Thursday, May 21, 2009

Obama: Catholic or Imitator of Appearance? Plato and Pope John Paul II Respond

The Creative Minority Report has pointed out a new article in Commonweal that asks the question of whether Obama is "Catholic." http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/05/obama-second-catholic-president.html

During the election, Professor Kmiec asserted that the most "Catholic" candidate was Obama. http://www.slate.com/id/2184378/

I have noticed that in both articles the term "Catholic sensibility" appears. This is no accident. You see, sensibility does not mean that Obama is actually Catholic or even shares Catholic beliefs, it means exactly what it says, Obama creates the "sense" that he has Catholic beliefs.

Obama believes that it is the woman's fundamental right to killer her baby. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/StatementofPresidentObamaonthe36thAnniversaryofRoevWade/

He also has stated that he does not know when a human baby gets human rights, the answer to that question is "above [his] pay grade."

Obama is a Sophist. He trades in lies as do those Catholics who state that Obama is "Catholic." They all wish to imitate the appearance of being Catholic, i.e. provide the sense of being Catholic without having to be Catholic.

Let us have Plato instruct us on who is an imitator of appearance and we shall find that Obama is among them. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1735

Plato in defining the Sophist explains that there are many in this world who do not know true justice or virtue, but who know the form of justice and virtue and have their own false opinion of what justice consists. To show that their opinion of justice and virtue is true justice and virtue these individuals imitate the form of justice to make it seem that their false opinion of justice is actually justice.

Among these imitators of appearance, as labeled by Plato, there are two types: "[O]ne of the two classes of imitators is a simple creature, who thinks that he knows that which he only fancies; the other sort has knocked about among arguments, until he suspects and fears that he is ignorant of that which to the many he pretends to know."

The Sophist falls in the latter category. This is Obama and his Catholic ilk. At the Notre Dame speech Obama used words to create the imagery and sense of Catholic values. However, sense when united with false opinion can create false images and idols. Obama is not for social justice because as Pope John Paul II stated in The Gospel of Life:

"Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun." Paragraph 20 (emphasis added).

You see the "social justice" preached by Obama and accepted by his Catholic fans, is not justice at all because it accepts and practices the most unjust discrimination of all; determining that some individuals, unborn babies, are not deserving of defense but others are provided that dignity. The "social justice" offered by Obama is not justice, under either a classical understanding of the term nor under Catholic teaching. What Obama offers is the image or idol of justice but what is in reality the a false justice or injustice.

Obama's speeches and the writings of his Catholic friends are designed to do one thing, to get Catholics who are not properly catechised to get the "sense" that their false opinion regarding social justice is the Church's teaching on social justice when it is not. Obama and his version of justice are as truly Catholic as Lenin's, i.e. neither vision is a Catholic vision. That is why the most his apologists can offer is Obama's "Catholic sensibility." But this is another way of saying what Obama offers is the imitation of the appearance of being Catholic, which is to say Obama offers rejection of Catholic teaching in a pretty Catholic looking wrapper. Who else is it that offers spiritual and worldly rewards in the image of a shining angel but is a liar from the beginning? I let you connect the dots as to where this Obama approach to Catholicism is originating from.

As for me, I will follow Plato's advice and wait for the real thing.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

To All The Mark Shea's Out There

Check out this dose of reality from The Catholic Thing: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/1615/

A former SEAL discusses and reflects upon his experience being waterboarded as part of his training.

Fear inducing, maybe. Uncomfortable, definitely. Torture, no way.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

America and Sweden, Partners in Promoting Gender Based Violence

Sweden just held that a women is entitled to kill her baby due solely to being the wrong gender, which is typically female. http://www.thelocal.se/19392.html

This is already legal in America: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12342. Apparently the littlest women do not have the freedom of choice to live.

The barbarism we allow in "civilized" society disgusts me. As does the hypocracy of feminists who claim to be pro-women, yet promote laws and policies which allow the ultimate violence, murder to be disproportionately inflicted on the littlest women among us.

Abortion is NOT about women's rights, it is about killing the innocent that are inconvenient. The worst of the bunch are not the women that are taken advantage of and most of the time are physically and psychologically pressured to abort their babies, it is these murderous and hypocritical "abortion doctors" and feminist philosophers who are at war with one of the most beautiful aspects of womanhood, motherhood.

May God have mercy on our Western Civilization for supporting and funding this evil which is a violent attack on babies and women.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Kmiec Woe to You!

In a recent interview with The Economist, law professor Douglas Kmeic, has opposed the Church's teaching on legal rights for homosexual unions, specific documents produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, at the time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/six_questions_for_douglas_kmi.cfm

Here is a comparison of a statement made by Professor Kmiec and the requirements of the faithful as stated by the CDF.

Kmiec: "Since the state has the primary obligation of equality for all, the effect of the proposition [Kmiec's proposition] is to direct the state to issue a license by a name other than marriage to all couples–gay or straight–who apply. The concept of marriage, of course, is then fully remitted to religious bodies who can indulge same-sex marriage within their respective religious communities or not in accord with the religion’s doctrine.
It remains to be seen–by early June if the court stays on schedule–if the state Supreme Court agrees. During oral arguments, several justices seemed quite taken with the idea of separating marriage from the state and both sides more or less agreed such a solution would resolve the case. The court should take this path, and simultaneously encourage the legislature to confirm the freedom of religious bodies to determine their own standards or requirements for marriage."

Let us see what the Church has to say:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil." CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons at Paragraph 5, June 3, 2003 (emphasis added).

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection." Id. (emphasis added).

Rather than make a clear and emphatic opposition, Kmiec has written publicly several times that the state should equate marriage with homosexual unions on several occasions. Indeed, he has been recognized as being responsible for this proposal that is being considered by the California Supreme Court, which would eliminate state recognized marriage for all. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html

Additionally, Kmiec's proposal was distributed widely, especially to the youth of America, by his interview on the Colbert Report. http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2009/04/colbert-kmiec-and-marriage-question

Here has also proposed this line of argument to fellow attorneys, as a serious legal solution to the current "gay marriage" debate. Providing a legal framework with which to create complete legal equivalence between homosexual unions and marriage. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090309_kmiec.html , http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090310_kmiec.html .

In other words, Professor Kmiec has continued on a very public and deliberate path in supporting something which, according to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it is our religious and moral duty to oppose. Additionally, by teaching his doctrine and demanding its acceptance as the correct choice, Professor Kmiec has placed himself in opposition to the teaching authority of the Church. This is a grave scandal.

Professor Kmiec if you are reading this please read the following from the Catechism:

"2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.86
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!""

By your public pronouncements that are clearly designed to invite fellow citizens to agree with you and to get the California Supreme Court to adopt your solution, which is opposed to truth, justice and Holy Mother Church, you are giving a great scandal to me and others. Please stop. Not only for the sake of others but for your sake. Please, you are too good of a man to have fallen this far down, to use your training to advance such a grave sin.

Your own Bishop, Cardinal Mahoney has spoken out in favor of Proposition 8. I hope he has the time to correct you. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14310. Dear Professor Kmiec, I hope you have not forgotten that the Bishop is the teaching authority for the archdiocese: "He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. " St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians at Chapter 5. What more can I add to St. Ignatius?

To everyone else, I know it is hard, but please pray for Professor Kmiec, for nothing is impossible with God.

UPDATE: Kmiec After Being Refused Communion by a Priest now Excommunicated from Wikipedia. Will he include this in all subsequent article biographies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dkmiec/Archive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dkmiec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Kmiec

UPDATE 2: via American Papist and Kathryn Lopez at NRO, Archbishop Burke declares that Kmiec's moral teaching on Catholic Voting is opposed to the teaching of the Church and that NO Catholic could have voted for Obama with a clear conscience: http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/05/abp-burke-catholics-could-not-have.html

UPDATE 3: On that note from Archbishop Burke regarding support for gay marriage and pro-abortion candidates and the conscience. I leave this last quote from Pope Benedict XVI for all those who have suggested that we compromise on the most fundamental right of all, the right to life, in exchange for the political influence to achieve other "goods": "A man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 10th Workshop for Bishops, February 1991, Dallas, Texas).

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Sanctity of Human Life Act

H.R. 227 (111th) - The Sanctity of Human Life Act was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 7, 2009. If passed, the bill will provide that human life begins with fertilization. To read the entire bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov

Please contact U.S. Congress to encourage a YES vote!

UN Petition to Protect All Human Life and Families

Please sign the following petition, which is to be delivered to the UN asking for the defense of all human life from conception to natural death and the right of parents to raise and educate their children!

The right to life should be held sacred and inviolate in the whole world. Let's help make that happen.

http://www.c-fam.org/campaigns/

Please share the link!

Not Racism and Segregation Again! (PARODY)

Can we just get over Racism, we are never going to get rid of it. In fact, why do we have discrimination laws. Plus could we just once, have a judicial nomination process that doesn't harp on whether or not civil rights legislation is considered constitutional by the nominee! I mean it is so exasperating. These laws won't even change one racist's heart. Can the Church stop pushing for political victories, leave the public square and just talk to the parishioners who happen to make it to Church about racism and how the Church thinks its bad and stuff. After all, the decision to be a racist is a "tragic moral choice" not an intrinsic evil no matter what. And who are we to make that choice for the racist. And really, by what principle do we decide to punish racists who actually discriminate and but not those who don't? Let's just give up and move on people. It's been more than 500 years and its not going to change anytime soon, get it!

Okay, enough parody. I am really against racism and think it can be stopped constitutionally under the 13th Amendment, but that is a discussion for another day. Here is yet another "deep" piece from Professor Douglas Kmiec, in America Magazine, which is unfortunately not a parody. On a side note, how many more times is he planning on slandering our Holy Mother Church in America for being nothing more than a soulless partisan hack that needs to get back to the business of making religion private rather than implemented in public policy but at the same time say that the current child torturer-in-chief is implementing the commands of the Prophet Micah in Holy Scripture?

[I've decided to through in some of my own comments in red]

"Not Abortion Again
For the past 30 years or so, abortion has dominated confirmation battles. It may have a role again, even though it is highly unlikely an Obama nominee will see abortion differently than Justice Souter. Yet empathy supplies insight here, too. Abortion is exactly what the president says it is: “a tragic moral choice.” [No what abortion is is an intrinsic evil] Conservative law professors helping GOP presidential candidates would insist that this choice be made criminal. [Yes, so does the Pope as you will recall from your Time Magazine piece flipping out after Nancy Pelosi got Catechised] After Originalism, this “reverse Roe” mantra has been the conservative litmus test for Court appointment. [Yes it is also the litmus test for all legitimate government, just check out the Declaration of Independence] Yet even to me, a defender of the idea that personhood begins at conception, the inadequacy of using abortion as a measure of judicial merit is obvious by its narrowness. [Clearly . . . Uh wait a minute, the inescapable logic has seemed to escaped me.] From the standpoint of empathy, is it really likely that if Roe is overturned, the states will criminalize abortion sending predominantly poor women and college co-eds to jail? [Ah, glad to see that specious straw man argument coming from a "friend" of the pro-life cause] And if compassion exempts these women from incarceration, what consistent principle then sends the doctors off to prison? [It is something that first year law school students learn about, it's called mens rea. The principle is that those who clearly and purposely chose, without duress to do evil get punished more than those in the type of mental state that women in crises pregnancies have. Plus the doctor who is in a position of responsibility and has the ability to nurture and protect both the mother and child instead takes advantage of the mother's weakened emotional and mental state to kill her child for a profit! Therefore, the more depraved the mental state of the actor, the greater the punishment. It is basic principle of ancient common law.] With these rather basic questions unanswered, questioning a nominee about Roe will tell us little that is coherent. Does empathy tell us anything important about abortion? It is not, as some religious conservatives claim, just a covert ratification of the practice. No, in ways far more subtle than the bloody images of dissected babies often thrust in the faces of women confronted with an untimely pregnancy, empathy reveals the limits of the law and the importance of giving a woman without insurance or the resources needed to sustain herself, the assistance necessary to allow her to complete a pregnancy. President Obama reaffirmed this point at his most recent press conference. Women, he said, do not make this decision casually. [No they make it with the full moral, financial and legal support of Barack Obama and after being fed the lies of Planned Parenthood. They are taken advantage of because they are in a vulnerable mental state by the current president and his political allies who fight informed consent laws! Does Obama's empathy know no bounds?] Indeed, his own very close relationship with his mother left him with the profound understanding that an expectant mother more honestly and plainly than anyone else understands and anticipates the needs not just of the infant in her womb, but of the child at 3, 12 and 28 years of age." [Yes unlike us pro-lifers who never had a mother nor empathy, Obama is in a perfect position to make the only meaningful statements on abortion that we must listen to. Plus, abortion was not legal when Obama's mom was pregnant so we don't even know if he would have had a chance to know his mom. But luckily for the grand empathizer Obama, abortion wasn't legal when he was conceived.]

Here is the link if you feel the need to look, though it isn't pretty and I wouldn't recommend it: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11649

UPDATE

Another good Kmiec criticism can be found at http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2009/05/question-for-douglas-kmiec-will-obamas.html.

Monday, May 4, 2009

A Friend of the Church?

From a report of a the Catholic News Service:

"Douglas Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., and former law school dean at The Catholic University of America in Washington, said laws are based on "someone's concept of good", which is generally traceable to religious belief. Disputed concepts of good are reconciled in the United States by persuasion and the democratic process, he said.The Catholic Church is not necessarily guided by this process, because it claims that a democratic outcome can never trump the truth, he said, although truth claims are always disputed."The modern church has defined itself not in terms of the conversion of the heart, but in terms of its political victories," he said. This puts the church in an awkward position to ask for exemptions from generally applicable laws, he said. Kmiec said there should be a presumption against giving institutional exemptions to laws, but a great sensitivity to granting individual exemptions." (Emphasis Added).

http://thecatholicspirit.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1676&Itemid=33

I agree, I think I saw something about Pope Benedict XVI starting a PAC as the reason he visited America last year. Gimme a break!

Friday, May 1, 2009

BREAKING: Justice Souter to Retire!

Justice Souter has announced that he is going to retire. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090501/D97TCS280.html

Many will lament that this is President Obama's chance to appoint a new justice, but let me give an alternative spin. This is good news.

First, Justice Souter is relatively young; therefore, even if President Obama picks another "young" person for the position the leftist point of view will not gain that many additional years on the Supreme Court bench.

Second, we are just going to get a pro-abortion leftist for a pro-abortion leftist, no change in the balance of the Court.

Third, the nomination and appointment process is going to start in the lead up to the election and will be a great way to educate the American people as to how radical President Obama is by tying the views of whatever leftist jurist he picks to him.

Fourth, it is going to highlight the importance of the Supreme Court nomination power of the President for the next election a fact that will fire up more people to come out and vote pro-life.

Fifth, it is highly probable that any President Obama nominee can be "filibustered." http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2009/04/how-specters-defection-could-make-it.html

That is my take. What do you think?