Rolling Stones &
Money for Planned Parenthood

Dear Tradition in Action,

I would like to report that here in the Diocese of Orange, CA. this month the new Bishop Kevin Vann is having an ecumenical something or other with a methodist bishop in the 'crystal cathedral' now owned by the diocese....and the beat goes on and on....

Since Cardinals Cushing and O'Malley set their examples, should we expect anything less?

I was at a Lenten retreat at St. Peter Chanel Parish in Hawaiian Gardens, CA, yesterday. One of the talks given by an Oblate of the Mary Virgin (OMV) expounded on the documents of Vatican II, particularly Lumen Gentium. These documents are so ambiguous to the trained ear. I have to say that I frankly fell asleep for some of the talk.

This very modern church was replete with a large Divine Mercy picture and life sized statues of Sr. Faustina and JP II. As part of the practices of the day the illuminated decadeof the rosary were recited and lead by an O.M.V. priest. I do not like the addition and in fact do not consider it an addition at all. I personally do not EVER say/pray these 'mysteries.' I will remain with the fifteen decades Our Lady gave us.

Lastly, I was told this parish formerly had the Tridentine Mass said regularly; however, the O.M.V. superior put a stop to it. One of their church member's travels to St. John the Baptist in Costa Mesa, CA. for the 12:30 Sunday Tridentine High Mass and to sing in the choir.

Your roving reporter,

     In Our Lady,

     P.J.

TIA,

Don't know if you've seen the February Rolling Stone Cover, it is here.

Or the article about abortion (not sure whether it's in the magazine or on their site, it is here.

Guess it's another victory for the new evangelization - the one they came up with after inhaling all that smoke of Satan.

     A.P.

Hello,

My name is C.L. and recently my husband and I attended a luncheon. My chair was facing the bar and his was facing the door; both of us giving our backs to the podium.

We received a letter in the mail saying we were disrespectful to the members of the club where we were attending their luncheon, because I turned my chair a little to the right and my husband didn't turn his chair.

The speakers were behind us over our right shoulder.

Because this took place over 6 weeks ago we can't remember if we were still eating when the speakers were speaking.

We don't know how to respond to this.

     Thank you

     C.L.


TIA responds:

Hello C.L.

In principle, when one attends a luncheon that features speakers, at the time they are delivering their speeches, the attendee should stop talking and eating and pay attention - or give the impression he is doing so - to the topic they are addressing.

Regarding the position of the chairs, once you were seated at a table with your chair having its back to the speakers, to turn your chair a little in their direction and then turn your neck a little, even if you were not able to look directly at the speaker, is more than enough regarding politesse.

The attitude of your husband remaining silent and listening to the talks without moving his chair is what is normal in this case.

If someone complains, you may re-direct the complaints to those who assigned you both those places at the table.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

Dear TIA,

Thank you for responding to my question about how early error entered the Vatican.

After making that inquiry, I came to realize that I had forgotten that there was a significant number of bishops at Vatican I who opposed the proclamation of the infallibility of the Pope.

Apparently many of them left the Council before the final vote, such that there were only two bishops including one American who voted against the proclamation. After the proclamation, the so-called "Old Catholic Church" was formed by some of those who rejected the infallibility of the Pope.

Am I correct in considering this to be an example of error on the part of some of the Church leaders prior to the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X?

     W.M.


TIA responds:

Dear W.M.,

We believe you are correct. What you mentioned was an important precedent of errors inside the Church and even in a Council.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

TIA,

Re: Why do only women have to dress well?

I did not even need to read the entire article on this one. As a former Business Education Teacher, I am very aware of proper dress for work, play and church. I am VERY disappointed in the way I see people, of all ages dressing now!

Men of all ages and ethnic backgrounds, wearing sagging pants, is my BIGGEST complaint. I see them at work, play and unfortunately at church dressed like this. I just want to interview all of them and ask them why they are doing this. It is really beyond all understanding.

Women. Well, Satan has been slowly undressing women for a very long time now. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was, women no longer wearing pantyhose, even in the winter time! They do give some comfort from the cold air. And the flip flops just ruin your feet, but people wear them everywhere, all times of the year. The newest "thing", seems to be wearing pajama pants outside your home. I usually see this in the grocery store.

It boggles the mind how "laid back," people seem to be. I have even had people comment to my husband and me on how nice we always look in church. We always dress for church. We think it is important. The Catholic Church may have shot itself in it's own foot when they started scheduling athletic events/games that the children had to participate in on Sundays. The families, if they even went to Mass, probably were dressing for the game. And so it goes. This game scheduling is probably why Mass became secondary in those children's minds and why they are not in church today. But, that is another story!

     Peace,

     L.M.

TIA,

Of course, what did you expect from the most pro-abortion president we've ever had?

Satan, I mean Obama - I get those two mixed up - never met an unborn child they didn't want killed.

     Frank Joseph M.D.

President Obama's Budget Sends
$286,479,000 to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com

3/4/14 - President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood have been bosom buddies since his election - and the president has kept flow of taxpayer funds on ever since entering the White House in 2009. This year's budget proposal is no exception.

Obama wanted God to bless Planned Parenthood and, this year, he wants them blessed with hundreds of millions.

As Tom Minnery of March for Life explains: The good news in President Obama's budget is that Title X funds (p. 434) that generally give money to entities like Planned Parenthood have gone down from $297,400,000 to $286,479,000. (That is still higher than the figure in 2007 ($283,146,000.))

Also it appears that $5,000,000 is set aside for true abstinence education (p. 490) while almost six times that amount is reserved for "comprehensive" abstinence education that does everything from encouraging young kids to shower together to helping fund online "How to BDSM" videos for teens.

The bad news is the Obamacare slush funds make it impossible to fathom where some of the money will be going. In one instance the budget gives " approximately $14.6 billion over 10 years to implement innovative policies to train new health care providers and ensure that the future health care workforce is prepared to deliver high-quality and efficient health care services. To encourage and enhance training of primary care practitioners, and other physicians in high-need specialties."

While this provision is probably to counter the rapid loss of doctors the country is facing over Obamacare regulations, I cannot remember if when we were fighting Obamacare if we put in protections to ensure that money doesn't go to training of future abortionists, however regardless if we did or not considering this Administrations flagrant willful ignorance of the law there is little guarantee.

The $350 million slush fund known as "Community Services Block Grants" still exists as well, to be distributed at the whim of the Secretary.

Planned Parenthood continues receiving taxpayer funds despite recent annual report documents showing it remains the nation's biggest abortion business and provides few options for pregnant women other than abortions.

According to their annual report [PDF], Planned Parenthood performed 333,964 abortions in 2012-almost 80,000 more than they performed in 2005. That's about one every 95 seconds, every day of the year. The report shows 149 abortions for every adoption referral Planned Parenthood makes and it made $170 million from abortions.

One of the most glaring numbers was the steep decline in prenatal services-a 31.97 percent decline from the prior year. In addition, Planned Parenthood's highly touted cancer screening services dropped 14.22 percent from the 2011 numbers.