The Fire

Obama's New Age Christianity

2010-09-30T16:07:00.000-07:00

Obama professed his Christian faith in an effort to combat confusion among the electorate regarding his religion.

But his own explanation of why he is a Christian is very confused. Two statements he made which I found the most troubling:

(1) "But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace.”; and

(2) "This is a country that is still predominantly Christian, but we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own, and that’s part of what makes our country what it is."

As Chritians we do not help people "find their own grace" but help them participate in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Also, there is only one path to that saving grace, it is through Christ not any other religion. People from other religions might be saved but it is through Christ and His Body, the Church, by which they will be saved NOT by following "their own path to grace," i.e., their erroneous religion. As Chrisitians we must respect everyone's freedom of religion. But that does not mean that we should stop spreading the good news that the only name under which anyone can be saved is that of Christ Jesus. Indeed, the concepts of salvation and grace are foreign to most other religions.

Helping people find their own grace or their own path to grace rather than finding Christ who is the source of grace sounds pretty new age to me. What about you? Are Obama's statements of his Christian faith enough to convenience you he is a serious Christian or do you think he just views Christianity through the lense of the new age/modernist spiritual creed of "I'm okay/you're okay."

Acts 4:10-12: "Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God has raised from the dead, even by him, this man stands here before you, whole. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which has become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act004.htm

I'm Back

2010-09-30T15:59:00.000-07:00

I will be making an effort to post more frequently.

The Fire is back.

Health Care Reform: Other Ignored Dangers

2009-11-12T07:59:00.000-08:00

I think the fact that the pro-life amendment passed is great, but how come we as Catholics are not asking other important questions. If the reform is about basic care and ensuring that care conforms to the true nature of human good we should also make sure that it does not cover:

1. Contraceptives
2. "Sex-change" operations
3. Same-sex "marriage" partners
4. Tube-ties, etc.
5. Invitro-Fertilization
6. Surrogacy

I am sure there are other immoral medical procedures, but I do not have the time to think of them right now. The abortion ban is great (though it will probably be eliminated in conference) but there are many other intrinsic evils that do not count as health care that we should not be paying for in the name of helping the poor and middle class have more affordable health care.

Accepting the Obama/Kmiec Abortion Argument is Contrary to Caritas in veritate

2009-10-13T16:35:00.000-07:00

Doug Kmiec stated that he accepted Obama's personal rejection of abortion and rethought his pro-life stance because of Obama's argument that as much as he was personally opposed to abortion he could not impose his religious beliefs on people who had a religious belief that allows for abortion.

This was further reflected in the pluralistic "ideal" proposed by Kmiec in his 2008 October editorial in the Los Angeles Times stating that in a pluralistic society like America we must accept the legal "space" that allows for abortion to accommodate the diversity of religious belief on the subject.

But, Pope Benedict XVI, in Caritas in veritate, reminds us that accommodation of all religious belief is just as bad as the intolerant persecution of religious practice which is in conformity with the common good: "There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. " CV Paragraph 55. In other words, the philosophy of radical personal autonomy, which of course includes the right to abortion.

We should not give those who espouse this belief, the right to act on it. We have the power to prevent this belief from being practiced and must due so: "Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good." CV Paragraph 55.

In other words, Obama's and Kmiec's admitted lack of discernment regarding the religious belief of others that allows them to kill babies, is not a commendable and democratic act, but an abdication of responsibility that thwarts true human development and is in fact contemptible.

Christians cannot and should not waffle on abortion. Murder is wrong, we know it and it is wrong to let others hide behind irrational religious belief to practice their crimes. We do not let Islamic terrorists do it, we should not let pro-abortion/pro-choice people do it.

Full Quote from CV:

"Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism[132]by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.

For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face”[134], contains this very criterion within itself." Paragraph 55

Two Interesting Tidbits from Caritas in veritate

2009-10-13T16:28:00.000-07:00

Improvement of constitutional governments should not rely on government expansion: "The State does not need to have identical characteristics everywhere: the support aimed at strengthening weak constitutional systems can easily be accompanied by the development of other political players, of a cultural, social, territorial or religious nature, alongside the State." Paragraph 41.

And, although advocating for religious freedom in general, not all religions need to have the same freedom, because my friends some religions are not just wrong but BAD and governments can make the distinction (side note, those lame "coexist" bumper stickers are impliedly condemned, take that syncretism!):

"The Christian revelation of the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an essential element. Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism[132] by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.

Kmiec Speaks On Role of Church in America

2009-08-31T14:48:00.001-07:00

Doug Kmiec is at it again. The debate on conscience protection is from April 2009 but has some interesting insights into the new thinking of Doug Kmiec.

Much of what he offers borders on a mistake in thinking that he pointed out in his Constitutional Law book. In the book Kmiec asks "Democracy, means or an end" (not exact quote but close enough). He used to answer the question "means" but now he has done a complete 180 and finds that democracy is actually the end. Amazingly, he states that democracy is no longer the favored means of achieving the good, it is the preferred method for determining the good:

"Unfortunately, in this temporal exile of ours, the fourth proposition is also true: the good is always disputed, and some mechanism in a pluralistic society is needed to resolve the differences in the conception of the good.

The fifth proposition, in America we decide in most cases to depend upon reasoned argument, persuasion, and ultimately democratic choice, to determine the good."

The fifth proposition is the most troublesome. Both from a Catholic and an American perspective. Here in America we have begun to define the good by democratic choice, especially individuals who label themselves liberals; but, this is not the American tradition.

In America, we hold the good of man and the rights and duties he must exercise to achieve this good to be "self-evident," i.e. not up for discussion, dialogue or democratic compromise. The right to life, being the first listed in the Declaration of Independence.

To argue that the very concept of the good can be disputed and chosen by a electoral vote, is to concede that we live in a tyranny, not of a monarch but of a mob. A mob without restraint, that has the power to say that good is evil and evil is good, is not the democratic ideal as Americans or our Founders understood it. It is these very two different conceptions of "democracy" that allowed thinkers like Edmund Burke to support our revolution and despise the French. The French revolution was the triumph of the mob, our revolution was the triumph, at least in the real of ideals, of government built on the non-negotiable Truth about man.

Turning now to the problems presented by Kmiec's statement from the Catholic perspective. Kmiec first starts by giving quick recognition of Church teaching, but then goes on to weaken its effect:

"Now, here is where the difficulty comes in. The church I love, the faith of my fathers and grandfathers, the American Catholic Church, has in modern times often chosen not to accept the democratic outcome as the conclusion to be guided by. Now, in some ways this is unproblematic, and one can find constitutional scholars across the land who dissent from various propositions when the Supreme Court of the United States, for example, undertakes to do something — like Roe v. Wade from my perspective — that is usurping of the legislature authority

and structure provided for in the Constitution. So the Church, when it echoes those arguments, is not particularly controversial.

But the Church makes a broader claim than that. It is a claim I am quite fond of, but it has great difficulty to it in terms of application. That is that democratic outcome can never trump the truth, that, as John Paul reminded us in Veritatus Splendor, a democracy not

well aimed with the truth of the human person in mind is very well on the track toward totalitarianism. The problem is that truth claims, like other claims of the good, are always disputed.

Then we come to really difficult times in our current Church circumstance, and that is some of our leaders guide us internally by intimidation and sacramental denial, or the threat of sacramental denial, and by practices of shunning, most recently Professor Glendon. She is the shunner, Notre Dame is the shunnee, in case you haven’t been following the stories.

. . .

So my eighth question and proposition is: How well situated is a church that proceeds in this fashion to ask for an exemption from generally applicable laws that we ask others to abide by? I would suggest that it tends to weaken its position in terms of asking for that exemption, and that in itself presents its own problems.

. . .

With respect to institutional claims for conscience exemption, I suggest that there should be a presumption against giving those, largely because they are anti-democratic. By contrast, in terms of individual claims of conscience, I suggest the law should be highly sensitive to those, for among other reasons, as I have been told over and over again because of my sin of “Obama meisting,” that I have a lot to answer for with St. Peter and for whom he works, and some metaphysical consequences of individually engaging in intrinsic evil are more profound for the individual than for the institution, which may or may not continue into eternity. The law should be particularly sensitive about it."

In other words, Kmiec thinks it anti-democratic for the Church to refuse to prostitute Herself to participate in the evil aspects of programs put forward by politicians who want to turn the Church from an independent entity to an arm of federal and state government public policy. Moreover, when Her pastors, our shepherds, the Bishops, shepherd us or our fathers, the priests, chastise us, who are their children, it is "intimidation" and "sacramental denial." This sounds like a teenager who is grumpy with his parents for threatening to punish them for staying beyond curfew. It is an act of mercy, not intimidation, to chastise the sinner, just read your Baltimore Catechism Professor Kmiec.

Finally, Kmiec (beyond advocating for the elimination of marriage and treating homosexual pairs and marriages equally in law and naming them all "quarks" as a model for religious freedom), states amazingly that:

"This notion of creating an ideal world through law is a forfeiture of the faith and the power of the faith. It is directly contrary, it seems to me, to Thomas’s teaching, to the Thomastic teaching about not seeing to enact every virtue or prohibit every vice. The human condition is just simply not capable of that and it is more variegated than that.

But it doesn’t mean you give up on the transformation of the culture. It just means you don’t expect the Supreme Court of the United States to be the chief catechist. You expect yourself to in fact embrace the Scripture and the Catechism, and through homiletics and through good works and your own personal witness and what happens in that parish community. That’s where the ideal world gets constructed."

Pretty ironic since Kmiec addressed the criticism of Obama by Cardinal Stafford by informing him that the cultural change the Cardinal had worked for his whole life in Christ would come to pass upon the inauguration of Obama, as President of the United States, a political office held by a non-Catholic! http://www.cuatower.com/2008/11/21/prof-doug-kmiec-on-cardinal-staffords-obama-comments/

Just imagine Kmiec sharing this point of view of the role of Church and the political State with the people of Malta who have shown an ability to engage in democracy and upholding the truth about the human person.

P.S.

Kmiec also mistakenly implies that Humane Vitae's teaching is only applicable to Catholics rather than a teaching based on natural law and morality: "In terms of the conveyance of the significance of marriage and these other teachings on contraception, you don’t need to stop the coverage of insurance for contraception for people who have no moral objection to it in order to convey to Catholics the significance of Humanae Vitae. Now, you are going to need a lot of help conveying the significance of Humanae Vitae, and people have been working on it for a long time. But you are not going to get help from this passage of the law." Humane Vitae must be accepted by Catholics, but as a truth applicable to all mankind, we Catholics need to convey its significance to all peoples.

Just got this info from Opinionated Catholic: http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2009/08/doug-kmiec-speaks-again-religious.html

The transcript of the conference at Fordham re conscience protection is available here: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/08/conscience-at-fordham.html

Catholic Health Association Against "Caritas in Veritate"

2009-08-20T15:42:00.000-07:00

I highly recommend that you watch or listen to the Raymond Arroyo, The World Over, interview/debate with Sr. Carol Keehan president of the Catholic Health Association (CHA). The CHA has come under fire for demanding health care reform "now." Sr. Keehan clearly believes that it is the role of the federal government to pay for the majority of health care in this country.

In response to Sr. Keehan's almost unreserved support for government financed health care Mr. Arroyo asked her what would prevent the "reformed" American health care system from resembling the rationed care in Canada and Britain that abuses seniors and denies essential care to the very sick. Her response was shocking and let the mask slip on the CHA agenda: "The political reason I think it won't happen here is 'cause it [the elderly] is the largest voting block."

This is in direct conflict with the Pope's current encyclical which expressly rejects a social order based on benefiting those with the most political power:

"Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present." Caritas in veritate at Paragraph 5.

"In promoting development, the Christian faith does not rely on privilege or positions of power, nor even on the merits of Christians (even though these existed and continue to exist alongside their natural limitations)[44], but only on Christ, to whom every authentic vocation to integral human development must be directed." Caritas in veritate at Paragraph 18

In her statement, Sister Keehan belies her statements of wanting to promote the Catholic conception of charity and social justice. Her statements reveal her willingness to implement a system that depends and promotes the interests of the politically powerful, which is probably why the CHA is so comfortable spending so much money lobbying Congress. It is an admission that the CHA push for health care reform is a push for the politicization of health care.

Additionally, the idea that the federal government, which already makes up 33% of the health care industry needs to become a larger provider of health care runs dangerously close to promoting the concentration of power warned against by the Pope:

"When technology is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends and means, such that the sole criterion for action in business is thought to be the maximization of profit, in politics the consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research." Caritas in veritate at Paragraph 71.

We need to fight this consolidation of power not promote it.

Finally, the most disturbing line of the interview belongs also to Sr. Keehan: "We have to be in the mainstream."

No Sister, we have to be in Christ.

P.S. After listening to the interview, did anyone appreciate her justification of conceding 150 billion dollars of Catholic Hospital Association money to the government by saying that the money is going to the "Medicare Trust Fund," which has a 60 trillion dollar unfunded liability, that would be paid back in 2013? It was so ridiculous I laughed out loud.

E-Mail I sent to the the USCCB Catholic Campaign for Human Development

2009-08-04T16:31:00.001-07:00

To Whom it May Concern,

I am growing very concerned with the partisan bent of the USCCB, which has come to the surface with respect to the current debate on "health care reform."

"Health care reform now" is a message in line with the current Obama administration and the Democrat Party controlled Congress. It is advocating a plan that promotes rationing, abortion and euthanasia. I'm sure the USCCB, the CHA, St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Charities USA do not intend to directly sponsor these aspects of the bills being proposed but such irresponsible action alerts lack political prudence and create a situation which will rush the country into making bad and hasty decisions.

The Democrat Party which is leading this effort, as a matter of formal party policy and platform, believes in the paying for abortion, on demand: "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." Democrat Party Platform 2008 at 50.

Moreover, the same party supports funding contraceptives, which is also contrary to Church teaching: "The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives." Democrat Party Platform 2008 at 50.

How dare you tell us to trust these people with our money, our lives, and our families. This is more than working out a few kinks out of a bill, this is about the future moral health of this country.

Would you tell us to support a health care "reform" put forth by the Nazi Party so long as they promised it would be "minority-neutral"? I think not!

Sister Carol Keehan of Catholic Hospital Association, with whom you have a close relationship stated falsely: "In an Aug. 3 interview with Catholic News Service, she decried the 'deliberate distortions' about health care reform being circulated by 'those who for whatever reason don't want health reform to succeed.'" http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903516.htm

We who oppose the Democrat-Abortion-Contraception-Socialist Medicine Party are not opposed to health care reform, we have many ideas to offer. However, we are not willing to make a deal with the Devil for a mythical "Free Universal Health Care." There is no such thing as a free lunch, just ask Jesus who was tempted by the Devil to turn stones into loaves. Jesus said NO. An so should we to this Faustian bargain.

You and your Catholic "charity" allies and the Democrat Party have shown what little respect you have for us Catholic lay people and Americans.

Why should the Catholic Church in America go begging hat in hand to the federal government of the United States which has endorsed, abortion, slavery, experimentation on blacks, taking God out of the public schools, the forced integration of Native Americans, etc., for money to perform our charitable works?

Why should the Catholic Church in America go begging the federal government to FORCE its own parishioners to give money to its hospitals, why not just ask for more help every Sunday at mass? Why not appeal to our love of neighbor and God, why not talk to us and lead us gently like a true Shepard. We want to help, we want to GIVE more of our money to help the poor, we want to help make health care more accessible. But we want to do it for the love of God, our neighbor and His Church. We do not want to be forced to do so by people who have so much contempt for us that they are unwilling to even read the laws that they pass which will alter our way of life! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/conyers_why_bother_to_read_bil.html

Do these men and women of Congress, who have exempted themselves out of the "reform" sound like the kind of people who have respect for human life from conception to natural death? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

I know, or at least I knew, that when I gave money to a Catholic charity, it would go to do the Lord's work, according to Church teaching. Now I, along with many other Catholics are not so sure. My faith is not shaken in the Church but it has been shaken in you.

I will not support organizations that lobby for the taking of financial resources from Catholics by asking the federal government to increase taxes to implement a federal program that would either require Catholic charities accepting federal funds to perform abortions, provide contraception, sex change operations, etc. or will increase these practices in government or other private hospitals. These are resources that instead could and should go to Catholic hospitals and clinics that would provide care to patients according to Church teaching not government controlled health care.

I have already called the St. Vincent de Paul Society and have informed them that my giving will go to Goodwill, who has not come out to endorse any bill and actual employs the developmentally disabled and Down Syndrome people that the "health care reform" will help kill. I recommend that all other Catholics do the same.

Unless you turn back from your love of GOVERNMENT funded and Democrat run health care programs, you can count me out from the second collection when you come begging for help. If you want more health care for the poor, then you provide it and ask us for help to do it, do not sell your soul to the federal government for a plan that will not even work. Indeed, economists estimate that the bill will still leave 30 million uninsured, hardly universal coverage. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080409/content/01125109.guest.html

As Bishop Fulton Sheen said: "They [the socialists and totalitarians] are saying what is important only is social health not personal health. That is not true. Social health is conditioned only upon individual health. And if a doctor would leave any patient simply because he could not pay for his care or because he was apparently incurable or for any other reason in order to serve the abstract claims of society he would be selling the pass."

Do not be fooled, government run health care, is socialized health care and by supporting it you are "selling the pass" on the American people and the Catholic Church's invaluable role in American life.

God Bless,

xxxxxxx

My Reactions to New Encyclical Soon!

2009-07-13T00:23:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading it.

I recommend it to anyone. The main point to be driven home is that the Pope finally made explicit what was always implicit in Catholic teaching: you cannot be for poor people, the environment or social justice unless you are first and foremost pro-life.

Finally seeing it in black and white, is just awesome.

Bottom line, one cannot use the "social justice" issues to ever outweigh being 100% pro-life, because being 100% pro-life is the only legitimate and authentic way to pursue social justice. Any other program, that denies the right to life, will lead to disaster and human destruction.

"One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways. . . . Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual." Caritas in veritate Paragraph 28

"If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society." Paragraph 51

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Did Obama Promise to Reduce Abortions in Rome? NO!

2009-07-11T13:49:00.000-07:00

I have read with interest several articles and blog posts reporting the great victory of Obama promising to reduce abortions during his recent visit with the Pope. But the Reuters story is more ambiguous regarding Obama's promise to reduce abortions. It implies that many in the Vatican may have misunderstood Obama's abortion stance in much the same way that his message is misunderstood by many here in the States, especially after his Notre Dame speech. Therefore, I thought I would dig into reporting of the event, Obama's past statements and the Vatican's interpretation of the event. Not surprisingly, Obama with his skillful rhetoric has made even many of the Vatican believe that he is willing to compromise on his pro-abortion stance, when, as Cardinal Rigali would say, the "truth is opposite."

Here is a portion of the Reuters' report: "'Obama told the pope of his commitment to reduce the number of abortions and of his attention and respect for the positions of the Catholic Church,'" Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told reporters after he was briefed by the pope. Obama supports abortion rights and says his policy is to change economic and social conditions so as to put more women in situations where they do not feel they have to have an abortion." (emphasis mine) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5693XC20090710?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Indeed, one of Obama's advisers pointed out the exact difference between Obama's position and an actual desire to reduce the number of abortions:

"Melody [Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List] testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. 'It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions. 'The room was silent. The goal, she insisted, is to 'reduce the need for abortions.'" http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31970

Obama is a skilled politician. He loves to speak in ways that lets his listeners fill in the gaps with what they want to hear. He purposely speaks in a way that causes this confusion. Here is a quote from his book Audacity of Hope as reported by Real Clear Politics that is highly instructive: "'I serve as a blank screen,' Obama writes, 'on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.' He notifies readers that 'my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete.'" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/obama_scores_as_an_exotic_who.html

He speaks of reducing the need for abortions and people hear, "I want to reduce abortions." But he does not. Unless of course you count his desire to put a condom in the pocket of every oversexed teenager. Bottom line, he does not care about reducing abortions.

Indeed, John Allen's reporting for the National Catholic Reporter makes it clear that this purposeful confusion by Obama is precisely what transpired at the Vatican this week: "Responding to the pope’s concerns, Lombardi said, Obama repeated his pledge to adopt policies aimed at bringing down the abortion rate, by addressing social conditions that sometimes compel women to have abortions. Although Obama has said that before, the fact that he did so in the presence of the pope, in the eyes of many Vatican personnel, lends the pledge extra weight." (emphasis mine) http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/no-retreat-abortion-vatican-gives-obama-benefit-doubt.

We need to carefully scrutinize and critically analyze everything Obama and his minions say and do on this issue to not get caught up in his trap of having us believe he has a desire to compromise with us! He has one goal, the implementation of a strong centralized government, that manages the largest economy on the planet with him at the helm.

Obama will take over the economy promising to reduce the need for abortion. But here is the catch, we know that abortion is never needed. To agree with him that his position is a good one, is to admit that abortion is needed. He has offered nothing but the traditional pro-choice position yet so many of us, including Vatican officials act like he is saying something good or new!

I'm waiting for him to say he will find ways to reduce the availability of the choice of abortion, to more accurately reflect the view of the majority of American's that abortion should be limited to a particular set of circumstances. That would be change and compromise from a pro-choice politician. All Obama offers now is a smokescreen to weaken our resolve, to move forward his socialist and anti-life agenda and to hide his absolute contempt for human life.

After all this is the same man who, despite wanting the most powerful office for protecting humanity in the world said the following in response to this question by Rick Warren:

"Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

The response was flip and in the style of Pontius Pilate. It is the response of a man who is not interested in the truth or in the dignity of the human person, which is a necessary prerequisite to any true human development as laid out by Pope Benedict XVI in his new encyclical, Caritas In Veritate, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html.

We should not promote his efforts by accepting what he is reported as saying at face value. All we have is Father Lombardi's interpretation of Obama's statement, but viewed in the context of all of Obama's other statements on abortion reduction, he has made no new compromise, he has said nothing new. He just did the same thing he always does, he told some people whose support he wants, what they wanted to hear.

We, on the ground here in America, need to make this known to our fellow citizens and to Catholics around the world who only get superficial exposure to President Obama and his message, including the officials in the Vatican. Obama cannot be allowed to continue to perpetuate the myth that he wants to reduce the number of abortions while he finds new ways to pay for them.

Anti-Catholic, Communist, Discriminatory and Unoriginal

2009-06-29T21:52:00.000-07:00

Those four words sum up the approach to "gay marriage" proposed by Catholic legal scholar Douglas W. Kmiec.

This post will not be an exhaustive article, but is meant to point out some severe defeciences in Professor Kmiec's argument: (1) Kmiec's approach is in defiance of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's requirement for all Catholics with respect to equating homosexual relationships with marriages in civil law; (2) the Kmiec "solution" of the state certifying any "couple" under the civil law is nothing more than the legalization of "free love" or "wives in common" proposed by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto; (3) the Kmiec approach is a reverse Luther heresy, Luther rightfully pointed out that non-Catholics can get married but wrongfully concluded that this meant that the State not the Church had ultimate authority over marriage, Kmiec argues that because the Church has ultimate authority over marriage that the State has no authority over marriage and that non-believers cannot be married; and (4) lastly and worst from the academic perspective, Kmiec's solution to eliminate legal marriage is unoriginal and he has yet to attribute the idea to any of the feminist legal scholars who have discussed this approach to legally recognized family relationships for 20 years.

The CDF states that: "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." CDF Document on Homosexual Unions at Paragraph 5. Rather than emphatically opposing homosexual unions Professor Kmiec has proposed equating homosexual unions with marriage!

Here is an example of Douglas Kmiec equating marriage with homosexual relationships: "Instead, the state would give everyone -- gay or straight -- a civil union license and allow churches, synagogues, temples and mosques to say who can and cannot 'marry' within their individual traditions. Religious freedom, a bedrock constitutional value of like importance to equality, would also be a winner." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/opinion/oe-kmiec16?pg=1

Does that sound like "emphatic opposition" to anyone?

Kmiec's solution is also Marxist. Marx's solution in the Communist Manifesto to the family was a system of legalized "free love" or "common wives": "Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. "

In other words, Marx proposed the elimination of marriage and replacing it with some system of cooperation agreements. Legalized "free love." Is this not the civil union proposed by Kmiec, which would require the state to approve of any two individuals who wish to have a legally recognized sexual relationship?

The solution proposed by Kmiec is also discriminatory against non-believers. The Church teaches that marriage is part of the natural law and is an institution that is accessible to all men and women. Marriage is a religious institution, but it is not only a religious institution. A marriage between non-believers is still a marriage, it is not a sacrament. See CCC 1601 ("The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.")

The Kmiec proposal is an anti-Luther heresy. Luther proposed that marriage was solely a civil institution under the authority of the state. Kmiec proposes that marriage is solely a religious institution under the authority of Church. The truth lies in the middle. The Church has ultimate authority over marriage, especially sacramental marriage, but the state has a role to play as well to recognize valid marriages and to ensure that the legitimate rights of husbands, wives and parents are recognized. The premise proposed by Kmiec, that marriage is a solely religious institution is wrong from the start. Marriage is both civil and religious. To deny unbelievers the status of marriage, is a denial of a God given right and the natural state of marriage.

Lastly, Kmiec's solution is unoriginal. After reading some of his initial articles on the issue, I was reminded of a Weekly Standard article by Stanley Kurtz written for the August 2003 issue exploring the dangers of gay marriage. Mr. Kurtz's article pointed out that several of the initial supporters of eliminating marriage, Judith Stacey, Martha Fineman, Martha Ertman became supporters of gay marriage as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal of eliminating marriage.

For example, according to Mr. Kurtz, Ms. Ertman has proposed eliminating marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with a system of contracts. Sound familiar? This is the Kmiec solution. Ironically, the different solutions to eliminate marriage proposed by these feminist women to liberate women have gotten little attention, but when proposed by a man, Kmiec, he gets space in the Los Angeles Times.

Most disturbingly, none a single one of these women has been mentioned by Professor Kmiec as an inspiration for his idea. Nor has he explained why his proposal is different from these women. A legal scholar should know better.

So, to sum it up the Kmiec solution is anti-Catholic, communist, discriminatory and unoriginal.

The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization!

2009-06-05T14:33:00.001-07:00

Not Islam. Which tried to destroy Western Civilization including grapes!

But according to the President of the United States in Cairo, our country, which is "not a Christian country" according to Obama, owes much of its success to Islam. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/05/obama’s-christian-muslim-double-standard-our-first-dhimmi-president/

A quick and brilliant breakdown of this foolishness from Rush Limbaugh:

"OBAMA: As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it could be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy, and places of peaceful contemplation -- and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

RUSH: Okay. I know we're not supposed to criticize Obama's speech here. I know it's going way off the reservation here to do this. But, folks, that is outrageous. This is simply outrageous. It was absurd, in fact. Let's see. Where do we start here? "It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra." No. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. They were not Muslims. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. "Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation," Islam gave us these? No. "Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans, but if they didn't do it, the Chinese are then its discoverers. In either case, be it the Chinese or the Central Americans, the compass was discovered centuries before the advent of Islam."

Now, what am I supposed to say? I'm not supposed to say this stuff. Now, let's see, let's see. "Our mastery of pens and printing..." Has anybody ever heard of Gutenberg? I didn't know Gutenberg was a Muslim. "Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed..."? Are there Nobel Prizes for Medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed? "Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires..." Well, sorry, folks, but arches and spires predate the arrival of Islam by centuries. I mean, come on, folks. Arches? Anybody heard of Rome? He also talked about the great gift, "timeless poetry and cherished music." The only problem there is that music -- and musical instruments especially -- are forbidden in most Islamic traditions. And it should be unnecessary to have to note Islam's "religious tolerance" has been demonstrated. Okay, I'm... Take it away." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060409/content/01125108.guest.html

The learning of the ancient world was kept by the Church in her monasteries and the Renaissance was funded and inspired by the Church in Rome, hence the Italian title for this movement in human learning. Please check out Thomas E. Woods' book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" for a good review of the true protector and builder of Western Civilization, the Catholic Church and Her Spouse, Christ! http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244237951&sr=8-1

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

2009-05-21T09:47:00.001-07:00

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.

To All The Mark Shea's Out There

2009-05-20T08:57:00.000-07:00

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.

America and Sweden, Partners in Promoting Gender Based Violence

2009-05-12T11:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Kmiec Woe to You!

2009-05-11T13:25:00.001-07:00

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).

The Sanctity of Human Life Act

2009-05-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-07T21:07:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-05-07T14:51:00.000-07:00

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.

A Friend of the Church?

2009-05-04T14:16:00.000-07:00

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!

BREAKING: Justice Souter to Retire!

2009-05-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

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?

The Real Torture President

2009-04-30T07:34:00.000-07:00

I agree with those who say it is time for a Nuremberg type truth finding tribunal on the torture question.

But what is the torture question? In particular I am interested in discovering those individuals who have made the legal justifications for a policy which allows the dismemberment and torture of innocent civilians for the material comfort and protection of Americans at home and others abroad.

Let me read to you one of the procedures that has been legally justified by government attorneys as well as their allies in Congress, the media and in academia:

"The primary form of abortion used at or after 16 weeks’ gestation is known as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E.” 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1103, 1129 (Neb. 1998). When performed during that stage of pregnancy, the D&E procedure requires the physician to dilate the woman’s cervix and then extract the fetus from her uterus with forceps. Id., at 1103; App. 490 (American Medical Association (AMA), Report of the Board of Trustees on Late-Term Abortion). Because of the fetus’ size at this stage, the physician generally removes the fetus by dismembering the fetus one piece at a time.3 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1103—1104. The doctor grabs a fetal extremity, such as an arm or a leg, with forceps and “pulls it through the cervical os … tearing … fetal parts from the fetal body … by means of traction.” Id., at 1104. See App. 55 (testimony of Dr. Carhart). In other words, the physician will grasp the fetal parts and “basically tear off pieces of the fetus and pull them out.” Id., at 267 (testimony of Dr. Stubblefield). See also id., at 149 (testimony of Dr. Hodgson) (“[Y]ou grasp the fetal parts, and you often don’t know what they are, and you try to pull it down, and its … simply all there is to it”). The fetus will die from blood loss, either because the physician has separated the umbilical cord prior to beginning the procedure or because the fetus loses blood as its limbs are removed. Id., at 62—64 (testimony of Dr. Carhart); id., at 151 (testimony of Dr. Hodgson)." Stenberg v. Carhart (Thomas, J., dissenting).

The dismembering of a child is not illegal in this country. The partial-birth abortion ban did not eliminate it. Partial-birth abortion involves carving out a baby's brain with scissors. But back to the above torture method.

The dismembering of innocent people to kill them is torture. Under any international law regime, I'm sure we can agree on that. Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, states that: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

But on the same day that President Obama announced waterboarding is torture, he stated that he was in favor of removing all restrictions to abortion through the Freedom of Choice Act, even if it was "not highest legislative priority." In other words, he has promised to sign FOCA, but it is not at the very top of his agenda. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1P9NpsaoSA1i90w91eoA3oXq1OwD97SGVI00

FOCA would spread child torture. As President, Obama has already rescinded the Mexcio City Policy, which has authorized funding of international child dismemberment and torture. I want to have the names and memoranda of the people who justified this. President Obama has also nominated, Dawn Johnsen as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the White House. Dawn Johnsen has crafted the legal justification for child dismemberment and torture by comparing pregnancy to slavery. http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzcyODUwNjAwNzg3YTYyZjBiOWU3ZTQwZmYzOGIwOGQ=

Additionally, President Obama's Secretary of State has expressly stated that she intends to spread Margaret Sanger's vision abroad. This includes child dismemberment and torture as well. I want all legal memoranda and persons who gave Mrs. Clinton the legal justification for this as well. http://www.sba-list.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ddJBKJNsFqG&b=4149803&ct=6866179

I also want any name of any person who legally justified the President allowing funding of UNFPA which forcibly tortures and dismembers children without even the consent of the mothers in China. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040114.html. What torturers might refer to as a twofer.

I also want Senator Patrick Leahy and his staff to be included in the Nuremberg-type inquiry. This Catholic United States Senator voted against reinstituting the Mexico City Policy, to prevent child dismemberment, but is calling for a truth commission to investigate the forcible pouring of water over three terrorists' heads. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00019, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200903/030409a.html, http://www.lifenews.com/nat4965.html.

We need to see the memos that helped Senator Leahy justify funding child dismemberment and the elimination of conscience protection for doctors so that they will be forced to participate in child dismemberment and torture.

We also need to investigate those outside of government who have produced legal and moral opinions justifying child dismemberment. For example, on October 17, 2008, Dr. Douglas Kmiec, who has called for a Nuremberg style inquiry of Judge Bybee, stated the following legal justification for child dismemberment and child torture: "Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,163397.story , http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-torture-lawyersapr23,0,3839563.story. In other words, we need a legal space for child torture. We need an inquiry of all academics who have produced legal and moral opinions of this sort to justify child dismemberment and torture.

So you see now, who the real torture president is: President Barack Obama. He appoints those who promote, he argues for and he funds child torture. More than that, he is implementing regulations that will require doctors to betray their calling to heal by forcing them to torture children. Not only that, but many Catholics are using the Faith in a blasphemous way to justify this horrendous torture policy. Additionally, to add to the injustice, these same engineers of a legal system which tortures 42,000,000 innocent children worldwide every year are calling for the prosecution of an administration that approved the waterboarding of 3 guilty terrorists but who dared to speak out against child torture. They want you to be distracted by these "torture memos."

I will not keep my eye off the ball. And neither should you. The real torturers need to be stopped. The child torturer President Obama is receiving an honorary award from a Catholic University named after the world's best Mother. This is a disgrace. I would take a moral lecture from King George III more seriously than from President Obama.

President Obama has no credibility on the torture question, because he is the most powerful supporter of child torture in the world and he is using his influence at home and abroad to spread it. Let us not act otherwise and be fooled into labeling anyone else the "torture president" that title belongs to the man currently occupying the White House.

UPDATE

Obama/Clinton adding further evidence to be used against them at the future international human rights tribunal: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1134/pub_detail.asp

NEW UPDATE

I've been officially blocked from commenting on Mark Shea's blog after I criticized him referring to those who justified torture of evil doers for the defense of others as "moral idiots" by pointing out that would mean St. Thomas Aquinas is a moral idiot. Additionally, he singled out Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., a contributor to This Rock magazine, which is produced by Catholic Answers an apostolate that Mark Shea advertises and comments on. http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/05/rhetorical-creep.html

Mark Shea's tone has gotten so bad that The Anchoress has stated that she is unsure if she can read his blog anymore. (see the above website's combox).

Plus, I pointed out that perhaps he should focus on the mote in his own eye considering he contravened the Catechism by implying that not voting in the presidential election was a valid choice: "2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country." (emphasis added).
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#2261908891378464539 , http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/09/unfair-to-mark-shea.html.

I think this last point I made is what got me blocked from commenting on Mr. Shea's blog. But that is pure speculation, I'd be interested to here why I got blocked.

Mark, if you are reading this, I'm praying for the both of us. But I am really worried about the ugly name calling that you have consistently engaged in on this issue. It is not good.

MOST RECENT UPDATE

As far as I know, I'm still blocked but at least Mark, to his credit has apologized for the "moral idiot" name calling. http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/05/mea-culpa.html. I still think he needs to recognize that the ideas espoused by those who do not agree with him are well considered and not idiotic in light of those Doctors of the Church who disagree with him.

Oversimplification of the Torture Debate

2009-04-28T07:45:00.000-07:00

Too many have been quick to judge our soldiers and civil servants who authorized and implemented enhanced interrogation techniques.

Now I must admit, I have not read the complete report or the memos. But from the information in the above link, I think many are being quick to judge. After all, something that everyone finds so obviously torture and immoral is not so quickly dismissed by gifted and saintly minds.

For example, St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church, argued that death and other punishments were moral responses to unjust aggression: "Our proposition is proved, fourthly, from reason. Granted that it is lawful for the State to protect its citizens from disturbers of its peace from within, by executing them with various forms of torture, then this is also lawful when there is no other possible way of defending those same citizens from external enemies; since, in order that the State may be preserved, it is necessary that all enemies, internal as well as external, may by kept off. And since this is the law of nature it is incredible that it should be set aside by the Gospel." St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, Ch. 14.

Indeed, the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas, held that it was lawful for the public authority to maim guilty individuals: "Hence just as by public authority a person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain lesser sins." Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 65, Article I. Call it a wild guess, but I think he would condone the waterboarding of evildoers.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contradict the beliefs of these Doctors of the Universal Church: "2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

Notice two points in the above passage.

First, the prohibition does not prohibit torture for the purpose of defense of others. The techniques used by our armed forces, which I am not sure are even torture, were implemented not to obtain a confession of guilt, to punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred. The interrogations were implemented to get actionable intelligence to prevent ongoing attacks, which those being interrogated had helped plan and put into place. In other words, the interrogations are a use of proportionate force against an unjust aggressor to repel an act of violence.

Second, if the use of intense tactics against evildoers was intrinsically immoral, then the additional prohibition on the intended amputation, mutilation and sterilization of "innocent persons" is superfluous. Indeed, the following entry in the Catechism supports the interpretation that the prohibition of torture against evildoers is conditional and prudential: "2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. "

The Church admonishes her pastors, calling their actions "regrettable," "[un]necessary for the public order," and not "in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person." The Catechism never states that the actions taken were intrinsically immoral and always wrong. Indeed, the human rights violated by torture are described not as inviolable, but as simply legitimate, i.e., worthy of recognition.

The discussion on torture is not an unequivocal as the Catechism's teaching on abortion and the value of innocent human life: "2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation."

The use of enhanced interrogation is in keeping with the Catholic teaching to avoid killing murderers if it is possible to stop their wrongdoing by lesser means. If we could not get information from those detained at Gitmo, we could not take the risk that they would continue to further their conspiracies to kill Americans with outside operatives. Therefore, without the ability to use these techniques, our government will be encouraged to either apply the death penalty or kill enemy combatants abroad rather than capture them for further interrogation:

CCC 2267 "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. . . . .'"

For some, like KSM who helped mastermind a second 9/11 on Los Angeles that he refused to help stop after he was captured, the waterboarding made him undo his evil plot and; therefore, the technique was an instrument of justice by undoing the disorder that KSM introduced into our society by his evil actions: CCC 2266 "The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

To those who spend more than five minutes condemning the men who used waterboarding and other enhanced techniques to keep us safe, I must say shame on you. You have taken the bait of an administration that has violated the most basic laws of Christ's Church and humanity.

There is a President in the White House, who in his first 100 days has contributed money to kill millions of innocent babies. He spent his career as a law professor teaching young attorneys that killing innocent babies was a positive moral good for the benefit of women. He used his power as a state legislator to help facilitate infanticide. He made a campaign promise in 2007 to Planned Parenthood to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would help murder more babies by removing all abortion restrictions. The fact that FOCA might have zero chance of passing is a non-sequitor. The fact that President Obama was willing to offer the death of innocents for political power is what is relevant. He has picked a Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton who has publically endorsed the racist, eugenic and murderous views of Margaret Sanger. More than that, Mrs. Clinton has stated that the Sanger Vision is the American Vision for women and children at home and abroad. He has picked a Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who accepted money from a late-term abortionist, George Tiller, and who vetoed pro-life legislation as governor of Kansas. President Obama has picked a nominee for head of the Office of Legal Council Dawn Johnsen who has justified abortion by comparing pregnancy to slavery! Not to mention the fact that President Obama has proposed rescinding essential conscience protections for doctors and nurses who do not want to kill babies. All the while, Catholic politicians like Senator Patrick Leahy have supported a "torture truth comission" while opposing legislative efforts to undo President Obama's rescinding of conscience protections and the Mexico City Policy. Even worse, many so called pro-lifers have gleefully joined the anti-waterboarding witchhunt bandwagon. But I say enough with the outrageous outrage! Where is the outrage where it is needed?

Where is the outrage! Where are the comparisons to Nazis for these people! Where are the calls for Nuremberg for Obama, Clinton, Sebelius, Johnsen, Pelosi, et al.? No, instead we have Catholics who argue for the appointment of Johnsen and Nuremberg for an federal judge, Judge Bybee, who gave his best legal opinion at to lawful methods of interrogation. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-torture-lawyersapr23,0,3839563.story; http://volokh.com/posts/1239717805.shtml.

We get others who compare the use of rough techniques on killers and thugs who plot to kill us to communist political repression. http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-would-jack-bauer-do.html. Moreover, they cite as moral authority individuals who support other grave evils in support of their claims, i.e., Andrew Sullivan.

No. You will have to forgive me. I will not jump on the bandwagon. I cannot stand the idea of whipping up the American public into a frenzy over the actions of some individuals who, in the exercise of their public duties, might have gone too far in protecting us from evildoers. Not for three terrorist who were waterboarded. Not for 3,000 or even a million terrorists. Not while that effort is support and led by a group of pundits, politicians and an administration that supports, funds and implements a national and international system of laws that continues to kill 50 million innocent babies a year worldwide by surgical abortions and only God knows how many more countless innocents through abortifacents and embryonic stem cell research.

So while some have argued that the current "torture" debate has illustrated the "mental murder" of "rightwingers" and the Republican Party. I think that the current outrage over this waterboarding issue, in light of the most grave evils being performed right now by the present administration, shows how the current debate on torture has made many prone to oversimplification of the moral questions posed.

Our law must protect the innocent. This is a clear imperative from God, Himself. Those who violate this known law, like the Nazis, were not allowed to hide under the protection of positivism. And neither should the current administration: CCC 2273 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

When I start hearing calls for a Nuremberg for President Obama, then I'll start to take those of you with selective outrage seriously. Until then, you can count me out!

UPDATE

For further reflection please read a well thought out article at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0612fea4.asp by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., "a professor at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico. He is a prolific writer on matters of liturgy and canon law." Id.

NEW UPDATE

In a previously unpublished St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on Romans 13, he interpreted it thus: "From this it is clear that it is not only lawful but meritorious for rulers to execute vengeance on the wicked, when it is done out of zeal for justice." St. Thomas Aquinas, Letter to the Romans Commentary at 512, available at http://vivificat1.blogspot.com/2009/02/st-thomas-aquinas-biblical-commentaries.html. (emphasis added).

Is Government Provided "Universal Health Care" Catholic?

2009-04-25T10:41:00.000-07:00

A favorite argument we hear from supporters of President Obama is that President Obama is very "Catholic" in his social policy, despite some "minor disagreements" over whether killing innocent babies is good for women or evil murders.

But is this true? Is Government created and managed "universal health care" Catholic?

Not according to Bishop Sheen: "They [the socialists and totalitarians] are saying what is important only is social health not personal health. That is not true. Social health is conditioned only upon individual health. And if a doctor would leave any patient simply because he could not pay for his care or because he was apparently incurable or for any other reason in order to serve the abstract claims of society he would be selling the pass."

Indeed, Bishop Sheen reminds us that personal, not socialized health care is one of the bulwarks of human freedom and democracy: "He [St. Luke] meant that those who are preaching the word of God and those that are caring for bodies are about the only professions now that are left in the world that care for persons. This is how democracy survives by recognizing the worth of personalities and may these two professions always be comrades in arms marching together for he health of soul and body of persons."

Therefore, socialized medicine as offered by President Obama is anti-Catholic, anti-democracy and anti-human. But what more can you expect from a man who is willing to pay for the murder of innocent children at home and abroad?

If Catholics want to do more to help give health care to the poor, give more of your time and money to Catholic hospitals and organizations, like the Knights of Malta, who have dedicated themselves to access to health care. Let us not give more money and power to a government that does not value personality or human life as intrinsic goods. Our democracy depends on it.

Stirring the Pot, Food for Thought

2009-04-22T14:49:00.000-07:00

"Our proposition is proved, fourthly, from reason. Granted that it is lawful for the State to protect its citizens from disturbers of its peace from within, by executing them with various forms of torture, then this is also lawful when there is no other possible way of defending those same citizens from external enemies; since, in order that the State may be preserved, it is necessary that all enemies, internal as well as external, may by kept off. And since this is the law of nature it is incredible that it should be set aside by the Gospel." St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church, De Laicis, Ch. 14.

Bishop D'Arcy to Fr. Jenkins: The Bishop is the Shepard of His Flock!

2009-04-22T13:16:00.001-07:00

American Papist has some great commentary on the news that Bishop D'Arcy has published a response to Fr. Jenkins's recent defense of his decision to invite President Obama to Notre Dame despite the Bishop's judgement against the invitation.

http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html

Fr. Jenkins attempted to argue that the canon lawyers he consulted said his decision was in full conformity with "Catholics in Political Life," USCCB. But Bishop D'Arcy rightfully points out that conformity with Catholics in Political Life" is to be determined by the bishop of the diocese, i.e. Bishop D'Arcy. http://www.diocesefwsb.org/COMMUNICATIONS/statements.htm

This is a great day! Bishop D'Arcy has done a wonderful thing for his diocese and for the Church as a whole in reminding us that it is the bishop, no matter how imperfect, that stands in the shoes of Christ when it comes to the governance of His sheep, not universities, professors, theologians, canon lawyers or the laity.

We have been given a similar warning from St. Ignatius of Antioch, 50 A.D.-117 A.D., in his Epistle to the Ephesians: "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. " Id. at Chapter 5.

Moreover, we are taught to flee instruction from those who practice things unworthy of God, for example funding and supporting abortion: "For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible— even Jesus Christ our Lord." Id. at Chapter 7.

And who can be said to be "practising things unworthy of God"? Those who endorse abortion and those, who in defiance of the bishops, give these people intellectual cover and praise. We should no more deny the teaching authority of a bishop by dismissing it as partisan, than we would accuse Christ of being a Republican partisan because we disagree with His teaching: "It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. " Id. at Chapter 6. Therefore, how can anyone, who is Catholic justify giving a platform, an honor and listen to President Barack Obama at Notre Dame as someone who is entitled to give instruction. Especially, when this is done in defiance of Bishop D'Arcy.

The short answer is you cannot.

P.S. St. Ignatius of Antioch's Epistles can be found at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Pet Peeve: Quoting a Fictional More

2009-04-19T08:50:00.000-07:00

I recently watched the Dr. Doug Kmiec and Dr. Hadley Arkes debate that happened a month ago at Villanova. One of the debaters, Dr. Kmiec, engaged in one of my most disliked pet peeves; quoting the fictional St. Thomas More.

I really enjoy the movie a Man for All Seasons, as well as the play, but there is a problem with it; it is not real. The acting and characterization are excellent but St. Thomas More did not actually say many of the statements in the movie. In fact, the movie and play was written by Robert Bolt, a man more interested in holding St. Thomas More up as an example of the upholding of modern, not Catholic, conception of the individual conscience.

What is great about the movie is that it explores the characters in a dramatic and human way that helps us imagine what life must have been like for St. Thomas More and the intense pressure he was under to betray Christ and his great courage in defending Our Lord.

But the movie is not reality. Please do not cite it as authority as to what St. Thomas More would say.

Turning back to the initial example; Dr. Kmiec quoted fictional More's statement to his family that he would not arrest Richard Rich for "being a bad man." Dr. Kmiec used this quote to highlight the fact that we should not shun other "bad men" like President Obama but should engage and cooperate with them.

This is a terrible injustice to the legacy of St. Thomas More, who was most upright in enforcing the law of men and God. You see, St. Thomas More informed by his Catholic conscience would know that abortion is murder. He would punish those guilty of abortion as committing a crime. Indeed, he took great pride in his defense of the faith, including punishing heretics with the force of law. Does this sound like a man who would just let the current administration's endorsement and funding of abortion as a good just slide? St. Thomas More stood against the King of England, a.k.a. the sovereign of England, and willingly lost his head for Christian Marriage and papal authority.

What do you think he would do against a mere elected official, with limited Constitutional powers, a.k.a. not a sovereign, who was endorsing murder of the innocent? At the very least he would not have helped him get elected. So much for the fictional More.

As a response to this terrible misuse of St. Thomas More's and my name, I plan on having a weekly or bi-weekly quote from the real St. Thomas More to help people guide their consciences during these difficult times when President Obama has begun assaulting the innocent child in the womb and the consciences of doctors and nurses who do not want to participate in their murder.

Link for the Debate: http://www.moralaccountability.com/mission/arkes-kmiec-debate/

Note to Obama: Who Ever Denies Me Before Others I Will Deny Before My Heavenly Father

2009-04-17T08:56:00.000-07:00

Some quick food for thought:

Jesus made clear that if we deny His Name before others that we would have no inheritance with Him in heaven: "Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father. " Matthew 10:32-33.

Unfortunately, it looks like the President is asking for trouble on this front by asking that Jesus's Name be covered up while he gave a speech at Georgetown University: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667

But what should we expect. After all, we wouldn't want Jesus to get in the way of the President's economic agenda or inspire us to be "divisive" by preventing us from going along with the President's anti-life agenda.

Georgetown should be ashamed of itself.

Welcome to the New Tone!

2009-04-14T20:52:00.000-07:00

Remember Last Year: "What Obama said was that Pennsylvania's small town voters are bitter about losing jobs and that to explain their frustrations, they 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.'" (Might it not be possible that people "cling" to religion because they love Christ, rather than because of poor economic circumstances?) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89604711

After making that statement President Obama apologized and stated that he misspoke: "Obama said Saturday that he deeply regretted if the way in which he worded his statement had offended people." Id. (note that he did not apologize for his belief but for how he said it).

A year later, President Obama adds this follow up: Dddddddid I stutter?!

From a new Department of Homeland Security Document on "Rightwing Extremism" (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803):

First, let's establish that there are bitter people out there:

"rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." DHS at 2 (bitter about losing jobs).

Second, clinging to their guns and religion:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States . . . may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion . . . ." DHS at 2 (religion).

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement." DHS at 3 (guns & legal purchasing).

Congratulations to all those Americans (including Blue Dog Democrats!) who are anti-abortion and pro-legal gun purchasing, you are all possible rightwing extremists. You earned this label without ONE citation to a researched fact!

Welcome to the new tone. I cannot believe that Notre Dame University is helping to usher in this new tone and is honoring it with a degree. Why does anyone think this man and administration are interested in honest dialogue?

P.S. If this does not qualify as rash judgment or calumny I don't know what does!

CCC 2477 "Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.[277] He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; . . . ;[278] - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them."

CCC 2479 "Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. "

P.P.S. With respect to encouraging President Obama with an honorary degree:

"CCC 2480 Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages."

He Is Risen!

2009-04-12T11:06:00.000-07:00

Apparently us Catholics are in some pretty desperate need of this affirmation, considering that according to recent polling 15% of us are unaware of this fact!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

"Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again. For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. And if Christ be not risen again your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep. For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:12-22.

UPDATE

"The Holy Father affirmed that the Resurrection 'is not a theory, but a historical reality': 'It is neither a myth nor a dream, it is not a vision or a utopia, it is not a fairy tale, but it is a singular and unrepeatable event: Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, who at dusk on Friday was taken down from the Cross and buried, has victoriously left the tomb.'"

http://www.zenit.org/article-25647?l=english

Can You Drink Death Like Water?

2009-04-10T10:36:00.000-07:00

I'm taking the rest of the Triduum for my own reflections on the death and resurrection of our Lord, but I thought it appropriate to leave this reflection from Bishop Sheen's "Life of Christ" which I highly recommend:

"But He will not allow us to pick and choose His words, discarding the hard ones, and accepting the ones that please our fancy. We need a Christ Who will restore moral indignation, Who will make us hate evil with a passionate intensity, and love goodness to a point where we can drink death like water."

Have a Blessed Good Friday and Easter!

Are You Jesus's Friend?

2009-04-05T23:02:00.001-07:00

"I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father." John 15:15.

I was thinking about this verse this Lenten season. Am I Jesus's friend? He wants us to be his friends but too many times, especially in Western Society, we confuse Jesus's desire for friendship with our syrupy definition of being friendly.

I think this is how we end up with pro-choice Catholics who present themselves for communion and claim partisanship on the part of those who want enforcement of Canon 915. These friendly types think: "Hey, Jesus said He wants to be my friend, so I should be able to share communion with all His friends and everyone who want me disinvited is against Jesus's friendliness."

But is this true? Cicero reminds us that: "Now friendship may be thus defined: a complete accord on all subjects human and divine, joined with mutual goodwill and affection." Cicero, On Friendship, Paragraph 17.

Can those who are pro-choice Catholic's truly say that are on complete accord with Jesus the Lord, "on all subjects human and divine" when they reject his teaching on the sacredness of human life from conception until natural death that is found in His Church? I think not.

Indeed, can anyone who hold Catholic teaching call any pro-choice person his friend and Jesus his friend at the same time? The answer is no. Which is why the invitation to honor President Obama at Notre Dame is a disgrace. The current President is no friend of Jesus because Obama is not in accord with Christ on Life. Indeed, President Obama is hostile to Christ's teaching on life.

At this point some may object: But President Obama says he is a Christian and wants to have middle ground by reducing abortions. I respond that first of all, wanting to reduce abortions should never be discussed in terms of "middle ground," not wanting babies to be killed is the minimal amount of decency we should expect in society. Second, I would like to offer a warning from Scripture on false friendship:

"Every friend declares his friendship, but there are friends who are friends in name only. Is it not a sorrow unto death when your bosom companion becomes your enemy? "Alas, my companion! Why were you created to blanket the earth with deceit?" A false friend will share your joys, but in time of trouble he stands afar off. A true friend will fight with you against the foe, against your enemies he will be your shield-bearer. Forget not your comrade during the battle, and neglect him not when you distribute your spoils."

Despite President Obama's declaration of friendship he does not stand with us against the foe of Life and human dignity. He subsidizes the foes of human dignity, by paying for abortions and embryonic destruction and attacking human conscience.

We cannot be friends with Obama and friends with Christ, we must choose, one or the other. However, does this mean we must despise Obama? No! Christ teaches us that we must love our enemies as our neighbors, but that doesn't mean our enemies are our friends.

We must defeat the President and his followers at every turn, we must pray for their conversion, we must preach the Gospel to them both in season and out and finally we must find a way to work with them when we must to advance our goals and never advance theirs.

However, we must never honor our enemies and those who act as enemies of Christ, with honorary degrees or otherwise.

How must we proceed? Might I humbly suggest a reflection for each of us as we begin the journey of taking our country back for God:

"Most important of all, pray to God to set your feet in the path of truth." Sirach 37:15.

A Call to Arms to My Fellow Jurists: Adopt the Natural Law!

2009-04-03T18:09:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago there was quite a bit of controversy created by certain legal minds regarding the Pope’s statement that jurists must do all that is possible to legally protect human life. There was much handwringing about whether the Pope was asking something radical and new of jurists, but there was very little offered in terms of practical steps we jurists could do to adopt this instruction. I humbly offer the following solution: Adopt the Natural Law!

Too many of our fellow soldiers in the culture wars have bought into the idea that adopting the natural law as an interpretive framework for our legal system would be hypocritical in light of our complaints of the so-called Living Constitution theory. Moreover, they fear that once the natural law is expressly adopted by jurists that it will merely become a tool of activism, to be manipulated by the vast number of secular liberals that graduate from our many venerable legal institutions.

To my fellow jurists who make these complaints I respond: The natural law is not our enemy. The natural law must not be feared. The natural law is the basis for our democratic institutions. The fundamental concepts of the natural law are that we are made in the image and likeness of God, that we have an obligation to pursue truth and that as a consequence of these two facts we owe certain obligations to ourselves and others which are understandable to our reason.

These points reflect the same legal principles cited in the Declaration of Independence that were used to justify our right to legal independence from Britain:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In other words, the Founders expressly stated that the legal and interpretative frame work that they instituted this government under was natural law and natural rights. To ignore this fact, is to ignore the very foundation of our country, God. Furthermore, it ignores history and our nation’s laws.

The natural law would not be a weapon of secular liberalism. Can any of my fellow jurists name one serious liberal legal scholar who utilizes the natural law to advance his ideology? Indeed, the recent case of Dr. Doug Kmiec highlights the fact that the adoption of natural law is mutually exclusive to the advancement of liberal ideology. As he has made his now infamous decline into a legal theory which has embraced the legal legitimacy of abortion and the elimination of legal marriage, based solely on a fictitious democratic pluralism, he has distanced himself completely from the natural law.

Can you please point me to a legal philosophy that has a more ancient, better analyzed, better tested history and a more universal origin than the natural law? I would say that the newfangled legal theory of positivism relied upon by many “conservative” jurists is far less tested and provides absolutely no protection against authoritarianism, either in the form of totalitarianism or imposed by the multitude under the form of a false democracy.

Can you show me a legal theory that has found greater favor with the Church and Her saints and scholars?

Can you show me a legal theory of interpretation other than the natural law that appears as a fundamental legal principle in any founding document of the United States?

Without reliance on the natural law as a fundamental principle of legal interpretation and governance, we are left with an unconvincing and hollow call to arms to our fellow Americans, lamely requesting such abstractions as "limited Government," etc. Without a clear moral basis and philosophy rooted in the natural law such statements are perceived to be more selfish and heartless in origin than the liberal desire to expand government to "help" our fellow man.

The left, without any moral authority, due to their self-expressed “above my pay-grade” relativism, uses the language of right and wrong. This language of morality is what the American electorate is hungry for. We will can gain no traction by discussing solely policy with them. We must also use the language of morality and we have the authority to use it because we do rely on the natural law and the belief that there is an objective moral order found in that natural law to which all men must adhere.

It is the adoption of the natural law then that will satisfy the desire of so many of our American jurists, to stay true to America’s laws, her people and her founding principles while at the same time God, His Church and the least of these, the unborn. If we, Catholic and American jurists, adopt the natural law, this will be our strength, that our motto will be that of our country’s, “In God We Trust.”

President Obama at Notre Dame University: Source of Dialogue or a Moral Arsonist?

2009-04-02T18:42:00.000-07:00

We have been informed by the Notre Dame University administration and President Obama’s press office, that President Obama was selected as a speaker to encourage dialogue. With all due respect, this reason does not hold up to scrutiny.

The primary purpose of dialogue is for the parties to inform one another in truth as to the truth to aid in the formation of conscience. As Catholic’s we are obliged to inform our conscience and the conscience of others with and in the truth:

“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” CCC 1783 (emphases added).

In addition to informing our conscience and that of others we are obliged to recognize that “charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: ‘Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.’ Therefore ‘it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.’” CCC 1789.

In other words, dialogue with an individual requires that both parties: (1) wish to inform one another’s consciences in truth; and (2) respect each other’s conscience.

It is for these two reasons that great violence is done to the English vocabulary when one refers to Notre Dame University’s invitation to President Obama to speak and be honored with a degree as dialogue.

First, President Obama does not act as one who believes in informing conscience in truth through dialogue. Indeed, in a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood he expressed his desire to “turn the page" on the abortion discussion. President Obama has already informed us of his goals: “On this fundamental issue [abortion], I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” Moreover, the President of the United States has described the issue of when the human rights of a baby begins as being “above my pay grade.” Yet despite admitting ignorance of when a child is entitled to human rights he then proceeded to take actions which subsidize the death of little children by rescinding the Mexico City Policy and ordering the funding of experimentation which requires the direct killing of embryonic human beings. On top of all of that, he has picked a Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who recently stated while receiving the Margaret Sanger Award, that one of the primary goals of United State's foreign policy is going to be the spread of Margaret Sanger’s vision, which is racist, apocalyptic and murderous. Lastly, he has stated that to him a sin is an action that does not conform to his values. Does that sound like someone who is open to dialoguing in truth to you?

Second, it has recently been reported that President Obama is going to eliminate all conscience protection for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who do not wish to participate in abortion. I cannot help but appreciate the irony of President Obama’s Catholic supporters who cast those of us who object to his being honored by Notre Dame as intolerant in the name of tolerance and democratic pluralism, while supporting a man who makes war on the conscience of our brethren doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Turning back to the Catechism, when we wound a man’s conscience we “sin against Christ.” What then can be said of a man who has taken action to not only wound a man’s conscience, but to obliterate it and subject it to his own will and public policy? Is this not war against Christ? Is this not a grave crime against charity?

This reminds me of a story by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen regarding communism. He described a city block that contained four houses. The first three lived in harmony and tolerance. The first neighbor wished to heat his house with coal, the second wished to heat his house with wood and the third wished to heat his house with gas. Among these three there could be dialogue and compromise. Then a fourth neighbor, preaching tolerance and compromise, moved into the fourth house, he was an arsonist and wished to heat his home by burning the other three. Bishop Sheen’s point was simple, it is impossible to compromise with the arsonist!

As much as it pains me to say it, the current President of the United States is a moral arsonist. As we spin our wheels arguing back and forth with his Catholic agents regarding tolerance he is burning down the house of conscience to the ground, he is burning the house of life to the ground and by continuing to encourage and pick wayward Catholics like Kathleen Sebelius for powerful positions, he is burning the moral and teaching authority of Christ’s Church and Her Bishops to the ground.
We should be tolerant of this man, but not of his opinions. Might I offer a parting suggestion to the President of Notre Dame? Instead of letting President Obama speak, speak to him, perform the spiritual act of mercy of admonishing the sinner, instructing the ignorant and counseling the doubtful. Instead of handing him an honorary award hand him a Catechism of the Catholic Church and a Baltimore Catechism.

Oh, at last but not least, tell him that if our Holy Martyrs were willing to be fed to lions not to light incense before the image of the Emperor of Rome, he’s got another think coming if he thinks we going to take the next four years lying down or that he is going to get any honor from us if he does not change his ways.

Right of Conscience: Take a Stand!

2009-04-01T21:22:00.000-07:00

President Obama has declared war on the human conscience. However, you need not take this lying down. Like St. Thomas More you can register your defense of the human conscience in the annals of history and let the President know that you oppose his abuse of human rights by going to the following website: http://www.adoctorsright.com/

Where Is the Fire?

2009-04-01T20:55:00.000-07:00

To my fellow Americans and Catholics. This is my first post. The title of my blog is a reference to a talk given by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen when expounding on the lack of passion in Western Society in the face of Communist passion.

My goal at this blog is to answer the call of Bishop Sheen implied in the question, to bring the fire, the pentecostal fire we receive through the Church to our society and the world.

Thomas More is my confirmation name, when I was sealed with the pentecostal fire of the Holy Spirit, and I plan on using it as my posting name. St. Thomas More was a patriot with the fire and I place this blog under his protection and patronage and I ask this in the name of Christ, our Lord.

I hope that you enjoy and that we can help each other grow in holiness and spread the fire.