Popular Youtubers Bashing Catholics

There is a disturbing trend I have seen lately: youtubers randomly and for no apparent reason bashing Catholics and the Catholic Church. It appears to bolster the view that the last acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism (words from author Philip Jenkins). Perhaps this explains why many Youtubers and social media personalities so readily opt to bash Catholics without giving it much thought.

To be clear, I'm not talking about just any Youtubers, I'm talking about people with broad appeal with many followers. Usually Youtubers thankfully take the stance of not espousing any particular political belief or belief in general. They wish to remain neutral on most things in order to appeal to the broadest audience. This is what makes these statements so surprising.

Let me give a couple of examples to clarify what I am talking about.

Adam Ragusea:

I was watching a video by Adam Ragusea who focuses on cooking home meals. He's not a professional chef, but he has learned some things and he produces videos with high production value. He generally seems to stay away from discussion on politics and religion. You can tell he is probably a liberal in many regards, but he doesn't bring it up front and center, so watching his videos is normally fine.

One day he was talking about being attacked for writing an article about Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas" song and being interviewed on the article. He made some small mistakes and he was mercilessly bashed by know-it-all music critics. He was criticizing what was happening.

The anti-catholicism came up when he compared these critics to the Catholic Church hierarchy. He jokingly said the Church tells everyone they cannot read the Bible on their own or have their own opinions because the hierarchy has "funny hats" that others do not, or something along those lines. I guess the point he was trying to make was that some people are elitist, and was saying the Church is like that as well.

Anyone who knows anything about the Church knows this is false. It's in fact the opposite. We don't listen to people because of their hats, we listen to them because they are holiest and most learned people within the Church. The hats are worn by bishops and they get these hats because they have been seen to be holy, spiritual, and able to guide the flock. So the knowledge, understanding, grace, and wisdom come first and the position comes later.

However, we don't only listen to those in the hierarchy or those of a certain rank. Many Doctors of the Church, those who best enunciate Church teachings, were not bishops or popes, but perhaps only priests, and even several women.

So, his analogy is wrong. I'm not saying his speech is some kind of discrimination. It's just his fallacious point of view. I'm not saying Catholics are some kind of victims or something. I'm just pointing out the ease with which a personality like him can make these assertions. Would he say such a thing about other religions? I doubt it.

Awaken with JP (Sears)

JP Sears is a well-known critic of Covid protocols and rules. He has also criticized other things prior to Covid such as political correctness and censorship. His comedy centers on parodying and mocking left-wing ideologies.

A couple of times I have heard him bash the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of the Church. However, it was for no apparent reason and made little sense in the context.

Most recently he made a video about fact-checkers. These are the groups online who allegedly fact-check information present on various social media such as Facebook and Twitter. They are criticized for being biased and not providing valid fact-checking. In particular, JP criticized them for all being on the same side as well-known left-wing activists and could thus not be unbiased as they should be.

However, out of nowhere he says sarcastically the fact-checkers can be trusted just like priests could be trusted not to abuse children. This is an extremely overused example. I don't really see how it really fits here. His video has nothing to do with Catholicism or even religion in general. Why drag the church into it just to bash it?

What is strange about this is that many Christians probably appreciate his videos. Why go out of your way to alienate your supporters? I even remember Patrick Coffin posting to Facebook that he likes JP Sears and his videos. Coffin is a very devout Catholic and would be put off by these comments.

Abuse definitely happened in the Church and it's a horrible tragedy. I'm all for routing out the evil. But most people are not able or willing to make the distinction between the hierarchy and structure of the Church and churchgoing Catholics, let alone a distinction between good and bad priests and bishops. Bringing up comments about clergy sexual abuse out of nowhere does nothing but provide fodder to anti-Catholic attitudes.

---

I cannot say why these social media personalities randomly resort to Catholic-bashing that is out of context and can easily turn off much of their audience. I feel it is absolutely unnecessary and they should refrain from doing this.

Catholic thoughts on Nadya Suleman (aka Octomom)

Nadya Suleman is the lady who received fertility treatment and gave birth to 8 children. She was not married at the time, didn't have much money and already had 6 children. She now has 14 children. She has been called Octomom (perhaps it is sometimes spelled Octamom). This name makes her sound like some alien species, mutant, or X-Men character. She has become the object of ridicule of many people who say she did the wrong thing. But how would her actions square with Catholic teaching? We know that the world and especially the media are rarely aligned with the Church in their thinking. So what would the church say concerning the Nadya Suleman case? I believe her story has good and bad elements.

First of all the bad. The Catholic Church is firmly against in vitro fertilization, or the creation of embryos outside the womb of the mother. That's because it contradicts the natural design established by God for how babies ought to be conceived and born. Babies are designed by God to come into existence within the marital embrace in the marital act. He did not design babies to be products of a science laboratory with a scientist fusing together sperm and egg. Therefore the use of embryos in this fashion is gravely wrong. Also, this procedure often destroys embryos. More are created than are needed and because of this, the embryos are often left frozen indefinitely or they are disposed of (usually without a funeral or without the destroyer being charged with murder). So we know that Nadya used fertility treatment that may have destroyed embryos. Society at large has no problem using in vitro fertilization. They view it as a means to an end and in a Machiavelian world like our own, any means is acceptable as long as the end seems desirable. Now, what about the rest of her situation?

Once the embryos were implanted in her uterine, eight clung to the uterine lining and survived. Nadya decided to keep them all. In other words, she did not selectively reduce or murder any of the eight. Strangely, this is where a lot of the world seemed upset. They called Nadya irresponsible, not for having fertility treatment or even for having eight or more embryos conceived, but rather they were upset that she wanted to keep them all. Society said it was irresponsible not to murder some of her children. The Church would disagree strongly, of course. She, the Church, would urge Nadya to keep caring and loving the eight babies in her womb, regardless of how they were conceived. The Church views every child equally and as a gift from God, even those born by in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, the Church and society have disagreed on two points. One point the Church may agree with society is whether she should have had more children in the first place. Since she already had 6 children, it was probably not a great idea for a jobless, husbandless woman of little means to seek out more children than the 6 she already had to support. The Church first of all says people ought to be married before they involve themselves in the act of procreation. But even when they're married, they should practice planning when it comes to children. People should not have more children than they can properly afford. This does not mean every child must have a car when they're 16, and go to the top university and have the best life imaginable. It just means that every child must receive basic care and attention. If someone is unable to supply this, they should probably wait a little while to attempt having another child.
It's a really great thing that Nadya decided to keep all eight of her children. Imagine having to tell, for example, the 6 she decided to keep that they were the lucky ones to have survived and that two of their brothers and sisters didn't make it because they were selectively reduced. That would be very sad and would leave the others asking where their other siblings are and why they themselves are alive but their brothers or sisters are not.

Let us pray that the world heads the words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, "Of Human Life", where he says in the opening statement:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships."

The signs are clear: Obama is attacking Christianity

While Obama continues to try to deceive us, his intentions could not be more clear. If you take a step back, you will be terrified to know that Obama has started a major attack on the religion which founded his nation. At first, it seemed Obama had some differences of opinion, but now it is obvious that Obama will stop at nothing promote his anti-Christian views. It`s very sad to see this, but worse than seeing this is pretending it does not exist. We cannot stand by and assume that our politicians have our best interests in mind. Obama is not less revolutionary than Mussolini or Stalin when they first started off. At first, they were men with ideas, radical ideas. Soon these ideas became action, but before anyone really realized, these actions lead to disaster. I believe unless we wake up now, Obama will lead us to a similar disaster. If he does not curtail his activities and find another path, the least we can do is make sure after this initial 4 years that he will be ousted.

The United States was founded 232 years ago on Christian principles. Soon after churches sprung up all over the landscape. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the major tenets of this young country. Soon, it flourished because it regarded all people as equal in a way only a Christian nation can. I believe the Christianity of the United States is what allowed it to be so successful. Much of what fueled the American economy were Catholic immigrants, who came mostly from Ireland and Italy. Great cathedrals were built and dioceses were set up all over the country. The 10 commandments were displayed prominently near courthouses, laws were based on the principles found in the Bible. But this is not something new. This is ongoing. Almost 80% (78.4%) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is not a title someone else gave them, but rather one they gave themselves, showing their conviction. It is one of the most Christian countries in the world. 23.9% percent are Catholic.

Many of the greatest educational institutions were founded by Catholic orders, such as Notre Dame in Indiana which was founded by the Order of the Holy Cross, and Georgetown University which was founded by Jesuits. There are thousands more.

This is the setting of Obama's attacks, which makes it all the more shocking. Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth and this is one of the reasons he was elected. When you put the pieces together, you realize that Obama was elected based on deception, and this is following a disturbing plan which will ultimately be a battle waged between Christianity, represented by 80% of the population and secularism and anti-religion which will be represented by Barack Hussein Obama.

Many will say that Obama has said many good things about Christianity and that he himself is a Christian. However, when you think about it, you realize this is the only way he could have ever gotten in. Imagine if he said he didn't like Christianity. He would lose 80% of his audience and the election along with them. He wouldn't be more than a blip on the radar - if that. No one would even know he exists, besides perhaps Michele, his wife. Obama, who was a law professor, knows better than this. Obama has a plan up his sleeve. But that plan is starting to unravel.

Obama's election meant much of his plan was already accomplished. The rest was the easy part. Obama got elected on a false premise - that of being a good Christian who wants to help the country. However, every policy that he has promoted to date has shown his disdain for Christian teaching. I've elaborated on this in previous posts. Click on the Obama tag after this post for more information. From his comments on Terry Shiavo, saying his worst decision was to let her live, to his funding of pro-abortion groups and groups that force abortions and sterilizations on people, his planned reversal on all laws protecting the unborn, his legalization of embryonic destruction, his planned removal of conscience objections for doctors who do not want to perform immoral acts, and the list goes on and on. But he is becoming even bolder.

As all the power rushes to his head, Obama sees more opportunities daily to attack Christianity. While in Turkey, Obama said the United States of America is not a Christian country. That's news to me. 80% of the country is Christian, the country was founed on Christian principles, God is proclaimed in official athems, songs, poems, etc. The US is one of the most Christian countries on the planet, and its president claims it is not. That is an insult to say the least. Imagine the president of Israel saying "Israel is not a Jewish country". What is the point of such a statement? What benefit will derive from it? Is it something bad to be considered a Christian country in Obama's eyes? If not, why mention it at all? If he thinks it's a good thing, why would he deny it? Would you say, "Contrary to popular belief, the United States is a very dirty country, our water is polluted and our forests are filthy." Of course not! So why would Obama go out of his way to say the US is not a Christian nation? The reason is obvious if you are open to the ideas. The reason is that Obama wants to move the US away from its best feature. He wants the country to accept the filth and immorality he is ushering in. He's like a drunkard who's only happy if he sees someone else who's worse off than he is.

But you might say, wait a second, I don't think Obama was trying to hide his Christianity, I don't think he would cover it up. Well, think again, because that's precisely what he did! In a story so shocking, I had to double check to make sure it was even real, it is reported that when Obama went to do a speech at Georgetown University, one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States and probably the world, Obama literally covered up Christ. Perhaps I am speaking symbolically, perhaps Obama said a few words that could be interpreted in an anti-Christian way? I wish. The truth is over the main podium where many famous people have spoken, there are several pillars, holding a triangular roof. In the middle is the inscription IHS, a Christogram for the first 3 letters of Christ's name in Greek. Obama literally COVERED OVER this inscription. I couldn't believe it. I saw pictures and assumed they were doctored, but they weren't. I read it from several top news sources. It was not only unbelievable, but truly saddening. This event indicated to me that the things Obama said and did were not random acts that were misinterpreted. These were deliberate attacks on the Christian community.

If you are not convinced, I suggest you look at all the evidence. The things Obama are doing go far above and beyond what is necessary to remain neutral. He is not longer attempting neutrality and has decided to shed all veneers of being Christian. His full-on attacks must stir in us our passion to defend our beliefs. The forces of evil can never triumph over good. Remember the blood of the martyrs is the life of the Church. You do not need to be killed in order to defend your beliefs, to defend the One who is Truth, Jesus Christ. But you must go to whatever lengths necessary to evangelize people, to tell them the good news. Christianity has fought many spiritual battles, and has always won. Please respond to this call and tell everyone you meet that Jesus Christ and His Church are the way, the truth, and the life.

Obama Nation? More like Abomination!

Every day we hear more news from the US concerning Obama's decisions. It seems like he sits down and asks how he can violate Catholic doctrine every move he makes. It almost seems too coincidental to be true. Here is a quick list of some of the stuff Obama has done:

1. Vowed to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act (or FOCA), which would make abortion a constitutional right which would be codified at the federal level. It would erase any good laws concerning abortion and any progress made by the pro-life movement in the past 35 years or so since Roe vs. Wade in the United States.

2. Obama will eliminate funding for sexual-abstinence-only programs. Instead he will promote sex before marriage, the use of contraception and abortafacients, abortion, etc. This programming of course will only lead to more STDs, infidelity, and abortion.

3. Obama has allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Now babies will be brought into existence to be used as medical research tools. Using human persons as medical research tools is very contrary to divine law. It makes a person a mere object to be used by those who are physically stronger.

4. Obama has said that his worst decision as a politician was to support Terri Schiavo in her struggle for life. Terri was mentally hanicapped. She only required food and water to survive. She was not brain dead, she was fully alive with disabilities. Her husband wanted to her to be left to die. Her family said they would take care of her and pay all her expenses, but the judge decided to side with Terri's husband and let her die. Terri died of starvation after all food was refused her. No, she did not die because a machine stopped pumping her heart or because her lungs were not being artifically inflated. She died of dehydration, just like anyone would if denied food and water for an extended period of time. The Rule of Threes states that people cannot generally survive more than 3 days without water. Most the time it can be a week or 11 days. Terri lived for 12 or 13 days after being denied all food and water. She was left to thirst to death.

The list goes on. Obama has heralded the culture of death like no President before him. He has taken a somewhat cowardly path. He chooses to destroy the lives of the defendless. Instead of slaughtering people who can fight for themselves, he goes after the weakest and most vulnerable.

Let us pray that like Bernard Nathanson, who started NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, Obama will see the errors of his ways and plot a new course for life. Although Nathanson performed thousands of abortions, he is now one of the top spokespeople against that industry and he promotes the cause of the Pro-life movement. Let us hope that Obama will see the light and work toward a society that cares about its most vulnerable.

Constantine invented Catholicism in 325, right?

Constantine invented the Catholic religion in 325 and decided to make it the official religion of Rome, which allowed it to grow from a tiny religion consisting of a few hundred people to the enormous religion that it is today, with the Pope at the head. Constantine's decision was a very good one for the Pope and his successors who have enjoyed unparalleled wealth throughout the centuries.

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Well, it does for a lot of people, unfortunately. This myth has been circulating for a relatively recent period of time and has been perpetuated by mostly anti-Christians and a few anti-Catholics. The problem is that it is based not on fact, but on lies. Let's analyze the truth of what happened.

The Catholic faith is the original Christianity and continues today as the authentic and true church established by Jesus Christ at Pentecost some 2,000 years ago. The term "catholic" means universal. Part of the Church's character is that it is for all peoples of all times, and is therefore universal. Catholic describes the Church. Using this terminology to describe the church goes back very very far. Our first existing written record goes back to no later than 107 AD and possible before the year 100 and was written by Ignatius of Antioch. He said:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
- from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Therefore, Catholic was described by an ancient Christian theologian probably in the first century.

Concerning Constantine, he did become Christian, but there were millions of Christians in Rome and around the world. Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity, but he did not sign anything to make Christianity the official religion of the state. This was done by an emperor after Constantine.

The major doctrines of the Church concerning Christ's divinity and the sacraments were firmly established long before Constantine was born. There is much proof of this. You just need to look!

Finally, as for the Popes enjoying enormous wealth, we need look no further than our latest examples. Nearly all popes have lived celibate lives, have not accumulated wealth and spent most of their time writing, teaching and leading. Take John Paul II, for example. He lived a very simple life. He had few possessions when he died. Probably no more than a shoe-box full. He spent many hours each day in pray, went to confession daily, spent time writing and teaching, and going from country to country proclaiming the good news. It is said that the pope remembered the people he spoke to, but rarely recalled his previous meal. This is not the description of a man seeking great wealth and material possession.

As you can see, many myths and lies have been spread about the Catholic Church, but light always prevails over darkness. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, so we have nothing to fear. Be thankful to God for the most perfect gift.

Priest is attacked verbally on the air by so-called "Catholic"

Recently the president of Human Life International, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, appeared on Fox television on the Colmes-Hannity show to speak with Hannity who openly expressed his beliefs about contraception which are contrary to Catholic belief. Fr. Euteneur was invited onto the show to speak with Hannity. Hannity showed absolutely no respect to this priest, and went on a tirade against him. Euteneur, however, remained calm. This article, taken from the Human Life International (the largest pro-life organization in the world), explains the situation, in the words of Fr. Euteneur himself:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.

The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.

Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?

Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.

The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.

And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.

Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.

Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.

For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

Anti-religion Lenin's last words

Vladimir Lenin, a political leader who taught a form of communism and was the first head of the Soviet Union, came to power in an effort to force everyone into the same social class. Many believe communism can be beneficial to society, but in practice it never works, and there are many reasons why it cannot work. In fact, the Catholic Church is officially against communism. One of Lenin's goals was to eliminate religion from his country. This destroys the concept of freedom and goes against principles of humanity. Ultimately, Leninism failed, and millions of people lost their lives fighting wars to implement it. Lenin was very sad on his deathbed because of all the suffering and loss he brought to his country. He said he felt as though he was lying in a giant pool of blood, the blood of his fellow countrymen.

In his last words, Lenin, who was against religion in general, set his sights to one of Christianity's greatest heroes - St. Francis of Assisi. Lenin knew that his ideology had lost, and that Russia had lost, and contemplated what would be required to restore Russia, when he said these words:

"I have deluded myself. Without doubt, it was necessary to free the oppressed masses. However, our methods resulted in other oppressions and gruesome massacres. You know I am deathly ill; I feel lost in an ocean of blood formed by countless victims. This was necessary to save our Russia, but it is too late to turn back. We would need ten Francis of Assisi."

This shows the amazing character of St. Francis, which is attested to by Lenin.

How a Catholic Convert founded Amnesty International

In 1961, Portugal was being run by a dictator named António de Oliveira Salazar. Freedoms were stiffled, and the country was run as a dictatorship. A group of students in the city of Coimbra lifted their glasses in a toast to freedom in Portugal. They were found in the cafe, and put into prison for this act, and spent 7 years there. Fortunately for the world, Peter Benenson heard this news, and decided he must do something.

Peter Benenson was a lawyer by trade, who became quite ill. He went to Italy to regain his health, and while there, converted to the Catholic faith. While in Italy, Benenson decided it was necessary to start an International organization which was open to everyone. While in the tube in London, Benenson read an article about the Portuguese students mentioned above. He was outraged and wrote a letter to a newspaper called the Observer. He asked people to write letters concerning this injustice. The letters came in fast and furious, so much so, that Benenson started an organization known as Amnesty International.

Today, Amnesty International is the largest organization dedicated to helping those who are unjustly imprisoned, as political or ideological prisoners. It has been very active and successful in this endeavor so far. It has 1.8 million members worldwide who put pressure on foreign governments to release people who should not be in prison, as well as to end torture and abuse.

The work of Amnesty International cannot be overstated. This vast and strong organization came about because of Peter Benenson's, who unfortunately died in 2005 at the age of 83, conversion to Christ and His Church.

Warlord Attila the Hun's meeting with Pope Leo the Great

Pope Leo I (b. 430) lived from the years 440 to 461. An unrelenting foe to heresies, he was the first pope to have "the Great" attached to his name, and only the second of all time (the other is Pope Gregory I). Leo, whose name means Lion in Latin, did much for the Universal Church, and as such is considered one of 33 Doctors of the Church. This is a title which started in 1298, and Leo was promoted to this title in 1754.

Pope Leo, who was 30 years old when St. Augustine died in 430, did much for the Catholic Church. In fact, Pope Leo met Augustine while Leo was an acolyte, or someone training to be a priest. Pope Leo confronted and destroyed many heresies at the time, many of which were related to Christ's human and divine nature. At a council, he proclaimed his view that Christ was both man and God, and all those attending gave their accordance, saying that Leo was following Peter, the first Pope.

One of the most spectacular events to happen during Leo's papacy was his encounter with the ruthless Attila the Hun, known as the Scourge of God, whose goal was world domination. He warred against many nations around the world and conquered them wherever he went. His armies killed men, women, and children. In fact, Attila was famous for literally ripping apart his opponents.


Then he arrived in Italy. Italy was a very important country, because it was the seat of the Roman Empire. In fact, the Huns were the only real threat facing the Roman Empire, and was a gateway to the entire European continent. Taking Italy would be a disaster for the entire Western World. An interesting fact is that the history of Venice is intertwined with that of Attila the Hun. To escape the brutality of Attila, many Italians fled to the islands of Venice for protection. Eventually they built a great city there. Attila planned to destroy Italy, and conquered it, as he had done with many other places.

When he arrived in Rome, he met with the Pope. While there, Attila saw Sts. Peter and Paul appearing with swords standing near the Pope. Those around Attila were surprised that he decided not to attack Rome, so he explained to them what he had witnessed. Because of the Pope's eloquence in fending off Attila, he is known as the Shield of God.

Pope Leo I deserved his prototypical title of Great, as well as his namesake of Lion, for he defended the doctrines of the Church against heresy and attack, like a lion protects its young. With the help of God, Pope Leo the Great is known as one of the most faithful servants of Christ.

A Girl's Heroic Holy Hour with the Blessed Sacrament, which inspired Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

A few months before he died in 1979, Bishop Fulton Sheen gave a television interview. The reporter asked, “Your Excellency, you have inspired millions. Who inspired you? Was it the pope?”

Bishop Sheen responded that it was not the pope or a cardinal or another bishop or even a priest or nun. It was an eleven-year-old girl. He explained that when the communists took over China in the late forties, they imprisoned a priest in his own rectory. Looking through the window, he saw the soldier enter the church and break open the tabernacle, scattering the Blessed Sacrament on the floor. The priest knew the exact number of hosts: thirty-two.

Unnoticed by the soldiers, a young girl had been praying in the back of the church and she hid when they came in. That night the girl returned and spent an hour in prayer. She then entered the sanctuary, knelt and bent over to take one of the hosts on her tongue.

The girl came back each night, spent an hour in prayer and received Jesus by picking up a sacred host with her tongue. The thirty-second night, after consuming the final host, she made an accidental sound, awakening a soldier. He ran after her and when he caught her, he struck her with his rifle butt. The noise woke the priest – but too late. From his house, he saw the girl die.

Bishop Sheen said that when he heard about this, it inspired him so much that he made a promise that he would spend one hour each day before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. He always said that the power of his priesthood came from the holy hour.

Tonight, brothers and sisters, we celebrate the institution of the Eucharist. At the end of the Mass we will have a procession inside the church to adore our Savior. We will invite you to spend an hour with Jesus. From him comes our strength.

(Special Thanks for this article goes to Fr. Phil Bloom from http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/homilyholythursday.html)

Bishop and Television Star: Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, born on May 8, 1895, was America's first famous televangelist. He did some amazing work for the Catholic Church, and indeed for humanity.

Sheen starred in a show called The Catholic Hour, which eventually acquired 4 million viewers. Later, he starred in Life is Worth Living on ABC, which aired 8pm on Tuesday nights. His show did so well that it rivaled the shows of Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra. In it, he would talk about issued related to religion, such as communism. One particularly poignant show was one in which he condemned communism. He condemned the actions of Stalin in his February, 1953 show, saying "Stalin must one day meet his judgment". A few days later Stalin fell ill, and on March 5, 1953, Stalin died. Sheen's program was so famous, it drew as many as 40 million viewers weekly.

He even won an Emmy for his program. The Archbishop accepted the Emmy by thanking his four writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Sheen was famous in Hollywood, and Martin Sheen took his name after Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, in admiration of him.

Sheen denounced the Vietnam War. He also rallied against racial discrimination, which was unusual in society those days. Sheen wrote some 90 books, and countless articles in his day. He produced television as well as audio broadcasts which you can still find on the Internet today.

Bishop Fulton J Sheen's cause for sainthood is now opened, and he is called a Servant of God, the first step towards Canonization. God willing, some day he will be officially recognized as a Saint in the Catholic Church.