Thursday, May 31, 2012

Part I of Canadian Bishop Finally Grows a Sack of Balls: Cardinal Collins of Toronto Speak out against Tyrannical Overlord McGuinty on Bill 13

Hello All and anyone viewing this blog entry,

Well, I'll say May 28, 2012 has been quite a day in the faith/political atmosphere of Canada. As part of the Conservative Catholic/Traditional Catholic supporting blogosphere, one of the things I see daily from the more emotionally charged and angry parts of our side of this liturgical and spiritual front, is that a number of the bloggers call the Bishops something to the effect of "spineless cowards" for not standing up for the faith and letting our Church decrease to less than 25% of all Catholics attending Mass once a week. While I do agree to a certain extent, some bloggers and internet celebrities, like to make the cowardliness of the Bishops their daily bread and butter for their  "audience" of superiorly right wing people (which I don't know how many that is), be they readers or fellow commentators. They give the impression that bishops give into novelties and the secular world, and act as power hungry individuals who sit on thrones like CEOs of companies in their dioceses, and choose not to fulfill their role as sheperds, defenders, and teachers of the faith, as well as to foster anger and disgust for those bishops. Many of those bishops have failed and when they do, those far right blogosphere guys like Michael Voris on his Vortex, or the Canadian version of Voris, John Pacheco (and Steve G, though Steve is the more prudent of the two commentators on their site, So Con or Bust) come out guns ablazing.

Hey, I agree when a bishop acts not in keeping with the faith, give em a verbal or theological cream pie to the face, though you might want to apply a different heavy-handed, but Christ-centered approach unlike those guys I mentioned above (yeah yeah go ahead and use the whip of chords on the moneychangers example. The thing is, their joyless tone drives otherwise hungry Catholics away, while other bloggers or YouTubers receive more hits). View their content if you want to see what I'm talking about.

But I have also started to see a trend in our Catholic faith. Our bishops, slowly but surely, one at a time, are starting to grow their "balls again" so to speak: the USA Bishops for the first time in decades since Vatican II were united for the first time on a central issue of the faith (the contraception mandate forced on institutions by Obama), Bishop Morlino of Plateville's attempt to reintroduce valid catechesis and liturgy to a nasty and ``Spirit of Vatican II`` possessed diocese of Plateville in the USA with priests from a traditionally-minded order, and recently, in Canada, A certain red hat and hopefully, future pope, launched a bomb (albeit one in need of more TNT in the casing).

The demon that the tyrant Overlord McGuinty, Premier of Ontario and current provincial leader of the Liberal Party, wants to enforce on kids for the sake of the homosexual vote: Bill 13. Here is the link for the bill in parliament, which is being disguised as an ``anti-bullying bill``:
Please read this in full! So why should one as a Catholic be opposed to this bill? Let's start with the preamble, my commentary in red 'Fr. Z' tinted colour with bold text as emphasis:
The people of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly:
Believe that education plays a critical role in preparing young people to grow up as productive, contributing and constructive citizens in the diverse society of Ontario; 
Believe that all students should feel safe at school and deserve a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting, regardless of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability; [Yeah the usual stuff of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that liberally constructed "thing" of that liberal fool Trudeau. Hmmm, so what do you mean by sexual orientation "safety" and "climate"???] ...."
".... Believe that students need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude and values to engage the world and others critically, which means developing a critical consciousness that allows them to take action on making their schools and communities more equitable and inclusive for all people, [In other words political activitsts for the Liberal party line or NDP party line] including LGBTTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited, intersexed, queer and questioning) people; [So what about religious people, atheistic people, handicapped people .... etc? Seems pretty focused on a specific group of people.]
Recognize that a whole-school approach is required, and that everyone — government, educators, school staff, parents, students and the wider community — has a role to play in creating a positive school climate and preventing inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia; [Of which would include forcing Catholic schools to NEVER actually teach the Catholic Fatih as outlined in the Catechism paragraphs 2357-2359 because, well saying their acts are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law" is a hate crime and homophobic]
Acknowledge that there is a need for stronger action [Again with the action???] to create a safe and inclusive environment in all schools, and to support all students, including both students who are impacted by and students who have engaged in inappropriate behavior, to assist them in developing healthy relationships [That is LBGTTIQ types, not heterosexual ones] , making good choices [as long as they do not constitue absolute true ethics and morals of course and are societally appropriate], continuing their learning and achieving success.

The ``recognize`` paragraph in the preamble is the start of why Catholics are not going to like when this bill gets assent after the third reading. Let's delve a little bit further shall we:

   1.  (1)  Subsection 1 (1) of the Education Act is amended by adding the following definition:
“bullying” means repeated and aggressive behaviour by a pupil where,
  (a)  the behaviour is intended by the pupil to cause, or the pupil ought to know that the behaviour would be likely to cause, harm, fear or distress to another individual, including psychological harm or harm to the individual’s reputation, and
  (b)  the behaviour occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the pupil and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power [including those of a specific religion], economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, family circumstances, gender, race, disability or the receipt of special education; (“intimidation”) [This could be widely interpreted by lawmakers, judges, justices of the peace, and the Human Rights councils to include the "special education" that a Catholic child receives in their schools under instruction of the faith. So you can say bye bye to anything remotely connected to Catholicism because the "intimidation" is associated with our moral and ethical teachings.]

5.  The Act is amended by adding the following section:
Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week
   300.0.2  (1)  The week beginning on the third Sunday in November in each year is proclaimed as Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week. [So, what will this entail? Will Catholic schools be forced to bring in pro-homosexual speakers that may encourage the children anywhere from saying that these relationships are OK against the teachings of the faith, to encouraging sexual acts, and what about staging those mock pride parades in elementary school years? My point is that there is no specific outline as to what is to be promoted in these weeks and again, the law is about INTERPRETATION. If the people interpreting the law interpret it liberally, and the people in the seat of power are liberal or worse, in their minds are anti-Catholic bigots, Catholic kids, teachers, and parents can kiss their rights to a good solid Catholic education goodbye. If they ever come to a court case, they will likely lose.]
Same, purpose
   (2)  The purpose of subsection (1) is to promote awareness and understanding of bullying and its consequences in the school community. 

Section 6, subsection 3 is lengthy to post here, but if you read it, it gives way to much power to the Minister of Education to do many things such as: "...establish policies and guidelines with respect to disciplining pupils, including policies and guidelines respecting,  (a)  the use of disciplinary measures within a framework that,            (i)  identifies pupil behaviours that are inappropriate and that, without excluding less serious behaviour, include bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia,...." "(d)  training for all teachers and other staff;". Also, because the Minister of Education will wield such power in the Amended Education Act, she or he can do things like: `` ... establish policies and guidelines with respect to bullying prevention and intervention in schools, including policies and guidelines respecting, (a)  training for all teachers and other staff; (b)  resources to support pupils who are impacted by bullying; (c)  the resources provided, as part of programs described in section 312, to pupils who have been suspended or expelled for bullying;   (d)  procedures that allow pupils to report incidents of bullying safely and in a way that minimizes the possibility of reprisal;   (e)  the use of disciplinary measures within the framework described in clause (6) (a) in response to bullying;  (f)  procedures for responding appropriately and in a timely manner to bullying. [Do you really comfortable with a person such as Broten weilding that much power over your child's teachers and his/her education? Worse the teachers organizations under this law will have to force their teachers to obey these policies and enact them, and if found out they are not doing so, Jimmy's miracle teacher will get the pink slip and never return to teaching if the college finds the teacher guilty of disobeing the governments' policies with regard to these rules]

I've only picked a few examples of the law to be passed for you to see that it is too vague and also too controlling to give the government and associated legal bodies that much power over your child's Catholic (and also public) education. 

Anyways, this post is getting too long, so I`m going to do part II with the focus on the man of the hour ....


1 comment: