city attorneys under Mayor Parker's orders issued subpoenas against several petition-signing pastors, claiming their maneuver violated federal tax codes against tax-exempt groups electioneering from the pulpit.

October 2014- It didn't take long for people as well as national news outlets to figure out the subpoenas were nothing more than an attempt from the mayor (a Democrat, no surprise there) to silence anyone critical of either her or the gay agenda.
The subpoenas were dropped and the petition went to trial.

January 2015- The judge in the subsequent trial ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, meaning the measure had to be put on the ballot and have the people decide.

November 2015- Houston voters strike down the measure.

Now, after the vote, look how quickly the HERO supporters change their tune: before the vote, they said it was about equal rights for all; after the vote, they make it sound like it was only about rights for gays and trans-genders.

Now, they're calling for boycotts against Houston, including calling on the NFL to move the 2017 Super Bowl to another city.

Let's ignore for a moment that these types of people don't strike me as frequent pro-football watchers and let's instead focus on why I bring Chick Fil A into this.

When that company struck back against the gay agenda, people called for boycotts but then realized how good their waffle-fries are.
The boycott didn't work.

I predict that same thing will happen with all the calls to boycott Houston: sure there may be sore losers but the boycott won't work because a) Houston is more ethnically diverse than even New York City (that's a fact; look it up) so the charge of intolerance won't stick and b) Houston is much more financially prosperous than most of America.

Not thinking threats all the way through…atheists are such idiots.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

The Most Catholic Horror Story



Welcome to another addition of The Most Catholic and just in time for Halloween (which should be called All Hallows but that's another post) I've decided to look at what I think is the most Catholic horror story.
I know what you're thinking and no…it is NOT The Exorcist! Yes, that has Catholic elements, but for all the wrong reasons.
Besides, that's from the 70's and is therefore dated. The one I'm talking about came out in 1992 and is a period piece:

That's right: Dracula is a more pro-Catholic film than The Exorcist. I'll start off with some obvious reasons why and then move on to some from the novel. As the saying goes:

You may not have noticed it, but your mind did.

1. Vampires are repelled by holy water, something found in no other branch of Christianity except Catholicism.

2. Jonathan Harker is handed a crucifix and this proves more effective than a plain cross.

3. What is a vampire? It's a creature that feeds on blood but has no real life in it, a clear perversion of the Real Presence.

4. Speaking of the Real Presence, Van Helsing uses a communion Host to remove Dracula's influence on Mina.

5. When Jonathan is talking to Dracula about the Count's property purchases, one of them is a place called Carfax Abbey. For those who aren't familiar with the term, an abbey is a building where monks or nuns live. Given later on we learn the abbey is used as a hiding place for Dracula during the day, we're left to assume the abbey is not in use anymore. 
In other words, a location used for people to live in common in the spirit of Jesus is now being used by a solitary being who shuns the light.

6. As Jonathan first travels to the castle, one of the villagers points out they're getting ready to celebrate St Georges Day; St George is known as the Dragon Slayer.

7. Jonathan at first dismisses any Catholic elements he comes across but in more than one spot, his Anglicanism doesn't do anything to stop the vampires.

8. Though not mentioned in the movie, Van Helsing is himself a Catholic and is the only one with any idea of what's going on.

9. Mina, an Irish woman (thus Catholic) winds up being the big hero, as she is the one who delivers the death blow to Dracula.

10. Don't think that's significant? Consider this: Van Helsing refers to Mina as "the star of the sea". This title is given to the Virgin Mary, who is the one who directly fights the devil in Revelation. 

This is just for starters and even if you want to watch it just for the sake of watching it, you can't deny the cathartic value in slaying the darkness.a darkness brought about from renouncing God and leading to the idiocy of atheism.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Catholics Get Halloween Back: Satanism



Continuing the series about Halloween, I present a video about Satanism. Normally, I would not touch on this, except much like in Detroit, a satanic temple is opening in my home city.

Yes I will protest it and make sure it's shut down, so consider this a warning for your own home town:

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Catholics Get Halloween Back: Ouija Boards



Welcome to the first in a series this month in getting Halloween back to the way it was before all the commercialization and co-opting from paganism.

This is a variation of a special Michael Voris of put together for his old show the One True Faith about something you don't think off the top of your head when it comes to this time of year but it needs to be addressed all the same.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

One Glorious Day



Friday, October 2, 2015




Before we go any further, quick disclosure:

I was planning on having a whole series dedicated to how the Catholic Church views death and the afterlife, but because of the shooting in Oregon, and the predictable nonsense that always follows, I'm going to hold off on it and address these notions in the hopes they will be put to rest once and for all.

1. Asking for more gun laws? Pointless and stupid.

Chief reason? More laws don't matter to criminals because they don't obey them anyway.

2. Shootings like this are society's fault? Since when?

Do you see any court putting society on trial when these happen? Of course you don't. You see the defendant, i.e. an individual person, being charged.

3. We have laws that say cars have to have seat belts. So what?

Seat belts existed in cars LONG before the laws were ever written. Besides, the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to own a car, but it does say you have the right to own a gun.

4. We need reasonable gun laws? According to whose reason?

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the gun used was legally purchased and he did pass all required background checks. What more do you want?

5.  More gun-free zones? See #1.

The fact remains the harder you make it for people to get a gun, the more you put guns in criminal hands. Furthermore, it has since been revealed the shooter targeted people who were Christians.

When was the last time you heard of Christians killing someone for being atheist?

Trick question: that doesn't happen!!

6. There is one interesting fact all these shooters seem to have in common.

And that is at one point in their lives they took psychotropic drugs,  also known as Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors. These are used to treat depression and anxiety disorders and go by names like Zoloft, Prozac, Paxil and Lexapro.
No surprise here: they are also predominantly given to boys more than girls. 

So more control over people's lives, more freedoms taken away, and more drugs all while trying to shift the blame to other people…sounds like the typical atheist playbook to me.

Luckily, there is a Twitter hashtag that I encourage people to re-tweet:#yesimachristian.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Theme For This Month



Quick heads up: for October, I will be putting up a series of videos and postings on topics related to this time of year. I will try to put the different sets up in a consistent manner every Thursday and Saturday.

So be ready!

Friday, September 25, 2015

I Backhand Bill Maher



No joke…this is an actual quote from Catholic washout Bill Maher in reference to Pope Francis along with my response in red:
“I think it’s the easiest job in the world. I mean you’ve got tenure. 
(in other words, you're jealous that you got fired multiple times and he has more Twitter followers than you)

You’re selling an invisible product that you don’t have to prove exists.
(like you sell your supposed intelligence, Maher?)

 Everything you say people agree with, and you’re playing the infallible card."
(Are you talking about yourself again, Maher?)

 I mean, what other business could you be in where you’re involved with a horrible child-f*** scandal and you didn’t lose most of your customers?"


" I don’t think it’s that hard a job.” 

(Obviously, it must be…you're not doing it.)

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

What You Never Knew About: St Francis of Assisi



Welcome to a new series on my blog titled What You Never Knew About. This will focus on a particular issue, person or trait about the Catholic Church most people don't know much about.

With Pope Francis' arrival to America, what better way to start this off than with the Holy Father's namesake, St Francis of Assisi. People only know him as a monk that loved animals, and some might know him as a statue in a garden but not much else.

Yet he deserves to be known for so much more, like….

                                      He was the first recorded case of stigmata.

That's right: the phenomena of Christ's wounds appearing on a holy person first occurred with him. Although Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians that he bears "on his body the marks of Jesus", Francis brought it to the forefront two years before his death. Although it's not clear whether he was traveling alone or with him, there's no reason to think he was lying about it.
It should also be noted that of all the confirmed stigmata cases, the vast majority are found either in the Franciscan order or orders who follow the Franciscan rule of life.

                                           He invented the Nativity scene.

That depiction you see every year of the baby Jesus with Mary, Joseph and the Magi? That came from Francis. He initially created it to show the humble beginnings of the Lord of Lords after he visited the Holy Land. We think of it now as a collection of statues, but his involved real life people.
Another interesting note: his nativity was not done in his native Assisi but in Greccio, about 56 miles away.

                One of his followers would be the first woman to write a monastic rule of life. 

That woman is known as St Clare of Assisi, founder of the Poor Clares. Some mistakenly believe she is Francis' biological sister, but this is not the case: they just happened to come from the same town. The rule of their order was not approved by the sitting Pope until the day before Clare died.

            He set in motion the tradition of gaining a plenary indulgence just by setting foot in a parish.

This is called the Portiuncula indulgence, named after the little church inside the mother church for the Franciscan order. The story goes Francis built a small hut near a tiny chapel called Our Lady of the Angels and began gathering followers. The local bishop gave Francis custody of the chapel after being impressed by Francis' group and as the years went by, people started building a little church inside the main church. The indulgence at first only applied to Franciscan run churches but over time came to be extended to all parishes on Aug 2nd (the feast of Our Lady of the Angels), the namesake of the specific parish and founder of religious orders (if the parish is run by a specific order). 

                                      He wrote the overlooked Canticle of the Sun.

If you've read Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato si', you might know about this one already. Much like a litany focusing on saints of an order or Opus Dei's Preces, the Canticle of the Sun summarizes the spirituality of the Franciscans. Although it seems like it might have been written by a hippie Dead-Head, I don't know of any hippie that advises people to not die in a state of mortal sin. 
Another interesting side note: the Canticle is considered among the first literary works to be written in Italian. 

                                          He did NOT write the Prayer of St Francis.

That's right: the prayer that begins "make me an instrument of your peace" was NOT actually written by St Francis. Easy way to tell: St Francis died in 1226 and there is no record of this prayer before 1912.
If this prayer brings you closer to God, wonderful..but stop saying Francis wrote it.
Speaking of things Francis didn't do….

                                           He did not invent the Franciscan Crown.

That was invented by a Franciscan novice several years after Francis' death. The name stuck because it was associated with his order.

                                 He tried to negotiate a peaceful end to the Crusades

Yeah…a Christian tried to bring an end to the Crusades…try wrapping your mind around that one, atheists.
Not a lot of information can be found online about this, but I do recommend looking at a researched book on this subject. Sure, he didn't succeed but it was still worth a try.

           Although he is associated with animals, he is NOT the patron saint of veterinarians.

That title belongs (depending on who you ask) to either St Blaise, St James the Greater or St Eligius. Francis is however the patron saint of ecology, based mostly around the Canticle of the Sun mentioned earlier.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

10 Things You Might Not Know About the Catholic Church



All credit goes to for this list.

1.    Vatican City has the highest crime rate in the world! With a population around 500 people and a little over one crime per day, the Vatican crime rate is above 100 percent, per capita. Although the fact is shocking it should be remembered that the Vatican is about one square mile in size, and has nearly 20 million visitors annually. Most of the crimes are pickpockets, purse snatching and other petty offenses done by outsiders.

2.    The ONLY Christian church in existence for the first 1,000 years of Christian history was the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian churches which exist today can trace their linage back to the Roman Catholic Church. Most non-Catholic churches which exist today are less than a century or two old by comparison. 

3.    The Catholic Church consists of more than just the Roman Catholic Church. There are 22 Eastern Rites that are in full communion with Rome and although they go by different names, they are every bit as much a part of the Catholic Church. 

4.    Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, was Catholic and the first book ever printed was the Catholic Bible. 

5.    The Catholic Church is entirely responsible for the composition of the Bible, which books are included, as well as the breakup of the chapters and verses. Protestants have removed some books of the Bible because some of the verses were inconsistent with their theology. Martin Luther was a prime offender in this regard, removing Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch. He also made an effort to remove James and Revelations, but this was rejected by his followers and those two books were kept. Catholics are often accused of "adding" the books, but despite this common belief, it is false. Older, pre-Protestant, Catholic translations of the Bible include them. 

6.    How many saints are recognized by the Catholic Church? There does not seem to be an official number, but it exceeds 10,000. Of course, any person who enters heaven is a saint, by definition, so it is certain the number of actual saints in existence is much greater than the number recognized by the Church. 

7.    Any Catholic may perform an emergency baptism, such as if a person is in grave danger of death. In such a case, the validity of the baptism only depends upon the wishes of the person being baptized, that they desire the baptism. There are specific guidelines for such practices that Catholics should follow. Anyone wishing to be prepared for such a case should refer to the catechism for a deeper understanding of this allowance. Generally, such practices ought to be left to trained clergy. 

8.    About 15 percent of all hospitals in the United States are Catholic hospitals. In some parts of the world, the Catholic Church provides the only healthcare, education and social services available to people. 

9.    The Catholic Church spends more money than Apple brings in. Expenditures by the Catholic Church, largely on charity, exceeded $170 billion in 2012, according to The Economist magazine. In that same year, Apple took in $157 billion in revenue.

10.    The Pope is protected by the Swiss Papal Guard. Wearing uniforms designed by Michelangelo and commonly armed with halberds, they are capable of using heavier weapons if needed. Each member is Catholic, male, and Swiss, and must complete military training in Switzerland. They must demonstrate good conduct and be at least five-foot-eight in height. Those who are chosen are granted a private audience with the pope along with their families. In extreme circumstances, they are expected to guard the Holy Father with their lives. The Swiss Papal Guard is the oldest active military unit in continual existence since 1506. 

Friday, September 11, 2015

Atheist Idiot George Takai: A Rant



I have never been a Star Trek fan. I know enough about it to pick out the various characters but I don't go to conventions dressed like a member of the Federation.

After the idiocy of George Takai, I don't want anything to do with Star Trek. Just look how easy it was to tear apart his stand against Kim Davis:

“So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated.”
(That's debatable, since she certainly isn't a martyr. However, I would argue she should be defended against nonsense like yours.) 
 “She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married.”
(She took that oath before the ruling. Furthermore, the ruling did NOT say every person has the right to marry whoever they want.)
“She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others,” 
(So you think it's fine to impose your beliefs on people? I think you're jealous that it's not your beliefs being promoted.)
 “If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side?”
(As a multi-racial person, I take great offense at that, Takai. Furthermore, any law, Jim Crow or other, that did ban interracial marriage were used to uphold a racist legal order. Good luck trying to convince me or anyone these bans were used for an anti-gay legal order.)
“In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American.”
(That's a strange statement coming from you, since the Supreme Court also said it's legal to send people of Japanese descent to internment camps…the very same camps you've admitted you were sent to as a boy......But then again, I'm not stupid enough to say the Court has the final word on things.)

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Misunderstanding Martyrdom, or "You have not the authority."



Let me ask you something:

Do you know the difference between a victim and a martyr?

I ask this because to me it seems like the majority of people don't know the difference. So, as a quick review:

A victim is someone harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action; a martyr is someone killed for their beliefs. You can kill someone for a reason other than their beliefs, and hence that's why all martyrs are victims but not all victims are martyrs.

I bring this up in light of the news reports of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Many articles have come out proclaiming her a martyr for the fight against gay so-called marriage. This might make sense since all the pro-side has is the poorly thought out Supreme Court ruling (whereas the righteous side has the Constitution).

but a martyr? Really? 

You can see how people like me might take offense at someone being called that when a) the people giving the label are not the ones who have authority to do so and b) if one were to look at all the declared martyrs, one will find besides their deaths, they were also consistent in what they believed.

This is key because much like certain beliefs (such as the Christian view on God, the concept of the Davidic Kingdom and the End Times), Christianity gets its view of martyrdom from the Jewish faith. 
In Judaism, martyrdom must include dedication to your faith; in other words, one must be consistent in what you believe concerning your faith. In fact, martyr comes from the Greek word for witness (as in, a witness for Jesus) but to be a witness, one must follow all teachings of their Divine Master. 

In news reports, it was pointed out the clerk had been married multiple times and even had children out of wedlock, both actions condemned by Jesus. Granted, these happened before her conversion, but I have yet to see any indication of whether she thinks both actions are wrong now or if she ever repented of her past misdeeds. 

Thus, it's not clear whether the martyr label works here.

As I predicted when I first heard of this case, someone has made a connection between her and St Thomas More, especially in light of her being sent to jail. Much like the martyrdom claim, this comparison doesn't work either.

For those not familiar with the story (or the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons), Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor under King Henry VIII. Although he had an historical disagreement with Henry on whether Henry could divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon, More resigned from office rather than keep his job by signing an oath that made the king supreme head of a church. That, combined with other events (one of which included not attending Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn and several others that involved him saying "you have not the authority), More was tried, convicted and beheaded for high treason. He was noted 

Let's look at some key points again: resignation, appearances in relation to belief, and proper authority.

In relation to these, I conclude she should resign her position, because as long as she remains county clerk, her signature remains on the marriage licenses, thus she is legally culpable for these abominations and thus she appears to be supporting it. While she is correct in saying no court and no earthly authority has the right to redefine marriage, she is wrong in her approach. 

These sick people hate God's word and all responsibly it stands for. Stop giving them an inch and heed the lesson from St Thomas More:

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Only a Real Atheist Thinks Fogle Did Nothing Wrong



I've been following Jared Fogle's disgrace and while people are correct to say what he did was wrong, I put this question to atheists:

How do you know what he did was wrong?

I can point to where in my faith it says pedophilia is wrong (more on this later) but try as I may I can't find anything in atheism---be it a writer, a text or any type of atheist authority--that says this is wrong. The closest I can find came from the founder of NAMBLA but in that case, he was fine with it.

In fact, this question--along with many others concerning morality--will most likely turn up the same set of answers atheists always tout, yet it never dawns on them how hollow all these answers are.

"It's wrong because the law says so."

And it used to be wrong to let women vote, let minorities vote, and not let the federal government tax income….yet all those have changed.
The point is what if there was no law that said it was wrong? Would it still be wrong?

"It's wrong because we as a society have determined it's wrong."

Three questions:
Going back to the other one, what if the majority in a society says they're fine with it?
Given the fact Fogle knew full well society doesn't agree with what he did, do you think he cared?
Why should someone care about majority opinion when said person doesn't believe or support any moral objective standard?

"We can reason and deduce it's wrong."
This one is only slightly better but in atheist's hands, it misses a key point:
If you're going to use reason or anything for that matter as a standard, don't you need to first establish a) standards exist and b) standards should be followed regardless of one's personal feelings?

Since atheism is so emotion driven, I see no "reason" to trust an atheist when they say this.

"It's not good for children."

I laugh every time an atheist says this because 9 times out of 10, the atheist is the first to say sex, regardless of who it's with, should have no restrictions or consequences.

In fact, I'm going to let you all on a secret: atheists don't really care about children.
Do you know how I know atheists don't care about children? Because they babble on about priests molesting kids, but turn a blind eye and a deaf ear when a public school teacher does it---despite the fact even the Department of Education itself admitted child molestation is far worse in schools than in churches. As recently as January 2014, the Government Accoutability Office even confirmed public schools still aren't doing enough to protect kids from sexual predators.

But hey, teachers promote secularism so they get a free pass, right? ;)

Finally, we get to the dumbest arguments atheists make.

"Atheism doesn't say it because atheism is just about not believing in God."

I said this once and I will keep saying it until it gets through atheist's thick skulls:

Ideas do NOT exist in a vacuum. Your outlook affects your thinking.

"The Bible itself promotes pedophilia."

Believe it or not, there are atheist idiots who think the Bible promotes pedophilia. I asked atheists about this and they either couldn't give any examples or couldn't cite any verses that say it's to be believed at the same level as the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation.

So atheists can't say pedophilia is wrong anymore than they can say abortion is wrong….proof again atheists are idiots.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

The "Amazing" A-the-tard



I must admit this took much longer than I thought to finally address but here we are: the sheer, unadulterated idiocy known as the "Amazing" Atheist (and I use the word amazing VERY loosely).
For those luckily enough to not know about this walking bowel movement, the moniker is the v-log name for Thomas TJ Kirk, a man so foul and Philistine even other prominent atheists want nothing to do with him.

There isn't enough writing space here to fully express how much I detest everything he stands for, so instead I'll get into why I wrote this:
In a recent video, he listed his top ten WTF Bible passages. Rather than put my loyal readers through his sewer of a mouth, I'll list here what those verses are so you can look them up yourself and questions that popped into my mind when he brought them up.
I should also disclose one other thing: I put these questions in a post to him a few days before this was put up; as of today, I have received no response. (SEE UPDATE BELOW).

Ok, TJ…you want to be exposed as an idiot? Here's why you're wrong on all the verses:
10. Deut 21:18-21.
Who are the elders they're talking about? Are they still around? Is there anything that says this teaching transferred into others? 9. 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Odd choice given his past history with women, but even ignoring that, isn't it obvious from the context Paul's talking about not letting women be priests and not talking about them being teachers in general? 8. Lev. 26:27-30 
What was meant by "high places"? Context shows that's talking about where idol worship was still going on. What did you think it meant? 7. Deut 25:22-12 
Again, another odd choice given your past history with women, but when two men fight, what are the odds a) a women will join in and b) even if she did, why would she ever think to do that? 6. Mark 14:51-52 
Proves nothing. Isn't it possible this is foreshadowing other events? 5. Ex 4:15 
Isn't it obvious context shows God is using Ezekiel to exemplify what the Jew's work amounted to? 4. Zec 13:3 
Did you not read the previous verse? Didn't it flat out say the prophets of the idols, the ones referred to in this verse? 3. Gen 16:7-9 
Again, did you not read the next verse? 2. 1 Peter 2:18 
This is just misquoted. It reads servants, not slaves. Did you not see where Peter calls himself a slave? Again, a broad point you missed. 1. Ex 23:20 
Why didn't you look at this: Was that too hard for you to understand?

UPDATE (May 14 2016): In the time since this initial posting, I still have received no real answer or rebuttal from him. Another atheist tried to fight me on this and even claimed he emailed TJ who in turn claimed he doesn't remember responding to this.
1. I don't believe for a moment he did email TJ.
2. Even if he did, I don't believe TJ responded.
3. Even if he did email him and TJ did respond, then TJ either is full of it or has a terrible memory because Twitter recorded his response and here it is:
You refute me so good! Me am dumb. You defeat me!

Not sure if that was meant as sarcasm or what, but it's not thought out hence NOT a real response.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Exorcise Planned Parenthood



Disclaimer: the following video will offend those who think fetuses don't count as life. Also, I should note the priest in this video runs the parish I used to attend.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Tearing Fr Martin a New One (a Rant)



In my post about the Jesuits, I mentioned a current Jesuit named Fr James Martin, who put up a Facebook post about his stand on the Supreme Court ruling concerning so-called same-sex "marriage". I mentioned that his post was so sugary and asinine that no one should take it seriously.

Initially, I did plan to copy and paste the actual post from Facebook and point out everything wrong with it…then I couldn't find the post on his Facebook page.

For some reason, it was taken down. I don't know if this was because of how controversial it was, or it was being misunderstood or it wasn't what Fr Martin meant. In any case, if you go to the page, it's not there.

But I was able to find an article that captured the post, so I can refute it that way.

Let me make one thing clear here before I continue: contrary to what people believe the Church says, it is okay to call out a priest on an issue, especially when they say something so obviously wrong. This is why it's acceptable to call out Fr Robert Barron (soon to be auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles) when he says we have a reasonable hope all mean are saved. That notion is wrong not only in light of several Church documents, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, but also Jesus Himself refutes that notion.

So now, here's Fr Martin's post, with my refutations in red letters:

No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality.

(Maybe if they stop trying to trample on religious people's rights, we wouldn't have this problem.)

Even after 25 years as a Jesuit, the level of hatred around homosexuality is nearly unbelievable to me, especially when I think of the all the wonderful LGBT friends I have.

(Fr Martin, at any point did you point out to your so-called LGBT "friends" how destructive their lifestyle is, not just religiously but objectively speaking? I would think someone who has been a Jesuit for 25 years would have at least some concern over their friend's salvation.)

The Catholic church must do a better job of teaching what the Catechism says: that we should treat our LGBT brothers and sisters with "respect, sensitivity and compassion."

( Sorry, Fr Martin, but you don't get to decide what the Church should do a better job at. And what catechism are you talking about? Every catechism I'm familiar with condemns homosexuality. In addition, do you expect anyone to believe your order's founder would promote compassion at the expense of Church teaching?)

But God wants more. God wants us to love. And not a twisted, crabbed, narrow tolerance, which often comes in the guise of condemnations, instructions and admonitions that try to masquerade as love, but actual love.

(I'm confused. Are we supposed to take the Catechism's word on things or not? If we are, then shouldn't we keep it in mind when it condemns and admonishes homosexuality? If we aren't, then why did you even bring it up?)

Love means: getting to know LGBT men and women, spending time with them, listening to them, being challenged by them, hoping the best for them…

(So we're supposed to be challenged by them? What if we want to challenge them? What if we want to call them out on how many LGBT are responsible for new HIV cases? What if we want to challenge them on how many sexual partners the average gay person has? Aren't you duty bound to call on people to live lives of chastity, no matter who they are?
And where is your definition of love coming from? It can't be the Bible, because that's not how it defines love. It couldn't be from Loyola's spiritual exercises, because that's not what he says love is. So where is your asinine definition coming from?)

, and wanting them to be part of your lives, every bit as much as straight friends are part of your lives."

(Considering how they've treated religious people who disagree with them, why would I want them to be part of my life? Doesn't this sound like something I can do without?)

Love first. Everything else later. In fact, everything else is meaningless without love. 

(Didn't Jesus say if we love Him, we should keep His commandments? And didn't He also say we should love the Lord with all our heart? Don't those two commands refute everything you say?)

Friday, July 31, 2015

My Thoughts on the Jesuits



On this feast day of St Ignatius of Loyola, I'd like to make my stand clear on the order Loyola founded:
the Society of Jesus, aka the Jesuits.

Now before we get too much into it, let me make a few things clear:
-This is NOT going to be a collection of conspiracy theories. All of my claims can be verified by several sources.
- I do NOT think Pope Francis is a false pope just because he's a Jesuit. For that matter, I don't think he's a false pope at all.
-If you know of a holy Jesuit, this is not directed towards him. There are several Jesuits living their vows in full accordance with their order's by-laws and in full compliance with the Magisterium. In fact, one deceased Jesuit, Fr John Hardon, is up for sainthood.

Lastly, I want to make it known that this is a very tough article for me to write. My family has close associations with the Jesuits and at one point, I almost went to a Jesuit high school for reasons I won't get into right now. I've also done the Jesuit exercises and I feel closer to the Holy Trinity than ever before.

Having said all this, I've now concluded Jesuits as a whole have lost their way and the order should not be supported until they change their ways.

Consider the following:
-Out of all the Jesuit run colleges and universities in the U.S, not one has the Cardinal Newman Society seal of approval…meaning their colleges don't do a very good job passing the faith to students.
- Every single so-called "Catholic" politician that winds up betraying the faith or pulls the old "I don't want to impose my faith on others" routine are almost all graduates of Jesuit colleges.
-In a March 2015 video, Michael Voris at Church Militant made a video about a former Jesuit seminarian. (For the video, click here).
-Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled on gay so-called "marriage", Fr James Martin, SJ, went on Facebook and made a post so sugary and so asinine no thinking person could in any way take it seriously. (and trust me: a rant is coming to tear it a new one).
-In Latin America, Jesuits have promoted an idea called liberation theology. While it has not been condemned as a whole, certain portions have been. Despite this, Latin Jesuits are still promoting the condemned portions.
-American Jesuits have their own magazine called America. In 2005, then lead magazine editor Fr Thomas J Reese was asked to resign under orders from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith after it was discovered he allowed several published articles that ran contrary to Church teaching. In 2009, under the new Jesuit head editor, the magazine gave support to Obama in receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame.
-At one point, Jesuit priest Robert Drinan was also a Massachusetts congressmen. When then Pope John Paul II ordered all priests to withdraw from political office, Drinan resigned but not before having a long career promoting abortion "rights." 
Remember that "I don't want to impose my beliefs" bull I mentioned earlier? Drinan started that. 
Today, there is the Drinan award given to abortion friendly politicians and no Jesuit has come forward calling to end the practice, even though it's given by a Jesuit college.

Now, to make it clear I am not entirely negative, here are some positive things to say about Jesuits:
-They were responsible for introducing Christianity to the Far East.
-Some of the most admirable saints in the Church are Jesuits (such as Francis Xavier, Francis Borgia, Peter Claver, Peter Faber, Edmund Campion, and many others).
-Most of the craters on the moon are named after Jesuit scientists.
-Jesuits invented and gave the majority of contributions to seismology. Even today, seismology is still nicknamed "the Jesuit science."
-A Jesuit founded Apostleship of Prayer, considered to be the Pope's personal prayer group
-Jesuits taught a young man about the faith, and that young man not only became a priest, not only became a bishop, and not only returned several people to the Faith during the Reformation, but also became a saint and a Doctor of the Church. Today we call that man St Francis De Sales.
-Their spiritual exercises…enough said.
-A Jesuit served as a spiritual director to St Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei.

My point of all this is in light of all the good they've done…what happened?
Why are they an empty shell of what they once were?
Why are they producing so many dissidents and traitors to the faith?

While I still recommend people go to any Jesuit run parish in your area today and gain a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions, of course), stick to the writings of declared Jesuit saints in learning about the order, and demand the Jesuits change their ways.

Otherwise, more atheists will form, and atheists are idiots.