Saturday, June 30, 2012

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Before Mother Angelica and EWTN; before Protestant tele-evangelists, there was one man on the airwaves preaching Christ.  This man is now closer to sainthood.  He was elevated to Venerable by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. This man is none other than Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

He would appear on the primitive television sets of the 50's in full abito piano, something that is lacking in today's clergy which should be brought back to show the dignity of the priesthood.

Archbishop Sheen spoke the truth on tv and radio.  He did not hide anything and his words are valid even in today's world which has fallen greatly in morals since the 40's and 50's.

May Archbishop Sheen pray for us all.  May he pray for America and the Catholic Church.  

Thomas Euteneuer

Former president of Human Life International, Thomas Euteneuer is in a lot of trouble. A former employee is accusing him of inappropriate contact. The alleged victim claims Euteneuer sexually abused her for 2 years during an "exorcism."

Euteneuer did admit to overstepping the boundaries of a priest, he apologized in 2011 by claiming that he made "imprudent decisions with harmful consequences, the worst of which was violating the boundaries of chastity with an adult female who was under my spiritual care."

The victim is suing Human Life International and the diocese of Arlington for 5.3 million dollars.

These stories are depressing to hear but are the reality of when a priest is not spiritually grounded. Priests are men, they have natural drives to reproduce. A man cannot just shut down these natural cues that cause arousal and the desire to reproduce. This is where spiritual and psychological maturity comes in.  

Immaturity and Intellectual Sloth? Really? -response

I found this ( and am responding according.  My comments are in black and the original is in blue.

///I just saw a post over at Sacerdotus that saddens me. I’m not going to excerpt it because of the explicitly-stated licensing conditions on the front page, but it’s a brief read, and I suggest you take a look at it now.

The post is titled “With Age Comes Wisdom,” which was based on an article that Sacerdotus read at The Huffington Post, which I will excerpt from after the jump:///

Sacerdotus replies:

Well first, thanks for not stealing my material.  You can always ask for permission to use it.  All you have to do is contact me and let me know before writing.  

//The problems begin with “which god,” and multiply from there.///

Sacerdotus replies:

This is always the question atheists pose when one speaks of "God."  Which one?  Well, there is only ONE. There seems to be many gods due to the variety of names and descriptions; however, there can only be ONE creator, logically speaking; just like only one mother can give birth to you.  

Man, since his first steps on Earth has always contemplated God.  God, despite being remote was close as well.  So close in fact that man could attempt to describe Him based on man's experience in the world.  All the names and descriptions of gods is exactly this.  It is man's attempt to describe God.  Does it mean there are thousands of gods sharing heaven?  Absolutely not.  Man in his limited capacity used the knowledge available to him in order to define God in terms he can understand e.g. fire, water, sea, storms, thunder, lightning etc.

///Do click on that link there, and cycle through it. #4 is a good example of the strangeness:///

Sacerdotus replies:

I do not see how this is related to my blog post.  

//That article it links to? The actual results and limitations of the study are predictably more complicated than the shorter blurb would have us believe://

Sacerdotus replies:

All studies have limitations.  It is the data gathered that is falsifiable that counts.

///I wonder how well Shi’a Muslims would do in a task where they’re prompted to examine Sunni writings, or Catholics having to analyze the Mormon conception of gods (yes, gods). I suspect the results would be entertaining.1 Back to Sacerdotus.

He then goes on to say that this is a good thing, but that atheists seem to have a problem with “object permanence” (which is the simple realization that something you can’t see doesn’t necessarily not exist), and that a lack of belief exhibits “intellectual immaturity and sloth.”2 Do you want to know what exhibits “intellectual immaturity and sloth?” Conflating the cognitive development stage at which a child realizes that something hidden hasn’t really vanished with the idea that a being whose existence must be taken on faith alone might exist.3 Seriously, the two concepts are different. One involves the mental differentiation between how you see the world and how you think of it (and by extension the realization that the world is a thing that exists beyond what you perceive and desire), or as Phillip K. Dick put it, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Faith is belief without requiring evidence. There’s a third possibility, open-mindedness, which is being willing to admit a lack of complete knowledge on a subject and therefore being open to the examination of new evidence. I’m not sure which of the latter two Sacerdotus is talking about, but if they can’t tell the difference between those three things, then perhaps a little mental development might be in order.///

Sacerdotus replies:

Again, God is God regardless of what names call Him.  There is only ONE Supreme Creator.  

Regarding my mentioning of object permanence you basically agreed with me by stating, "One involves the mental differentiation between how you see the world and how you think of it," this pretty much says it.  The self imposed mental processes in the atheist do not allow for the perception of God, so to speak.  They use disbelief as a filter and cannot see God right before them.  The quote by "Philip K. Dick" can be refuted.  People who are under hypnosis can experience an alternate reality which is very real; so real, that some show physical signs on their bodies.  This then brings the question up:  is reality in the mind?   

Faith does not mean belief without evidence.  It means to trust, be loyal and exhibit steadfastness.

///Either way, I’m pretty sure Sacerdotus is paranoid.

1. For me, at least.

2. Insert the immature and emotionally satisfying epithets of your choice here.

3. A god (or gods) might indeed exist. The question is, which one(s)? If any do exist, my money is on “none of those so far mentioned.”///

Sacerdotus replies:

I am not paranoid.. far from it.   Atheists are the ones paranoid with me and constantly go about making all kinds of strange claims regarding me.  

The God that exists is the God that has revealed Himself to man.


Rosa Rubicondior Evidence Gaffe Update

If you have followed my blog, I recently refuted a blog by Rosa Rubicondior. (  As usual, Rosa attempted to argue back but with ad hominem and condescension.

Rosa attacks attacks and attacks, not my points, but me!

After commenting back and forth, Rosa deletes my comment.  Here is a screen shot of it:

I decided to take a "print screen" of the comment because I had a feeling Rosa would delete it.  To test my hypothesis, I reposted it again, here is the screen shot:

As expected, Rosa did delete the original comment as well as this one.  

They were deleted.    It is understandable why  Rosa would delete them.  They expose the intellectual dishonesty that composes Rosa's blog.  

What is also troubling is Rosa's constant request for proof of God when I never offered to do such a thing.  My only intent was to refute Rosa's claims.  Rosa's own blog post does not request proof but rather shows what constitutes evidence for God, according to Rosa.   Rosa apparently has issue comprehending what is read. 

Rosa even goes on another blog criticizing me for not providing evidence.  This is absurd because again my intention was clear on Rosa's blog and mine.  (

Here is the screen shot in case Rosa deletes that one:

Notice that I answer Rosa's claim that I some how ran away from providing evidence.  Refuting a blog about what constitutes evidence does not mean providing evidence for God.

Here is the dialog we had on Rosa's comments:

  1. This is too easy to debunk. Stay tuned to my blog. I will debunk this post and the 2 links Rosa provided. :)


    1. Such a pity you couldn't support that claim with an actual example of you doing so here, eh?
    2. BTW, there was nothing to debunk. It is a challenge - which you manifestly failed.

      Did you not actually read what you were commenting upon?
  2. I could, but I would take up most of your page since I tend to write a lot. :) Here it goes:


    1. Thank you.

      Your claim is, of course a lie.

      Your challenge was to provide the evidence which meets the above criteria and so will convert an atheist. Your blog merely gives your excuse for not being able to do so, as people can see should they go to your blog at

      For example "Atheists will always demand "evidence" for the claims of believers; however, they will never provide evidence for their counter argument."

      From previous experience of your 'debating' style I am not at all surprised to see you again trying the intellectually dishonest and cowardly ploy of trying to divest yourself of the responsibility for substantiating your claim of the existence of your god and demanding that atheists disprove it instead. This is, as you probably know, an example of one of the more dishonest debating ploys - the False Dichotomy Fallacy - and as such illustrates both your moral and scientific bankruptcy. It is so blatant that it is normally only ever attempted by people who know their claim is a lie or who lack the intellect and integrity to realise that they have been fooled by it themself.

      Since you employ very little else as a debating tactic, I assume you are trying to fool people into agreeing with you in the belief that, should you succeed, it will turn the lie you know you are pushing into a truth.

      Thank you for showing once again the close link between intellectual dishonesty and God Delusion. Since very many people are now freeing themselves from religious delusion and regaining their intellectual integrity, it looks like religion causes dishonesty rather than dishonesty causing religion but then when you are too afraid to not follow the herd but know you are living a lie, what other option do you have but to pretend, even to yourself?
    2. By the way, I have put a comment on your blog. I wait to see if you have the integrity to allow it through.
  3. As usual, you resort to Ad hominem. Instead of attacking the arguments, you attack the arguer. This is common among Agnostics/Atheists such as yourself who do not have the intellectual confidence to articulately construct a rebuttal. They attack the arguer and falsely throw around fallacy accusations in order to save face.

    Moreover, you erroneously make charges of False Dichotomy. No such attempt was made to force anyone to accept a position. A False Dichotomy is when one is not of A then one is of B. Any well read person would see that my blog post has no such content. It is merely a commentary of your blog and why it is irrational.

    To date, you have not provided any evidence supporting your counter argument that my blog post is "bankrupt." Until you do so, your ad hominem comments proudly display your defeat.

    PS. I have no problem posting comments as long as they are not vulgar, hateful, and they pertain to the discussion.
  4. If you don't like your lies being publicly pointed out, try not lying.

    I appreciate you wouldn't win any arguments with it but you can't imagine you're actually winning any with your present tactics, can you?

    Maybe you don't know what a false dichotomy is. It's where you don't offer any evidence for your claim but just attack your opponents argument. It relies on your audience being gullible, parochial and stupid enough to think your god is the only alternative on offer. I can't speak for your normal audience, and maybe your obvious contempt for their intelligence is justified, but I wish you wouldn't insult the readers of this blog with that condescending assumption.

    They will, of course, have noticed that you don't have any evidence for your god - which is why you know you need to use dishonest tactics in the first place.

    Will you have the courage to take the challenge in this blog soon, or are we to be treated to lots more excuses for not doing so, coupled with more abuse and dishonest tactics in an attempt to divert attention from your abject failure?
  5. Rosa, by your own definition you are guilty of false dichotomy. I do not see any evidence for the claims you make here. However, your understanding of the False Dichotomy fallacy is incorrect.

    A False Dichotomy deals with an "Either/Or" argument.

    For example:

    First: Propositions made are reciprocal to one another.
    A can be either T or F
    B is the converse of A whether A is T or F
    (A Concise Intro to Logic - Hurley)

    As you can see, I am not the one relying on an audience being gullible. You are the one misinforming your audience. Perhaps my presence here irritates you because this is not the first time I have corrected you. :)

    Furthermore, my comments were not about providing evidence for anything, rather, they are a critique of your nonsensical post.

    Someone retweeted your tweet and I saw this "evidence" blog link you were advertising and laughed at it as I read it because it holds no ground as I have demonstrated on my own blog. I then decided to write on it so others can see how you and kaimatai proposed ideas that have no weight to them. Had the person not retweeted your tweet, I would not have seen it due to your cowardice act of blocking me after I proved myself to be an opponent you could not deal with intellectually last year.

    Rosa, with all due respect, your blog offers no challenge. Your blogs repackage the same misconceptions and lack of knowledge on Scripture and Christianity that Atheists and Agnostics have demonstrated throughout the centuries. You quote Biblical passages as if you've discovered some strange thing about each that no one else has. Your misconceptions have answers. Whether you accept them or not is another issue.

    I will not even touch upon your blog's scientific illiteracy...

    It seems to me that your blog is your way of indirectly asking questions regarding religion. I think behind that "atheist/agnostic" facade is a curious person looking to learn about God, Scripture and Faith. This seems to be very common I have noticed.


    1. So we are to have long rambling excuses, ad hominem abuse and attempts to divert the conversation rather than dealing with your abject inability to meet my simple challenge then, eh?

      Don't you ever feel any shame or embarrassment at having to abandon personal integrity so spectacularly and publicly to defend your infantile superstition and give yourself an excuse to condescend to people and to try to control them through fear and ignorance?
    2. By the way, your dishonest and intellectually bankrupt use of the false dichotomy fallacy is exactly as you describe. You attack science but never provide any evidence to support your own claim in the hope that your victims will be gullible, stupid and parochial enough to assume your imaginary friend is the only alternative on offer, just as I described. It should be obvious to anyone why you need to use this tactic.

      Now you have revealed that you understand the deception fully, we can exclude ignorance or you having been fooled by it yourself from the possible reasons you use it.

      So that just leaves dishonesty as the reason. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
    3. Attack science?? nooo wayyy Did you not read Sacerdotus' blog? He owned you RosaRubicondior. Your blog has no credibility at all. I would love to debate Sacerdotus some time. Please read my email I sent you if you see this comment!
    4. You 'forgot' to say how, exactly. Did you hope no one would notice?

      You also 'forgot' to give your name. I wonder if people can work out why.
    5. There was, of course, no email. Did you realise it would reveal your identity?
    6. Sacerdotus. I have used your contribution here to illustrate my blog on cognitive dissonance (How Fundamentalists Get Their Head Round It) as it is an almost perfect example of a coping strategy for the problem of needing to believe your 'faith' has an evidential basis whilst being unable to find any. You merely assert there is some which you could produce if you wished, then try to shift the blame onto the person who points out that you have none. It also neatly illustrates another point in that blog - how fundamentalist are often so preoccupied with coping with cognitive dissonance that they trample roughshod over the very 'faith' they are trying desperately to cling to.

      Many thanks for your help.
    7. The fact that you deleted my comment shows you have failed and lost. :) Moreover, you do not attack my points but instead attack me. Nevertheless, I took screen shots and will post on my blog showing the world the dishonesty you represent and the fear you have of engaging someone who has corrected you on countless occasions. Thank you for showing the world that Atheism is irrational and cannot be defended.

Just now I posted this and am sure Rosa will delete it:

The fact that you deleted my comment shows you have failed and lost. :) Moreover, you do not attack my points but instead attack me. Nevertheless, I took screen shots and will post on my blog showing the world the dishonesty you represent and the fear you have of engaging someone who has corrected you on countless occasions. Thank you for showing the world that Atheism is irrational and cannot be defended.

Bus Monitor Horror Update

The abuse Karen Klein has paid off literally.  The campaign started by Max Sidorov has raised over $600,000!  Mrs. Klein can now have her vacation and also said she will donate part of the money to charities that support children with Down's syndrome.

Moreover, the bullies who harassed Mrs. Klein are feeling the heavy hand of justice.  They have been suspended for one year but will attend an alternative school. They must do community service with senior citizens, and complete an anti-bullying program.  I applaud their parents for waiving their right to a hearing.  These kids will most likely be bullied themselves once they return to school.  

I personally don't know about the suspension, but the overall punishment seems right.  It will teach these kids that what they did was immoral and will not be tolerated.  They will also become a teaching moment for all of us.  Words have power to them.  They have meaning.  We might think that saying something rude or foul is nothing, but deep down they affect people.

I also applaud the brave young man with a big heart who started a campaign for Mrs. Klein.  Max Sidorov stood up for an elderly person he does not know personally.  He has a heart and for his compassion is now the subject of a campaign that is raising money for him as well.

We are all brothers and sisters with God as our Father.  We must care for one another.


Friday, June 29, 2012

Fr. Pavone's Appeal Upheld by Vatican

The Vatican has upheld Fr. Pavone's appeal.  As you may know, Fr. Pavone was ordered to return to his diocese in Amarillo, Texas by his Bishop.  It seems to be that his Bishop wants to keep an eye on him and Priests For Life, an organization which fights against abortion by training priests and others on the topic and how to speak out against it.

No one really knows the reason why this Bishop is doing this.  Some speculate it is due to charges of misappropriation of funds by Priests For Life.  Most likely, this is an attempt by the Bishop to control Father Pavone's activities which can sometimes be borderline political.


Thursday, June 28, 2012

SCOTUS PRO POTUS "Obamacare unconstitutional?" HOCUS POCUS - Poof!

In a landmark decision, the United States of America's Supreme Court ruled in favor of "obamacare."  In a surprise twist, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts at the last minute changed his vote.  Meanwhile in the Oval office, at first, President Obama saw on the news that the SCOTUS knocked down his law, but later learned from his staff that the opposite occurred.  He immediate came out to speak to Americans regarding his victory.

Conservatives are upset with Justice Roberts calling him a traitor who sided with liberals on the court.  Some are saying that Roberts is showing that he is not partisan and will vote fairly regardless of his personal political views.

However, others are saying that Roberts made a move that will harm the president come election.  By allowing the law to remain valid, Americans - the majority - who hate the law will flock to vote for Romney.  Romney has presented himself as the candidate whose first presidential move will be to knock down Obamacare for good.

This is plausible because when the law passed in 2012, voters let the president know how they felt by voting out Democrats in the house and creating a Congress that has been one of the most stagnant and divided in American history.  Moreover, Roberts labeled the law as a tax and spending initiative of the federal government.

The Catholic Church's bishops in America are not too happy and vowed to fight on until the law's mandate is gone and religious freedom is respected.


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Bronx "Pride" Center Sees Gold at the Rainbow

The Rainbow is said to have a pot of gold at its end.  A Lesbian activist appointed by Mayor Mike Bloomberg to head a LGBT Bronx "Pride" Community Center apparently believed this to be true.

June is labeled "Pride" month by the LGBT community, however, this has not been a "prideful" week for the LGBT community.  First the arrest of Larry Brinkin - a prominent San Francisco gay activist - for possession of child porn and sending racist emails, and now this new arrest in New York.

Lisa Winters, 47 - pictured on the left with fellow Lesbian Christine Quinn - former director of the "Bronx LGBT Community Pride Center" was arrested for embezzlement.

She channeled to herself over $300,000 from the charity's coffers which she spent on trips to Africa with her African American "wife" Eileen Scroggins as well as trips to Europe, the Turks and Caicos.

If that was not enough, she also spent tens of thousands on a dog walker, liquor, restaurants, pet stores, attire and so on.

Winters did this by using the center's credit cards, writing checks to herself, and even used a cruise-package meant for an auction to benefit herself.  Lisa use the charity's donations to live a lavish life with her "partner."
She completely disregarded the LGBT people of the Bronx.

The monies that are missing have the "Pride" center in the red.  It could likely close for good this Saturday due to the huge deficit Winters left behind.  The center assists the LGBT community of the Bronx by providing educational information, testing, counseling, help with housing and other needs for homosexuals of every age and race.

It is unfortunate that Winters took advantage of her position in order to live a nice life with her "spouse" while those who rely on this center now have to suffer its possible closure.

Money is indeed the root of all evil.   All charities should be monitored carefully especially those that are focused on "rights" such as those that service the LGBT community.  They could be fronts for embezzlement and other forms of corruption.

When donating money, one must know to whom the money is going and what is it being used for.

UPDATE:  The Bronx "Pride" Community Center will close on Saturday June 30, 2012 for good due to Winters' embezzlement.


Lisa Winters  was just sentenced to 2-6 years in prison for grand larceny.  The Bronx Pride center is now defunct.   


Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Animal Oral Sex legal???!!!??

Eric Antunes, 29 years old was arrested for child porn and bestiality. The latter charges were dropped. They were not dropped because there was no evidence. They were dropped due to a loophole in Florida law. The law does not prohibit oral sex with animals. 

Gay Rights Activist Arrested for Child Porn

June is the LGBT's self-proclaimed "Pride Month."  

However, the arrest of a prominent gay activist for child porn is not something to have pride about.  Larry Brinkin, 66 who has worked in the human rights movement particularly focusing on the LGBT's agenda was arrested for possessing child pornography.  

"Twinks" (gay slang describing guys who look boyish) were apparently not enough for Brinkin who had disgusting and terrifying images of 1-3 year olds being sodomized and performing oral sexual acts on older men.  

To add to the disgust, Brinkins wrote in an email saying: "I loved especially the n---er 2 year old getting nailed."   He also wrote pro- White Supremacy things.  

I hope the LGBT community will work more to end child porn and pedophilia among its people.   Hopefully they will bring change to the culture among gays that see "boyish" guys as the major symbol for attractiveness and the desired partner to have sex with.  

From what I have read and learned from discussions with homosexuals, fetishes such as Gerontophilia or "dad and son" are often practiced in the gay community.  In these role play gay scripts, an older "bear" male who is larger and hairy is the alpha male while the "twink" or boyish smaller smooth bodied young "son" is the beta male in the sexual fantasy.  

In "Pride" parades, very young looking hairless guys are often a norm and are seen parading around in underwear that look like the kind children wear.  If this is what is acceptable in the LGBT community as a normal sex life, then this sets up a breeding ground for pedophilial desires.  


Monday, June 25, 2012

King of Pop - 3 yrs later

It is hard to believe that 3 years have passed since the death of the "King of Pop" Michael Jackson.  Jackson is probably the most well known musician ever to walk the Earth.  I think he has Elvis and the Beatles beat.  (no pun intended)

Even kids who were not born when Jackson was riding high the music charts are aware of him and his music.  Jackson has even inspired many musicians who are popular today.

Jackson as we know is no stranger to controversy.  He was accused of molestation, and of abusing his own children by dangling them from balconies and forcing them to cover themselves in public.  Despite these negatives, Jackson's fans will always remain loyal.  He was never convicted of any crimes and rumors circulate that his accusers were extorting him for his money.  Only God knows what really happened.  

Michael Jackson was indeed a very talented individual.  In a sense, he brought the world together with his music.  His music was always clean and inspiring unlike the junk out there today.

May Michael Jackson rest in peace.


Sunday, June 24, 2012

"Pride" Month

Today some cities around the world are celebrating LGBT "Pride."  Many of them hold strange flamboyant parades celebrating the LGBT community and agenda.  While I have much respect for the LGBT community, I cannot support or give any validity to their agenda.  As a rational person I must hold fast to the realities behind what a male and female are.  I cannot replace biology and psychology with social constructivism.  

Moreover, the manner in which the LGBT display their so-called 'Pride' is distasteful and I have no idea why people are not arrested during these gatherings.

These parades have extreme nudity and vulgarity on full display.  They mock God, religions and anyone who is not in support of their agenda.  One just needs to Youtube Gay parade content or look at photos and see the disgusting displays.

Sex seems to be the main identifier of the LGBT people.  Instead of displaying things regarding the history of the LGBT such as the NY Stonewall incident or the positive contributions to society made by homosexuals, they have women with breasts exposed, men with attire that obviously accentuates certain areas, and the public portrayal of sexual acts. 

It is no wonder why no television networks carry the parade on channels as they would the St. Patrick's or Puerto Rican parades.

Why do these people get a free pass to disobey decency laws?  Doesn't anyone care that minors and others who are sensitive might see this junk?


Friday, June 22, 2012

Justice WILL Prevail

"But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were profitable for him that a great millstone had been hanged upon his neck and he be sunk in the depths of the sea."  - Jesus Christ  (Matthew 18:6

Today was a big day for victims of sexual abuse.  Monsignor William Lynn and Jerry Sandusky were found guilty in a court of law.  The disgraced Lynn was found guilty of endangering children due to his negligent handling of priests during his time in the chancery of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  Coach Jerry Sandusky of the famed Penn State University was found guilty of sexually abusing young boys, most who are grown now.  Lynn will possibly face 7 years in prison and Sandusky 442 years.

Abuse of any kind should never be tolerated.  However, when the abuse is done on a child, the disgust and hurt is much more.  Children are a blessing of the Lord. (Psalm 127:3)  To think that anyone would harm a child in the way that child sexual predators do is truly sickening.  Any harm done whether sexual or not is sickening.  A child is an innocent creature and deserves nothing but the best that life has to offer.  

I am glad both of these individuals were found guilty.  The verdict does not erase the past, but makes an example of the accused - Child abuse will not be tolerated nor the aiding and abetting of it.  

I love my Church dearly, but the transferring of priests with sexual problems from parish to parish was truly a mistake and quite frankly stupid.  Moreover, not reporting these sick individuals to the authorities is also a mistake and foolish.  The Church is not a law enforcement institution.  We are in the life of saving souls.  Sometimes saving souls requires "tough love."  Bishops and/or anyone in ecclesial authority who transferred priests with sexual problems and/or did not report their crimes to the authorities should be behind bars.

Moreover, officials at Penn State who did nothing regarding Sandusky should also be behind bars.  Once the first report against Sandusky was made, he should have been turned over to the cops.  The act of University and Church officials to put institutional prestige before victims is truly distasteful.  Both institutions exist to serve others, not to destroy lives in order to protect the institution's image.  

I pray for all those brave victims out there who have come forward with their stories.  I pray that any victim still in hiding will come forward and report what has happened to him/her.  

The Catholic Church has gotten much heat for the sex abuse scandals, however, the Church so far is the only institution that has gone the extra mile to protect children and adults from sexual misconduct.  I hope other institutions follow.  

Justice will prevail always!  


Plans for the Year of Faith

The Vatican has announced its plans for the Year of Faith which begins on October 11, 2012 and ends on November 24, 2013.  This year will also mark the 50th anniversary of the Vatican II council and 20th anniversary of the publication of the new Catechism.

Many events will take place in Rome to celebrate this year.  A bishop's synod will take place which will discuss new evangelization efforts.  Seminarians and religious will celebrate in Rome on July 7 and on Pentecost the many Catholic movements will unite.  Eucharistic adoration will be taking place on a global scale on Corpus Christi.

This will be an exciting year.  All Catholics should take this time to grow in faith.  Pray, receive the Sacraments regularly, study the faith and how to present it to those who do not believe and to those who believe differently.

The official site is:


Rosa Rubicondior Evidence Gaffe

My "Atheist" Twitter pal Rosa Rubicondior recently tweeted a link to a blog that I found interesting. The blog  attempts to define what evidence is and how it will impact the conversion of an Atheist.

However, like with most blogs and works written by Atheists, the logic is flawed and the intellectual thoughts behind them are obtuse.  I will explain why in this blog. 
Rosa's words will be in blue and mine will be in black.

<If you want to convert an Atheist your task should be simple.  Atheists believe in evidence; our opinions are based on it and when the evidence changes, or we discover new evidence, we change our opinions.  We have no sacred dogmas which can't be questioned; no tenets of 'faith' to which we must subscribe.

This should make us very easy to convert.

Sacerdotus comments:
Atheists will always demand "evidence" for the claims of believers; however, they will never provide evidence for their counter argument.  To date no Atheist has proven the "There is no god hypothesis."  It is a presumptious argument that has no evidence and is merely an exaggerated claim.   

Sacred Dogmas are not the same as Scientific knowledge.  If a Dogma says for example that God is good, how can anyone alter that?  It is an attribute of God which only God can alter.  Similarly, if a college graduate achieves a summa cum laude, how can one alter this fact?  This is an attribute that is unique to that graduate and cannot be altered.  

Science will change because our understanding of nature changes.  However, that does not mean that nature itself changes.  It merely means that what we at first observed and interpreted needs to be updated or retracted.   

<<All you need is authenticated, incontrovertible evidence that your god exists and your evidence only needs to pass a few simple tests which, presumably, you believe it's already passed>>

Sacerdotus comments:
This statement is ambiguous.  Evidence can be anything to anyone.  For centuries believers have offered evidence that is incontrovertible, however, Atheists simply reject them.  For centuries miracles have happened which are confirmed by the scientific community as "unexplainable" and Atheists still reject them.  So what needs to change is not the evidence, but the objectivity of the Atheist who is studying the evidence.  

<<You will need to explain why your evidence is evidence ONLY for your god and not any other.  Since people have believed in over 3000 different gods in recorded human history, obviously you will need to show why your evidence couldn't be evidence for any of those.
You will also need to explain how a god is the ONLY possible explanation for your evidence and why it can't possibly be explained as the result of a natural process.Now, since, presumably, you were convinced of your god's existence by just such evidence, it shouldn't be too difficult to tell us Atheists where it's to be found and how it meets the above criteria

Sacerdotus comments:
This statement is ridiculous.  Any evidence for a deity/deities provided by believers of different faiths will not have any major difference in regards to ontology and metaphysics.  The evidence provided will deal with the deity's/deities' existence, attributes and how that deity/deities interacts with the universe.  Therefore, whether humanity has 3000 different gods or 10, those gods will be defended in a universal manner.  
Note how an Islamic follower of Rosa's blog is using similar arguments to defend Allah just as any Christian or Jew would defend his/her ideas of God.  

Natural processes are not the finality of everything that occurs in nature.  Behind any process there is a cause.  No process in this universe is eternal.  Every process in this universe has a primal cause.  For example: A computer turns on when I turn it on.  It did not appear out of nowhere fully constructed and running eternally.  

The answer to how does not answer the why.     

<<In your own time....

(p.s.  Opinion isn't evidence and nor is a quote from a book unless the quote refers to authenticated, observable evidence meeting the above criteria).

[Later note] It seems many Creationists are unsure of what constitutes 'evidence' and imagine it includes ignorance and even the opinions of others.  The following blogs may help them gain the necessary understanding to be able to use the above method:

(Thanks to @kaimatai on Twitter for providing these helpful link)

Sacerdotus comments:

The suggestion that opinion  -isn't evidence nor a quote from a book - unless it is authenticated etc is an opinion in itself.  Rosa in the first paragraph told us that evidence changes.  If evidence changes, how can we trust it as being truth?   

Moreover, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to borrow from Sagan/Rees.  One cannot conclude there is no God based on any lack of what one defines as substantial incontrovertible evidence for the former.  For example, I can ask Rosa and everyone in my area what color is the sun.  They will most likely reply "yellow."  If I ask why, they will most likely reply that they see it in the sky as yellow.  Their evidence is what they observe with their eyes.  

However, in reality the Sun is white, not yellow.  See, to those who I've asked, the evidence they rely upon is what they have perceived, which is the color yellow in the sky.  However, my evidence is that the Sun is a G2V star that is white.  Its rays appear yellow due to the Earth's atmosphere.   

To add more "spice" to the situation, which evidence is evidence: my evidence or the evidence of the people I have asked?  Both are observable, can be tested and are incontrovertible.  Who is correct?

Now in regards to the 2 links by @kaimatai:  

They are interesting, however let me throw a wrench into the arguments.  
"@kaimatai" goes on in length to define what evidence is and is not.  The problem here is that in reality no one has ever had evidence of anything!   We never perceive things in actuality.  We never touch anything in reality!  

Touch, perception, sensation, are illusions based on the interpretation of electrical signals from an Atom's electrons by our nervous system.  Strange as it may seem, we never ever kissed our own mothers on the cheek!  We never ever hugged anyone!   

When we touch, grab, feel things, what we sense as "touch" is the Coulomb repulsion.  We are not actually touching anything.  Without the field generated by the electrons in the outer shell of atoms, we all would explode.  In other words, if atoms touch each other, they would annihilate each other.  The entire universe would become the largest atomic explosion possible.

So in reality, evidence is all in the brain and subject to perception!  This whole universe could be a simulation -for all we know- as Philosopher Chalmer's theorized.  That being said, both Rosa's and @kaimatai's logic have been destroyed.  Evidence is in the senses and perception of the beholder.    



Catholic Church (791) God (410) Jesus (351) Atheism (344) Bible (323) Jesus Christ (289) Pope Francis (237) Atheist (229) Liturgy of the Word (198) Science (157) LGBT (147) Christianity (139) Gay (82) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (76) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (56) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Vatican (51) Christian (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (48) Christmas (43) New York City (43) Psychology (43) Holy Eucharist (38) Women (35) Politics (34) Biology (32) Baseball (31) Supreme Court (31) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Health (24) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Theology (21) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Apologetics (19) Death (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Evangelization (18) Child Abuse (17) Donald Trump (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Priesthood (17) Pro Choice (17) Police (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Cognitive Psychology (9) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Hispanics (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)