24.2.12

24 February 1916

A film version of Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea opens in New York.


Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Austrian doctors say Dutch prince who was in avalanche may never regain consciousness

Prince Johan and his wife Princess Mabel. The prince is the second son of Her Magesty Queen Beatrix, Queen regnant of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

..AMSTERDAM - Austrian doctors treating the Dutch Prince Johan Friso say he suffered massive brain damage after being buried by an avalanche last week and he may never regain consciousness.

Doctor Wolfgang Koller said Friday that it took nearly 50 minutes to reanimate the prince. MRI scans have showed his brain suffered "massive damage" in the avalanche in Lech on Feb. 17. The 43-year-old prince will be moved at a later date to a private clinic for further treatment but it may take years before he awakens, if ever.


Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

23.2.12

Rare Footage of Civil War Veterans Doing the Rebel Yell



The exact sound of the yell is unknown and the subject of much speculation and debate. Likewise, the origin of the yell is uncertain. This film clip is one of the few remaining examples of Confederate Veterans making the yell. One must remember that the musket balls, the rage, and the fear which inspired the yell are missing, therefore this is only a shallow representation.

God Save the Sovereign South.

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

More on Confederate Veterans here...

Hot Cross Buns

Hot Cross buns have long been a symbol of Easter. Today they are sold in bake shops and supermarket bakeries throughout the Easter season. Each bun has an icing cross on top to signify the crucifixion.

In England, they were once sold by street vendors who advertised their wares with cries of "Hot Cross Buns! "Hot Cross Buns!"

Their street cries became a nursery rhyme....

Hot cross buns!
Hot cross buns!
One a penny,
Two a penny,
Hot cross buns!
If ye have no daughters,
Give them to your sons.
One a penny,
Two a penny,
Hot cross buns


1 cup milk
2 Tbsp yeast
1/2 cup sugar
2 tsp. salt
1/3 cup butter, melted and cooled
1 1/2 tsp. cinnamon
1/2 tsp. nutmeg
4 eggs
5 cup flour
1 1/3 cup currants or raisins
1 egg white

Glaze
1 1/3 cup confectioner's sugar
1 1/2 tsp. finely chopped lemon zest
1/2 tsp. lemon extract
1-2 Tbsp milk

Makes 24

In a small saucepan, heat milk to very warm, but not hot (110°F if using a candy thermometer). Pour warm milk in a bowl and sprinkle yeast over. Mix to dissolve and let sit for 5 minutes.

Stirring constantly, add sugar, salt, butter, cinnamon, nutmeg and eggs. Gradually mix in flour, dough will be wet and sticky. Continue kneading until smooth, about 5 minutes. Cover bowl with plastic wrap and let the dough "rest" for 30-45 minutes.

Knead again until smooth and elastic, for about 3 more minutes. Add currants or raisins and knead until well mixed. At this point, dough will still be fairly wet and sticky. Shape dough in a ball, place in a buttered dish, cover with plastic wrap and let rise overnight in the refrigerator. Excess moisture will be absorbed by the morning.

Let dough sit at room temperature for about a half-hour. Line a large baking pan (or pans) with parchment paper (you could also lightly grease a baking pan, but parchment works better). Divide dough into 24 equal pieces (in half, half again, etc., etc.). Shape each portion into a ball and place on baking sheet, about 1/2 inch apart. Cover with a clean kitchen towel and let rise in a warm, draft-free place until doubled in size, about 1 1/2 hours.

In the meantime, pre-heat oven to 400° F.

When buns have risen, take a sharp or serrated knife and carefully slash buns with a cross. Brush them with egg white and place in oven. Bake for 10 minutes, then reduce heat to 350° F, then bake until golden brown, about 15 minutes more. Transfer to a wire rack. Whisk together glaze ingredients, and spoon over buns in a cross pattern. Serve warm, if possible.

The Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur used to bake these for my grammar school classes, way back in the day...

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Bellaonline.

"No laws were broken,"

Washington State High School and Planned Parenthood provide an abortion for a 15 year old. The girl is sent via a cab to the abortition, the parents aren't notified and the girl is told not to mention this to her parents. What if the child would have died?



This is what happens when we give up our parental rights and reliquish our duties and responsibilities to the state. No one should ever feel brave enough to tell me that home schooling is bad.

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

February 23, 1429

Ben D Kennedy, author and poet, reminded me that it was on this date that Jehanne began her mission...

The Journey Begins,

On February 23, 1429, Joan of Arc finally received the blessing of Sir Robert de Baudricourt and departed Vaucouleurs to begin her mission to save France. Joan had requested help from de Baudricourt three times before he finally relented and agreed to send her to Charles VII in Chinon. It was during the evening of the 23rd that Joan assembled her small party of six that included her two knights, Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy, their two servants and two of the King’s messengers. more...

JEAN DE NOVELEMPORT, Knight, called Jean de Metz related in the Trial of Nullification...

Jeanne processes to Orleans by Louis-Maurice Boutet de Monvel (French, 1850 -1913)the Joan of Arc series for his book Joan of Arc.

"...When Jeannette was at Vaucouleurs, I saw her dressed in a red dress, poor and worn; she lived at the house of one named Henri Leroyer. 'What are you doing here, my friend?" I said to her. " Must the King be driven from the kingdom; and are we to be English?" " I am come here," she answered me, "to this royal town, ("Ad cameram regis.") to speak to Robert de Baudricourt, to the end that he may conduct me or have me conducted to the King: but Robert cares neither for me nor for my words. Nevertheless, before the middle of Lent, I must be with the King - even if I have to wear down my feet to the knees! No one in the world - neither kings, nor dukes, nor the daughter of the King of Scotland, (Margaret, daughter of James I of Scotland, who was betrothed to Louis, afterwards Louis XI.) nor any others - can recover the kingdom of France; there is no succor to be expected save from me; but, nevertheless, I would rather spin with my poor mother - for this is not my proper estate: it is, however, necessary that I should go, and do this, because my Lord wills that I should do it." And when I asked her who this Lord was, she told me it was God. Then I pledged my faith to her, touching her hand, and promised that, with God's guidance, I would conduct her to the King. I asked her when she wished to start. "Sooner at once than tomorrow, and sooner tomorrow than later," she said. I asked her if she could make this journey, dressed as she was. She replied that she would willingly take a man's dress. Then I gave her the dress and equipment of one of my men. Afterwards, the inhabitants of Vaucouleurs had a man's dress made for her, with all the necessary requisites; I also procured for her a horse at the price of about sixteen francs. Thus dressed and mounted, and furnished with a safe-conduct from the Sieur Charles, Duke de Lorraine, she went to visit the said Lord Duke. I accompanied her as far as Toul. On the return to Vaucouleurs, the first Sunday in Lent, (February 13th, 1428.) which is called 'Dimanche des Bures '-and it will be, if I mistake not, twenty-seven years from that day to the coming Lent (1455.) I and Bertrand de Poulengey, with two of my men, Colet de Vienne, the King's Messenger, and the Archer Richard, conducted the Maid to the King, who was then at Chinon. The journey was made at the expense of Bertrand de Poulengey and myself. We traveled for the most part at night, for fear of the Burgundians and the English, who were masters of the roads. We journeyed eleven days, always riding towards the said town of Chinon. On the way, I asked her many times if she would really do all she said. "Have no fear," she answered us, "what I am commanded to do, I will do; my brothers in Paradise have told me how to act: it is four or five years since my brothers in Paradise and my Lord - that is, God - told me that I must go and fight in order to regain the kingdom of France. On the way, Bertrand and I slept every night by her - Jeanne being at my side, fully dressed. She inspired me with such respect that for nothing in the world would I have dared to molest her; also, never did I feel towards her - I say it on oath - any carnal desire. On the way she always wished to hear Mass. She said to us: "If we can, we shall do well to hear Mass." But, for fear of being recognized, we were only able to hear it twice. I had absolute faith in her. Her words and her ardent faith in God inflamed me. I believe she was sent from God ; she never swore, she loved to attend Mass, she confessed often, and was zealous in giving alms. Many times was I obliged to hand out to her the money she gave for the love of God. While we were with her, we found her always good, simple, pious, an excellent Christian, well behaved, and God fearing When we arrived at Chinon, (March 6th, 1428.) we presented ourselves to the King's Court and Council. I know she had there to submit to long inquiries..."


Autres sites sur Jeanne d'Arc/Other sites on Jeanne d'Arc

Les Villes Johanniques:Domremy,Vaucouleurs,Chinon,...

Comité Rouennais d'Hommage à Jeanne d'Arc

Site sur le Moyen Age

Tout le procés de Jeanne d'Arc

Les Compagnons de Jeanne d'Arc

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

22.2.12

22 February 1403, Birth of Charles VII

In an age when the death of a child was common place, the Royal line of the Valois seems to have been overly burdened. It was on this date in 1403 Charles VII (whose army was led to victory by (Jheanne la Pucelle) was born.



Born as the fifth son to Charles VI of France and his queen, Isabeau de Bavière, the future Charles VII was not expected to become king. However, only two of his older brothers reached maturity, and both died before their father. Charles VII is an enigmatic character in history. Many authors find it difficult to grant him the glorified sobriquet 'the Victorious', used during the last part of his remarkable reign. Charles VII achieved this status from nearly impossible circumstances.

At only 19 years of age, he inherited a divided country, torn by civil war and foreign invasion, and without an organized royal army of any distinction. Most histories say little about him, and then usually to cast a negative description. There is a tone of resentment in many works that final victory in the Hundred Years' War was at the hands of a non-warrior king. It is not only English authors who resist giving Charles VII credit for the French victory. Most French historians have elected to credit Jeanne d'Arc's less than two years on the scene with all the triumphs that followed for over two decades after her death. Many who might be sympathetic with the French cause cannot forgive Charles VII for his so-called 'betrayal' of the Maid. These perceptions have been encouraged by the imaginative, unflatering portrayals of Charles VII in many novels and plays relating to Jeanne d'Arc's story. A few works break with the tradition, such as writings by the nineteenth-century French scholar Gaston de Beaucourt and modern English historian Malcolm Vale.

Upon inheriting the throne of France in 1422, Charles VII appeared helpless and even passive as the English and Burgundian military conquests continued against the inadequate response of the largely mercenary bands that served as 'the royal army'. His mentally demented father, Charles VI 'le Fou' (1368-1422) and mother, queen Isabeau, submitted to Burgundian and English demands in the Treaty of Troyes (1420) to disinherit Charles VII's claim to the French throne in favor of the English king, Henry V, and his heirs. The treaty called for Henry V to marry Catherine de Valois (b. 1401), the daughter of French king and queen. Henry V's death before that of Charles VI, left his young son, Henry VI of England to be the opposing claimant to his uncle, Charles VII. Henry VI's claim was championed by the English Regent in occupied France, the duke of Bedford, brother to the deceased Henry V. Bedford was a very capable military leader and commanded a large English army as well initially enjoying the continued alliance of the duchy of Burgundy. There were many in France and nearby countries that did not see a chance for Charles VII to prevail, and for a long time many derisively referred to him as 'the king of Bourges', for the primary city where he held his court, while the English and Burgundians occupied Paris and most of northern France.

Some authors have been influenced by Burgundian and English propaganda waged against Charles VII that insinuated he was not the legitimate son of Charles VI. It was alleged that his mother, Isabeau, had been the mistress of duc Louis d'Orléans, and that Charles VII was the son of the brother of Charles VI. Contrary to many erronous accounts, the Treaty of Troyes (1420) did not allude to Charles VII's legitmacy. The reason given for disinheriting him was his association with the 1419 murder of Jean the Fearless, duc de Bourgogne. It was not until after the victory of Charles VII's army at the battle of Baugé (1421) that Isabeau, who was now fully beholding to the English for support and was strongly intimidated by Philippe 'the Good', duc de Bourgogne, began to refer to her son as 'the so-called dauphin'. Isabeau obviously believed that her future lay with the English cause and her daughter, Catherine, now the English queen. However, the suggestion of Isabeau having illegitimate children could have compromised Catherine's reputation as well as that of her brother, Charles VII.

One of the most important factors that determined the ultimate fate of Charles VII was his bethroal, in 1413, to Marie d'Anjou in (1404-63), the daughter of Louis II duc d'Anjou and the strong willed Yolande d'Aragón, duchess d'Anjou. Yolande (widowed in 1417) took personal charge of her young, future son-in law and raised him with her own family. As such Charles was removed from the dangerous association his mother, Isabeau, made with the Burgundians. This relationship also made Charles VII an essential rallying symbol for many who sided with the Orléanst-Armagnac faction, which included the very influential house of Anjou. While this association placed him in considerable danger, it also provided him the support of the only large source of wealth and political power available to him. For much of his early reign, Yolande d'Aragón maneuvered to surround Charles VII with capable advisors and military leaders. She committed the considerable Angevin resources to support the royal armies; and she appears to have been the constant central figure in weaving a variety of alliances which eventually prevailed to undercut the English-Burgundian alliance with the Treaty of Arras between Charles VII and the duchy of Burgundy.

Another nickname given to Charles VII has been 'the Well-Served'. The title is often applied to allude to the sacrifices of some and service of many in his court. Charles VII was certainly self-serving. While it might be understood that he could not have saved Jeanne, his treatment of others, such as Jacques Coeur, is more condemning of his character. It could be argued that he was one of several of 'the first modern monarchs' as the criteria for such has not been uniformly accepted. However, he is arguably one of the first in terms of being an administrator, a realist politician, and a skillful judge of character in his close associates. Moralizing aside (which has to be done with many in history if one wants to understand their success) he did succeed in war, in mastering the Pope, and in improving the administration of a nation. Hardly any other leader has left a nation so much better improved than when he came on the scene. "Well served" yes, but he saw to it that he was 'well served'.

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Is the Catholic Church Outdated?

Today I have a guest contributor, Tara Brelinsky. Tara and her husband Gregory teach Natural Family Planning.



...The Rhythm Method, sadly, became haracterized as Catholic birth control...


By Tara K. E. Brelinsky

The current controversy over the US government’s mandate with regards to women’s healthcare has shone a light on the Catholic Church and her teachings. Considering how many people, both inside and outside of the Catholic Church, are ignorant of this beautiful and unalterable teaching, this debate provides the perfect opportunity to enlighten the population.

Firstly, a brief history lesson is necessary. In 1798, Thomas Malthus, an English economist proposed the first population scare. He wrote that population would increase at a rate that would surpass the available food supply, thereby, leading to mass starvation. As an Anglican clergyman, Malthus recommended that people delay getting married (which at that time did not mean they should live together for a few years) and that couples should practice total abstinence once their desired number of children was reached. In 1823, his dire predictions continued to be promoted by the neo-Malthusians; however, they dumped the pesky morality component that called for abstinence and encouraged people to have their cake and eat it, too, by contracepting. American Protestant reformer, Anthony Comstock successfully petitioned the US Congress and several states to outlaw contraceptives in 1870 because at that time all Christian churches understood that contraception was fundamental wrong. Enter Margaret Sanger, who like Hilter wanted to rid the gene pool of misfits (like people of other races or abilities), she was the famous American that dedicated herself to promoting unnatural forms of birth control. Ms. Sanger is the mother of Planned Parenthood, the organization that continues her legacy today by setting up clinics in communities which predominantly consist of minorities. By 1930, the bishops of the Church of England also caved into the secular pressure for contraception during the Lambeth Conference. Then, a year later, in the US, the Federal Council of Churches followed down the same slippery slope. The Catholic Church understood that the moral teachings given to her by Jesus Christ are and always will be unalterable. So, the Catholic Church stood alone, and continues to do so today, in proclaiming that contraception and sterilization are inherently wrong.

While it is true that several shepherds within the Church, personally and publicly, rejected this teaching, they had no authority to do so. Like Judas, their consciences were corrupt and they misled others with their public dissent. In order to correct the confusion, Pope Paul VI, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae in which he reaffirmed the Church’s Tradition. Prophetically, he spoke of the ends (including abortion, diminished respect for woman, increased divorce rates) that would result should people accept contraception. Today, it is quite clear that Pope Paul VI’s warnings were divinely inspired as every consequence he predicted has come to pass. Consider that Malthus’ theories were wrong. Our ability to produce food is such that we here in the US routinely throw mountains of food into the garbage every day. Of course, Malthus’ failed ideas have simply morphed into today’s environment hysteria which is based on similarly infantile science. The populations of Europe are currently dying out, literally; not from lack of food, but from lack of people. As the number of births has declined, whole generations are missing to enter the workforce and to care for the elder generations. Like Hitler, Margaret Sanger is long dead, unfortunately their racist agenda persists and is now even funded by the government. It is no secret that Planned Parenthood continues to target the poor and minorities and now there is a new tool in the arsenal, ultrasound. With ultrasound, doctors can inform parents whether or not their unborn child is even worthy of being born.

So, what are couples expected to do, you might ask. Is the Catholic Church forcing women to bear more children than they are able to properly care for? Is the Catholic Church some archaic, male-dominated institution that seeks to enslave women by keeping them barefoot and pregnant? Are these teachings simply the musings of a group or sad, old men who have no idea of the struggles of family life? Has the Catholic Church simply failed to keep up with the changing times? Nothing could be further from the truth! Firstly, one must understand that God, Himself, created the joy of sex. He gave man and woman the power to procreator while He retained the role of Creator. In the marital embrace, he designed the perfect way for husband and wife to physically manifest their sacramental union of oneness. Both of these gifts, unity and the power to procreate, belong in every act of intercourse and when they do, the truth, beauty and joy of the sexual encounter is experienced by the couple. Contrary, to “modern” theory, God isn’t a prude and He knows well the crosses that couples bear in raising a family. So, in His infinite wisdom, He designed woman with limited periods of fertility.

In the 1930’s and 1940’s, based on the science of the time, physicians developed and promoted the Rhythm Method for spacing children. The Catholic Church was able to accept this method because it did nothing to destroy the marital act nor destroy a potential child. It should be noted that all married couples are called to generosity, but that they are free to prayerfully discern if they have a just reason to postpone a pregnancy in any given month. The Rhythm Method sought to give couples the knowledge about the woman’s fertile and infertile times each cycle, so that couples could avoid sexual intimacy during the fertile days if they felt called to avoid a pregnancy. Unfortunately, the Rhythm Method was based on elementary science which assumed every woman had a 28 day cycle and that every woman therefore ovulated on day 14 of every cycle. The days of fertility to be avoided were then based on a non-individual based calculation that was applied to every woman. This proved successful for some couples, but not for others. The Rhythm Method, sadly, became haracterized as Catholic birth control.

Today our scientific knowledge has increased by leaps and bounds and so we now have 99% effective methods for postponing pregnancy. I say postponing because, unlike with contraception and sterilization, family planning is meant to be a continual, prayerful assessment of God’s call in our married lives. My husband and I teach a method known as the Symptom-Thermal Method (STM) of Natural Family Planning (NFP). As volunteers, we have the privilege of teaching women that their body displays three detectable signs of fertility/infertility each month. With a little education, a woman can read her body signals (cervical mucus, basal temperature and cervix state). Unlike contraception, NFP methods respect the nature and beauty of a women’s body. NFP does not require women to insert nor ingest items or medications which cause harmful or unpleasant side effects. There are no long term costs involved in practicing NFP. There are no environmental hazards, like estrogen leeched into your drinking water. Practicing NFP is a two person job because it requires self control from both the man and the woman, so unlike contraception it is not solely the woman’s responsibility. Additionally, the knowledge gained through reading a woman’s body has helped couples of diminished fertility to conceive.

Where contraception attempts to alter the woman’s body hormonally, thwart the man’s sperm or destroy a newly conceived life, NFP leads couples to abstain from sexual relations during the fertile days each month. It protects the nature of the sexual act, to be unitive and open to life. When husband and wife come together, they speak with their bodies. They say to one another, “I love all of you (including your fertility), I give all of myself to you.” By avoiding the marital embrace during the fertile days, the couple has not violated the marital union in anyway. In fact, they have chosen to make a sacrifice of their passionate desire for union for the good of the whole family. Each one, husband and wife, has said through their abstaining, “I want the best for you and for our whole family, so I am willing to place my desires on hold for a few days.”

I could go on and on about how women feel empowered when they come to realize the gifts of their fertility. I could talk at length about how a knowledgeable woman is better able to care for her own health. I could further explain how NFP requires men to learn self-control and how that leads them to better respect their partners and to appreciate the sexual union. The Catholic Church knows well the truth of all of these benefits that is why she has and will hold fast to the teaching that contraception in not good for women nor families.

Some would promote the idea that poor women are less capable of learning how to read their fertility (code for women are too stupid), but that is a gross fallacy and one that is right in line with Margaret Sangers’ eugenic agenda. Others would say that poor men are like animals and cannot control their sexual appetites, but that too is a lie. The Catholic Church views every man and woman as an image of the Creator and as such he/she is inscribed with an inherent intelligence and worth. The Catholic Church, seemingly alone, is crying out in the secular wilderness that contraception is not healthcare and women deserve better. It is not simply a matter of not wanting Catholic institutions to pay for immoral products and services, it is a atter of serving and protecting women of every race and religion.

If contraception was truly allowing couples to plan their family, why have 50 million babies been aborted? If contraception was empowering women, why are so many women alone and unhappy? If contraception was beneficial to families, why are some many families shattered by divorce or led by single mothers?

This controversy could turn out to be a blessing in disguise, if faithful Catholics have the courage to live out loud by sharing the truth with everyone who will listen. We must reeducate ourselves and others to the teachings given us by Christ. We must defend the Catholic Church’s stance against contraception, not because we need to defend the church as an historical institution but because we must defend the Body of Christ. As God is unchanging and unending, so too is His Church and this teaching.

More about Margaret Sanger, "revered" founder of Planned Parenthood...

Question for the Day about Planned Parenthood

In case you never heard about this before, here is the Vatican's copy of Humanae Vitae

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Church of Saints Stanislaw and Waclaw

The Church of Peace has found a quiet place for itself in Swidnica, lying at the feet of the Sudety, on the Swidnicka plain, in the picturesque Bystrzyca Valley.

An exceptionally rich history and intriguing architecture, make it's home in one of the most beautiful cities in Silesia. The gothic Church of Saints Stanislaw and Waclaw, whose 103 meter high tower, dominates the city. It was built after the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) under the privilege of the Austrian Emperor, after the intervention of the Swedish King.

Take a peek inside. The link is below...

Kościół Pokoju w Świdnicy

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

21.2.12

Pope 'exorcised two men in the Vatican',

Claims new book ...

Here is something.

...Pope Benedict unwittingly performed an exorcism of two men possessed by the Devil in the very heart of the Vatican, according to the Catholic Church's best-known exorcist..., Father Gabriele Amorth.


In a new book, Father Amorth, the exorcist for the diocese of Rome, gives a bizarre account of how he and two assistants brought a pair of "possessed" Italian men to one of the Pope's weekly audiences in St Peter's Square in May 2009.

In his book, "The Last Exorcist – My Fight Against Satan", he claimed the mere presence of the pontiff cured the men of their demonic afflictions.

Father Amorth said his two female assistants escorted the two men into St Peter's Square as the Pope was driven between crowds of faithful in the white "Popemobile" jeep.

The women managed to obtain seats for the two men in an area of seating normally reserved for the disabled.

As the Pope approached them, the men, identified only as Marco and Giovanni, began to act strangely, Father Amorth wrote.

He described how they trembled and how their teeth chattered.

When one of the assistants asked Giovanni to control himself, he said "I am not Giovanni" in a voice that was not his own, Father Amorth claimed.

As soon as the Pope stepped down from the "Popemobile' the two men flung themselves to the floor.

"They banged their heads on the ground. The Swiss Guards watched them but did nothing," the priest wrote.

"Giovanni and Marco started to wail at the same time, they were lying on the floor, howling.

"They were trembling, slobbering, working themselves into a frenzy.

"The Pope watched from a distance. He raised an arm and blessed the four of them. For the possessed it was like a furious jolt - a blow to their whole bodies - to the extent that they were thrown three metres backwards," he continued.

"They stopped howling but they cried uncontrollably."

Father Amorth, who claims to have conducted thousands of exorcisms, wrote: "It is no mystery that the Pope's acts and words can enrage Satan...that simply the presence of the Pope can sooth and in some way help the possessed in their fight against the one who possesses them."

Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman, disputed the account, saying Benedict was not aware of the men's afflictions and had not intended to carry out an exorcism.

Father Amorth is a controversial figure whose outspoken views have embarrassed the Vatican in the past.

In November he branded yoga as "evil", claiming that it leads to a worship of Hinduism and other Eastern religions based on "a false belief in reincarnation".

He has also railed against Harry Potter, saying the children's books seem innocuous but in fact encourage children to believe in black magic and wizardry.

The Devil "studies every one of us and our tendencies towards good and evil," said Father Amorth, whose new book is sub-titled: "It's not me who is frightened of the Devil, it is he who is frightened of me".


Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Could this be the reason that a certain president won't go back to Rome...

The persecution of Christians around the world

...The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church..." Tertullian

“More than 160 indicted and 9 killed for “blasphemy” in 2011; 1,800 Christian and Hindu girls converted to Islam by force

“Islamist Militants in Nigeria Warn Christians to Leave North Within 3 Days“

Coptic Christian Priest Prefers Martyrdom to Slave Tax in Egypt"

“Catholic Priest Set on Fire: A Reflection on Human Suffering”

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Santorum's Satan Warning...

Drudge reports...

"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.

"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

"He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions."

Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.

MORE

The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.

"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

Developing...


...And the problem is what? Is there not truth in this statement? Rush Limbaugh or should I say St Rush the Limbaugh is of the opinion that This is not presidential. First, Santorum said it to a Catholic College in 2008. Second, he is not making this up. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck most likely it is a duck". compare this speech to thevitriol spaketh by a certain "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright in 2003. Here...

Is it because that it is a Catholic is saying this, that offense is taken?

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny