Whatever support McCain may be receiving now
from Republicans can only dwindle as the attacks continue over time, especially
given the lackluster support McCain already has among conservatives in the
I do think Republicans are at serious risk of losing the White House by ending
up with a candidate as weak as John McCain.
McCain got the nomination because GOP voters were forced to prioritize their
values due to the fact that most of the candidates were not fiscal, social, and
strong defense conservatives. McCain squeaked through to barely secure
the title of presumed Republican nominee with the support of a little less than
1/3 of Republican voters, some liberals in open primaries, and a lot of help
from McCain's real base: RINO's,
"moderates" and/or "independents" (euphemisms for
unprincipled people who gauge popular consensus before picking sides on an
issue so as to always appear reasonable to the majority; sheeple would be another
way of describing such voters).
McCain appeared genuinely surprised and seemed to express feeling betrayed by
the New York Times. Instead of
hammering the notoriously liberal New York Times,
he expressed feeling "disappointed".
One would expect to be attacked by an enemy. One is disappointed when
betrayed by a friend or one's beloved.
Liberals picked the GOP nominee, essentially telling Republicans who to vote for and claiming McCain was the only candidate who could beat Hillary. They'd been saying that about Rudy Giuliani only a few months before. It's now turned out that their once inevitable Hillary will likely lose to Barack Hussein Obama, whose soaring, but empty, rhetoric have made his candidacy a blank canvas upon which his supporters can project their fantasies and desires. Those same liberals who propped him up as the best chance for Republicans are now enjoying the fact that gullible voters went along with them and picked a candidate the liberals who endorsed him had no intention of voting for and every intention of destroying.
What's interesting is that McCain
is called a maverickfor picking positions which are popular
with liberals in the media, Hollywood,
and Democrats (in general, who comprise a larger number of the
population). He's not really bravely going against the majority despite
considerable odds and personal risk. He's going against the conservative
minority by taking positions popular with a large segment of the population and
while being championed as a principled maverick by liberals in the media.
How is that like a courageous maverick?
Meanwhile, the maverick of the Democratic party, Joe Lieberman, has been
marginalized by Democrats, lost in his primary as a Democrat, and won his seat
by running as an Independent. Lieberman, once the Vice-Presidential
nominee for his party, now receives little love from liberals in the media and
Democrats in general. Where is the applause for Joe Lieberman for being a
courageous maverick who doesn't march in lockstep with his party and takes
unpopular positions rooted in fidelity to his own core principles, despite
considerable odds and personal risk?
I'm not praising Lieberman. He's a liberal and pro-abortion, etc.
I'm just pointing out that liberals in the media only praise
"mavericks" in the Republican party who side with them. They
have no use for anyone in their own party who opposes them.
Nescire autem quid antequam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum."
"Not to know what happened before you were born is to be forever a child." ~Cicero
Marcus Tullius Cicero did not have Mark Dempsey, President of the Shamrock Club of Columbus Ohio, in mind when he wrote this line - BUT HE COULD HAVE. This is Dempsey's picture below.
Read the article below and pay particular attention to where Mr. Dempsey says:
"It's not a sin to celebrate your Irish culture," countered Mark Dempsey, the club's president.
"Actually, you're born Irish first," he said, "and then you're baptized Catholic."
My G*d, does this man have no conception of the inseperable linkage between the Irish and the Roman Catholic Church? Of this union borne out of centuries of British Protestant oppression of the Irish?
The e-mail address for the club of which Mr. Dempsey is President is:
If you are Irish and Catholic, e-mail Mr. Dempsey and tell him what you think.
St. Patrick's Day Too Wild for Holy Week?
By MEGHAN BARR, AP
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Feb. 20) - That famous saint named Patrick will have his green-drenched party this year, but it's unclear when the guests are supposed to arrive.
For the first time since 1940, St. Patrick's Day will fall during Holy Week, the sacred seven days preceding Easter. Because of the overlap, liturgical rules dictate that no Mass in honor of the saint can be celebrated on Monday, March 17, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But a few Roman Catholic leaders are asking for even more moderation in their dioceses: They want parades and other festivities kept out of Holy Week as well.
Bishop J. Kevin Boland of the Diocese of Savannah, Ga., wrote to practically every agency in his city, from the Chamber of Commerce to the Board of Education, saying the diocese was changing the date of its celebration this year. In response, the citywide Irish festival was moved to Friday, March 14, when schools will close and bagpipe-driven parties will carry into the streets.
More than half a million people stream into the Southern city for the festival, one of the nation's largest St. Patrick's Day affairs, said Bret Bell, Savannah's public information director. Savannah bars will be open March 17, but no organized events will be held that day, he said.
"The city has a very strong Irish Catholic community, a very traditional Irish Catholic community," Bell said. "They attend Mass regularly. And the last thing they want to do is get in the bad graces of the Catholic Church."
Philadelphia has also moved its parade date to avoid giving offense, and Milwaukee is hitting the streets sooner than usual, too.
But in Columbus, the Shamrock Club is going ahead with its March 17 parade, drawing protests from the local bishop. A handful of Irish-American politicians have lined up behind church leaders, breaking with tradition by refusing to march in the parade.
In a letter last fall, the Catholic Diocese of Columbus told the Shamrock Club, the group that organizes the parade, that Bishop Frederick Campbell wanted "all observances honoring St. Patrick" - religious or otherwise - removed from Holy Week.
"It's not a sin to celebrate your Irish culture," countered Mark Dempsey, the club's president.
"Actually, you're born Irish first," he said, "and then you're baptized Catholic."
Not all Columbus Irish groups agree. Members of the local chapter of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, a national Irish Catholic organization, will skip the parade and will instead join the March 15 parade in Dublin, a Columbus suburb.
In New York and Boston, with legendary St. Patrick's events planned by the cities' large Irish communities, bishops are taking a hands-off approach, saying the church has no part in planning civic celebrations.
The Archdiocese of New York, which has St. Patrick as a patron saint, will hold the liturgical celebration for St. Patrick on March 14. Cardinal Edward Egan will then say Mass on Monday, the same day as the parade, and will review the procession from the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral, archdiocesan spokesman Joseph Zwilling said.
Boston's parade remains set for Sunday, March 16, which is Palm Sunday and the first day of Holy Week.
Other public dustups over St. Patrick's Day have erupted in past years, including a protracted fight between gay Irish groups and city leaders in New York and Boston over the right to march in the parades, which the Catholic Church has steadfastly opposed.
But a calendar conflict is a rare event: Holy Week won't clash with St. Patrick's Day again until 2160. This year's peculiar schedule also sees the feast day of St. Joseph - honored by Catholics as the husband of the Virgin Mary - celebrated March 15, four days early.
Italian enclaves in many U.S. cities mark St. Joseph's with their own parades, but not on the level inspired by his Irish counterpart, so that shift hasn't produced any public grousing.
The St. Patrick's Day clash has a touch of the Christmas commercialism debate, about a holiday whose religious roots are tangled up in decidedly secular traditions. In most St. Patrick's traditions, parades are intertwined with Mass.
"It's kind of a test of clerical power, in a way," said Mike Cronin, co-author of "The Wearing of the Green: History of St. Patrick's Day." "I think there's a real issue then around organizing committees saying, 'Do we need the church, or do we not?"'
The U.S. remains one of the few countries in the world to retain any religious traces of St. Patrick's Day, Cronin said. In Ireland, where the government sponsors the Dublin parade, the holiday has morphed into an arts festival that draws millions of people, he said.
Recognizing that, bishops there have moved the feast of the nation's patron saint to March 15 this year. March 17 will remain an official Irish day off work and the Dublin parade will go on as scheduled.
Had Ireland's bishops shown the same insistence as some of their American counterparts, Cronin said, their comments almost certainly would have been ignored.
"It'd be like the (American) bishops arguing to move Super Bowl Sunday," he said.
The conflict is uncomfortable for some Irish-American Catholics. Franklin County Treasurer Ed Leonard bowed out of the Columbus parade but hopes a resolution might be reached.
"We wouldn't be celebrating St. Patrick's Day," he said, "were it not for the religious component of it."
Associated Press writers Clare Trapasso in New York City and Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin contributed to this report. 2008-02-21 08:52:42
God Bless the Most Reverend Frederick F. Campbell - Bishop of Columbus, Ohio!
Former president Bill Clinton made a campaign stop for Hillary in Steubenville, Ohio on Sunday and found himself greeted by more than 100 pro-life students from nearby Steubenville University. According to eye witnesses accounts, Clinton lost his temper and lashed out at the pro-life students during the speech.
Clinton's heated response came after being questioned on his support of abortion-on-demand.
"I gave you the answer. We disagree with you," Clinton said about the position he and Hillary Clinton hold on abortion.
Clinton relied on the old argument that pro-life advocates want to put women in prison, even though abortion bans have never targeted women because they are a second victim in the abortion process.
"You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree,” he said of the pro-life advocates.
“If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you want to do that because you know that because you know that you wouldn't have a lick of political support,” he added.
Clinton claimed his police and those that Hillary Clinton supports are doing more to reduce abortions even though both have steadfastly opposed bills to limit abortions, such as a ban on partial-birth abortions not spending taxpayer money on abortions.
“Now, the issue is you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America,” he said.
Billy Valentine, one of the Franciscan University of Steubenville students who helped organize the protest, told LifeNews.com that he was surprised Clinton would go to Steubenville after hundreds of students told John Kerry he was wrong on supporting abortion.
“Perhaps national Democrats will finally realize that they can't take the heat from Steubenville pro-life students," he said.
"I have been amazed by the stupidity of these pro-abortion Democrats who think they can come campaign anywhere near Steubenville, especially after the utter embarrassment John Kerry went through in 2004 when he came here,” he added.
Later, Clinton said Hillary should become the Democratic nominee because she will stand up to pro-life advocates.
“This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't,” he said.
Pro-abortion Democrats (which is just about all of them) continue to be supported and elected by people who don't care about the truth. If they gave their position any serious reflection, they'd realize that it's untenable.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I do not think that Obama's rhetoric is empty. I am of the opinion that he is skillfully using soaring rhetoric to make desire a fact; desire becomes policy position. I don't hear people say, "I agree with his policies and positions." I hear, "I believe in Obama."
CALLER: And rather than write his rhetoric off as empty, I would like to see someone do a thesis-level analysis of Obama's rhetoric from a historical perspective. Obama's rhetoric frightens me. I see it as an abusive exploitation of the human religious sentiment in the service of progressivism, political religion, and you have stated before that progressivism, liberalism is a religion, and I believe that Obama is just their newest priest.
RUSH: I agree with you a hundred percent on that, it's very well said. When I say he's saying nothing, I don't mean to be insulting here. You made the point a different way. People are not saying, "I agree with Obama," because they don't know what he's saying. If you ask, "Obama, what's he for?" They'll say it doesn't matter, and they won't be able to tell you what he's for. They'll be able to give you platitudes, "Well, he's for America. Well, he's for fairness. Well, he's for justice."
Thomas Strobhar, President of Thomas Strobhar Financial in Dayton, Ohio, has over 25 years of investment experience. He is the founder of Citizen Action Now (www.citizenactionnow.com), an advocacy group that combats the imposition of the homosexual agenda, and Chairman of Life Decisions International (www.fightpp.org), an advocacy group dedicated to challenging the Culture of Death and promoting chastity. He is also the founder of Pro Vita Advisors (www.provitaadvisors.com), a nonprofit organization dedicated to exposing and confronting the business aspects of abortion. His shareholder resolutions against contributions to Planned Parenthood have affected corporate policies at AT&T, American Express, General Mills, Target Stores, Berkshire Hathaway, and others.
Five hundred years ago the Catholic Church was laid low for selling indulgences. Six years ago the Church was rocked by news of bishops covering up the sexual misdeeds of their fellow priests. Today hundreds of Catholic groups -- dioceses, archdioceses, and religious orders -- help fund their work through the sale of sex. Not sex per se, but the graphic depiction of sex found in hardcore pornography. Yes, the seamiest and steamiest hardcore porn films are brought into our living rooms and hotel rooms everyday through the investments of a veritable who's who of Catholic religious groups.
What do the bishops have to say about this? Not much. Until a few years ago, they had nothing to say. The investment guidelines of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), first formulated in 1991, ran over 15 pages and treated esoteric subjects, like affordable housing, in some detail. But there was not a single word about pornography, one of the most likely precipitators of personal sin. Apparently, the bishops hadn't thought of it or did not think it was important. Maybe they hadn't heard many confessions lately. In 2003 that changed. They altered their guidelines and included the problem of pornography. The result: the bishops gave their blessing to investing in porn-related companies as long as the company's revenues from porn were not "significant." The USCCB's express policy, as stated in its "Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines: Principles for USCCB Investments" (Nov. 12, 2003), is: "The USCCB will not invest in a company that derives a significant portion of its revenues" from pornography.
According to one bishop, the original language offered by a committee commissioned to study the problem of porn called only for divestment if a company "has a majority investment or participation" in pornographic material. This was seen as too lenient by some bishops, who managed to have the language changed to "a significant portion of its revenues." The "majority investment or participation" language reflected the then-current practice of the Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), whose specific policy alluded to a 50 percent or more interest in porn-related material.
The Christian Brothers are one of the largest investors of Catholic institutional money in the world. They invest billions of dollars for over 1,000 Catholic "dioceses, religious institutes, educational institutions and health care organizations." Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland, Ore., is a trustee of CBIS, and Archbishop Emeritus James Keleher of Kansas City is a former trustee. CBIS helped formulate the bishops' original investment guidelines in 1991 and boast on their website that "CBIS was honored to be the only investment firm asked to advise the USCCB in the development of the updated guidelines" in 2003. CBIS, which touts its "disciplined approach to socially responsible investing" as a way for "Catholic institutions to invest in a manner that is consistent with their mission and with the teachings of the Catholic Church," is presumably in the best position to know what "significant" means to the bishops in practice.
According to John Wilson, Director of Socially Responsible Investing for CBIS, "There are in fact relatively few such [porn-related] companies, if defined the way we define it: companies whose primary business is the production of adult content. If defined more broadly to include any producer or distributor of adult content, you could include many more companies, including most media and cable companies." Whether the wording is "primary" or "significant," CBIS apparently has no misgivings about investing Catholic funds in a wide array of companies that distribute pornography, or more politely, "adult content." As long as the company's "primary" business is not porn, CBIS deems it acceptable. As Wilson realizes, this means that "relatively few" companies are avoided. The result is that almost every company responsible for bringing pornography into our lives is fair game for investment purposes. Considering the close relationship the bishops have long had with CBIS, and the fact that many entrust diocesan funds to CBIS to this day, it appears that many bishops, too, have little problem investing in porn.
Whereas the bishops consulted the Christian Brothers on how to deal with porn, it appears neither of them looked to see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it: Pornography "does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public) since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others" (#2354). The Catechism doesn't talk about "primary" or "significant"; it makes it quite clear that any profit from pornography is "illicit." According to the Catechism, pornography is "a grave offense," and "civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic material" (#2354). Indeed, it is a bizarre situation when the Catechism calls on civil authorities to "prevent the distribution of pornographic material" when the bishops and countless Catholic religious groups knowingly own shares in companies that distribute pornography every day.
Investing is sometimes seen as a passive activity, but as a shareholder one is promoting and profiting from whatever that company does. If a company sells porn, the investor is encouraging and profiting from sin. On this point, the Catechism says, "we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so" (#1868). The bishops clearly aren't doing much to hinder sin when they own companies whose profits are dependent on porn sales. Keep in mind, porn sales, with their low production costs, are exceedingly profitable. To these companies, their profits from porn are most "significant."
Actual companies recently owned by the Christian Brothers, as reported on their website, include: Cablevision Systems, Charter Communications, Com cast, DirecTV Group, Echostar, News Corp, Rogers Communications, Time Warner, and Viacom -- all of which entice the public with pornography via either cable or satellite television. In addition, they own Choice Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Host Hotels & Resorts, Las Vegas Sands, and Marriott International -- which all profit by offering in-room porn movies to their guests.
The Christian Brothers, on behalf of their Catholic clients, also own Lodgenet, which is one of the largest providers of in-room porn to the hotel industry, serving 1.8 million rooms. Some of the movies offered by Lodgenet include Girls Who Love Girls, Filthy Young Innocents, and AC/DC Sex. A complete list of almost 100 titles can be seen at www.truthaboutlodgenet.com. According to CBS News (Sept. 5, 2004), it is estimated that in-room porn films are purchased by "a whopping 50% of their [big chain hotels'] guests, accounting for nearly 70 percent of their in-room profits." It is arguable, even by the incredibly lax standards of the bishops and the Christian Brothers, that Lodgenet's porn business is its most "significant," if not its "primary," business.
While ownership in companies that profit from graphic images of sex provokes little outrage among the USCCB and CBIS, it is interesting to note a shareholder resolution brought last year by the Maryknoll Sisters and the Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order. The resolution asked Viacom to divest itself of Paramount Pictures, because a number of its films showed people smoking! The religious groups argued that images of smoking would influence the behavior of younger viewers. Of course, a good number of Paramount movies have shown people in sexual situations, but this was not mentioned in the resolution. Catholic religious orders have offered scores, if not hundreds, of shareholder resolutions dealing with tobacco, but it is difficult to find even one in which the issue of porn is addressed.
Smoking is apparently a most serious taboo among Catholic investors. The Christian Brothers do a great job of keeping the bishops' money out of tobacco companies, even though the bishops' guidelines say nothing about the subject. As regards smoking, Catholic groups apparently can't be sensitive enough. Perhaps the bishops and other Catholic groups would be more upset if the porn films they help distribute showed people smoking after sex.
The clerical sex scandal of six years ago counted over 13,000 victims strung over a few decades. Its financial cost is well into the billions of dollars. It is not hard to imagine 13,000 people per day, or even per hour, buying a porn film through their cable television company or in their hotel room. In all, there could easily be tens of millions of people induced to sin through the financial assistance of many dioceses, archdioceses, and multiple Catholic religious groups. Tens of millions of sins would presumably qualify as "significant."
In the clerical sex scandal, what disgusted people the most was not the individual sinner but the fact that these sinners were returned, with the bishops' approval and after consulting with professionals, to unsuspecting parishes where they often sinned again and again. All of us are subject to our passions, but it is the cooperation with and enabling of sin that produces the most outrage. Owning porn-related companies is just another example of the bishops' complicity in this regard.
There are thousands of other companies that would make suitable investments. Only a small percentage of public corporations are involved in porn sales. If choice A is found wanting for any reason, simply go to choice B. For religious groups, one would think that some level of prudence would apply.
Investing is not the only arena in which the bishops have bumped up against the porn demon and lost. In a story related to this writer by a senior staff member of the USCCB and confirmed by Msgr. Frank Maniscalso, also of the USCCB, the bishops tried to block porn filters for computers destined for Catholic school libraries and classrooms. Legislative proposals in 1998 would have mandated porn filters on all computers bought with federal funds or with tax revenue. The bishops joined the ultra-liberal American Library Association in attempting to defeat the mandatory filters. The bishops argued they would put in policies against porn access in schools, and wanted filters to be optional. The bishops also thought porn filters might cost too much. (Their actual cost is negligible.) In practice, filters prevent abuse from occurring. A policy is easily broken and difficult to enforce -- e.g., consider the effectiveness of a "No Talking" policy in most school libraries. Eventually, the legislation passed with mandatory filters, thus saving the bishops from their own poor judgment.
The bishops and other Catholic groups invest in porn-related companies when there is little question about porn's redeeming value. Speaking of redemption, there is no attempt to avoid companies that may not be pornographic in the classic sense but make light of human sexuality or promote lifestyles inimical to traditional Christian belief. For example, mainstream television networks bring us situation comedies laden with vulgarities and sexual innuendo. Shock-jock radio announcers, like Howard Stern and Don Imus, belittle people and, according to a recent study by The New York Times (May 6, 2007), specialize in "sexually explicit banter, particularly descriptions of anal and oral sex." How these things promote the redemptive mission of the crucified Son of God would be most difficult to understand. Yet the companies that bring us these shows are clearly acceptable investments for the bishops. The Christian Brothers' investments in this area include General Electric, which brought us the aforementioned Don Imus (until he was fired for uttering a racial slur on the air) and a host of questionable movies and television shows. They also own Clear Channel and Emmis Communications, which collectively own over 1,000 radio stations. Some of the most offensive "humor" legally allowed is served up by these stations every day. So much for CBIS's "disciplined approach to socially responsible investing."
This picture is brought into bold relief when one considers the great art the Catholic Church inspired and helped fund over the centuries. But in America today, the bishops finance culture-destroying "entertainment" of the lowest order.
If there is a bright side for the bishops, it is this: Unlike the clerical sex scandal, no one will sue them because of their investments in porn-related companies. Unfortunately, it is also the reason that they are likely to do nothing. The fact that millions of souls may be gravely compromised or lost for eternity is not legally actionable -- in this world.
False compassion and human respect are, in my opinion, a large part of the reason for much of the corruption in the world and the Church.
Apathy, lukewarm faith, attachment to sin, and obstinacy in sin are not helped in any way by false compassion.
Sin is like a cancer. Imagine an oncologist having a compassionate attitude toward the cancer killing his patients! Although those patients might suffer less in the beginning because they wouldn't be forced to endure chemotherapy, more likely than not, the patients treated by such a physician would die much sooner, whereas if such patients were treated, many would very likely beat their cancer and live.
Sin is like poison. It's not compassionate to sit back and let someone drink poison.
The key is speaking the truth in love. Tone is very important when dealing with creatures as fragile, fickle, and prone to pride as human beings, who due to concupiscence, as a result of Original sin, are inclined to take the path of least resistance and follow their lower passions rather than right reason.
Although it is true that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, it's very important to make sure that in sharing the truth, we do not become an obstacle to its acceptance. Who wants to sign up with a group filled with members that appear bitter, angry and unpleasant? Who would join a group that sought to enlist members by insulting and condemning people?
Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas:
Fear is chiefly required as being the foundation, so to speak, of the perfection of the other gifts, for "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 110:10; Sirach 1:16), and not as though it were more excellent than the others. Because, in the order of generation, man departs from evil on account of fear (Proverbs 16:16), before doing good works, and which result from the other gifts.
In order to judge aright, the speculative reason is perfected by "wisdom"; the practical reason by "knowledge." The appetitive power, in matters touching a man's relations to another, is perfected by "piety"; in matters touching himself, it is perfected by "fortitude" against the fear of dangers; and against inordinate lust for pleasures, by "fear," according to Proverbs 15:27: "By the fear of the Lord every one declineth from evil," and Psalm 118:120: "Pierce Thou my flesh with Thy fear: for I am afraid of Thy judgments." Hence it is clear that these gifts extend to all those things to which the virtues, both intellectual and moral, extend.
Catholics must learn their faith so as to be prepared with the questions and challenges to their Faith they will hear from those who do not believe and from those who cling to sinful lifestyles. Catholics must share their faith with others in a way that doesn't compromise the truth in any way, but still invites and attracts.
Christ did not compromise, but He remains attractive to sincere people, whether or not they have come to believe in Him.
Many non-believers will readily admit that Jesus is appealing – they claim that it's His followers that trouble them. This may be true, or it may be a excuse. Our job is to make sure we're part of the solution, and not part of the problem.
Many people will still, sadly, reject the truth, even when it is presented charitably, accurately, and truthfully. People rejected Christ during His public life, and they will reject His followers now, but we can't comfort ourselves with the false security that every rejection of the Christian method is due only to the sinfulness of those with whom we share the Holy Gospel.
Christians must walk a fine line. They must speak the truth, without compromise, but in love, with a desire to lead souls to Christ, and a prudent understanding about what may needlessly drive people away.
Note: To prevent the server from slowing down, the video is now linked instead of imbedded. You have very likely not seen much of this footage, some of which is graphic in nature, before (though it does include some familiar footage).
This video is a documentary sent to Rome giving a full photographic montage of the level of depravity to which the Archdiocese of San Francisco has fallen within the last 30 years and especially during the governance of Archbishop George Niederauer. This video was produced for the Roman Authorities to see with their own eyes what is happening within San Francisco because of the lack of Roman Catholic Leadership.