Page Title

Text Box: made: Vice President Richard Cheney is pro-life and anti-abortion, while President Obama and the liberals are pro-abortion. Therefore, who munches on unborn babies? Alaska Governor Sarah Palin: was and remains under constant attack by liberals since her becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee. Not content with manufacturing accusations of corruption which were reported by newspapers, magazines, and broadcast “journalists” as facts - which were later proven to be unfounded and false accusations, Mrs. Palin appearance and her children have also been under constant attack. On his prime-time evening TV show, David Letterman recently characterized Mrs. Palin’s attire as having the “slutty flight attendant look”. He also joked about her fourteen year old daughter being raped and made pregnant by Yankees ball player Alex Rodriguez, in the ball park, during a ball game. Not only did that not happen, but what kind of mind finds rape and especially rape of a fourteen year old to be funny? Why? Why do liberals engage in character assassination and “name calling”? Why are they intolerant of opposition? Why do they refuse to engage in true open dialogue and real debate? Why do they promulgate lies, presenting them as truth, without any foundation - of which there can be none because they are promulgating lies? Why do they use one-one-hundredth truths combined with ninety-nine-one-hundredth lies and present the entirety as truth? Why do they demonize their opponents? Partially because they are unable to attain success on the merits of their positions, or by using complete truth. But most importantly, because what they seek to attain is actually evil procured through using evil processes. Since evil precludes God, Godliness, and Holiness, it therefore of necessity precludes Truth.

Text Box: While those who oppose evil can not sneer at those who promote evil, nor ridicule them, nor cry Raca at them, for such are contrary to the teachings of God, the truth about them can be told, and must be told. The immoral may never be brought to account in this life for lying about someone, whether it be overt and bold, misrepresentation, false character-ization, innuendo, ridicule, or other method, often is not a crime, and usually is not actionable in court especially if it regards a public person. But it is a sin. While the perpetrator may not experience or suffer any civil, legal, social, or criminal effects, the perpetrator will experience and suffer spiritually, and incur the wrath of God. The perpetrators may not give a damn, but they would be well served if they would remember that God hands them out quite regularly. If you elected any of the perpetrators,either by voting for them or by casting your vote away, or if you watch their “entertainment”, you will be well served if you also remember that God hands them out quite regularly. +

Text Box: WHEN CATHOLICS ARE NOT CATHOLIC Does an Orthodox priest or bishop ever have the right or the duty to determine and to declare one who is believed to be a Roman Catholic, to not be Roman Catholic? There are certain situations wherein even in those Orthodox jurisdictions where it is not normally permitted, an Orthodox priest would give Holy Communion or another Sacrament to a Roman Catholic whom the priest knows is dogmatically correct and in spiritual good standing. Just prior to battle in war is an example. But if that Roman Catholic is pro-choice / pro-abortion, then the Orthodox priest can not give that person Holy Communion because that person is not dogmatically correct. In effect, the Orthodox priest has made the determination, quite correctly, that the individual is not a Roman Catholic. That the individual is an heretic from the Roman Catholic Church, and definitely not a member in grace of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which every Orthodox Church is a part. This discretion, right, and duty applies without regard to whether the heretic or apostate in question is a member of the laity, a religious order, or of the clergy. But it is most properly exercised only when necessary. Thus Senator Edward Kennedy, a well known advocate of abortion, is properly chastised for his abortion advocacy and it is proper to publicly state that in his current spiritual condition the only Sacrament to which he has access is that of Confession and Absolution. Should he seek it with proper attitude. But it would not be proper to publicly state such regarding a particular individual who privately holds the same opinion regarding abortion as Senator Kennedy. +

Go to page