USC GOP

In case you missed it, and given that the mainstream media that I came across did not mention it, the Iraqi's have graduated about 2,00 new police officers!. Over 204 additional officers have graduated from the advanced program.

Everyday, contrary to what the MSM and Air America might say, the human rights successes in Iraq continue to grow. It is quite obvious to anyone who bothers to look at all of the reports, good and bad, coming from Iraq that the Iraqi people are much better off now than they were under the Hussein regime. The progress of the coalition appears to have even convinced France and Germany to come on board with, at least, financial assistance.

Sorry, lefties, but the freedom march continues (and as it does it allows you to whine as much as you want rather than marching over you and sticking you into a concentration camp or worse!).

Those of us who join the Knights of Columbus pledge to support our priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope. We proudly proclaim our solidarity with the men of the cloth. But, contrary to the actions and thoughts of some members of the organization, we do not pledge to be supportive of any action of any priest in an office less than that of the Pope. Our ultimate loyalty, as Roman Catholics, is to the Pope. Below that level, reasonable men may disagree.

However, a disturbing trend has arisen in the area in which I am a Knight: blind allegiance to the local powers. As a Fourth Degree member (the Patriotic Degree), it saddens me to see such blind devotion to the political agenda of leftist, and, perhaps, un-patriotic, members of the clergy simply because they wear the collar. The most recent example is the State Council of California's endorsement of the leftist organization, The Institute for Peace and Justice's family "non-violence" day to be held at the San Gabriel mission on March 5.

The title of the conference sounds good: "Creating Households of Faith where Peace and Justice Dwells." In fact, the content of the conference may be good. But taking good fruit, if it is that, from a rotten tree normally leads one to take bites of bad fruit in the future.

First, a search of the Institute's name in the database of the Achdiocese of St. Louis (where they are located) shows no listing of the organization even though some other groups perceived as "liberal" are there (look for yourself). Some might object that the website in question would only list organizations that are an official part of the Archdiocese of St. Louis. If that were the case, the Knights of Columbus would not be listed as they are.

So, one must immediatly ask, "why is this group not listed?" Perhaps, the answer lies in the fact that the good archbishop of St. Louis, the Most Reverend Raymond Leo Burke, is not one of the trendy American bishops. In fact, his letter on the obligations of Catholics in political life effectively told Senator Kerry not to bother presenting himself for communion in St. Louis. Archbishop Burke is a Vatican favorite. The exclusion of the Institute for Peace and Justice from the website of the archdiocese appears to be intentional. Why?

Perhaps this is due to the fact that the policies of the Institute seem to mouth those of the ultra-liberal whole-cloth anti-American nonsense of Pax Christi International. These are the same yahoos who argued that the Iraqi elections should be postponed while U.S. forces should be withdrawn since the Bush administration and the United States have no moral standing to be there (someone should direct these yahoos to Winston Churchill's Sinews of Peace speech or to any speech of President Regan that condemned tyranny). They are part of the moral equivalence crowd that the Gramscian-Marxists love and love to train (you can find the PaxChristi USA site here).

Oh, and you can find a link to the Institue on the PaxChristi website here! Oh, and you can find a link to PaxChristi on the Institute's families page.

Now, where is the link between Los Angeles and these whackos? Why are these leftists invited to into our own backyard? The Bishop President of the Executive Committe of Pax Christi USA is Bishop Gabino Zavala of the San Gabriel region of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. When I typed "Burke" (the simplest form of Archbishop Burke's name) in the search engine of Pax Christi, nothing was found!

Below are some of the more irritating quotes from the Institute of Peace and Justice's website (try finding them for yourself! Make it a game like a scavenger hunt!). Anything in brackets is my somewhat restrained commentary:

1) To multiculturalize a school or home library means more than stocking it with books that deal with a variety of racial groups. The quality of multicultural literature is the important factor. (Oh, how Gramscian-Marxist!)

2) The second is a heightened sense of patriotism as unwavering allegiance to the policies of one’s government and as total support of its military personnel during war. (U.S., U.S. uber alles, uber alles unter Bush! Come on!)

3) In fact, this statue of Jesus weeping is located across the street from the bombsite in Oklahoma City, where 168 people were killed by US terrorists on April 19, 1995.  The words of Jesus in this setting are challenging:  "America, America, if only today you knew the things that make for peace.  But now they are hidden from your eyes…" (this is in the section that supposedly teaches teachers how to teach students to deal with 9/11... Answer: We are just as bad as the terroists!)

4) I asked schools with bulletin boards displaying "stars" for each US service person related to their students to add an additional star for Iraqi children.  A few students sent their cranes to political leaders imploring them to find peaceful ways of dealing with conflict.  I also encouraged the students and faculty to raise money for a special new fund for medicines for Iraqi children.  (Hmm.. I didn't realize that the stated U.S. policy in Iraq was to kill children much as Hussein's henchmen did if they happened to be of an ethnic group that was determined to be trouble. And, of course, appeasement always works; just look at the example of Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler!)

5) I wore a "sandwich board" poster which proclaimed in front: "Act, Pray and Do Penance for Iraqi Children Killed by Sanctions & War and for US Children Denied Health Care Here Because of the War and Tax Cuts for the Rich."  (oh, you have to make the effort to find the picture! And, it is of James McGinnis who is going to lead the the happy party on March 5 at the San Gabriel Mission... ahh, just do a Google Image search of his name! Just remember, it was the sanctions that killed all those children before the war and not the horribly corrupt United Nations oil-for-food program thoroughly controlled and manipulated by Saddam Hussein.)

6) Killing terrorists, those who supposedly harbor terrorists, and those who might arm terrorists may have the opposite result of creating even more terrorists to replace those they felt had died at the hands of a "bully" who loves to flaunt its military and economic power to keep others poor and subservient. (I wonder if James reads Noam Chomsky works more often than the Bible?)

I could go on, but I think I might just vomit if I do.

*Out of the Closet!

Well, that is what many news outlets were reporting after Sunday night's The Simpsons episode aired in which one of of Marge's sisters declared she was gay and then married her lover. Other than the fact that it went against previous story lines, the whole concept of "out of the closet" came crashing down on me like never before - somewhat like the contents of my closet have done to me in the past.

No, gay men have not been randomnly stored in my various closets over the years. Rather, distinct parts of my heterosexual history have been, and still are to a degree, stored on shelves, floors and hangers. Items such as baseball, hockey, football, and basketball cards (in large amounts). Old t-shirts and golf-shirts for various teams (primarily football) that I have either supported or worked for in the past. Baseball and cowboy hats along with various footware for the participation in events ranging from hiking to hockey have been stored in my closets. Yes, my closets have been chock full of things that have collected dust and/or fell on me as I opened the closet.

So, what the heck does "out of the closet" mean in a world like mine? I guess if I were gay it would mean either that I have hidden homosexual "things" in my closet, or, perhaps, I engaged in homosexual activity in them. But, considering all of the stuff that was stored in the closet (none of which might be deemed homosexual as far as I can tell), there has never been any room to do anything in there! As for hidden things, I only hide my kid's presents in there.

No, I cannot come out of the closet since I cannot find my way into any of mine in the first place. I suppose the folks at Air America would argue that I am ignoring my latent homosexuality by stuffing my closet so full of heterosexual things that I cannot find room for myself in the closet;, thus, I cannot come out of it.

I miss the NHL.

*Graffiti on the Walls (and windows, and doors, etc.)

The powers that be in my school district refuse to put fences around my campus. The number main reasons for not doing this is that, "it would send the wrong signal to the community, and it would make us look like a prison."

Oh.

Like San Marino High School?

Given the mounting damage to school property and the very recent gang incidents of the last couple of days (minor as they may be), it is about time that we visibly told and showed the community that the safety of our students and the protection of our property is a priority. Those who like the "open feel" and the "park like" atmosphere need to stop sipping tea with Shirley MacLaine. Shirley is the one who is famous for, among other things, arguing that the people involved in the 9/11 attacks need to be loved more.

Reality dictates otherwise in both cases.

Of course, if the DISTRICT refuses to do anything, are we within in our rights to lock and load? Or, will my (or someone's) next of kin have to sue the district into bankruptcy in order for them to become more responsible? See no evil, hear no evil, etc. Maybe devolution is real!

My wife's cute!

My next post

I am currently reading and pondering the contents of the latest edition of First Things and the Anti-Chomsky Reader. My guess is that I will eventually ramble on about both. Oh, and I got another new book on liturgical reform. After skimming through it, I convinced more than ever that the 1962 Mass, be in\t recited in Latin or the local language, is far superior to anything that has followed it. So, I have much material to digest and regurgitate to you in the next couple of weeks, so...

DUCK!

Prime Minister John Howard has, once again, made the right decision about Australia's involvement in Iraq... sort of. Readers of the on-line version of the Sydney Morning Herald are against the decision by a 2-to-1 margin. Why do I say, "sort of?"

First, it must be noted that John Howard has been a solid friend of the United States during his tenure as Prime Minister of Australia. Howard "gets" the Churchillian Sinews of Peace idea and rightly extends it to his continent and country. My only gripe is that he does not send a larger contingent of troops, but that might not be possible given the poltical situation in his country.

Or is it?

His opposition party is in shambles although the liberal SMH thinks otherwise. Of course, the old MSM of Australia had Howard and his party getting hammered in pre-election analysis (and his election was held prior to that of President Bush). In fact, the readership of the SMH is perpetually anti-Howard. Feel free to check the key link above and scroll down to see the past results of other polls.

Politically, the difference between Australia and the United States is not a heartland between coasts; it is a heartland that has a couple of bad arteries. But, if the country continues to embrace Howard's anti-envy and pro-hard work point of view, Australia will be one of the great success stories of the 21st Century.

Now only if it could halve its tax rate at home and quadruple its troop strength in Iraq, well, my wife might be able to convince me to move there (I think I am safe!)

Hunter S. Thompson has committed suicide. Many negative things could be said as well as ironies pointed out in his choice to depart this earth. Instead, offer a prayer and move on and/or read Lileks.

As the Democratic Party grapples with its recent defeat in the presidential elections, many of the commentators of the left have focused alleged that the Republicans have stolen the "value words" and defined them in a Christian way more at home in orthodox or fundamentalist schools of thought than in progressive ways. What the left fails to understand is that the Deist minimum it has gravitated towards (which is further to the left even than the Deism of Thomas Jefferson) puts them at odds with the those who make up the moral core of the country.

Jefferson, an Unitarian, has been described as a Christian Deist in a recent article by Avery Cardinal Dulles in First Things. Jefferson believed that a punishment for evil did exist in an after-life and could occur on earth as well, although that differed from pure Deism which was popular during Jefferson's time.

The pure deists, as Cardinal Dulles points out have a seroius internal problem:

"If there is an omnipotent God, capable of designing the entire universe and launching it into existence, it seems strange to hold that this God cannot intervene in the world He had made or derogate from the laws He had established. He might have good reasons for bestowing some added benefits not contained in the work of creation."

I am no fan of Jefferson's view of Deism as I am an orthodox Roman Catholic. However, Jefferson's Deism is far superior to the left's view of God and religion today which seems to be a more pure form of Deism (if they have any faith at all). In essence, the left's propensity to poo-poo organized religion (unless it is organized to be political first) rests on the idea that God is indifferent to us, and the intelectuals should be able to discuss matters and come to a reasonable conclusions for the world on any given matter. This can be seen in the operations (and failings) of the United Nations in addition to the foreign policy proposals of the defeated Kerry campaign.

This does not mean that God simply uses humans as pawns in His fatalistic chess game. What it does mean is that all humans need to be conscience of the fact that there is a master plan in which our free will to accept (and then act on) or reject the teachings of God actually matters.

During the 1940s and after World War II, Pope Pius XII remarked: "Into the hands of America, God has placed an afflicted mankind." America's cold war with atheistic global communism, culminating with Ronald Reagan's confrontation with the Soviets and the collapse of the U.S.S.R., is the outcome of the United States acting to help the afflicted. The question that needs to be answered today is: "Is America acting to help a mankind that is still afflicted?"

As for communism, it appears that our desire to make a dollar outweighs our moral duty to combat the communist Chinese as Reagan did. The global war on terror appears to be an attempt to relieve at least some of the affliction that has been foisted on parts of the world by radical Islamic fascism. What is clear is that the battle is not over; afflictions (including others, but the two most important are discussed here) remain and the United States is obligated to be an active player carrying out God's will. The world will never be perfect (Satan will see to that), but we can stive to make it better at all times as we live out our Judeo-Christian faith.

This type of language makes liberals cringe. However, it is the same type of language, more than mere words, that constantly had the left in an uproar over Ronald Reagan. The idea at the root of these words, Judeo-Christian values, scares the dickens out of the atheists and Deists of the left. Since their focus is worldly, they reject the idea that America has been or could ever be the shining city on the hill as America carries out God's will.

After being shot, Reagan was fond of saying that whatever time he had left on this planet was "for Him." Americans who listed moral values as the primary reason for voting for George Bush in 2004 understand what Regan meant, and they see a similar idea driving at least some of Bush's policies. What was obvious to this same group of people was that John Kerry thoroughly rejects this notion to the same degree as he refuses to stand up for the values of his Roman Catholic faith. Far too many Democrats are like Kerry. So long as they are Deists (or worse), they will continue to be a detriment to America and to the world.

(Based on the research of Stephen P. Halbrook, although all opinions expressed are mine)

The Anti-Federalists feared a tyrannical government, and were rightly concerned that the new U.S. Constitution (as proposed by James Madison and the Federalists) was insufficent when it came to specific individual rights. One of these concerns focused on guns, and the protection to own guns eventually was adopted as the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Specifically, the Anti-Federalists were concerned with a specific event of tyranny perpetrated by the British forces in Massachussetts in 1775. General Sir Thomas Gage refused to allow people to leave Boston while the situation in that city was deteriorating rapidly. Gage finally agreed to issue passes to leave the city based on the condition that those passes would be granted to those colonists who turned in their weapons, firearms in particular, with the guarantee that at some later date, the weapons would be returned to their rightful owners. Gage was fearful of the populace having weapons during the troubled times at hand. Since the people of Boston were short on food and harassed by the British authorities and troops, the Gage proposal was accepted.

Gage and the British authorities collected 1 firearm for every 5.6 inhabitants of Boston (a city of 15,000 people). That number includes women and children!

Gage reneged on his promise. The inhabitants were not allowed to leave, nor were their weapons returned to them.

This event prompted many Founding Fathers, at various times, to promote the legal ownership of weapons as a means of self-defense against all enemies including tyrannical governments.

Jefferson argued that the Virginia constitution include the phrase, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." Going further, Jefferson argued that every 10 year old boy should have a gun and be trained in its proper use.

John Adams wrote, "arms in the hands of citizens [may} be used at individual discretion... in private self-defence."

In Federalist Paper #29, Hamilton wrote, "Little more can reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

Patrick Henry stated, "the great object is, that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Samuel Adams offered, "the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the U.S., who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

In the final debates on the wording for the Second Amendment, the Senate rejected adding the words "for the common defense" so that people would be able to have guns for more than "the common defense."

It is readily apparent that the U.S. Constituion guarantees the right of every United States citizen to own firearms. Any one who argues otherwise in an attempt to force registration or confiscation is either a fool or a liar. Or maybe they like Hitler.

The last of the three children who werver visited by the Blessed Virgin has passed away. Perhaps the biggest bit of news, which will go unreported, is that she did not capitalize financially on her situation unlike the frauds of Medjugorje.

Bah Humbug!

Okay, that is usually reserved for anti-Christmas sentiments, but I feel like a Valentine's Day Grouch.

1) The present I ordered for my wife will not be shipped for two more weeks, and I only found that out yesterday even though I ordered it over two weeks ago. It seems the company from which I ordered it, Heavenly Treasures, has all of its email blocked by Earthlink as the latter thinks it is spam even though it is regular business communication. Thankfully, I happened to pick up some flowers on Saturday (as well as a card for today). The best laid plans...

2) I tried to play cupid for a couple of couples and have been shot in the rear with a couple of anti-love arrows. From now on, clueless men will have to remain clueless.

3) Students on campus (primarily the young ladies) are being showered with gifts, some of which are and will be delivered. The deliveries come during class hour and disrupt classes. Once that happens, all of the other girls are completely distracted while the guys are either in panic mode since they forgot to buy something for their girlfriends, or, if they don't have a girlfriend, they are just generally bitter and inattentive.

Well, at least my wife sent me a cute email this morning!

I love you Teresa!

Bah humbug, sort of!

The kind folks at Santa Anita gave me two boxes to the races for today, and my wife, myself, and some of my friends took full advantage of their generosity. Unfortunately, their generosity did not include tips on the winners. Teresa and myself broke even, while others had varying degrees of success.

The nice thing about the day was that we got to spend a few hours away from the incessant high-pitched noise that has become our children (we are now back and completely involved... well, I'm not as I am typing this! Sorry, Teresa!). Anyway, Teresa had her annual bowl of clam chowder (since the S.A. track makes theirs fresh daily, and it was a bit chilly). Matthew had his mondo carved sandwich combo, while B.R., The G's and N.G. all had various refreshments and opinions on who should win. From the sound of it, N.G.'s mom did the best, which was probably due to the fact that she wasn't sitting with us.

Well, Teresa has just collapsed on the bed behind me, so I guess I'd better sign off to make sure she (and the children) are still with us.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted on the illegal immigration problem facing the United States. Part of that post dealt with the matricula consular cards issued by the Mexican (and other) governments to "proove" residence in the United States.

On Tuesday, Los Angles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich revealed how these cards can be cheaply and fraudulently obtained. Fellow supervisor, Gloria Molina, attacked Antonovich.

Officials, according to the Daily News, state that "447,980 Mexican nationals in the county and 2.2 million nationwide possess the consular cards. They are recognized as valid forms of identification by 377 cities, 163 counties, 178 financial institutions and 1,180 police departments."

It is very apparent that the many people in both the public and private sector no longer care about the integrity of our borders, our sovereignty, or the integrity of our laws. If Congress and the President really cared about our protection, they would act to eradicate this problem. Unlike Senator Joseph McCarthy's fictional list, we have a real list of real people to go confront.

The Border scare is real.

Below is the key line of the "news" story in Los Angeles Times by Tracy Wilkinson (a staff writer) about the teachings of the Catholic Church:

When, if ever, is it permissible to use condoms to prevent death?

The LAT should not have a person cover a story on issue on which she is so ignorant. Condoms are not an option for loyal Catholics.

Here is what this biased individual "reports":

Because of its rejection of prophylactics, the church has frequently been called insensitive to the pandemic spread of AIDS, more interested in religious dogma than preserving the lives of tens of millions of people.

Contrary to popular belief, however, the Vatican has never issued a formal ban on the use of condoms to prevent HIV infection.

What the church does advocate, as Pope John Paul II reiterated recently (without mentioning condoms), is abstinence and fidelity as the best ways to combat the disease. It teaches that in general the only acceptable sex is between a man and a woman who are married to each other and intend to procreate. It prohibits the use of all artificial contraception.

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

This is why most liberals make me scream!

The church does not "advocate" abstinence between homosexuals or those with AIDS. The church FORBIDS physical homosexual encounters because it belives such encounters are immoral. Since such acts are immoral and are forbiddend, using a condom during such an act is still immoral.

Somehow, the Los Angeles Times wants us to believe that two wrongs make a right.

And its subscription base keeps dropping!

Ah! But what about women in oppressed societies? What about prostitutes?

Official doctrine on these matters has not wavered, yet several senior leaders have explicitly or implicitly sanctioned the use of condoms for cases in which life is at stake. They have done so with a tacit acknowledgment that there are legitimate arguments that morally justify the apparent contravention of a church rule.

"The question is what to do when what should not happen does happen," said Father Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome.

In some cases, he and other theologians argue, a woman is justified in protecting her life by using a condom if she must have sex with a man who is infected with HIV, the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

For example, Johnstone noted, in some societies it is almost impossible for a woman to refuse sex with her husband. If he is infected, she has the absolute right to protect herself by demanding he wear a condom.

By extension, some theologians argue, if a woman is a prostitute, she could be justified in protecting herself from deadly disease by having her partner use a condom.

There is a perhaps surprising acceptance of these real-world scenarios by many in the church, although they may not acknowledge it publicly. Nor do these exceptions rise to a level of acceptance, theologians stress, that would permit the advocacy of condom use in forums such as schools."


My head hurts... The Church teaches that women are not objects. If that teaching has not reached some areas of the world, it is the responsibilty of the Vatican to take care of that problem.

BUT, the author of this article does not sufficiently explore the depth of the problem and the response of the Church. To her "credit" she does latch on to some dissidents. Yet she (he? - I am trying to find out!) does not bother to mention to what degree the dissidents are representative of the hierarchy (the answer is that they are not); nor does she quote the overwheling majority that supports and ACCEPTS the church and the authority of the Pope. She (he?) relies on the opinions of a few in a church of over 1 billion people. By ignoring Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Arinze, the LAT reporter showed her anti-Catholic bias. She should be fired.

The Los Angeles Times is not a joke - it is a moral menace. Since the story is still available on the LAT website as of Feb. 8 at 9:00 p.m., my guess is that Wilkinson is still employed. If you have a subscription, please cancel it!

Good night!

P.S. here is a story by Wilkinson that is more sympathetic of the more controversial teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps the condom story was a fluke...

America has no better friend than Britain... something both Winston Churchill and General George S. Patton (scroll down to "The Knutsford Affair") understood.

Well, I think that title translates into "Where is France?" It's been a long time since I had to think, let alone write in French.

But, the point is that the Germans are now on board in Iraq... and where is France on the matter? Still missing, but perhaps we can ask Senator Kerry to share his secret plan for getting more help out of our traditional allies...

I am very wary of mission statements for any organization. However, catholic parishes that have them usually are leaning left or have completely fallen over. The latter has happened at St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis.

Below is the mission statement as found on the parish's website:

Church of St. Joan of Arc
Mission Statement

St. Joan of Arc is a joyful Christian community
which celebrates the loving Word of God
in worship and in action.

We transcend traditional boundaries and draw those
who seek spiritual growth and social justice.

We welcome diverse ideas and encourage reflection
on the message of the Gospel.

We are committed to the equality
of all our members and strive to ensure
their full participation
through liturgy, education, and service.

By these means we seek to empower all
who come to grow in wisdom and bring to reality
the promise of Christ.


Okay... there is absolutely no mention of anything that would identify this parish as being Roman Catholic.

Theology professor R.R. Reno, a recent convert to Roman Catholicism, wrote the following in the February, 2005 issue of First Things:

What my reception into the Catholic Church provided was deliverance from the temptation to navigate by the compass of a theory. The Catholic Church has countless failures, but of this I am certain: Catholic Christianity does not need to be underwritten by and idea... The Catholic Church needs no theories. She is the mother of theologies; she does not need to be propped up by theologies.

The church of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis seems to be the antithesis of what Professor Reno has so astutely noted. SJA seems to be more interested in a Unitarian notion of religion which encompasses many theories of many individuals. That is okay at SJA since it "welcomes diverse ideas."

That is very dangerous.

In the February 2005 print issue of crisis, Mark P. Shea takes SJA to task and points out its dangerours "ideas" that often result in horrid liturgical abuses:

It's a beehive of activity at St. Joan's. No pro-life work, adoration, or ordinary Christian prayer, of course. But there is the neo-pagan eco-spirituality task force, the ingenious readings from Anne Morrow Lindbergh and Megan McKenna substituted for Scripture during the Mass, the weekly guest homilist, the Hatha Yoga in the sanctuary, the staff bursting with gay pride, the mission statement indistinguishable from a Unitarian committee on Spelling Reform for Guatemala, the lectures asking "Is Jesus God?" with the refreshingly straightforward condescension of the apostate.


Cardinal Pell of Sydney, Australia (one of the good guys) identifies four beliefs of Roman Catholics in his book Be Not Afraid that is a collection of writings and sermons he has given over the years. They are core ideas that should be reflected in any mission statement:

Four Catholic Foundations

1. We believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who loves us.

2. We believe in one Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who died and rose from the dead to save us.

3. We believe in the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, where we are led in service and worship by the Pope and the Bishops.

4. We believe that Jesus, Our Lord, calls us to repent and believe; that is, to choose faith not doubt, love not hate, good not evil, and eternal live in heaven not hell.

This is our faith. We are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus, Our Lord.

Now it seems to me, that the only thing that needs to be added to the above in order to create a mission statement is: "Our mission is to publicly live our faith in all we do as individuals and as a parish."

Of course, the AmChurch breed would probably cringe in horror at the sight of such a rigid theological statement that has no room for "diverse ideas" and viewpoints. If your parish sounds anything like SJA, be very wary.