As I Said, The Main Stream Media Critics Are Attacking "For Greater Glory"

In May I made a prediction about how the Main Stream Media PC gang would review For Greater Glory. (here & here) While expecting a few to be fair, I added " For the rest, watch the reviews be positive about the Hispanic actors & how they played their roles, while attacking the movie in a similar way to how they attacked October Baby because of that movie's Pro-life message." In short, I predicted it would be attacked for its positive view of the Catholic Church. Well I have been proven right, sad to say.

The Rotton Tomatoes page for the movie currently shows a reviewer 16% approval rating by movie critics. When you get to the top list it drops to 6%. However the audience approval rating is 86%, quite a difference. (Note these are subject to change as more reviews are added, but at this point the numbers probably won't change much.)

I would have to say the review that is the best proves my point about reviews attacking the Catholic Church is the review of the movie by Roger Ebert. I have to ask after reading it, does he just NOT get what this movie was about, or is he intentionally being dense to cover up his subtly attacking those who stand up for the Catholic faith.

In the 1st paragraph he talks about the historical background of the film. But in the 2nd paragraph he begins to attack the movie. "An atheist and a hero of the revolution, Gorostieta signed on for the cash and because he supported the principle of religious freedom. In the context of a new English-language epic called "For Greater Glory," that principle apparently applies only to Catholics. No other religion is ever mentioned." (emphasis mine) Well DUH???????????? This movie is about the attack on the Catholic Church lead by Calles. Of course it doesn't mention other religions. Calles wasn't attacking them the way he attacked the Catholic Church. BTW, nowhere in the movie does it imply that the principle of religious freedom only applies to Catholics. Ebert is letting his anti-Catholic prejudice which shows up even stronger later in the review to undermine the message that an attack on the religious freedom of any church & the people who belong, is an attack on the religious freedom of everyone.
I would also remind Ebert of the origin of the word catholic. The word catholic was derived via the Late Latin catholicus, which came from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal." So in fact, looking at the attack on the Catholic Church's religious freedom does apply the principle to other religions as well.
Also, as the Wikipedia article on the 1917 Mexican Constitution points out "Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 as originally enacted were anticlerical and restricted religious freedoms, as well as the power of the Catholic Church, in part due to a desire by anticlerical framers to punish the Mexican Church's Hierarchy for its support of Victoriano Huerta." Did you get that Ebert?, the restrictions were aimed at the Catholic Church & Calles was using those restrictions to attack the Catholic Church. Also, these restrictions remained after the war & they were NOT removed until 1992. & even then, not all of them.

Later he says "This war has all the elements to make it well-known, but I confess I'd never heard of it. A close Mexican-American friend, well-informed in Mexican history, told me she never has, either. Is it in the usual history books? "
No, it has been buried. Ebert might do well to remember that even though the war ended in 1929, the attacks on the Catholic Church continued. Like I already said, the Constitutional restrictions remained. & continued to be sporadically enforced. After the war the government executed some 500 Cristero leaders and 5,000 other Cristeros. & that is just 1 example. So naturally, they were going to do their best to keep it out of the history books. We are seeing a modern form of historic revision with FDR & his memorial in DC. They omitted his wheel chair & his cigarette holder, to intentionally present a different picture.
Ebert goes on to say "It is well-made, yes, but has such pro-Catholic tunnel vision I began to question its view of events. One important subplot involves a 12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war."
Now we get into the meat of Ebert's attack on the Catholic Church. 1st of all, I again remind him that this is about the attack on the Catholic Church, so naturally it will be pro-Catholic. apparently that is something he doesn't like. Which fits in well with the current anti-Catholic attitude in Hollywood that usually uses the Catholic Church as it's whipping boy.
On the other hand, he called The DaVinci Code "preposterously entertaining." He went on to say "Both (book & movie) contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them." But nowhere does he criticize it for its anti-Catholic tunnel vision.
& yes, the film does approve of José Sánchez del Río's decision. He chose to die for the faith like many other martyrs for the faith did over the past 2000 years, martyrs of all ages, young & old. Some were even younger than José. & the reason he was included in the list is because the Catholic Church approves of his actions as well. Apparently Ebert thinks he knows better than the Catholic Church who should or shouldn't be made a saint. He might do well to look at the whole process. It just doesn't declare anyone a saint. There is a long process of discernment that ensures the person is really a saint in Heaven.
As Fr. Barry pointed out to me after Mass on Sunday, what we saw in the movie were people growing in their faith & towards sainthood. That is exactly what we say in the movie when it came to José. IMHO, José's last few days were shown as his taking up his cross willingly to follow Jesus. The journey to his execution  came across to me as José's  Via Dolorosa.
Ebert does, sort of, get 1 thing right. He says "President Calles (Ruben Blades), who can't believe the Cristeros can possibly be successful, pursues the war beyond what seems to be all common sense." (emphasis mine) He got that right. Calles hatred of the Catholic Church blinded him to using any Catholic sense. Something that seems somewhat true of Ebert as well when it comes to this review.
Ebert then goes on to add  "It's one thing to enforce legal restraints on the Catholic Church and another — a riskier one — to order such extremes as sending all the bishops and foreign-born clergy out of the country and authorizing the murder of priests in their own churches." (emphasis mine) Here we get to a very interesting point & one that may reveal a hidden motive in Ebert's attack on the movie & the Catholic Church. Ebert apparently approves of Calles' use of the Constitution to restrict the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. Could it be because he sees a parallel in the Obama asdministrations's attempt to use ObamaCare to put what they say are "legal restraints" on the Catholic Church? & he sees this movie as a reminder that what Obama is doing is just as wrong as what Calles is doing? Apparently so, & like the rest of the media he is trying to subvert &/or silence the message by attacking the messenger as I pointed out.
He ends the review with another attack on the Catholic Church. "If it had not hewed so singlemindedly to the Catholic view and included all religions under the banner of religious liberty, I believe it would have been more effective. If your religion doesn't respect the rights of other religions, it is lacking something. "  (emphasis mine) You will notice that he restates the attack he started the review with. He wants to remind us that if you only show the Catholic view in a movie about the Catholic Church than that invalidates the message. In one sense, this is another example of the spirit of relativism so widespread in the world that Papa Benedetto has been regularly warning us about.
But then we have that last line than can only be read as an out & out attack on the Catholic Church for its views on homosexuality, abortion & birth control, among others. He is intentionally confusing respecting the religious liberty rights of others with being able to proclaiming the truth. The Catholic Church fully respects religious liberty. Ebert should read Dignitatis Humanae. It says  "the human person has a right to religious freedom," which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society." Did you get that last line? It clearly points to what Obama is doing, not the Catholic Church. But, just like the rest of those who support Obama, Ebert is twisting what the Catholic Church is saying to imply it is attacking others who believe differently rather than defending its own right to not be forced to support abortion, birth control etc.  He knows full well that the Catholic Church isn't taking away other's rights. Or disrespecting them.
On the other hand, Ebert is saying it is OK to take away the Catholic Church's freedom if society doesn't like what it teaches. There is no need to respect the Catholic Church or those who are faithful to its teachings. He is giving glowing approval to Obama's attack on religious freedom for those who disagree with what Obama thinks is right.
The sad thing is that Ebert was raised as a Catholic. These days he admits to being a secular humanist.* His attack on this movie also shows how far he has come from the day when was critical of films that he believed are grossly ignorant of or insulting to Catholicism, for example  Stigmata & Priest. Now he attacks those films that uphold authentic Catholicism.

______________
*As an aside, he says in the article that  "Catholicism made me a humanist before I knew the word." What he fails to point out is that there is a huge difference between secular humanism & the humanism promoted by the Catholic Church that has its basis in the fact that man is made in the image & likeness of God. (Note: it is not religious humanism as modern humanists try & promote either.) That humanism has been arround in the Catholic Church since the start. Although it received its greatest expression in the Catholic Church's support of the arts during the Renaissance, something that probably never would have happenned without the support of the Catholic Church. & don't forget that it was the Catholic Church who provided the foundation for it by the preservation of civilization in the monasteries during the Middle Ages. (I once again recommend you read Thomas E. Woods, Jr.'s book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization for more on this subject.
Additionally, he admits to being pro-choice when it comes to abortion, another motivation for his attack on the Catholic Church's freedom through his attack on this movie. Of course he is going to support the Obama administration's forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortions & attack anything that reminds people of what is really going on with the administration's actions, they are an attack on religious freedom.

If You Haven't Seen "For Greater Glory" Yet, Why Haven't You?

Wednesday night I was finally able to go see For Greater Glory, the movie about the 1920s Cristero War that I have been talking about in several posts. The movie was released on 1 June 2012 but only arrived in DBQ last Friday (15 June) for a one week engagement.  While there wasn't a large crowd for the 7 pm showing, I would say that I knew at least 75% of the audience.

Where do I begin??? Seriously, this is definitely a must see movie. When it was over & the credits began there was almost complete silence. When I went home I had to dig out something light to watch because of how it effected me. This morning when I was talking to a friend who had been there, he asked me if I had trouble getting to sleep afterwords. Others have had similar reactions.

In short, this is a powerful movie that tells the story of those who refused to let Mexican President Plutarco Elías Calles get away with his attempt to destroy the Catholic Church in Mexico. While the movie doesn't mention it, part of his motivation came from being a freemason.

I will try not to give away too much of the story. The movie starts out with Calles calling on the Mexican Congress to enact  legislation known formally as The Law Reforming the Penal Code (unofficially as the Calles Law). The law was simply supposed to enforce the 1917 Constitution's seperation of church & state. But what it really was inteded to do, & did, was open the doors to an all out persecution of the Catholic Church in order to destroy it. Calles was played by Ruben Blades who gave an excellent performance. His portrayal of Calles gave me the impression that Calles was one of those villians who often appears in a Bond movie, someone who puts up a front to the public (in this case the US government & others) but is really wholey motivated by an evil agenda.

We soon meet Fr. Christopher, a Catholic priest played by Peter O'Toole, who befriends 13 year old  José Luis Sanchez del Rio (Mauricio Kuri). Fr. Christopher's witness of the love of Christ to José begins to have an effect on the boy to strenghten his faith. As the attacks escalate Fr. Christopher in mudered by the Federales with José  as a witness. O'Toole played that scene with just the right blend of fear & faith. You could see that Fr. Christopher was not relying on his own strength, but was keeping his eyes on Jesus & praying for the grace he needed to face his martydom. Later, after witnessing the Federales kill 2 other people, José  & a friend take off & join the Cristeros. They are not allowed to fight. Instead they help out arround the camp.

At the same time we see the efforts of Anacleto González Flores (Eduardo Verástegui) & others to find a peaceful solution to the attacks on the Catholic Church. Unfortunately Calles rejects all those efforts. Soon groups are organizing across Mexico to take up armed resistance against Calles. 1 of those groups is lead by Fr. Vega (Santiago Cabrer) The National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty, a group that was originally founded for peaceful protest, realized that they need an experienced General to lead them. Enrique Gorostieta Velarde (Andy Garcia in 1 of his best roles ever) is contacted. His wife, Tulita Gorostieta (Eva Longoria) is a faithful Catholic), but Gorostieta is an atheist. But he is also a firm believer in religious liberty & with the support of his wife, agrees to lead the Cristeros.

Obviously a 145 minute movie cannot cover everything that happenned over the 3 years of the Cristero war. Much of the film focuses on the training, the battles & the struggles of the Cristeros. But some of it does focus on what went on in the US & the American Ambassador's efforts. Additionally, the movie doesn't paint the Cristeros leaders as perfect. It does show some of the mistakes they made, the pride of some leaders as well as their deep faith. Several times we witness a part of a Mass for the Cristeros.
Other things get mentioned in passing. 1 of those is the involvement of the Knights of Columbus. The movie only mentions the KCs contacting the US government. But they did much more. The KCs were already active in Mexico. Like many other Catholic organizations, they came under attack by the Calles government. Several KCs who were martyred in the Cristero War have been either beatified or declared saints by the Catholic Church. You can read more about what they did in 2 articles in the May 2012 issue of Columbia: The Untold Story of the Knights during the Cristiada & The Voice for Religious Freedom Knows No Border.
While there wasn't an excess of blood or gore, the movie did accurately portray the violence. That included the hangings. 1 of the things shown was how Calles had the bodies hung on telephone poles, including those alongside the railroad tracks. The reason for this was the same as that used by the Roman empire for why they crucified criminals & rebels along public ways. It was to send a message that if you don't stop rebelling the same fate awaited you.
The portrayal of the hangings reminded me of something else. I am refering to the hangings by the Ku Klux Klan in the USA. Again the hangings were a means of terrorizing those the KKK opposed. That included Catholics. The KKK was rabidly anti-Catholic & would do anything to help wipe them out. That meant they fully supported what Calles was doing. In fact, the Klan offered its 4 million members as soldiers for the Calles regime should any group or country intervene militarily.
While not mentioned in the movie, another big supporter of Calles efforts to wipe out the Catholic Church in Mexico was Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She praised Calles’ campaign against the Church & saw it as a step toward making her work easier: “With the yoke of medievalism thus thrown off we can anticipate a splendid development of the government work for birth control already begun in Mexico.” Of course her other reason for wanting promoting birth control in Mexico had to do with her racist eugenics agenda. Remember she saw Mexicans as an inferior people. This agenda is still carried on by Planned Parenthood today. & not only in Mexico but in all of Central & South America.
1 of the things shown in the movie were attempts by the Federales to get Catholics to aposticise. Saying, “¡Viva Cristo Rey!” (Long Live Christ the King!), the battle cry of the Cristeros, was considered to be an act of treason. The scenes where the Federales tried to get Catholics to deny Christ or be shot again reminded me of how the early Christians were given the choice of worshiping Caesar or being martyred. To not worship Caesar was treason. The movie shows many Catholics  facing death with  “¡Viva Cristo Rey!”  on their lips.
I know that many people like to walk out the second the credits start at the end of the movie. In this case, I would say don't. The credits start with telling what happenned to some of those portrayed in the movie. Throughout the credits we see actually pictures of the events during the war. 1 of those pictures is of Blessed Miguel Pro (José Ramón Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez) being martyred.
The movie was rightly rated R because of the violence depicted. I won't make the arguement here that, given the violence & sex in some PG-13 movies, that it could have been rated that instead. Clearly, this movie is not suitable for very young children. But given the exposure to so much violence in video games, most teens (& some 10-12 year lods) would be able to handle it. In fact, I would strongly recomend that parents of teens take them. & then use the movie as a starting point for a discussion on what it means to live the Catholic faith, especially the cost. Why were the martyrs, from the early days of the Catholic Church until now, willing to lay down their lives for what they believed in. Another topic would be how does this compare to the attacks on the Catholic Church & religious faith in general by the Obama administration. How is this persecution similar or different? Could we be seeing Catholics arrested & martyred in the US for refusing to submit to the attacks on the Catholic Church (& other Christians as well)?
I hope we never face the type of persecution the Calles government wrought on the Catholic Church. (Note: even after the agreement, persecution continued. Calles' government often did not abide by the terms of the truce. In violation of its terms, executed some 500 Cristero leaders & 5,000 other Cristeros.) This movie has inspired me to continue my efforts to see that it doesn't. We must have the same courage that the early Christians as well as the Cristeros had. We must ask God to give us the strength & graces needed to live our faith & defend it, even if it may some day cost us our lives.

I Don't Want to Say I Told You so, But

Yesterday in a post I talked about how I suspected the Main Stream Media (MSM), especially the reviewers would handle For Greater Glory. In part I said "watch the reviews be positive about the Hispanic actors & how they played their roles, while attacking the movie."

Well The HuffPo has fired one of the 1st shots. I wasn't too far off in my prediction. After a short desription of the movie, the writer says "For Catholics enraged by the Obama administration's proposed contraception mandate, the film about the Mexican church's fight in 1920s is a heartening and timely cinematic boost in the American church's battle to preserve "religious freedom" in 2012.

For other Catholics and non-Catholics, the film is, more simply, action, suspense and a good cast. Besides Garcia and Blades, there's "Desperate Housewives" star Eva Longoria and the legendary actor Peter O'Toole." (emphasis mine)

The article then goes on to make it sound like those opposing the mandate are out of touch & not really representative of the Catholic Church, including Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, & the USCCB.

" While the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is working hard to stop the Obama administration's birth control mandate, their campaign has not attracted a broad base of Catholics. A March study by the Public Religion Research Institute found that most American Catholics are generally supportive of the mandate. And 57 percent of Catholics (and 56 percent of Americans in general) reject the idea that religious liberty is under siege in the U.S." (emphasis mine)

In short, because a so called majority of Catholics doesn't see that their rights are under attack, the author is trying to make it seem that they must be right. & the US Bishops who, for once, is actually exercising their prophetic office, are wrong. I know this will raise the ire of those who don't like to learn from history, but may I remind them that:

a) Only 1/3 of those living in the USA supported the American fight for independence. The other 2/3rds didn't see what King George & Parliament were doing was wrong. Yet, as the Declaration so clearly put it, Americans rights were being attacked by the Mother Country.

b) In the 30s, before he consolodated power, most in Germans felt Hitler was making things better, not about to take away the rights of huge numbers of people, Jewish Catholic & others.. & many people in the USA did as well. Once again, Pope Pius XI (with the help of Cardinal Roncalli, later Pius XII) was the one speaking out propheticly about the dangers of Hitler & Nazi-ism. (& please don't give me that BS that he didn't do anything to help the Jews during the war. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary that the anti-Catholic MSM has ignored. More proof of what I said yesterday.) He also propheticly warned people about the dangers of Fascism & communism as well.

So a majority doesn't determine the truth.

& of course, she didgs out a Catholic priest, & (not surprizing), a Jesuit to boot, to support her attempt to undermine the message.

" For the Rev. Jim McDermott, a Jesuit priest in Los Angeles and occasional screenwriter, connecting the Cristero War with modern-day politics makes little sense, from either a Catholic or artistic perspective.

'As much as I personally find some of Obama's policies problematic, it seems ridiculous to compare that issue with the wholesale demolition of the Catholic Church in Mexico depicted in 'For Greater Glory,' he said.

'The attempt to equate these two situations,' he continued, 'strikes me as indicative of the deeper problem our church faces today, the fierce and often willful bolstering of animosities at the expense of our national community.'

Besides, he added, 'As a writer, I think sermons are best left for the pulpit.' " (emphasis mine)

Has Fr. McDermott been paying attention to what the Obama administration has been doing over the past few years? & let's not forget the attacks as well in many states, like Illinois, that have driven the Catholic Church out of providing adoptions or foster care. Wholesale demolition of the Catholic Church in the USA would be an understatement.

As for his version of "Can't we all get along" is aperfect example of misdirection & using lies. Obama has been the one playing the "race card", promoting "class warefare" & out & out declared war on our freedoms, religious & others. & when those who want to defend their rights speak up, they are the ones falsely accused of trying to divide, not unite our country. Well I have news for him, we have never had that "kumbaya" spirit he is claiming exists in the USA. I would suggest this screenwriter watch 1776 for a start. Pay attention especially to the debate scenes. Notice the violence that occasionally broke out. & continued later on in the US Congress for at least a good part of the 1800s. Also pay attention to John Adams when he says "Benefits, what benifits? *" & the play goes on to list those rights & beifits taken away.
Personally, I agree with what Mexican real estate developer Pablo Jose Barroso, the devout Catholic who produced the film, said when asked by the National Catholic Reporter if the film's release -- coinciding with the current activism on religious freedom -- was "God's timing."

"This is the perfect time for this film," he said.

I will close by saying that this is only a preview of what lies ahead in the MSM as the relase of For Greater Glory draws near. Be ready to see more of the same, & worse, on the part of the MSM to ensure that people ignore the truth that we are heading down the same path.

________________
* (Corrected on 29 May 2012 @ 1:57 pm) Over the Memorial Day weekend I dug out my copy of 1776 & watched it again. I noticed I had made a slight mistake & changed the word from rights to what you now read benifits. My point still remains valid. Our rights our being taken away, just as Franklin notes in his joke about the bull & ox.

Random Thoughts - 24 May 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Edition

I labeled this the Rush Limbaugh edition because, as you will see, they all have a connection to him.

1) The other day when I posted about the upcoming release of For Greater Glory, I mentioned that they were advertising on the Rush Limbaugh Show. What I didn't mention then was what the ad said at the end. They said that they were a "proud sponsor of the Rush Limbaugh Show." That fact got me thinking about how the Illiberal left that makes up a huge number of the movie reviewers will react to the movie's release.

I say that because of the fact that the movie is hispanic in its subject matter. & for the PC crowd, they have to be supportive of anything hispanic since otherwise they will appear racist.

On the other hand, this movie is very Pro-Catholic Church. & even more Pro-upholding the authentic magestrium of the Catholic Church. & supporting what the Catholic Church actually stands for is anathema to the PC left. Especially when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches on the Life issues, which Obama's HHS mandate is a blatent attack on.

Even worse, this movie can be seen as a veiled reference to the attack of the Catholic Church here in the USA by Obama. & we know how important it is that nothing make the beloved leader appear in a bad light, especially if what is shown is true.

I suspect that the honest reviewers will look on it at its merits & give it a fair review, which based on what I have seen, should be positive. For the rest, watch the reviews be positive about the Hispanic actors & how they played their roles, while attacking the movie in a similar way to how they attacked October Baby because of that movie's Pro-life message.

2) Recently, LifeNews reported that Michael J. Fox admitted to Diane Sawyer that the embryonic stem cell research that he had been so passionate about wasn't producing the results he hoped. If you remember, he had been hyping how the best way to find a therapy for Parkinson’s Disease from which he suffers would come from embryonic stem cells  Instead he was forced to admit that there have been have been “problems along the way,” & that new drug therapies are showing real promise and are “closer today” to providing a cure. So now his foundation will focus on other ways to treat Parkinson’s.

Of course, he cannot admit the truth, that embryonic stem cells will always be a failure. Additionally he continues to conflate together all stem cells in order to continue the myth that those opposed to embryonic stem cell research are opposed to all stem cell research.

In the interview he said “Stem cells are an avenue of research that we’ve pursued and continue to pursue but it’s part of a broad portfolio of things that we look at. There have been some issues with stem cells, some problems along the way.” (emphais mine) Notice that he doesn't clarify the fact that the only problems have been with embryonic stem cells. A good example is the 2006 experiment where researchers reported that they had injected rats with Parkinson’s with embryonic stem cells directly into the brain. & while the symptoms of Parkinson’s were greatly improved, the rats had the formations of tumors in their brains that showed signs of developing into cancer if the study had continued. This report came out at the time Fox was pushing his embryonic stem cell agenda & releasing an ad supporting Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democratic candidate for United States Senate. McCaskill is a huge supporter of embryonic stem cell research & another dissident Catholic when it comes to the life issues.
But not only that, he goes on to compound the lie. “It’s not so much that [stem cell research has] diminished in its prospects for breakthroughs as much as it’s the other avenues of research have grown and multiplied and become as much or more promising. So, an answer may come from stem cell research but it’s more than likely to come from another area.” (emphasis mine) The problem is one of huge misdirection. He is failing to acknowledge that adult stem cell research has shown real hope for a cure, without the problems that are connected to virtually every use of embryonic stem cells. He is carefully wording it so that if confronted, he can plausably deny downplaying adult stem cell research. Meanwhile he is trying to direct the attention elsewhere in the hopes that people don't notice the truth.

On his show today, Rush Limbaugh referenced to the Life News article from the 18th that riginally broke this story. He did so for 2 reasons. The 1st was to remind people of how he was attacked in 2006 for criticizing Fox & what he called the "whole phony embryonic stem cell debate." The article mentions that "When asked about earlier criticism he received from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh about his advocacy, Fox said it only 'sharpens your resolve.'”

The 2nd was to remind people what he said then & now "Embryonic stem cells are not going to cure -- remember, embryonic stem cells, that was like the magic elixir, embryonic stem cells were gonna cure and fix everything, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, everything. And there hasn't ever been anything and there's not going to be, not in the near future. Adult stem cells are a different ball of wax. But embryonic, zilch, zero, nada, all of which you in this audience were informed of back during the heat of the debate." (emphasis mine) Notice how Rush makes the difference clear between embryonic & adult stem cells & which one does offer hope for cures, now.

We are seeing another example of Main Stream Media bias in how they are covering this story to avoid admitting the "culture of death" agenda bias, that includes embryonic stem cell reasearch supported by them & the dear leader Obama. Instead, they do all they can to appear unbiased while being just the opposite.

Which leads me to my 3rd thought.

3) My post yesterday about media bias that icluded what Brent Bozell said in a column was inspired by hearing Bozell's column read on Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday. & if you look at the 1st 2 thoughts, you will see that they both back up my point I made yesterday. The media attacks on October Baby were mostly based on its Pro-life message. & it is likely they will do their best to undermine For Greater Glory for the reasons I pointed out. As I just said, the MSM will do all it can to promote its "culture of death" agenda & dear leader Obama. & the way the MSM has done so with Fox's latest, letting him get away with lies, half truths & misdirection, is another example.

Media Bias Against Catholic Church Comes Front & Center This Week

If you were only watching the nightly news on ABC, NBC, or CBS this week you might not know that 43 Catholic institutions – including major archdioceses, dioceses, universities, & publishing houses affiliated with the Church in the United States – filed a dozen lawsuits against the HHS Mandate that forces Catholic institutions to pay for contraception & even abortafacient drugs. Not to plug FoxNews, but from what I can see, they have done a much better job of it.

About the only onther media that has covered it in any depth, besides LifeNews, LifeSiteNews & Newsbusters/Media Research Center havs been talk radio.

Up until now, I haven't had a chance to say much either.  I want to start by applauding all those who have stood up & said we are not going to let the Obama administration steamroll us & take away our Constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. Among those who filed are the Archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C., & St. Louis; the Dioceses of Dallas, Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ft. Worth, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Pittsburgh, & Rockville Centre; the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, the Franciscan University of Steubenville; & Our Sunday Visitor.

Hopefully, more Archdioceses & Dioceses, as well as many other Catholic schools & publications will file suits as well. Some organizations, like EWTN & Priests for Life have already filed suits, but this is the largest group so far.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, stated that the step was necessary “to protect our religious liberties from unwarranted and unprecedented government intrusion.”

The Archdiocese of Washington has put up a website dedicated to the new lawsuit. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. didn't mince any words as to what the mandate was about He called it a “government attempt to force the Church out of the public square.”

& while the Diocese of LaCrosse hasn't joined in with any suits,  Bishop William P. Callahan said  "this is not a political issue; it is a legal issue – a Constitutional issue. This is a matter of us standing firm in understanding that the very basic understanding of our Constitution and our country is so that we may practice our faith, practice our belief with freedom and without reservation, intimidation and government interference."

He added "Due to the many lawsuits across the country, we are beginning to see a visceral understanding of the fact that people know that religious liberty is important with regard to our lives as Americans and certainly important to our lives of faith."

Our Sunday Visitor looked back to the legacy of its founder, Fr. John Noll. Fr. Noll fought the political clout of the Ku Klux Klan as that organization attempted to impose anti-Catholic policies at the turn of the 20th century.

Bill Donahue, head of The Catholic League had the following to say: "This is a great day for those who believe in religious liberty. Suing the Obama administration for seeking to trash the First Amendment rights of Catholics are 43 Catholic dioceses and institutions from all over the nation."

So you would think this would be headline coverage by the Main Stream Media. But like I already pointed out, for the most part the MSM has either ignored it, or tried to paint it as another attack on women's right to birth control rather than the attack on religious freedom it really is.  Among those spreading the media lies are Maureen O'Dowd of the New York Times & Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Both of them claim to be Catholic but have proven time & time again they are anything but faithful Catholics.*

They either don't get it (I think they do) or they are intentionally working to destroy the Catholic Church & aid Obama's attempts to destroy religious freedom (I think they are).

Brent Bozell, founder of Media Research Center (which launched Newsbusters in 2005) wrote an excellent column commenting on the media's coverage (or lack thereof) of this lawsuit. As he points out "You’d think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major news story. But ABC, CBS, and NBC don’t judge news events by their inherent importance as relates to the future of our freedoms. They deliver the news according to a simple formula: Does it, or doesn’t it, advance the re-election of Barack Obama?

If it doesn’t, it isn’t news.

On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a “religious institution” can be defined under their ObamaCare law. Never has the Catholic Church – or any order, for that matter – undertaken something of this magnitude. It’s truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while “CBS Evening News” devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event.

No, let’s be blunt: They spiked the news.

This is the worst example of shameless bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center. We recall the Chinese communists withholding from its citizenry for 20 years the news that the U.S. had landed on the moon, because it reflected poorly on their government. Never, never would the U.S. “news” media behave thusly.

They just did."

Later he says "This was a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the “Chosen One” who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect and for whom they are now abusing their journalistic influence."

"This should be seen as a very dark cloud on Obama’s political horizon. The Catholic Church, with 60 million Americans describing themselves as Catholic, has unleashed legal Armageddon on the administration, promising “we will not comply” with a health law that strips Catholics of their religious liberty. If this isn't “news,” then there's no such thing as news."

He also points out how National Public Radio ignored this as well. I highly recommend reading the entire article.

The other day I shamelessly plugged the movie For Greater Glory. In it I said "The message of the movie is 1 of religious freedom. As we have seen by the various actions taken by the Obama administration, (the HHS madate forcing Catholic organizations, schools etc to cover contraception; the attempts to silence the priests in the military form speaking out about it, as well as many other attacks) our religious freedom in the USA is under attack as well. Obama has clearly shown his anti-Catholic bias. & while things are not yet as bad here, they could very well end up there."

The various Catholic Archdioceses, Dioceses, etc that have launched these lawsuits have made it clear that, like the faithful Catholics in Mexico in the 20s, they are not going to remain silent, nor are they going to lie down & let the government just take away their God-given rights. How this will end, I have no idea. If the Supreme Court rules against ObamaCare then these suits will be moot. But even so, that doesn't mean we can relax. It is clear that there is a concerted effort to attack the Catholic Church in the USA & in other parts of the world as well. We may well be on the verge of a new era of public persecution. We may be facing violent attacks, arrests, & even death. I hope not, but we may. What we must be about is living our faith & boldly proclaiming it. We need to follow the example held up by St Paul "I have kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have preached it to you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:20-21) Now, more than ever, we cannot shirk our responsibility to be the witnesses Jesus said we are to be. If we don't proclaim the Gospel, who will? Clearly not the Main Stream Media.

___________________

* They, along with Pelosi & all the others who try to justify their dissent might want to read this bit from the dogmatic constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium) "The whole company of the faithful, who have an anointing by the Holy Spirit, cannot err in faith. They manifest this distinctive characteristic of theirs in the supernatural instinct of faith (‘sensus fidei’) of the whole people when, from the bishops to the most ordinary lay person among the faithful, they display a universal agreement on matters of faith and morals.

This instinct of faith is awakened and kept in being by the Spirit of truth. Through it the people of God hold indefectibly to the faith once delivered to the saints, penetrate it more deeply by means of right judgement, and apply it more perfectly in their lives. They do all this under the guidance of the sacred teaching office: by faithful obedience to it they receive, not the word of men but in truth the word of God." (emphasis mine) In short, instead of attacking what they don't like they are supposed to obediently receive it. In sort, what they claim is the ‘sensus fidei’ to justify their claims is anything but. In fact, I wonder how many of those who claim to be following the "Spirit of Vatican II" have actually bothered to read what the Holy Spirit (the real Spirit of Vatican II) actually said.

Sources: Shameless Bias By Omission

ABC News Ignores Catholic Lawsuits Against HHS Mandate

Chris Matthews Claims Lawsuits Mean Catholic Bishops are Republican

Evangelicals respond to Catholic lawsuits: ‘We are all Catholic now’
Massive Religious Lawsuit Eclipsed on CNN by 'Stroller Brigade' Protest of About 100
43 Catholic organizations, including Notre Dame, sue Obama administration over HHS mandate

Fury Spreads: Catholic Leaders Join MRC Outrage Over Network Silence on Catholics vs. Obama Lawsuit
TV Networks Deliberately Censor Biggest Religious Lawsuit In History Against U.S. Gov't
Cardinals Flock to Court to Fight Mandate (OK I will admit the Family Research Council title is a bit corny, but it gets the point across)

For Greater Glory - The True Story of Cristiada

 

Last January in a post, I mentioned a movie coming out that would be telling the true story of the Cristero War (aka the Cristiada) of 1926 to 1929. That movie is called For Greater Glory & will be released on 1 June 2012.  It was released earlier this year in Mexico under the title Cristiada.

On 4 May 2012, Eduardo Verástegui, who plays Anacleto Gonzalez Flores in the movie, was on Laura Ingraham's show promoting it.
This afternoon I heard my 1st radio ad for the movie (on Rush Limbaugh's show). As aninteresting aside, that I do not think is a coincidence, today is the feast of St. Cristóbal Magallanes Jara (Christopher Magallanes) & companions. This group of 25 saints was canonized by Blessed John Paul II on 21 May 2000. Their martyrdom came about during the Cristero War. Fr. Magallanes wrote & preached against armed rebellion. Even so, he was falsely accused of promoting the Cristero Rebellion in the area. He was arrested on 21 May 1927, while en route to celebrate Mass at a farm. He gave away his few remaining possessions to his executioners, gave them absolution. Without a trial, he was martyred four days later with Saint Agustín Caloca in Colotlán, Jalisco. His last words to his executioners were "I die innocent, and ask God that my blood may serve to unite my Mexican brethren." (Note: any priests who took up arms & were killed were excluded from the canonization process.) 1 of those saints, Fr. José María Robles Hurtado, is depicted in the film.
Additionally, The Knights of Columbus are promoting the movie. This is understandable for several reasons. Many of those persecuted in the Cristero War were Knights. Some even gave their lives, like Fr. Hurtado. Additionally, the KCs in the USA spoke out. At the 1926 Supreme Convention in Philadelphia, Supreme Knight James A. Flaherty denounced the Mexican government’s persecution as well as condemned the U.S. government’s silence on the issue. Additionally, they gave whatever help they could to those who fled to the US from Mexico as well as what help they could to those still in Mexico. The KCs also printed articles about what was going on in Mexico in Columbia magazine. As a result Columbia was banned from the mail in Mexico by the Calles regime. (The Voice for Religious Freedom Knows No Border)
But there is a second reason why they are promoting this movie, 1 that hits much closer to home. The message of the movie is 1 of religious freedom. As we have seen by the various actions taken by the Obama administration, (the HHS madate forcing Catholic organizations, schools etc to cover contraception; the attempts to silence the priests in the military form speaking out about it, as well as many other attacks) our religious freedom in the USA is under attack as well. Obama has clearly shown his anti-Catholic bias. & while things are not yet as bad here, they could very well end up there.
I am looking forward to seeing this movie when it comes out on 1 June. The message in it must be promoted. As I said, we are heading the same way in the USA & now is the time to speak up.
An additional resource for information on what happenned in Mexico in the 20s is a CD by Patrick Madrid, Battle for the Faith in Mexico. Viva Cristo Rey!. In it he tells what happenned, sometimes with a personal slant since that is where his family came from. He looks at the connections between the persecution & freemasonry.

Who Are the Vendee? & Why They DO Matter

I  came across this over @ The Badger Catholic (For God and King!!!!!). While I have read some on the French Revolution & especially the horrors done in the name of the Revolution, this is the 1st time I have ever heard the story of the Vendee & their counterrevolution.  

 

This movie is made by Navis Pictures. It was filmed with a cast of  over 250 young people. The true story takes place in the Vendée region of France. "In 1793, after enduring three and a half years of mounting persecution of the Church by the architects of the French Revolution, a small band of faithful peasants and nobles began a Catholic "counter-revolution". This is the largely unknown story of the valiant, six year struggle of the people of a small section of western France, to restore their Holy Religion and their King. Steeped in the influence of St. Louis de Montfort, and wearing their rosaries and emblems of the Sacred Heart, their sacrifices resulted in countless martyrdoms, and ultimately won the restoration of religious freedom for all of France. This film is a love-letter to the Vendean people, and was produced to honor the memory of these brave men and women who willingly sacrificed their lives, "for God and King"." (From the movie website)
It is scheduled to be released on DVD if February. The trailer has raised my curiosity to not only see the movie but to learn more about this oft forgotten part of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution era persecution resulted in a large number of martyrs, many of them have been beatified, including Blessed Laurent Batard &  Martyrs of Compiègne. The latter have been immortalized in an opera, Dialogues of the Carmelites. They were fourteen French Discalced Carmelite nuns and lay sisters, along with two externs who composed the Carmel of Compiègne, France. The opera does make a few changes in the story. But it makes it clear that these women willingly sacrificed their lives for Christ.  At the foot of the scaffold, the community jointly renewed their vows. They began to chant the Veni Creator Spiritus, the hymn sung at the ceremony for the profession of vows. They continued their singing as, one by one, they mounted the scaffold to meet their death.
1 of the things that is often ignored in the French Revolution by those who want to hold it up as an ideal that unfotrunately went wrong is why it almost imediately devolved  into the Reign of Terror that it did. The reason was that it was a revolution against God as much as more than against the political order of the time in France.

This movie is a reminder of the huge difference between the French & American Revolutions. Here in the USA we made it clear that we were fighting to restore our rights that were endowed to us by our Creator*. & why, in the end, the American Revolution didn't end like the French Revolution or so many others that drove God out as well.

Recently, another movie came out that looked at the Cristeros. This group battled the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico DURING the Mexican Revolution. Like the French Revolution, the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico at that time produced several saints & beati, including Blessed Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez.

Then there was the  the Spanish Revolution. It produced many martyrs as well. It also produced Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer who founded Opus Dei.

Matt @ Badger Catholic asks "What next, Lepanto??!?" Good question. & hopefully there soon will be a movie made about lepanto that captures the whole story of the battle, including the role praying the Rosary played in bringing about that victory over Ottoman Empire by the Holy League.  That victory prevented the Mediterranean Sea from becoming an uncontested highway for Muslim forces. It also protected Italy from a major Ottoman invasion, & prevented the Ottomans from advancing further into the southern flank of Europe.

We need to hear these stories to remind us that being faithful to the Catholic faith may very well cost us a similar price in the near future. & even if it doesn't cost us our lives, the fact is, the Catholic Church is coming under persecution as Cardinal Burke recently reminded us.  We have seen that persecution in state laws like those in Illinois that have forced Catholic Charities to get out of providing adoptions etc because they have to provide those services to "gay couples" as well. We have seen that with the push by the Obama administration is forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control etc. We have seen that with how the Obama administration has defined those who are Pro-life as terrorists. The new terrorism law allows him to put us under arrest indefinitely.
& that is why this story does matter. & needs to be told.

_______________

*"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Follow the link to the Wikipedia article on "Life, Liberty. . . ." for a prime example of how this difference is ignored, downplayed, or buried. It talks about how this phrase is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France. Credit for the French motto has traditionally been given to Antoine-François Momoro (1756–1794), a Parisian printer & Hébertist organizer.  But, as the Hébertists article points out, they were a leading force for the dechristianization of France & supported  extreme measures in service of the Terror, including the Law of Suspects enacted in 1793.