A high school baseball coach was arrested, Monmouth County authorities announced Friday, after he allegedly had at least two of his players perform a sex act on video.
Bartholomew McInerney, 41, who coaches the St. Rose High School baseball team in Belmar, has been charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child as police say he had the students fondle themselves on video for his own personal viewing.
McInerney, a trusted member of the Catholic school and Monmouth County community, was also accused of having sexually explicit conversation with the teenage boys.
Monmouth County Prosecutor Luis Valentin added that McInerney is accused of asking for "a description of how the victim felt and the length of time involved in performing the sexual act. In return, McInerney offered to pay cash."
Valentine said McInerney offered to pay the victims over a period of several months.
CBS 2 has also learned that because of his strong standing in the community and his successful run with St. Rose's baseball program, McInerney was said to be able to travel out of state with some of his baseball players on non-official trips.
McInerney's alleged actions apparently went on until someone in the community decided to step up and report him to authorities.
The Diocese of Trenton, which oversees St. Rose high school, announced in written statement: "School officials have also notified the state Division of Youth and Family Services regarding the case against Mr. McInerney and have supplied the agency with information needed for its own investigation. We will continue to cooperate fully with any and all investigations as they move forward."
Flanked and supported by movie strongman Chuck Norris, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee told a roomful of Washington reporters Thursday that he will defend his effort to educate the children of illegal immigrants "even if it costs me the election."
Huckabee has been criticized by Mitt Romney and others in the GOP presidential race for supporting legislation in Arkansas that would have made all youngsters who graduate from state high schools eligible to compete for college scholarships, no matter what the legal status of their parents.
With Norris citing examples of children of illegal immigrants he has helped educate through his foundation, Huckabee declared that "my soul will not let me" compromise on that stand--despite the bill's rejection in his state senate.
The former governor, who has risen to a challenging position in Iowa, also renewed his feud with the Club for Growth, which has criticized his record on taxes. "If Ronald Reagan were on the ballot today, the Club for Growth would be running ads against him," Huckabee said, "because he raised taxes in California. He did what all governors have to do. He balanced the budget."
My thoughts:
This is not conservatism. Mike Huckabee is a pro-life, pro-family values liberal. He is soft on illegal immigration and he is enthusiastic about passing laws that control the way people live their lives (e.g, laws against smoking, junk food, etc.).
Yes, Huckabee's pro-life, and if he was the best Republican option, I'd hold my nose and vote for him, but he's not the best the Republicans have to offer. He's not the only pro-life candidate, either.
The National Right to Life Committee has endorsed Fred Thompson. I don't think they'd do that if they thought he was a danger to the pro-life movement.
In an effort to vote responsibly, it's my hope that I'll be able to vote for Fred Thompson. I will admit that I'd prefer Duncan Hunter over Fred Thompson, but Hunter isn't going to win.
I think Fred Thompson is the most conservative of the viable pro-life candidates. All the others are much more moderate. I'll admit, Thompson isn't as conservative as I'd like, but of the viable candidates, he's the most conservative and he has the most conservative record. He's pro-life and has been endorsed by The National Right to Life Committee.
Fred Thompson does beat Hillary in polls for the general election, and if he is chosen as the candidate, the party will unify behind him (except for the bitter, anti-war hold-outs in the Ron Paul gang; what they'll do is anyone's guess).
Here's one more ad, this one deals with immigration...
Fred Thomson is, and has always been, the most conservative viable candidate.
I am aware that Ron Paul fanatics will jump in and post lots of comments about Ron Paul being "more conservative" (actually, Ron Paul is more libertarian than conservative, but that's a another kettle of fish).
Although I've grown weary of hearing from Ron Paul supporters who insist that Ron Paul can win the presidency, despite the fact that he's at 5% in national polls, 4th place in Iowa, generally not considered a serious candidate by anyone other than Ron Paul supporters, seen as the "Republican" version of Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, and seen as something of a reactionary crank, fringe kook candidate, I'm aware that the small amount of support for Ron Paul has grown slightly and that Ron Paul is polling better than Fred Thompson in Iowa.
Here's the thing: The only polls that matter are the ones where people actually cast their votes. My hope is that Republicans will, in the end, recognize that they can't win with Rudy Giuliani because he turns off too many within the base (because he's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage), they can't win with Mitt Romney because he's not considerd trustworthy (and there are people who are troubled by his religion), and they can't win with Mike Huckabee because he's not conservative enough (he's basically a pro-life liberal who supports higher taxes and nanny-state regulations on things like smoking and diet).
That leaves Fred Thompson & John McCain as the candidates who will get a closer look. McCain may begin to look more appealing, but Fred's more conservative than McCain. So, despite his current poll position, I'm still pulling for Fred Thompson.
I realize that those who hate the war and support Ron Paul for that reason don't like the fact that Fred Thompson supported the war and is keeping all options on the table with respect to Iran. I am of the mind that while the Iraq war was probably not necessary, we can't pretend the Middle East can handle itself, especially since we are so dependent on the oil from that region, and Iran is a serious problem.
The fact that Ron Paul has plainly stated that he wouldn't do much about Iran and isn't all that worried about them developing nuclear weapons is problematic for me (and truth be told, most Americans do, in fact, have a serious problem with Iran having nucleear weapons) so the more I think about it, the more I see that support for Ron Paul is a big mistake, especially for people who consider the right to life the most important issue.
Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air have announced a new program that will charge heterosexuals 10 percent extra for their air travel to specific locations during the Christmas season.
The company actually offers the 10 percent as a discount but only if the purchaser obtains the ticket through a “gay” page of the company’s website, a location not typically patronized by families seeking travel arrangements, according to an Idaho activist who was distressed by the offering.
My thoughts:
Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die...." (Genesis 3:1-4)
Oklahoma's new immigration law is immoral and unjust, Roman Catholic Bishop Edward J. Slattery declared in a pastoral letter made public this week.
It is only the second pastoral letter Slattery has written in his 14 years as bishop of the Diocese of Tulsa.
In it, he said ministry will not be withheld from illegal immigrants.
Slattery said the letter is a teaching document.
"I don't give my personal opinion. You won't find anything in there that is not in Scripture," he said.
"It's not my teaching, it's Christ's teaching, and I'm one with him because I'm one with the pope and the college of bishops worldwide."
Slattery said he felt compelled to write the letter because "a lot of people are on the fence on this."
"They've come to regard people who are illegal immigrants as having fewer rights than people who are legal. In the eyes of God, we all have equal rights, and we have the obligation to love them," he said.
"The fact that they're here illegally is not the only issue. They're still people, and we have to deal with them with dignity," he said.
The immigration law, House Bill 1804, which went into effect Nov. 1, makes it a felony to knowingly transport illegal immigrants, creates barriers to hiring them and restricts benefits they can receive from the government.
In the 22-page pastoral letter, Slattery said that since the intention of HB1804 is immoral, its effects will be an intolerable increase in suffering of il legal immigrants, and those who must enforce the law.
"But I don't mean by this that our nation ought to surrender its borders," he wrote.
He said that the United States needs comprehensive immigration reform to restore the rule of law on the borders and to protect the nation against infiltration.
"Our national immigration policy is schizophrenic," the letter said.
"We post a no-trespassing sign at the border, and spend $30 billion (since 1993) to blockade those who would cross, but then we erect a 'Help Wanted' sign at the factory entrance and eagerly accept the benefits that come from the labor of these illegals."
My thoughts:
Bishop Edward J. Slattery has been bishop for 14 years and this is his second pastoral letter in that time, so I guess this immigration law got his dander up.
Here's what I guess I don't understand...
If someone breaks into my home and begins helping themselves to my things, even going so far as to set up a residence in my home, is it wrong for me to call the police? Is it contrary to the Gospel for me to want them to leave my house and stop stealing my things?
Would it matter if the person stealing from me was homeless? Or a foreigner? Why or why not?
Why do people have trouble understanding that nobody is forcing anyone to come to the United States. If we were forcing people to come here, like slave traders, I would support arguments that said we owe these people some sort of recompense, but the people in question entered the country illegally and are (like it or not) essentially stealing money from U.S. taxpayers through the consumption of goods and services payed for by tax dollars and the hard work of U.S. citizens. They are having their children educated in our schools, they are collecting government benefits, they are receiving free health care (and thereby causing hospitals to close), and on and on.
That's not meant to say these people aren't human beings, but being human and receiving the rights associated with human dignity doesn't mean that people can take what they want, when they want it, and then call you immoral or racist for not letting them take these things.
U.S. citizens aren't responsible for the welfare of everyone who enters the country illegally. Nobody needs to be denied what is essential to human dignity, but it's not consistent with human dignity to violate just laws and steal things from people, especially in this case, where literally billions of dollars are being lost.
It is perfectly moral for the law to say that people in this country need to enter legally, just as people need to enter a private home legally, not break in and do as they please.
I will say that I wholeheartedly support saying it's immoral to profit from the poverty of others by exploiting them for cheap labor. I would support demanding stiff penalties for paying illegal aliens less than a living wage (which may be greater than minimum wage). The thing is, if employers can't get the cheap labor, they won't hire the illegals, which will mean they have no reason to come here. That's fine with me. Is it fine with the bishop?
My other question is this: Why is this the big issue for bishops like this? Why haven't they condemned abortion with anything approaching this kind of language and forceful condemnation?
Dale Fushek, the founder of Life Teen, who has been indicted for predatory homosexual acts with minors, thinks it's okay for priests who resign in disgrace to officiate at non-denominational worship services. His diocese doesn't agree with him.
Father Dale Fushek is still waiting on the courts to decide if he is eligible for a trial by jury. But Fushek is not waiting to conduct services again. The former St. Timothy's priest has opened his own prayer and worship center, a non-denominational service at the Mesa Convention Center. More than 500 people attended his first service on Thanksgiving day and he plans on holding more services in December.
But according to the Diocese of Phoenix, Fushek is still officially a priest on administrative leave and he has been specifically instructed not to conduct public or sacred ministries.
Those concerns were also communicated to St. Tim's parishioners on Sunday, when current St. Timothy's Pastor Jack Spaulding told churchgoers "he could not and would not support him in this."
Fr. Dale is veering into schism through pride. He's got some pretty serious allegations being made about him, and one would think he'd be more concerned about facing that than trying to resurrect his glory days with Life Teen.
In the diocese of Saint Paul-Minneapolis, Fr. Leo Tibesar has been controversial for years when it comes to homosexuality and the Church's teaching. Last year LifeSiteNews.com reported that the website of Dignity USA, the most prominent US lobby organization fighting Catholic teaching on human sexuality "from within" the Church, featured Fr. Tibesar as a member of the organization's National Leadership Team.
Now an audio recording of a homily which Fr. Tibesar gave on Saturday October 27 which took aim at an Archbishop, a Vatican Cardinal, and a prominent Evangelical preacher has been posted online. The Archdiocesan spokesman had only recently heard of the incident and could not provide comment when contacted by LifeSiteNews.com
The Gospel reading for that Sunday (also the Saturday evening liturgy) concerned the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector recorded in Luke 18:9-14, where Christ praises the repentant sinner over the self-righteous Pharisee.
However in his homily Fr. Tibesar, pastor of Saint Frances Cabrini Church, cast the Archbishop and Cardinal in the role of Pharisee and those who unrepentantly counter Church teaching on homosexuality as worthy of the praise of Christ.
"What would Jesus say today if he were telling the parable in our Gospel of Luke?," asked the priest as he began a series of four versions of his retelling.
In version 3 of his retelling, Fr. Tibesar preached: "Two people came into Church to pray, one was a Catholic Archbishop who refuses communion to Rainbow Sash people at the Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday who prayed "I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy, dishonest or like others who need to make their dissent from official Church teaching so public and divisive."
"The other were Rainbow parents of GLBT people at the Cathedral on Pentecost who stood off on the side and prayed, "Oh God be merciful to us for failing to attend our own Churches more often; they say they love God then turn there backs on us in hate directly contrary to 1:John,4 - whoever loves God must also love the neighbor."
He concluded the point: "Jesus concluded the last ones went home more worthy in God's sight than the first."
With regard to the Vatican Cardinal, Fr. Tibesar took issue with the prohibition on the use of condoms. "Two people came into Church to pray, one was a Roman Catholic Cardinal in Charge of Church doctrine who prayed "I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy dishonest or like those living in Africa where AIDS is killing everyone even there we can never allow condoms to be used."
"The other was an African widow dying of AIDS who stood off to the side and prayed "Oh God, be merciful to me for not refusing the advances of my husband without a condom, soon I will follow him to the grave and leave our six children orphans," he continued.
"Jesus concluded - the last person went home more worthy in God's sight than the first."
Finally taking aim at the Evangelical pastor, Fr. Tibesar recited the fourth version of his narrative. "Two people came into Church to pray. One was an Evangelical pastor whose regional services are broadcast nationally who prayed "I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy, dishonest or like others who give into same gender sex drives which the bible calls an abomination."
"The others who came into Church to pray for a same sex couple raising children born by way of donor insemination who prayed: "Oh god, be merciful to us for not finding our own medium to share with the broader audience the biblical passage of 1 John 4:16 - God is love and when we abide in love we abide in God and God in us."
The homily grossly distorts Catholic teaching which teaches that all persons must be loved, and that the sin of homosexual sex acts are disordered and hurtful to the individuals involved in them.
Homosexuals represent 4% to 6% of the general population, at most. Some statistics have the number at 1% of the population. Why are so many serial killers homosexuals? Here's a few I came up with off the top of my head: Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Aileen Wuornos, Andrew Cunanan. Here is a list of over fifty homosexuals who were serial killers: Homosexual Serial Killers
Freedom, baby. If not for his foreign policy and his kowtowing to conspiracy cretins and his indifference to support from Nazis and, well, pretty much everything else besides this, he could have been my guy. He could have been … the beta-male candidate. Alas.
More video here; note the tidbit about the brothel’s clientele and partisan spending habits.
My thoughts:
I am aware that St. Thomas Aquinas tolerated the evil of prostitution, but it must be stressed that his tolerance never involved intending the sin of prostitution.
...those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii.4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust." (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 11)
This passage occurs in response to the question of whether the rites of certain unbelievers (such as the Jews) should be tolerated, which Thomas answers in the affirmative:
"Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided." (Ibid.)
Even in this passage, however, Thomas has reservations about tolerating those rites of unbelievers which are neither true nor spiritually valuable. He only allows for such rites to be tolerated "in order to avoid an evil, for instance the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually convert to the faith."(Ibid.) To return to the brief statement about prostitution, it is especially striking because it shows Thomas' willingness to tolerate a serious evil for the sake of civil order. Surely, this is a case of more than limited tolerance!
Thomas locates the need for tolerance in the eternal law itself. Advocating that human government should imitate the divine rule, Thomas reminds us:
"Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue." (Ibid.)
This was the principle which Thomas invoked to justify the toleration of harlots. It shows that his belief in tolerance is not merely a pragmatic one, but is deeply embedded in his view of man as one who participates in the eternal law.
Interesting reading, no?
Bottom line: Listening to Ron Paul's response to an endorsement from sex trade "workers", it's clear that Ron Paul is no St. Thomas Aquinas. His principles are rooted in the desire to keep government (particularly federal government) from interfering in people's lives and keeping with federal powers in check (which are generally good policies), but going so far as endorsing prostitution as "freedom" in the name of libertarianism is not consistent with Catholic morality.
Before anyone makes another ridiculous attempt at claiming that I haven't been critical of Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, or Thompson: do a little research. Scroll down on this page. Look through the archives. I've criticized them all.
Whining that I'm unfair to a candidate you like and claiming that I'm giving other candidates a pass is untrue and gives evidence of an indifference to truth (i.e., a willingness to lie to further your agenda), because the claim implies that you read the blog regularly, but have never seen me criticize those other candidates, which is impossible, because I have. So, either those making the claims are lying about their readership, or they are out of touch with reality, and maybe a little of both.
Bishop Richard Williamson, who once called The Sound of Music, "soul-rotting slush", seems to be in a race to see which SSPX bishop can say the most controversial and/or embarrassing things that ultimately make Catholic traditionalists, and especially members of the SSPX, look unbalanced.
Bishop Richard Williamson, seemingly the most outspoken and controversial bishop of the Society of St. Pius X, asserted in a recent talk that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were committed "to get the American public to accept the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq," according to a news item by Jack Kenny in the Nov. 15, 2007 issue of The Wanderer.
Bishop Williamson, whose talk was held Nov. 4, 2007 in Bedford, Mass., is quoted as saying:
"Without 9-11, it would have been impossible to attack in Afghanistan or Iraq. The forces inside the United States government and driving the United States government absolutely wanted to attack and destroy Iraq. The destruction wrought upon Iraq is unspeakable. And now the same forces want to do the same thing to Iran . . . They may well be plotting another 9-11."
The news item continues: "Heat from the burning fuel of the planes that flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center could not have melted the 47 steel columns in each tower, causing them to collapse, he claimed. And a commercial airliner could not have penetrated six of the ten walls that were breached by 'whatever hit the Pentagon,' he said."
What did hit the Pentagon, according to Bishop Williamson?
"It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It was a missile that could only have been fired by the American military."
Bishop Richard Williamson, 
Recent Comments