You Know, Hitler Was Pretty Good on the Environment

Tuesday, February 2, AD 2016

a5d67ecc34cdf373877a2b08b0436d44

 

 

Over at National Catholic Register Mark Shea carries water for socialist pro-abort Bernie Sanders:

 

Sanders?  The pro-abort?  But, but! Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2004:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Yes. He certainly did. And he’s absolutely right. And if my reader were in any way indicating he supported Sanders because he supports abortion, he’d be in exactly the pickle Cardinal Ratzinger describes. But my reader is obviously not trying to support abortion. What he’s trying to do is support the other things Sanders advocates, many of which are obviously and immeasurably better than what Trump advocates. And in a contest with a GOP candidate such as Trump whose views on abortion are indistinguishable from Sanders, there is therefore a case to be made that my reader can do so without incurring any sin at all.

Sez who? Sez Cardinal Ratzinger in the same letter:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

In other words, if you vote for somebody who advocates grave evil (abortion, euthanasia, torture, etc.) because of the grave evil they advocate, you are guilty of advocating the grave evil yourself and therefore are unworthy to present yourself for communion.

But! If you vote for somebody, not because you support their advocacy of grave evil, but because you are trying to prevent an even graver evil, or because you think there is some proportional good supporting them will achieve, you are not committing a sin and are only offering remote material cooperation with evil. Bottom line, the Church says that you can, under certain circumstances, vote for a pro-abort candidate. Meaning it is on the cards that, under certain circumstances, my reader might be able to vote for Bernie Sanders. That’s not me talking, remember. That’s the future Benedict XVI talking.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to You Know, Hitler Was Pretty Good on the Environment

  • Does seem inconsistent to say the least…. but to break his stance of purity for Bernie?!?! Richard Rich at least got Wales.

  • Mark Shea is clearly in need of prayers. It’s been said that the more influential a person becomes, the harder the devil tries to corrupt him. Reading his recent work, I fear for his soul.

  • The Register published this trash!? I hope the NCR and Shea’s comment section is flooded with demands for his removal!

  • Ironic from the guy who yelled “consequentialism!” every time it was suggested in the torture debates that it might be a just and proportional thing to inflict some pain on a terrorist who knows where the ticking bomb is hidden. Now he discovers that mirabile dictu!– the Church does in fact condone the use of reason and making judgments about proportionality when faced with imperfect moral choices.

    It’s a sign of his pride and insecurity that he can only admit this principle when it suits his urges, in this case, his urge to support a candidate who embraces not just every social immorality, but also the evil of socialism which has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. I can’t think of a candidate *less* worthy of a Catholic vote than Sanders. Even Hilary is not as unabashedly anti-property and openly socialist.

  • In the NCR article Mark Shea is quoted, “… as well as the preposterous nomination of pro-abort Harriet Miers …”. Now I was no fan of that nomination and there were concerns that she didn’t have much of a track record on Roe vs. Wade or most other legal issues. However, I have never seen any indication that she was pro-abortion and quite a few suggestions that she was actually anti-abortion. This is disgraceful. He is falling for the typical liberal fallacy, A is bad, person B believes things that I don’t like, so therefore B must believe A.

    I think the biggest problem is that Shea seems to understand politics less than any commentator, left or right, who regularly comments on it.

  • Hardly surprising. The Shea of today would have fit right in writing for the Vox Nova of 8 years ago. He’s distinguishable from Morning’s Minion et al only in being slightly less overtly partisan, but even that appears to be changing. Say hello to the new guard at the “Debate Club at Auschwitz”.
    ***
    The people commenting on his blog and /or his Facebook page in days gone by would have been a who’s who of orthodox Catholics from around St. Blog’s and elsewhere. Today, those venues are filled with a veritable freak show of hard left Catholics whose views are more in line with the DNC platform than the Catechism and with an amen corner of malleable Catholic sycophants who can’t think for themselves without having Shea tell them how to do it.

  • Is Bernie saying that PP only murders male unborn babies?

  • It seems Shea’s clinging to the term “conservative” exists for one reason and one reason only; to convince those who love the Lord Jesus and the teachings of the Church that they should sit still and quiet while he promotes unrestrained progressivism.

  • Ironic from the guy who yelled “consequentialism!” every time…

    Thanks, Tom. I prepared and deleted about 3 possible comments of the same thing and you up and expressed better what I was trying to articulate.

    So, amen!

  • Why are you even dignifying anything written by Mark Shea?

    He is a rabid dog. You are best not going near him.

  • RodH: DING, DING, DING we have a winner.

    I’ve been saying it for years: Shea simply uses his supposedly orthodox Catholicism to give cover to his rabid progressivism. And in the process, leading many gullible Catholics astray. Something is terrible wrong at EWTN and its newspaper the NCRegister, that they continue to allow this man a voice. Mother Angelica would have given him a good old-fashioned tongue-lashing, and sent him packing a long time ago.

  • Steve D: I agree with you about the Register. In general, really, and not just about Shea. The more I read the slant given by the writers, the more I wonder if they are trying to make it a Reporter and not a Register…

  • “The Register published this trash!? I hope the NCR and Shea’s comment section is flooded with demands for his removal!”

    Stephen, I wrote to Dan Burke, who was then and may stiil be, the head publisher at the Register about Shea. I got no response.

  • The title says it all.

  • There is no substantive difference between a national socialist of the German Reich and a democrat socialist of the American left. Elect a Bernie Sanders and open persecution of the Church will begin.
    .
    As for Mark Shea, liberalism is a mental defect or disease.

  • Thanks for the head up on Shea and the NCR. I will unsubcibe to both of them

  • Apparently, Mark-who? stopped taking his meds years ago.

  • Voting For Democrats Hitler -Berlin: 1938
    Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
    You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.
    If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen. If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice – you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess. We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away most of the evidence of the dead bodies, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that foreign workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.
    Also, you can vote for any member of the Nazi party, some of whose soldiers wear the Death’s Head Symbols, especially those Nazis who say they do not support the intrinsic evils of death and of racism that the Party has espoused for years and has made a reality here. You will know who they are if they say things like: “Yes, The Nazi Party has done and will continue to do these atrocities, but I am personally opposed to such atrocities;” or “I am personally opposed to gassing Jews so vote for me;” “It is their right to choose to kill Jewish babies, but this is against my personal conscience;” “I can keep my personal views on holocausts private, and vote for the common good of all citizens;” or “My religion, whose principles are explicitly contrary to those of the Nazi Party, will remain a private thing for me.”
    Pay attention: if a candidate says he is personally opposed to Hitler or he is personally opposed to Jewish genocide, you can in good conscience vote for such a candidate and we encourage this; even if such a candidate takes part in the public rallies with their clear quasi-religious message in support of Hitler. If a candidate says he is personally opposed to your tax money funding killing, paying for gas chambers, and buying the furnaces at Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and other locations, and you know what they are used for, you can still vote for such a candidate.
    If a candidate says he is personally opposed to denying your religious liberty, even though you know the Party will continue through legislation to do this, it will be an act of virtue to vote for such a candidate.
    Yours in Christ,
    German & Austrian Church Leaders

  • Comment of the week Guy! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Guy:

    Your satire is biting! And…hard to distinguish from Shea’s position.

    Now Shea is just one guy who is devoid of even a theology degree. He has no credentials and is a guy just like most normal people, a guy with an opinion. So it is easy to discount what he says and draw the obvious direct connection between his bankrupt arguments and the satire you so masterfully present.

    What is horrific and truly demonic is the vociferous support for genocide that has been provided by Catholic Bishop after Catholic Bishop as they stand in “solidarity” with Democrat after Democrat and have for MANY years after the changes in the Democrat party erased all moral justification to do so. In fact, what we have in the USA is such a blending, such a syncretism, I long ago began calling the movement the “Democatholic Party” for it best describes the inseparable brotherhood of Catholics with the Democrat Party and the wholly ghastly union of what should be diametrically opposed groups. Democatholics have been using precisely your satirical reasoning but treating it as a legitimate defense for supporting abortion, the advance of the homosexual agenda and rank feminism for decades.

    I was very encouraged to see the USCCB voting recommendations this year as it shows some form of break with the past. However, not yet do we see condemnation of a truly meaningful form or what might better be called true catechesis on the issue of the butchery of millions and why one cannot support a party who promotes it and indeed has it as a permanent plank in its platform. Of course, Catholics are not supposed to do things such as “uncharitably” condemn anything it seems. You know, except “fundamentalists” who actually try to follow Christ and live according to the teachings of the Catholic faith.

  • Greg Mockeridge:
    Dan Burke is part of the problem at EWTN and the NCRegister, I’m not surprised you didn’t get a response from him. He’s just another part of the neoCatholic / establishment cabal infecting the Church these days. Most are converts to the faith, trying to make their living off the Church.

    Rod Halvorsen,
    Look no further than Bernardin’s “seamless garment” argument to understand the mess we’re in today in AmChurch. This homosexual prelate did much to destroy the Church in America. Of course, Shea is a big fan of the seamless garment.

  • Steve D; Right you are about the seamless garment and Shea’s elevating it to his own personal dogma.

    But hey, don’t chuck all of us converts out with Shea’s bathwater! 😉

  • Here we have another neo jumping on board the Shea Wagon.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/02/can-a-catholic-vote-for-bernie-sanders.html

    Folks, seriously, what happened to the Catholic Church? So often I just plain have trouble finding it. Thank God for my FSSP parish…

  • Jahwohl, democratic socialism ist güt.

  • “Greg Mockeridge:
    Dan Burke is part of the problem at EWTN and the NCRegister, I’m not surprised you didn’t get a response from him. He’s just another part of the neoCatholic / establishment cabal infecting the Church these days. Most are converts to the faith, trying to make their living off the Church.”

    Steve, I am not surprised either. I have been railing about the behavior of people like Shea and have written to the powers that be within the”orthodox” Catholic Media Complex for about a decade only to be treated with indifference at best and downright hostility at worst.

  • I was permanently banned from Catholic Answers for stating what I thought were well-known and simple facts about Swedish Lutheran “Bishop” Brunne’s lifestyle and I being an ex-Lutheran, suspected Martin himself would have the lot of them gibbetted. It wasn’t meant to be a cut, it was meant to literally demonstrate how we have slid historically, to the point that now we are taking seriously what would have been simply rejected out of hand what…just a few years ago!

    So I don’t think the Register is alone in this passive acceptance of anti-Catholic culture.

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker gets in touch with his inner Mark Shea here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/can-a-catholic-vote-for-bernie-sanders

  • That one could vote for a Sanders or a Hillary in spite of their odious positions against the Right to Life because you like their other ridiculous ideas is wearing a soiled garment that won’t wash in the tub of my conscience.

  • I saw this article and I was also concerned. If I were less charitable, I would say Mark is now another ‘poster child’ for the labor unions who spew the same garbage. Marxism

  • Mark is attempting to meld the sacred and the profane and in the process has lost sight of the fact that some things are simply and objectively evil and can not be negotiated with for the simple reason that there is no “lesser” evil. Also, it should also be noted that Bernie Sanders is the typical 60s flower child gone to seed. While I am loathe to consign anyone to perdition, I will note that the devil need not have a long reach to snare this catch.

  • Like they do on Amazon.com when you buy a book, “Others who bought ‘If you liked How to Sin Mortally by Voting for Democrats’, you may also enjoy Voting For Nero,” – if you liked Voting For Hitler, you might relish:

    from Catholic Lane, 24 Apr 15:

    Prostitution Politics

    I live in a brothel,
    But I am not a whore.
    Personally opposed to impurity,
    I’m chaste to the core.

    I help with the auctions,
    But no slaves are mine.
    Opposed to such servitude,
    I try to be kind.

    Working at Auschwitz,
    Folks arrive every day.
    Personally opposed to holocaust,
    What else can I say?

    In a warm den of thieves,
    I spend most of my time.
    Opposed to all thievery,
    I commit no such crime.

    I party with death,
    But never would harm a child.
    I am personally opposed to killing
    And to all murder most vile.

    I dance with the devil,
    But I’m untouched, in the lead.
    Opposed to all evil,
    I’m not self-deceived.

    I live in a brothel,
    But no whoring I know.
    Opposed to defilement,
    I’m pure as the snow.

    Copyright

  • Another (internet) source of ignorant banter, Matt Yglesias, was quoted elsewhere as tweeting something like, “Aside from genocide and war, the Nazis had some good ideas.” FYI, some “good ideas” don’t make licit 58 million abortions. If you vote for abortion advancers, you likely won’t be getting into Heaven.

Obama Celebrates Roe But Does Not Thank Catholic Leftists

Monday, January 25, AD 2016

 

As he has done as President each year on the anniversary of Roe, Obama released a statement praising Roe:

 

“Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health. The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor. As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them. In America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams.”

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Obama Celebrates Roe But Does Not Thank Catholic Leftists

  • “. . . a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health.”

    Leaving aside, of course, the body and health of the child who is being killed.

    “. . . the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor.”

    Yes, of course . . . a woman and her doctor can decide to kill the child inside the woman’s womb.

    “In America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams.”

    Except, of course, the little children who were killed in their mother’s womb.

  • “… the government should not intrude on private decisions..”

    “…every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams…”

    Pushing buttons “right” and “left”

  • Roe wasn’t the end nor was privacy the goal.
    Obamacare was the eventual choice of the leftist feminists. So much for privacy with your doctor when you now must submit your private self to an army of government medicrats, while forcing the morally sane to participate in the nation’s sin of infanticide.
    No description of terrorism can be more evil than what we do to helpless humans.

  • Praising the works of Adolph Hitler is akin to this Presidents proud support of abortion on demand. The blind left make me vomit.

  • He didn’t thank the Catholic left? How ungrateful!!

  • I still find it difficult to pray for those culture of death friends who dare call themselves good Catholics. Yet, that is precisely what we are called to do. There’s that little incident with Saul that gives us reason and hope.

  • “…that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor.”
    What a complete & total lie. Just ask anyone who takes their kids to the pediatrician for a well-visit about the intrusive forms they’re required to fill out, or the invasive questions doctors are mandated to ask in order to get paid.
    I could not imagine living in such a way where all lies were the truth.

  • Missy.

    “I could not imagine living living in such a way where all lies were the truth.”

    Funny thing, millions of folks don’t imagine it, they live it fully and freely. They have bought the lie. They own it and wish to multiply it by millions so others too may own it, and by its acceptance it becomes….. (in there minds, truth.) Here we are. A nightmare that is being prolonged by our fellow citizens.

    Pray harder Missy.

  • Too many “living” in that sentence…. Oops.

  • “we also redouble our commitment to protecting…………from efforts to undermine or overturn them.” Frightening. That’s us and all the moral people who believe in the sanctity of life.
    Note the evil Emperor never used the word “abortion”. Of course not. The Pro-Choice (a Madison Ave word code word for it’s okay to abort!) Catholic Left, and the Cardinals and Archbishops and Bishops who allow them to receive the Holy Eucharist, all perpetuate this murder of innocents. To be fair I don’t know if or what these people confess, but if they do, bring back public penance. STOP GIVING SCANDAL TO THE CHURCH!

Carly Fiorina and Abortion

Sunday, January 24, AD 2016

 

When it comes to abortion, I am beginning to think that Carly Fiorina has the zeal of a convert:

 

 

Despite the blizzard warning, thousands of pro-life activists gathered at the March for Life in Washington on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, the only presidential candidate to attend the event, pledged to continue speaking out against abortion in the face of opposition from pro-choice activists.

“The establishment media and political class don’t want us to talk about what the abortion industry is doing. You saw what happened when I talked about the horrific truth of the Planned Parenthood videos during a Republican debate,” she said at the march. “Unlike the media, you’ve watched the videos. You’ve seen an aborted baby, it’s legs kicking, it’s heart beating while the technician describes how they would keep these babies alive to harvest their organs.”

In response to the videos, a Planned Parenthood representative said a woman might choose to donate tissue for scientific purposes.

“In healthcare, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases,” said Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different.”

Fiorina had a message for those who protest her pro-life stance at her campaign events.

“You can scream and throw condoms at me all day long. You won’t silence me. You don’t scare me,” she said at the march. “I have battled breast cancer. I have buried a child. I have read the Bible. I know the value of life.”

Fiorina pointed out that President Obama’s successor will have the “awesome responsibility” to pick up to three Supreme Court justices who will weigh in on religious liberty issues. She added that the next president is going to decide if a life is a life only after it leaves the hospital.

“That is the Democratic platform – that a life is not a life until it is born, and they call us extreme. It is the Democrats and the pro-abortion industry that are extreme,” she said.

Fiorina told the audience Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and “the left” use women as a “political weapon” to win elections.

“I know, having started out as a secretary, being empowered means having a voice, but ideological feminism now shuts down conversation on colleges campuses and in the media,” she said.

She vowed to defeat Clinton and defund Planned Parenthood as president.

“You can count on what I will do as president,” she said. “Together we will restore the character of our nation.”

Continue reading...

68 Responses to Carly Fiorina and Abortion

  • It is a pity that Carly Fiorina’s chances of winning the primary elections are so abysmally low. Feminist supporters of Livia Caesar would have an epileptic fit.

  • Agree, Luke. Fiorina would be a terrific president. She is a leader, not a poll-reader. Only wish she would come out against torture. Cruz is not my favorite candidate but he at least has that issue right.

  • She passes “my must have” values filter, unfortunately she won’t get to fight from the White House for life.

  • How do you come out against something you really can’t define?

  • Greg, it is not that unusual for the boundaries of various ethical definitions to be less than perfectly clear-cut, but we have GOP candidates who actually don’t even bother with the boundaries — taking the position that torture, however defined, is ok if necessary to save the lives of our troops. Me, I have a simple starting point: If I would consider it unacceptable for our enemy to do it to our troops, then we shouldn’t do it to their’s. McCain applied that test to water-boarding, and he was absolutely spot-on right.

  • It’s not just that it’s not “clear cut,” it’s that the definition is commonly used to mean everything from “no danger, some discomfort or annoyance” to “putting people on the rack.”
    **
    It’s rather like some people are trying to re-define “pro life” to mean things as far out as “supports a cradle-to-grave government support program and no borders.”

  • What you say is true, Foxfier, but unless you are cool with the waterboarding of our troops. I don’t see how you can define torture to not include it.
    So where do you stand? Are you cool with the waterboarding of our troops or not?

  • I have always been against physical abuse Mike, but any foreseeable enemies that we fight will torture our troops, and worse, no matter what we do to theirs. In regard to our troops, they often are water-boarded to give them a taste of the least they can expect if they fall into the hands of adversaries.

  • Don, I agree that it is likely that foreseeable enemies will torture our troops, but I don’t see how that morally justifies our torture of their’s. Yes, we do water-board a small number of our combatants as part of training. I just don’t see how that logically changes anything. My point stands — the physical abuse of prisoners is wrong. While there can be honest disagreement as to what constitutes such abuse, we can only claim water-boarding is acceptable if we believe it is acceptable for the enemy to water-board US POWs. I do not see a logical away around this. Our response to Japanese inhumane treatment of our POWs was to try them for war crimes, not emulate them.

  • The point I was responding to Mike was that you seemed to me to be saying that if we water-board our enemies our troops will be water-boarded. I was pointing out that our behavior really does not impact what our current foes do. In regard to the Japanese, our troops did not take prisoners until rather late in the War. Few Japanese troops of course attempted to surrender but those who did tended to be killed out of hand by our troops, a product of hatred born out of Japanese atrocities and the habit of feigned surrender by the Japanese. Late in the War our troops were under strict orders to take prisoners and they, very reluctantly, complied. It is difficult to enforce moral treatment of enemy troops in War, when one side views such a concept as laughable.

  • Yes, Don, you misunderstood me. My practical moral litmus test was to test the morality of the treatment, not compare and copy. The inhumane treatment of our prisoners by the enemy does not justify the inhumane treatment of their prisoners by us. Whether the treatment crosses the line to inhumane can be revealed by our reaction to such treatment if applied to our prisoners. I think the water-boarding of our POWs is morally wrong and a war crime, and our use of water-boarding was a blemish on our great country. Yes, it was confined to a limited number of prisoners for sure, and those prisoners were presumably especially odious. And yes those facts certainly mitigate the gravity of this moral lapse, but a lapse it was nonetheless.

  • “My practical moral litmus test was to test the morality of the treatment, not compare and copy.”

    My response to that Mike is that there is always a practical component to morality as applied in war time. An example of this is Nazi Germany in World War II. Most German troops who surrendered were treated quite properly because our troops knew that the Germans in regard to British and American POWs followed the Geneva Convention. (As opposed to the treatment that the Germans and Soviets meted out to prisoners taken from each other.) An exception was made by our troops however in regard to the Waffen SS due to their well known penchant for murdering prisoners. Somehow they found it extremely difficult to surrender to our troops. One can decry this, but when it comes to moral treatment of prisoners in a War it has to be a two way street, or ordinary troops simply will not abide by rules that the enemy does not follow.

    In regard to John McCain his political positions tend to depend on whether he is running for office. For example in February 2008 he voted against a bill which would have banned waterboarding by the CIA. I am sure that his being engaged in a tough battle for the Republican nomination for President overrode his torture in Vietnam on that occasion. This was on a par with his brief metamorphosis to an anti-illegal immigrant hawk in 2010, facing a tough Republican primary for the Senate nomination, when he screeched: Build the dang fence!

  • Don, I realize that the behavior of our troops is necessarily informed by the behavior of their enemy. But that does not justify mistreatment as a matter of policy, even if it explains mistreatment by individual soldiers. Torturing prisoners in order to secure tactical military advantages is wrong, even if it can be understandable or even forgivable. While I have no interest in making villains of individual soldiers who commit moral errors in the heat of difficult moments, such lapses are not comparable to intentional policy decisions made in Washington. The hardest morality is always that which involves good ends being used to justify evil means. I don’t doubt the noble intentions of the Bush Administration for a moment, but nor do I doubt the immorality of torturing prisoners.

  • “But that does not justify mistreatment as a matter of policy,”

    Agreed. Humane treatment of prisoners of war was a long time developing in the Christian West, and was only imperfectly applied in the best of times. With Christianity being effectively driven from the public square in most of the West, I fear that we may look back upon the occasional waterboarding of a major terrorist as a virtual golden age of humanity.

  • The use of water boarding on captured terrorists to secure their compliance in providing lifesaving intelligence is not prisoner abuse nor does it cross any moral lines.

  • My mind keeps wondering why waterboarding is unacceptable to do to an enemy, but a bullet to his head is okay.

  • During the wars between Christianity (the Church) and the Barbary Moslems, slavery (like torture?) was a goal of the Moslems. Pope Nickolas V wrote that it was licit to keep Moslem slaves permanently.

  • Donald, have you noticed that Marco Rubio,is taking a page right out of McCain’s playbook with regards to immigration?

  • Greg,
    You are free to think so of course, which I assume must mean that you believe that it is morally acceptable for our servicemen to be water-boarded by their captors.

    DonL,

    To my knowledge no one is suggesting that it is morally acceptable to assassinate POWs, but certainly that was the position of the Waffen SS — a position with which the Allies took extreme exception and rightly so.

    And I find it amusing that a commentator on the same blog that regularly (and correctly) reminds us that not every papal utterance from our current Holy Father is binding or correct now invokes Nickolas V in support of slavery. The Church formally teaches that slavery and torture are grave evils, and the Church is correct on both counts.

  • Better question Don, is why is waterboarding unnacceptable but assassination from 20,000 ft (with the attendant collateral damage) isn’t.

  • Ernst,
    First, there is a critical difference between engaging in combat and assassinating combatants who are disarmed and in your custody. Second, the morality of bombing turns largely on whether the damage to which you refer (presumably the death of innocents) is the object of the bombing or collateral to that object, which is a key question of fact.

  • “Donald, have you noticed that Marco Rubio,is taking a page right out of McCain’s playbook with regards to immigration?”

    One of several reasons why I am supporting Cruz.

  • If our servicemen were terrorists who had knowledge of the inner workings of their terrorist network and that information was necessary to protect innocent lives and water boarding was the only way to secure their compliance in divulging that information, then yes. But since that is not the case, Mr. Petrik, your moral equivalence argument is a non-sequitur. I am actually surprised you made such an argument. I would expect better from you.

  • Greg, you seem to be under a misimpression. The intelligence we were seeking was directed to the end of preventing and mimimizing the deaths of allied combatants, not innocent non-combatants. In any case your argument is just classic consequentialism — a justification of evil means by reference to good ends. I took your earlier post to be a different argument, which is that the means were not evil because water-boarding is not torture. That is a more serious argument than your consequentialist one, but in order for it to be sincere its application must be reciprocal — and you retreated from that. You ought to examine your logic more carefully before criticizing mine.

  • No, Mr Petrik, the intelligence we gained from the compliance of KSM, Zubaydah, etc. prevented terrorist attacks on non-combatants here in the U.S. and Eurpoe. This has been well documented. Read Thessien’s book Courting Disaster and Jose Rodriguez’s Hard Measures for starters. I’m sorry, but the whole notion of water boarding being intrinsically evil is a false one. Torture itself is not intrinsically evil for sole reason that it cannot b objectively defined. Intrinsic evil is evil by its very object and if you cannot objectively define it, it cannot be intrinsically evil. Before you throw around the term “consequentialism”, take the time to,learn what it actually means.

  • “Are you cool with the waterboarding of our troops or not?”

    Actually we do in SERE training. The same techniques that were applied in training were applied in interrogation.

    Now the problem begins…

  • Greg,
    Consequentialism is a method of moral reasoning that determines the morality of an act by examining its objective or end. It is useful unless the act is intrinsically evil. While I’m not aware of a comprehensive list of intrinsically evil acts, we can borrow a list from Pope John Paul II. Quoting Gaudium et Spes, he says that intrinsically evil acts are “any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace … and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator” (Veritatis Splendor, 80). John Paul II was an accomplished moral theologian and he plainly did not regard your idiosyncratic definitional requirements as especially relevant, and nor do I.

  • A link to what I was referring to:

    http://humanevents.com/2007/11/05/waterboarding-a-sereing-experience-for-tens-of-thousands-of-us-military-personnel/

    I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions. But part of the justification by the DOJ for waterboarding terrorists was that it was done in training.

  • Philip, please answer the question I was asking. Are you cool with Islamo-fascists water-boarding our troops or not?

  • Phillip, yes I am aware of the report and its conclusions. I know personally some of the report’s contributors and count them as friends. But the DOJ justification was widely regarded by objective parties as legally quite weak. But in any event its merits, if it had any at all, rested in legal analysis, not moral analysis. Not all evil things are illegal.

  • Mike,

    I will answer your question if you answer this. Was waterboarding in SERE training torture?

  • Phillip,
    Yes, this is old and irrelevant news. Consent matters. Rape is intrinsically evil even if sexual intercourse is not.
    Your turn.

  • Not old and irrelevant news. Just because one consents doesn’t make it moral. One may have consented to what was done in SERE, but its still not moral if all physical interrogation is torture.


  • Mike Petrik on Sunday, January 24, A.D. 2016 at 9:51pm (Edit)
    What you say is true, Foxfier, but unless you are cool with the waterboarding of our troops. I don’t see how you can define torture to not include it.

    Roughly half of my uncles have been waterboarded. By the US military.
    Secondly, “torture” does not mean “things I don’t want to happen to our soldiers.”
    I don’t want our guys to get shot, either, but that isn’t torture– that’s part of war.

  • Gee, Mike, why am I not surprised that you would bring up VS #80.? It doesn’t take a high level moral theologian to see that JPII doesn’t mean what you and people like Mark Shea think it means. It just takes common moral sense. To wit, listed alongside things like torture are deportation (so,we can’t deport any illegal aliens. The 20+ million here in the U.S. will be happy to hear that!) and substandard living conditions. Substandard living conditions doesn’t even constitute a human act. It may or may not be CAUSED by a human act, but it is not a human act in and of itself. It also begs the relevant question I brought up before, how do you even objectively define what substandard living conditions are? It is obviously subjective. If your interpretation of VS#80 is correct moral theology is meaningless.

  • Greg,
    You can leave Shea and his moral preening out of this. I agree that VS#80 cannot be interpreted literally but requires fair-minded exegesis. But no such exegesis can convince me that the torture of the defenseless is any more licit than the murder of the defenseless.

    Phillip, fairly understood the term torture, like battery for instance, presupposes a lack of consent.

    Foxfier, so I infer from your response that you think that the water-boarding by our troops by the enemy would be morally licit because such water-boarding, while unpleasant, is not torture. If so I congratulate you on your consistency even if not for your clarity.

  • Edited for readability:

    Greg,
    You can leave Shea and his moral preening out of this. I agree that VS#80 cannot be interpreted literally but requires fair-minded exegesis. But no such exegesis can convince me that the torture of the defenseless is any more licit than the murder of the defenseless.

    Phillip,
    Fairly understood the term torture, like battery for instance, presupposes a lack of consent.

    Foxfier,
    So I infer from your response that you think that the water-boarding of our troops by the enemy would be morally licit because such water-boarding, while unpleasant, is not torture. If so I congratulate you on your consistency even if not for your clarity.

  • Mike,

    Perhaps you mean in a legal sense. But in a moral sense one cannot consent to an intrinsic evil.

    Or perhaps you are working towards a definition of torture.

  • I hate to say it Mike, but your moral reasoning I this thread was really no different than that of Mark Shea, sans the snark. You tossed the world “consequentialism” around the same way he does.

  • “All is fair in love and war. What a contemptible lie.” Robert Anson Heinlein
    .
    People like Mark Shea who have not defended their country do not merit an opinion on war, torture or anything related thereto. And for all their whining about torture, let them see what happens to pre-born babies every day at Planned Parenthood. Let them fill up on the full measure of what torture really is.

  • Torture also does not mean “things it is not morally licit for the bad guys to do to our soldiers.” Choosing to fight for ISIS isn’t morally licit, either, so it’s got to go back further in the foundation of the argument.
    ****
    Stop trying to tell me what I think and figure out a definition of torture that you will support. Then the way that you are including a bunch of assumptions into your conclusion will actually make sense, because the assumptions and the conclusion are yours.

  • MP I hardly recall “regularly” pointing out that not every papal utterance is binding, nor was I pushing (one pope) Nicholas V position on slavery as either correct or not–merely adding info to the question of the issue of never doing an evil, when in fact that papal bull said slavery in certain cases was licit.
    I also have pointed out that Pope Pius XI has called violations of the principle of subsidiarity a grave wrong. That’s not my mere opinion, but a pope speaking on morality.
    Quoting two popes seems to have riled your sensitivities a wee bit.

  • Phillip,
    It is true that one cannot consent to an intrinsic evil, but the presence of consent can be relevant to the definition of that intrinsic evil. See rape for instance. In my a lack of consent is embedded in a proper understanding of torture, just like rape.

    Greg, I do try to avoid snark, insults too. I think I have a pretty good grasp of consequentialism, but am quite open to fraternal correction. But I don’t think that our disagreement is over the definition of consequentialism (you apparently just get all hot and bothered by the word). Our disagreement is very simple: I believe that torture is an intrinsic evil and you don’t. Accordingly I believe that one cannot justify torture by evaluating its ends (i.e., consequentialism), whereas you believe that this moral prohibition is inapplicable. I differ from Shea in two areas (aside from the snark). First, I think that defining the boundaries of torture is important and a perfectly fair discussion. I don’t pretend to offer an ontologically certain definition. I only apply the Golden Rule. Since I would regard such abuse of our soldiers to be torture, I would not similarly abuse their combatants. Mark regards the very entertainment of the definitional boundaries as somehow evidence of evil intent, which I regard as absurd. Mark also insisted on asserting that torture was and is ineffective as an interrogation tool, even though (i) this is irrelevant to his own moral claim that torture is intrinsically evil and (ii) he has zero competency to know such matters.

    Luke,
    I don’t like Shea either. He is an obnoxious blowhard, at least when hiding behind the Internet. But he has always been at least as vocal about the evils of abortion as he has been about torture.

    Foxfier,
    Your request is granted. I have no idea what you are saying so will no longer try to make sense out of it.

  • Phillip,

    So consent may be part of the definition. But per the link I gave, the individual did not consent to be waterboarded- at least not the last time it was done. He thought he had escaped and would be rewarded. So he was tortured?

  • DonL, I apologize for not writing more clearly. My papal utterance claim was in reference to this blog, not you. I am mystified as to your diagnosis of my sensitivities.

  • The other thing to state is that the act of waterboarding in and of itself is not intrinsically evil if one can consent to such a thing and it still be moral. So what other circumstances can it be licit?

  • Philip,

    I disagree that the linked article shows a lack of informed consent.

    Second, I agree that waterboarding in and of itself is not intrinsically evil if one can morally consent to it. That does not logically mean that it is not intrinsically evil if one does not consent to it. Sexual intercourse is not intrinsically evil, but is if proper consent is lacking. The fact that we have a word for that second evil act (rape is intercourse without consent) and not for the first (waterboarding without consent) is of no logical moment.

  • Mike-
    where’s your definition?
    Twice I answered you, even when it appeared you were making false and irrational accusations against me, personally; was that actually calumny to avoid having to defend your own views on their virtues?

  • Mike,

    There is where we will have problems. Per my link, clearly the individual did not know what his training, let alone waterboarding, involved. No clear idea, no clear consent.

    But he was clearly deceived the second time he was waterboarded. he thought he had escaped and that his trainers were acknowledging this. There was no consent to that incident.

  • Greg Mockeridge wrote, “Torture itself is not intrinsically evil for sole reason that it cannot b objectively defined.”

    That shows a deep misunderstanding of the nature of language.

    Take Wittgenstein’s example of the word, “game.” It is impossible to devise some definition of “game” that includes everything that we call games, but excludes everything that we do not. However, we are all familiar (i.e. socially) with enough things that are games and enough things that are not games that we can categorize new activities as either games or not.

    As Wittgenstein argued in the Philosophical Investigations, there is no reason to look, as we have done traditionally—and dogmatically—for one, essential core in which the meaning of a word is located and which is, therefore, common to all uses of that word. We should, instead, travel with the word’s uses through “a complicated network of similarities, overlapping and criss-crossing”

    He argues that definitions emerge from what he termed “forms of life” roughly the culture and society in which they are used. He stresses the social aspects of cognition; to see how language works, we have to see how it functions in a specific social situation. It is this emphasis on becoming attentive to the social backdrop against which language is rendered intelligible that explains Wittgenstein’s elliptical comment that “If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.”

  • Phillip, I will take your word for that. Perhaps in my haste (I have work to do) I missed some facts. If consent was not present then the waterboarding would be morally wrong in my view. I do not have time to analyze the consent issue properly, however, and have no set opinion on whether consent is implied by enlistment or application, etc.

    Foxfier, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not avoiding your request for a definition and have not insulted you. Instead, I have expressed fairly plainly that I don’t have a definition, or at least one that is reliable. Instead I applied the Golden Rule in asserting that we should not render any abuse upon prisoners in our custody that we would find morally offensive if rendered upon American combatants in the custody of the enemy. When folks say that our water-boarding of enemy combatants in our custody is not morally problematic, I have asked whether they then agree that the same water-boarding of our imprisoned troops by the enemy would similarly not be morally problematic. For reasons that mystify me (or perhaps not), I’ve had a hard time getting a straight answer.

  • MPS That’s an interesting comment, which reminded this old codger of the old comment made regarding the definition of pornography (Was it a Supreme Court issue?)

    Someone said, “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.”

    I wonder if the same could be applied to the definition of torture?

  • DonL,
    To varying degrees I suspect that such is always the case. Words, grammar and language are all imperfect social vehicles for imperfect human thoughts. This does not render definitions useless at all. It just reminds us of their limits, I think.

  • Mike,

    Thanks for the conversation. I think in large measure it is pointless (thus my comment at first “Now the problem begins…) for a number of reasons not the least of which is emotions which cause some to insult instead of reason. But then there are also legitimate questions about definition and then obscure questions of philosophy including moral object and intention come in that further complicate the issues if simple agreement on those terms cannot be reached.

    Actually, the exchange we have had has been the most polite I’ve ever had on this topic.

  • Mike
    I’ll buy that. Being a fisherman, I noticed my kind always has a gazillion definitions for the word “big” when pertaining to fish.

  • Thank you Phillip and DonL, on all counts.
    Dominus Vobiscum!

  • Mike Petrik on Monday, January 25, A.D. 2016 at 3:19pm

    Foxfier, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not avoiding your request for a definition and have not insulted you.

    I said you falsely accused me, not “insulted” me. Specifically, calumny; at best detraction.
    Here:
    unless you are cool with the waterboarding of our troops. I don’t see how you can define torture to not include it.
    So where do you stand? Are you cool with the waterboarding of our troops or not?

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/01/24/carly-fiorina-and-abortion/#comment-278449
    and here:
    I infer from your response that you think that the water-boarding by our troops by the enemy would be morally licit because such water-boarding, while unpleasant, is not torture.
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/01/24/carly-fiorina-and-abortion/#comment-278497
    ***
    You say that you cannot define torture in a functional way; you previously offered “If I would consider it unacceptable for our enemy to do it to our troops, then we shouldn’t do it to their’s.
    I refuted that here:
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/01/24/carly-fiorina-and-abortion/#comment-278494
    because I do not believe it is “acceptable” for the bad guys to shoot our troops.
    *
    *
    *
    Make up your mind; either you are not able to define torture, in which case you cannot object to others defining it to not include what you feel it should and you DEFINITELY cannot morally accuse others of supporting everything you FEEL should be grouped in the same undefined-outside-of-your-personal-feelings category.
    Or.
    You can define torture, and you either need to fix your initial definition of things which are acceptable for the enemy to do to our troops or make another one.
    *
    I suppose there is a third option; examine your own thoughts and figure out why you are unable to form a working definition of torture, before you use your beliefs as a foundation to try to understand others.
    Understand yourself, and then try to figure out everyone else.

  • Foxfier, with all due respect I do not think a continuing dialog with you would be productive or beneficial for either of us.

  • Foxfier,
    One last college try. I don’t think a precise definition of torture must be agreed upon in order to agree with Church teaching that it is wrong. You are correct that I think water-boarding qualifies and is therefore morally unacceptable, but I do respect (though disagree with) the opinion of those who think it is not torture and is therefore morally acceptable — as long as they agree that the water-boarding of our POWs must therefore be similarly morally acceptable. The notion that the boundaries of torture, however defined, are different for us than for our enemy strikes me as unsustainable.

  • I don’t think a precise definition of torture must be agreed upon in order to agree with Church teaching that it is wrong.
    That is correct.
    A definition is required, however, before you attempt to use Church teaching to argue that a thing is torture and thus wrong under that specific Church teaching.
    You are correct that I think water-boarding qualifies and is therefore morally unacceptable, but I do respect (though disagree with) the opinion of those who think it is not torture and is therefore morally acceptable — as long as they agree that the water-boarding of our POWs must therefore be similarly morally acceptable.
    That’s a problem, unless you are going to define torture to mean “that which it is OK for someone to do to our POWs.”
    There are a great many ways that something can be unacceptable, without being torture. “Torture” is not a synonym for “wrong.”
    The notion that the boundaries of torture, however defined, are different for us than for our enemy strikes me as unsustainable.
    You are the only one putting forward that theory.

  • First of all, there is no Church teaching that says torture is wrong. Secondly, if you are going to call something intrinsically evil, you do have to object ly define it. MPS, with all due respect, nothing you said is at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

  • You do have a point, Greg; here’s the specific part of the CCC where torture is mentioned:
    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2297
    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.

    For contrast, here’s the section for indirect, intentional killing:
    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2269
    The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

  • You might notice that torture is mentioned as contrary to human dignity in a list of cases which does not include “to extracting information needed to stop an illicit act” or anything which can be construed to include it.

  • Remember Carly Fiorina? It’s good to see prominent women like Joni Ernst and Carly with pro-life and good social values attend the March. All news channel 8 on Fri night featured footage of both Fiorina and Ernst speaking at the March and interviews of out of town attendees. Bless them all. The weather was gray, damp and in the 20s.
    It won’t happen, but I would love to see Carly and Hillary debate. Carly would make mincemeat of her.

  • Foxfier wrote, “either you are not able to define torture, in which case you cannot object to others defining it to not include what you feel it should.”

    Not at all. Take the word “pain.”

    “If anyone said “I do not know if what I have got is a pain or something else,” we should think something like, he does not know what the English word “pain” means; and we should explain it to him.—How? Perhaps by means of gestures, or by pricking him with a pin and saying: “See, that’s what pain is!” This explanation, like any other, he might understand right, wrong, or not at all. And he will shew which he does by his use of the word, in this as in other cases.

    If he now said, for example: “Oh, I know what ‘pain’ means; what I don’t know is whether this, that I have now, is pain”—we should merely shake our heads and be forced to regard his words as a queer reaction which we have no idea what to do with. (It would be rather as if we heard someone say seriously: “I distinctly remember that some time before I was born I believed …..”.)” (PI 288)

  • Looks like Planned Parenthood in Texas is off the hook, and not the people who made the videos are to be hung. See https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-david-daleiden-faces-20-years-in-prison-for-offering-to-purchase-h

    Don, I bet you have a legal posting in the works for later today.

  • Not yet since I have insufficient information to do so. However, I have not yet seen a grand jury that was not a tool of the DA. The DA in Harris County is a Republican but this smells to high heaven.

  • MPS-
    That doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion, beyond being tangentially part of a philosophical discussion.

To All His Creatures

Friday, January 22, AD 2016

March for Life

 

 

These communities, by their representatives in old  Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “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.” This was their majestic  interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their  lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of  the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to  all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their  enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and  likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded,  and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole  race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized  upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide  their children and their children’s children, and the countless  myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise  statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity  to breed tyrants, and so they established these great  self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man,  some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that  none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life,  liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look  up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to  renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth,  and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues  might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would  hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles  on which the temple of liberty was being built.

Abraham Lincoln, August 17, 1858

Continue reading...

7 Responses to To All His Creatures

  • “…nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

    To all Pro-Life people’s everywhere… God be with you. My humble prayers go to you and may Gods grace accompany you today and everyday.

  • I wonder where the ‘Black Lives Matter’ are on abortion since they are the main target of Planned Parenthood. We have a black holocaust going on and very few care to take notice.

  • Of course, the Dying Legacy Media ignores it all.

  • It always fascinates me that in spite of the mass “education” of today, we radically fail to reach the wisdom of our forefathers and great leaders. We are now reduced to arguing about the economics of things as if money alone envelopes our humanity. We are blind to the fact that it is the social issues that are the very weapon that our enemies within have taken us down with so well. Perhaps radical Islam will reawaken us in time to resurrect the great cultural yeast given us by the wisdom of our forefathers and the pure gift of our Creator?

  • @Don L.

    If not radical Islam, then possibly an act of nature. Of course no one would wish disaster upon themselves, but as you correctly mentioned, a reawakening on a massive volume of people, could reorient them to the last four things and the importance therein.
    Death Judgement Heaven Hell

  • “…so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land”
    I think Abe Lincoln would have liked Marco Rubio’s answer to an atheist

  • “…We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal….” Perhaps the most profound quote of our forefathers! I embrace the word “self-evident” because the fact also covers the logic of the very human existence of man, and with that follows the sacred character of the Commandments, all of them resting upon that very same being, viz., man, and his very nature.

5 Responses to Morality and Abortion

  • So logical. Why do so many people have trouble with simply thinking thoroughly.

  • Original Sin

  • Moral bankruptcy (defined as a state of being completely lacking in a particular quality or value). A person to be admonished (sinful), counseled (doubtful), and instructed (ignorant). See The Spiritual Works of Mercy.

  • Great defense of our teaching on the moral reasoning against abortion. I was about to post it until you used the word most in regard to cases in which abortion would be morally wrong. I know that a number of observers of the posting would feel that vindicates their notion that there are at least some morally acceptable cases, and they could choose when it is deemed morally acceptable. Maybe I am too much of a hardliner.

One Response to Changing Sides

  • IT OCCURRED TO ME in the banter regarding Trump that we [ michael- you , me] might have different frame of references as to what contitutes a blow hard arrogant s-o-b. For example-
    the neanderthal Cuomo who told me @ 9 months ago that i was not fit to be a new yorker- pls consider
    Gov. Andrew Cuomo has imposed substantial portions of the Bathroom Bill upon the State of New York by fiat.

    On January 20, the New York State Division of Human Rights adopted a new regulation-known as 9 NYCRR 466.13 – relating to “gender identity discrimination.” As Albany Update has previously reported, this regulation was proposed in November 2015. New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, along with hundreds of like-minded New Yorkers, submitted comments in opposition to this wrong-headed proposal. Not surprisingly, the Division of Human Rights (DHR) paid very little attention to those comments; the DHR made only minor changes to the regulation before adopting it.

    The new regulation states that existing laws banning sex discrimination and disability discrimination also prohibit discrimination based upon gender identity. This means that New York’s shopping malls, stores, universities, restaurants, and recreational facilities-along with many other public places-are now required to accommodate crossdressing and so-called gender transitions. New York’s employers are also required to accommodate employees who wish to dress and identify as members of the opposite sex. A failure to accommodate “transgendered” behavior will be grounds for a lawsuit.

    Everything about the Governor’s new regulation is wrong. The substance of the regulation is wrong, as the Governor’s action places onerous new burdens upon New York businesses and compromises the privacy and safety of women and girls by allowing men who identify as “transgender” to enter women-only space. The process used to adopt the regulation is wrong because the DHR has, in essence, rewritten the law. Gov. Cuomo may be frustrated that the Bathroom Bill was blocked in the State Senate for the past eight years; however, his frustration does not give him license to bypass the Legislature. As every student with a rudimentary understanding of government knows, it is the executive’s job to enforce the law; making law is a legislative function. The DHR has feebly attempted to justify its “end run” by claiming that the regulation only codifies existing practice; if that is, in fact, the case, the DHR has been adjudicating complaints of “gender identity discrimination” without legal authorization.

    The Governor and his allies will no doubt laud this new regulation as an effort to protect vulnerable New Yorkers. In reality, this regulation makes New Yorkers more vulnerable. Parents, when men who identify as women claim a legal right to use ladies’ changing areas at public pools, and when those men undress in front of your daughters, you can thank the Governor. Employers, when an employee demands that you address him by a feminine name and allow him to crossdress in the workplace, and when your attorney informs you that you could be found liable for discrimination if you do not comply, you can thank the Governor.

Scalia on Roe

Friday, January 22, AD 2016

 

There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. “It is the dimension” of authority, they say, to “cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.

Justice Antonin Scalia, dissent, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (conclusion)

 

 

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Scalia on Roe

Holy Innocents

Monday, December 28, AD 2015

A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 

Matthew 2:18

Herod’s murder of the Holy Innocents is remembered on this feast day of the Holy Innocents.  The video below is a moving depiction of this horrendous crime from the film Jesus of Nazareth

Herod ordered this massacre in a futile attempt to stop the Light of the World from completing His mission of salvation.  In our day Holy Innocents are slaughtered each and every day in an ultimately futile attempt to deny what Christ taught:  that we are all brothers and sisters and that we must love God and love one another.  Some day this modern Herod emulation that goes by the name of legal abortion will cease, and the feast day of the Holy Innocents is a very good day for us to resolve to work unceasingly to bring that day closer.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Holy Innocents

  • If Herod were a sovereign person , this massacre of innocent children would not have happened and would not have been foretold in Scripture.
    Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision assumed that the unborn child was not a person. There was no proof to uphold this assumption. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not in Roe. v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is miscarriage of Justice and the imposition of atheism, denying the metaphysical human soul, the free will and conscience, making beasts of all men.
    Corbinian’s bear prayed in public, but American citizens are prohibited from praying in the public square that belongs to all men in joint and common tenancy.

  • “If Herod were a sovereign person… ” I don’t know your meaning Mary. Are you meaning if he was a Christian? as in
    .
    Galatians 4:3
    “So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits* of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our* hearts, crying, ‘Abba!* Father!’ 7So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.*
    8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods.

Priorities

Wednesday, September 23, AD 2015

quote-we-cannot-insist-only-on-issues-related-to-abortion-gay-marriage-and-the-use-of-contraceptive-pope-francis-388016

 

Steve Skojec at One Peter Five reminds us that the Pope has his priorities and that the unborn are apparently far down on his list:

 

Did you see Pope Francis’s remarks about the protection of the unborn at the White House this morning?

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to encourage you to foster a culture of life in this great nation.  Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that this unconscionable taking of innocent human life is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation.  When it comes to the care of our own children, we are living at a critical moment of history.  We still have time to make the changes needed, but we must act. We must understand — as we’ve been forced to confront in a recent series of investigative videos seen around the world — that those involved in the abortion industry “justify even infanticide, following the same arguments used to justify the right to abortion. In this way, we revert to a state of barbarism which one hoped had been left behind forever.” (Evangelium Vitae, 14).  Such change demands on our part a serious and responsible recognition not only of the kind of world we have created where we can so cruelly destroy our own children, but also of the millions of people who have already fallen victim to this barbarism.  Our common humanity should motivate us to end, once and for all, the legalized eradication of this voiceless group which suffers the most brutal form of exclusion, and in so suffering cries out to heaven, the results of which today powerfully strikes our homes, our cities and our societies.  To use a telling phrase of the Reverend Martin Luther King, we cannot win if we are willing to sacrifice the futures of our children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We know by faith that our Creator has said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…” (Jer. 1:5).  As Christians inspired by this certainty, we wish to commit ourselves to the conscious and responsible care and protection of our most vulnerable, our future generations.

You didn’t? Me neither. The answer to the question posed by the title of this post is, unfortunately: nothing. He didn’t make any comments about the unborn at the White House. What you just read is what I wished was in his speech instead of what I found there.

This is what he really said in that section:

Mr. President, I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution.  Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation.  When it comes to the care of our “common home”, we are living at a critical moment of history.  We still have time to make the changes needed to bring about “a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change” (Laudato Si’, 13).  Such change demands on our part a serious and responsible recognition not only of the kind of world we may be leaving to our children, but also to the millions of people living under a system which has overlooked them.  Our common home has been part of this group of the excluded which cries out to heaven and which today powerfully strikes our homes, our cities and our societies.  To use a telling phrase of the Reverend Martin Luther King, we can say that we have defaulted on a promissory note and now is the time to honor it.

We know by faith that “the Creator does not abandon us; he never forsakes his loving plan or repents of having created us.  Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home” (Laudato Si’, 13).  As Christians inspired by this certainty, we wish to commit ourselves to the conscious and responsible care of our common home.

There was also something about being “committed to building a society which is truly tolerant and inclusive, to safeguarding the rights of individuals and communities, and to rejecting every form of unjust discrimination”. A brief mention of religious liberty made it in, too. But a statement about protecting the unborn in the presence of the most pro-abortion president in US history — especially as Congress is attempting to defund Planned Parenthood — didn’t make the cut.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Priorities

  • We know who this man is that occupies the See of Peter. I recall a line from the TV series MASH: “I won’t let you down, Sir.” “There’s no way you can.”

    Enviornment, capitalism, self-absorbed neo-Pelagians, the FFI, Cupich, Kasper, Marx, Daneels…..My opinion of this pontificate ranks with the current Administration. He can’t go back to Argentina soon enough.

  • Al Gore’s ghostwriter just called and said he is anxiously awaiting his royalty check.

  • Comment of the week Greg! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Shh! You’re bogarting his ecumenism of encounter!

  • “Shh! You’re bogarting his ecumenism of encounter!”

    This reminds me of this:

  • I’m just thankful he’s not denouncing the death penalty…and life sentences in his case. Brazil, where the largest number of Catholics live, solves 8% of their murders and has over five times the US murder rate with no death penalty.
    Popes need to admonish substantially Catholic ( for 450 years Catholic) countries first…the two elephants in the living room…Brazil and Mexico. ..fist and second largest Catholic countries…Phillipines is third. Which Catholic country embodies Catholic social thought? Point us to it Pope Francis….or clean thine own house before cleaning thy less Catholic but safer and more stable neighbors’ house.

  • Pope Francis is a tragedy of lost opportunity of not speaking to a national audience about the truly serious spiritual matters of our time especially the culture of death of which President Obama is it’s main supporter.

    Instead Pope Francis, as George Will says, with his “fact free flamboyance”, postures at the altar of environmentalism where his credibility is near zero making himself neither a friend of man or of God.

    Hopefully, his reign will end soon as he is an embarrassment to himself and the Church.

  • I read the first report written above and thought WOW, how cunning (just as Christ commanded his shepherds to be) the man was-hiding his agenda of pro-life so well, and then I continued only to find that he hadn’t “evolved” from pushing that politically generated eco-nonsense of climate change as stewardship and apparently his biggest priority in the face of a morally crumbling Church.
    The UN and the one-world order will be pleased.
    The “sustainability” of innocent life–from the womb to the grave can just wait until we get rid of all that evil CO2 and air-conditioning.

  • Michael Dowd wrote, “Pope Francis is a tragedy of lost opportunity of not speaking to a national audience about the truly serious spiritual matters of our time…”

    If we examine Acts, we find that the Apostles in their public speeches concentrated on five topics:

    (1) the age of fulfilment has dawned, the “latter days” foretold by the prophets (Acts 2:16; 3:18, 24); (2) by virtue of His resurrection Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God as Messianic head of the new Israel (Acts 2:33-36; 4:11; 5:31);
    (3) the Holy Spirit in the Church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory (Acts 2:17-21, 33; 5:32);
    (4) the Messianic Age will reach its consummation in the return of Christ (Acts 3:20; 10:42);
    (5) an appeal for repentance, the offer of forgiveness and of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19, 25; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43).

    When they heard St Paul preaching in Athens, a group of Stoic and Epicurean philosophers thought he was proclaiming two foreign gods – Jesus and Resurrection (Acts 17:18)

    In other words, their preaching was categorical, not argumentative; concrete, not abstract; concerned with facts and actions and, above all, with a Person; not with ideas or notions or reflections.

    Perhaps, we should learn from them.

  • No time to mention the ongoing holocaust? Well, by their fruit you shall know them. What you “allow” to the least of these you “allow” to me. No wonder Catholics are leaving their faith. Such poor shepherds.

  • Michael PS,
    Then Pope Francis errs in discussing climate change etc. instead of discussing Christ by the standard you gave. Your Acts 5:32 says of the Holy Spirit….” whom God gives to those who obey Him.” That means the Holy Spirit can move through non hierarchy as Newman contended happened in the Arian mess when largely laity led the Church in a ” suspense” of the ecclesia docens….the Teaching Church.

  • In other words, the Pope resembles a cagier and less parochial version of the editorial staff of Commonweal. A few pro-forma remarks about the abortion holocaust (to which complaints about anti-abortion groups are generally appended) followed by some feature of the Democratic Party platform (to which a mess of blather about the ‘hypocrisy’ of Catholic Republicans will generally be appended or the vulgarity of someone actually engaged in serious advocacy or pastoral work will be appended).

  • The buyers, and their purposes, would be a fact and action to complete the picture of the why the sellers profit from trade in infant organs. Grisly. The laity has been informed by silence of hierarchy that anything beyond generalities is not forthcoming. Is it about medical treatment of the elite?

  • It appears that the Pope’s remarks were forecasted by Cardinal Wuerl this past Sunday. Let’s pray that today the Pope is more engaging on the truly existential and moral issues of our times. Here is the excerpt from Cardinal Wuerl

    WALLACE: Cardinal, there’s also a battle going on, I don’t have to tell you right now about Planned Parenthood and whether that should be defunded. And you have said that you believe the harvesting and use of fetal tissue is, in your word, heinous. Do you expect that to come up during the pope’s visit?
    WUERL: I expect that the Holy Father will probably focus, as he has done consistently in his pontificate on issues such as the dignity of every human person, the value and sanctity of life, but also on the development — the social development that allows a life to fully develop. He will also speak, I would expect, to our common home. I see this thread running through his comments, whether they are his homilies, his talks, whether it is in the encyclical, that you have to start with human person, respect and care for every single human person, see that person in the context of a society that allows that person to develop and flower, and then care for the good earth that allows all of that to take place.

  • I spoke too soon. At roughly 10:34 before Congress, he advocated for the global abolition of the death penalty. Apparently he knows more by infused knowledge than our 1976 Supreme Court after four years of their research in comparing deterrence studies and who found that the death penalty saves lives. Perhaps the new papal goal is for all countries who have many poor people to be more like Brazil and Mexico who without the death penalty have roughly over 20 times the murder rate of largely poor China by UN figures.

  • I spoke too soon. At roughly 10:34 before Congress, he advocated for the global abolition of the death penalty. Apparently he knows more by infused knowledge than our 1976 Supreme Court after four years of their research in comparing deterrence studies and who found that the death penalty saves lives.

    I’ll wager capital sentences would make a small dent in the problem in Latin America, which wants for patient institution building – police, courts, prisons – an institutional deficit manifest in other realms as well (e.g. their land registries, such as they are). Still, it’s an indicator of the Pope’s basic attitude, which is rampant in the occidental world, that no one be held truly accountable (except for devotees of the 1962 missal, of course).

  • Art,
    A dent made against police corruption through killing corrupt police along with cartel leaders would further the very institutions you wish patient blessings on. Chicken and the egg. Can you patiently produce non corrupt police in Mexico through exhortation etc. or would execution of those feeding raid times to cartels work quicker. I was in a corporation when a tough president entered and fired ? three key people and then toured all locations from then on in. The culture changed overnight because the man had severity as part of his makeup and you knew it wasn’t sporadic over time.. We have a married gay in Fordham’s theology chair because Popes since the Council are afraid of their own severity when they in fact have it. Few notice that Benedict fired five Bishops but he left perhaps when he saw that there were droves of people in Rome who needed firing and he was too old to cope with all of them. Firing is a symbol of execution. Most of my clan now are Chinese and I know Chinese here, in Taiwan, and several on mainland. They like the Japanese can be sweet without losing the severe side which is totally affirmed in Romans 13:4 which went unmentioned for decades now even by our most masculine Popes two of whom became less masculine with advanced age.

  • Sir, I’d refer you to the work of James Q Wilson. Celerity of punishment is much more effective than severity of punishment in influencing the level of law and order. If they’re only catching 8% of their murderers in Rio, celerity of punishment is not a feature of their social order.

  • Art,
    I agree that celerity is key as does the Mosaic law and China which by the way has cut back on executions with its high court nullfying 15% of death penalties in recent years.

  • i’m just confused and free falling- no witty observations – just bewilderment!? – this is the vicar of Christ ?…. he’s being played like a fiddle by the prince of darkness and his Democrat allies. ………….. While some folks question the Catholicism of Marcel L. and the SSPX??? I am at a loss………. something is very very wrong here….. this does not pass the smell test

Sarah Palin on Abortion for Handicapped Kids

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2015

 

Sarah Palin of course walks the walk on this issue.  For an alternative view from a pro-abort fanatic who has a Down Syndrome child, claims to love her, and still opposes laws banning abortion for Down Syndrome children, go here.  Oh yes, she also says that if she knew her child, that she claims to now love, had Down Syndrome, she would not have hesitated to abort.

There are many folks — some of whom are in the Down syndrome community — who look at my story and point to it smugly as a tale of a woman who thought having a child with Down syndrome would be her worst nightmare, but triumphed. But my relationship with my daughter was something that had to develop on its own; if I had had a prenatal diagnosis, but had been forced to continue the pregnancy like Ohio legislators want, it would have been a disaster.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Sarah Palin on Abortion for Handicapped Kids

  • “…oh yes, she also says that if she knew her child, that she claims she now loves, had Down Syndrome, she would not have hesitated to abort.”

    Wow! With a mother like this who needs Isis?

    So when this loved daughter of hers reads mommy’s statement I’m sure it will be a “bonding moment” for them both. Could you imagine your mother making that statement about you, your ailment? Talk about insanity.

    Please say a prayer to De-fund WTM Inc..
    At 10:30am Eastern time, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing testimony from two abortion survivors. The act’s of PP and the mentality of the mother who is loving (?) her Down Syndrome daughter, well, they are grotesque.

  • One more please….Sarah hits a Home run!
    “Tolerance for people who are a little bit different! ”

    Dunk that in your coffee liberal media!

  • Sarah Palin has always been a heroine to me, especially given the hatred visited on her head by the left wing maniacs.

  • Hatred for Sarah is putting it lightly.

    They are going to reap what they sow Paul.
    A very sad, infested lot, the libs for death group.
    Sickening bunch of demons.

Bishop Elect Barron, Stephen Colbert and Abortion

Thursday, August 27, AD 2015

 

Bishop Elect Barron has a post at Catholic News Report that rubs me the wrong way.  Here is the beginning:

 

Just last week, Stephen Colbert gave an interview in which the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display. Discussing the trauma that he experienced as a young man-the deaths of his father and two of his brothers in a plane crash – he told the interviewer how, through the ministrations of his mother, he had learned not only to accept what had happened but actually to rejoice in it: “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was ten; that was quite an explosion…It’s that I love the thing that I wish most had not happened.”

Flummoxed, his interlocutor asked him to elaborate on the paradox. Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: “What punishments of God are not gifts?” What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night.

Go here to read the rest.  The problem that I have with this is that the Bishop-Elect fails to note that on a crucial issue, abortion, Colbert is in opposition to the Faith.  Go here to see a video in which Colbert ridicules the efforts in 2011 to defund Planned Parenthood Worse Than Murder, Inc. on the grounds that abortions make up only three percent of the business of Worse Than Murder, Inc.  There are two problems with this line of argument.  First, because it is morally obtuse:  “Look at all the good things that Hitler did!  Murdering millions of people in death camps was only a very small percentage of what the Third Reich accomplished!”  The fact that Planned Parenthood is engaged in killing innocent children in utero should be repugnant to any “good Catholic”, or, indeed, any man or woman of conscience.  Second, because it is a lie.  Colbert got the three percent figure from Planned Parenthood talking points.  The figure is ludicrous.  Planned Parenthood performs thirty percent of all abortions in this country.  Abortions are a major revenue generator for them.  Even the pro-abort Washington Post a few weeks ago, admitted that the three percent figure is deceitful:

The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is.

The Church has been against abortion since the time of Christ.  Stephen Colbert defends the organization that promotes the ongoing murder of the most innocent among us.  Go here to watch a video of his drinking game, with a drink being taken whenever Rick Santorum mentioned partial birth abortion.

Continue reading...

117 Responses to Bishop Elect Barron, Stephen Colbert and Abortion

  • Another good article with astute observations.

    “Look at all the good things that Hitler did!”

    I occasionally remind my loving friends and relatives, who no longer bother with church(those with perfect lives, jobs, children, and homes) that the Nazi’s children were perfectly disciplined too.
    They don’t admit their misdirection–needless to say–I become the problem.

  • . Great piece, Don. I rarely was up that late but on a rare night I surfed to it and Jane Fonda was coming on to him
    and then sitting on his lap and getting closer. First she was on a Vietcong tank….then Colbert years later. I can only hope Whitey Bulger doesn’t get a public Mass with high clergy when he dies with subtle hints that he’s glory bound because he was good in prison. A Mass yes…but he should have been renditioned to Saudi Arabia.

  • I agree with Bill Bannon.

  • It’s way past time for us to just admit to ourselves that the leaders of our Church don’t ACTUALLY believe about abortion what they claim to believe.

  • Exceptional piece of the puzzle.
    Combine this missed opportunity with a Papal indifference to abortions then you have exactly what we experienced in the last two presidential elections… Catholics voting in pro-aborts without a care in their hearts.

    This article should be brought up next Sunday from the ambo, given by each priest as his homily.

  • Paraphrasing Twain, “Suppose you were a liberal. And, suppose you were an imbecile. But, I repeat myself.”
    .

    That the interviewer did not call-out Colbert on that moral nonsense tells us more about the interviewer than about Colbert.
    .

    “. . . .abortions make up only three percent of the business of Worse Than Murder, Inc.” is equivalent to telling a Holocaust survivor’s grandchildren that the Holocaust was less than 1% of Nazi Germany’s GDP in the 1940’s.
    .

    The other “moral obtuseness”, and contradiction of Catholic Teachings, is that of the sinfulness of WTM Inc.’s activities with regard to propagating artificial contraception, which, as with abortion, your (not mine) so-called hierarchy demonstrably denies.

  • I don’t typically comment but on this I feel compelled. Sometimes it’s ok to not rejoice in the sin of another and to simply celebrate the Good Work God is doing in them. My hope is that like in the gospel, those of you that would throw the first stones at your fellow humans who struggle with following the teachings of the church would be completely without sin.
    Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.
    We are to be in the world but not of it. Sometimes the world simply does what we know to be incorrect and yet it is our job to speak in LOVE to them, and allow them to turn from the sin themselves, not to force them to do it. Planned Parenthood, while actively going against church teaching, is NOT a function of the church, nor of her people. If you force them to shut down, you will literally just cause a scattering where they reopen and resolve to fight. If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.
    My question for everyone is simple, Do you love Jesus enough to allow God to work in the lives of those people that are repugnant to you? Do you love Jesus enough to show up and LOVE sinners? Do you even know Jesus?

  • “If you force them to shut down, you will literally just cause a scattering where they reopen and resolve to fight. If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.”

    Why not do both? Seek to evangelize them and also seek to extend legal protection to the unborn. What a Catholic must not do is precisely what Stephen Colbert has done: defend Planned Parenthood and attack those who are attempting to end its part in the abortion holocaust.

  • Fr. Barron, a flaky Catholic celebrity praising another flaky Catholic celebrity. Par for the course!

  • I don’t understand the Bishop elect talking about a television celebrity as the topic for his Catholhc article, when there are more pressing and interesting topics to refer to?

    What is the obsession with looking to celebrities for some trace of fidelity to God? You won’t find any. And for an educated elect Bishop to do so, brings down his credibility a notch.

    It’s all mind-numbing. And because it’s mind numbing, it’s boring and frustrating. Especially when the world is so thirsty for the Word of God. Whether they realise it or not!

  • My hope is that like in the gospel, those of you that would throw the first stones at your fellow humans who struggle with following the teachings of the church would be completely without sin.

    False equivalency. It is one thing to sin and fall short in one’s behavior, and quite another to obstinately oppose a principal tenet of the faith. Colbert is not “struggling” with following the teachings of the Church; he is manifestly contradicting them.

    Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.

    This is a strawman argument. First of all, fraternal correction is always appropriate, and does not require lambasting the other person. Second, even if one does not choose to dwell on another’s sinful or heretical behavior, it does not follow that it is then appropriate to publicly applaud a person’s faith when that person is publicly causing scandal by his opposition to Church teaching.

    Do you love Jesus enough to allow God to work in the lives of those people that are repugnant to you? Do you love Jesus enough to show up and LOVE sinners? Do you even know Jesus?>

    Perhaps you did not intend this, but your tone comes off as rather self-righteous, and frankly contradicts what you’ve just written. I always find it rather amusing that the people who complain the most bitterly about harsh judgment immediately turn around and implicitly question the interior disposition of the people they are addressing.

  • but your tone comes off as rather self-righteous,

    Or cloying.

  • ‘ fellow humans who struggle with following the teachings of the church ‘
    ‘ to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully ‘
    .
    The ‘Together’ part should be part of the struggle, or it becomes a cafeteria serving satisfaction for varying appetites. It is essential for the wholesomeness of the children allowed to live and the standards by which they proceed to maintain integrity and sanity..

  • Kat,
    Do you even know Scripture all of which is inspired by Jesus? Here’s Titus 3:10 ” After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, 11 realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.”
    That is Jesus saying that through the epistle author. The real Jesus left His hometown because His love did zilch there….Matthew 13:53-58….58 “And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith”.
    Where’s the heresy? Abortion is not simply universal ordinary magisterium anymore in the Church…an area somewhat iffy varying with the topic and Pope…e.g. death penalty of Romans 13:4. In Evangelium Vitae section 62 it …abortion as evil was made crystal clear in the extraordinary magisterium in words resembling the wording used in the Assumption and Immaculate Conception encyclicals. Pope St. JPII polled all Bishops on abortion and was therefore able to make its condemnation totally clear and infallible which is rare outside the problematic unversal ordinary magisterium.
    Therefore unlike most moral issues….abortion being clearly infallibly condemned along with euthanasia and killing the innocent….can theoretically lead to excommunication in a Church court. Which makes Titus 3:10 very applicable…Jesus telling you yourself to shun a fellow Catholic holding abortion as moral sometimes.
    Throwing stones by me at both Colbert and Whitey Bulger is metaphoric and quite inaccurate because I prayed for both men ….Whitey last night after hearing him call himself an Irish Catholic on an FBI tape. He strangled a young girl in front of her boyfriend because she simply knew of his being an FBI informant….and he killed many others. God reminded me recently in a street fight with a criminal that I’m frightfully near murder even now….while that was perfectly obvious when I was young. Without Him, I’m the vigilante killer…still earns eternal damnation though I do think governments should have extrajudicial killing teams with multiple layers of approval. Bulger killed for thirty years with corrupted contacts in local, state and Federal levels. There should be an epikeia team within government that would have protected that girl he strangled by killing him. I would have been sorely tempted to kill Bulger if he threatened my young daughter as he did to Rakes….a liquor store owner he was extorting in South Boston. But if you see me throwing stones verbally, you can be sure I’m praying for those people because I pray for the worst of the world almost nightly for many years because without God…I’m not that far from them. Every line of the epistles is from Christ…Vatican II Dei Verbum….” both testaments in all their parts have God as their author”. Christ even in His literal words on earth talked of shunning in this Mt.18:15-17 passage…” if your brother sin against you, show him in private. If he does not listen,…take one or two more with you…if he refuses to listen to them, take him to the church…if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as the gentile and the tax collector”.
    So the real actual Jesus does not sound like the one you are asking us about. The real Jesus had limits not on love but on friendliness. Love can be done through prayer after friendliness ends…after contact ends. Two of the functions Christ has right now in Heaven are…intercession ( Hebrews 7:25) and waiting while His enemies are made into His footstool ( psalm 110:1, Acts 2:35, …and I Cor. 15:25…”For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet.”
    Love and justice….not just the former.

  • “Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.”

    This is a strawman argument. First of all, fraternal correction is always appropriate, and does not require lambasting the other person.

    Indeed, PZ. In fact, admonishing the sinner is one of the seven spiritual works of mercy.

  • Of all and any people, Catholics, because of Mary saying : “I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION” must know that the human being comes into existence at procreation. At procreation, God creates and infuses an immortal, rational, human soul into the newly begotten human being endowed with free will and sovereign personhood. “Before you were in your mother’s womb, I knew you..Isaiah. Unbelief in the immortal, human soul is atheism and the subjugation of the sovereign person to the animal kingdom, to subhumanism. It is called secularism today, but it is subhumanism.
    The other thing that violated my sense of truth is that the man celebrated his parents’ demise, instead of seriously praying for them. The victims of death are the ones who may celebrate, not their left behind loved ones.
    Somebody once told me that I ought to be glad, for abortion sends many innocent souls to heaven. This is the lie given over to our supposedly spiritual directors. The rest is atheism. The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Unbridled Ignorance. Refusal to cogitate and use our rational soul. Thinking without our soul is is what??? Sins against the Holy Spirit.

  • “Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.”
    We are not “fellow Catholics”. Stop ex-appropriating my support for an unholy alliance. It is the principle of injustice that must be addressed, not the fool embracing such an evil. Who will exorcise the devil if the devil is allowed to hide in the human form of a human being? Are there enough swine to hold the legion? At least the Chosen People did not allow human sacrifice to Molech. the Chosen People were instructed to drive those nations out of the Holy Land. People who have eyes but cannot see, have ears but cannot hear…a free will choice.

  • “If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.”. -Kay

    So we have a clear understanding of this loving them to the understanding of the church? Please do tell!
    The sidewalk prayers and counseling that have been active since the beginning, 1973, are understandable. They have saved babies.
    They have born fruit, ie Rachel’s vineyard, Silent No More, Our Lady of Good Council Homes just to name a few. To me this is clear understanding of the church’s love in the middle of this rotten mess…tax funded abortions on demand.

    The results of a sit back and love without opposition to the rotten mess is not working well Kay. Do you think we have less abortions because we have been visible and outspoken in this war? I believe it is so. Should we unite as a undivided Church in proclaiming abortion to be the scourge of our times, and to not perpetuate the war by making accountable the representative’s that want our vote? Yes!

    To be divided as a body of Christ in this issue of Life for all, born and unborn, is prolonging the deaths of the Innocent’s.
    60 million today. 100 million tomorrow?
    Choose unity. Choose life.

  • “If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.”

    I wish this was true Kat, but the devil does not back down so easily. Especially not with love.

    It is right to judge these people and their actions, because their intentions are evil, knowingly and deliberately. By choice. We must oppose. We must condemn deliberate evil actions. But also pray for God to intervene.

    It is not right, however, to judge those, whose intention is misguided, confused- most probably unknowing. I guess you could apply your philosophy to these folk.

    Celebrities, are a mixed bag of the two- it’s difficult to discern who is what.

  • I don’t agree. And that’s because this wasn’t a Salute to Stephen Colbert, Comedian, Catholic; rather it was a meditation on the Graces that come from deep suffering, in which Stephen Colbert, Comedian, Catholic was but one of three exemplars, the others being J.R.R. Tolkien, Author, Catholic, and John Henry Cardinal Newman, Convert, Catholic.

  • This is a salute:

    “Just last week, Stephen Colbert gave an interview in which the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display. Discussing the trauma that he experienced as a young man-the deaths of his father and two of his brothers in a plane crash – he told the interviewer how, through the ministrations of his mother, he had learned not only to accept what had happened but actually to rejoice in it: “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was ten; that was quite an explosion…It’s that I love the thing that I wish most had not happened.”

    Flummoxed, his interlocutor asked him to elaborate on the paradox. Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: “What punishments of God are not gifts?” What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night.”

  • The thing that links Colbert, with Tolkein and Cardinal Newman isn’t his Catholocism or his celebrity, it’s his experience of the mystery and wonder of God’s providence –to paraphrase Bishop Elect Barron.
    .
    In case that wasn’t clear.

  • I thought it was an introduction.

  • I don’t read it that way. But all I knew about Colbert before this article was that he had a show I’ve never seen on a cable channel I don’t have and that he’s replacing a late night talking head I never liked on a show I rarely watched. Oh, and he voiced the President in fairly good Dreamworks Animation pic. I take it that he made a career for himself lampooning the emminently lampoonable Bill O’Reilly.
    .
    Since today is the first time I’ve learned that he’s a pro-choice Catholic, When I read the BIshop-Elect’s piece last night, I didn’t read it as a commentary on the totality or authenticiy of Colbert’s Catholic witness, just on his witness to the experience of Grace in suffering. So to my mind, the point is irrelevant to Barron’s essay.

  • “So to my mind, the point is irrelevant to Barron’s essay.”

    Whenever anyone is pointed to in the way in which Barron pointed to Colbert, noting the depth of that person’s faith, how the individual lives his Catholicism is relevant, especially in regard to someone like Colbert who has dissented from Church teaching publicly, stridently and unapologetically. This is akin to a priest noting that a Mafia killer never missed Mass on Sunday.

  • What I now wish I had said:

    I’m sorry it rubs you the wrong way, because I think it might be keeping you from seeing the point, which is “God’s providence is a mysterious and wonderful thing[,]” and “our lives are not about us[;] . . . they are, in fact, ingredient in God’s providential purposes, part of a story that stretches infinitely beyond what we can immediately grasp.” And even a celebrity pro-Abort shallow cafateria catholic (assuming that is in fact what Colbert is) can sometimes offer witness to the Truth.

  • Gee, I wonder if Barron would have praised the faith of Colbert if he had been say, stridently anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. I have a sleeking suspicion he would deliver a homily laced with F-Bombs and other expletives before he would do that.

  • The interviewer in the video above posted on his Facebook page about all the hate coming from Catholics after the June 26 decision about gay “marriage”. He celebrates it.
    All three of these characters – Colbert, Barron, and Martin make the devil gleeful- quite good catches for the dark side- but we are praying for our Church and must defend truth – I don’t want to pray for these three because I am angry and hurt by the deception. I don’t do a good job but I know I should.

  • About fr Martin – father Z has written about him a few times . Also there is this
    http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2015/07/fr-james-martin/

  • “And even a celebrity pro-Abort shallow cafateria catholic (assuming that is in fact what Colbert is) can sometimes offer witness to the Truth.”

    Indeed, as can the Devil.

  • “Colbert, Barron, and Martin make the devil gleeful”

    To be fair to Father Barron, he has normally been orthodox. He recently released a brilliant video on the Planned Parenthood videos that I will feature in a post tomorrow. I wrote this post because I expect better from Barron. With many other clerics, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.

  • Give Barron the benefit of the doubt that:

    A) he doesn’t know of Colberts stance on abortion

    Or

    B) he knows his stance on abortion and is shining light on Colbert’s good understanding of suffering, to slowly turn him around to see his flawed view. If Baron is Bishop of Los Angeles/Hollywood- then he would have a vested interest in having dialogue with “Catholic” celebrities (which is beyond me- they’re all about attention).

    If B) is true, it will only be evident over time.

    Btw, Colbert mocking Santorum over partial birth abortion is beyond appalling. And low.

    Someone should send him a picture of a murdered baby and see if he laughs.

  • We can thank God for any Grace that we have, but we cannot argue about the degree of our faith – it is like discussing the extent of how much you Love. The Love of God is limitless and the extent of our Love for God may only be measured by God. God does not and could not accept abortions – the degree of our Love for God should understand that and thus – that is our relationship with God.
    But we are all sinners and God is all merciful, so he can and must be the Judge.

  • “And even a celebrity pro-Abort shallow cafateria catholic (assuming that is in fact what Colbert is) can sometimes offer witness to the Truth.”
    Indeed, as can the Devil.

    Okay Mark.

  • I wanted to expect better from Fr Barron too.

  • “Okay Mark.”

    Actually James, James 2:19 to be precise:

    “Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.”

  • Once again, thank you Donald. It is perfectly clear for all to see that the majority of the hierarchy of the Catholic church is not pro-life. These bishops do not believe abortion is murder, a holocaust in all but name. Your proof is irrefutable. “Lets try a thought experiment.” Indeed. Substitute slavery for the unborn and there is not one single prelate who would act the way ours do. The Father Barrons of the world would not be celebrating the “deep Catholic faith” of any such persons.

  • I have to say that being disappointed is an understatement for me. After the CMP videos started coming out, I’ve been waiting to hear a statement from Archbishop Lori. He hasn’t said anything. Not one word. I’m extremely disappointed. I feel like a complete wretch giving money every month to the 5 year Capital Campaign that we pledged to. Part of the money comes back to the parish, but our parish priest had made it abundantly clear to not give the money directly to the parish. I tend to agree that it’s becoming more apparent that the higher ups in the Church aren’t as opposed to abortion as they say they are.

  • Fr. Barron went wobbly when he found out they wanted to make him a bishop. I called a posting of his cowardly. The liberal archbishop of Chicago got him promoted out of his hair. Another critic of Barron noted that he thinks hardly anyone will end up in hell. Christ seemed a little clear about those who do not know Him. Do our catholic clerics really believe anything? Can we tell Cardinal George is dead?

  • Pretty shallow criticism to an article.

  • The approach Pope Francis uses is very similar to what Christ did. You and I can never read what is on someone’s heart. Christ called Peter who openly admitted, Lord I am a sinful man. Yet Christ called him anyway despite this. Christ openly and publicly invited sinners, the outcasts to dine with Him. Why? Because meeting people where they are at in their faith journey is how you win someone over. You don’t win someone over by publically shaming them or calling them out on something they may be struggling with or don’t fully understand. If Stephen Colbert comes to better understand the issue of abortion years from now, what will you say then? Again, you don’t know the private converations these men have. You can only assume. Being polarizing will actually have the opposite effect; it will turn someone away from the truth.

  • “Pretty shallow criticism to an article.”

    Not as shallow as your substanceless comment D, especially considering the number of comments and the hits that the post has received.

  • “If Stephen Colbert comes to better understand the issue of abortion years from now, what will you say then?”

    About time. Let us be clear what we are talking about here: Colbert is a defender of the slaying of children in the womb. In more morally sane times he would be regarded as a monster.

  • Colbert not only believes in murdering unborn children he’s a great promoter of homosexual “marriage”. I feel like throwing up anytime someone brings up Colbert’s “devout” Catholic faith. He”s just one more of the legion of cafeteria Catholics that give the faith a bad name. Father “We all go to heaven” Barron loves him because Father Barron is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Church of Nice.

  • Am I missing something here? We’re gonna lambast Colbert’s character for a 2011 video and get pissed off at Bishop Elect Barron for not asking Colbert about his abortion position. Yet THIS video was posted March 2nd, 2015 and if I’m not mistaken the Planned Parenthood video’s of 2015 came out in late June.

    Colbert is no saint but he’s done WAY more good for the Church than any other celebrity.

  • , By “shallow” I am referring to the near constant attempt to throw wayward darts towards church leaders who don’t discuss points as you wish. Seems your comments from the article by B. Barron are off base. Yes, it is tragic that Colbert shows the world two faces … a good catholic side and the ignorant PP side. Barron’s piece was not intended to be about Corbert nor all his positions. Clearly you know that, yet for the sake of a blog post choose to ignore it. My reading leaves me dissappointed in Colbert, not Barron.

  • “Colbert is no saint but he’s done WAY more good for the Church than any other celebrity.”

    What a truly ludicrous statement.

  • It is ludicrous to use a pro-infanticide, pro-sodomy secular comedian of questionable talent as a example of fidelity to the Catholic Faith. If St Paul were on Earth today, then he would tell the Church to hand Colbert over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that his soul might be saved on the last day.
    .
    It is one thing to be a private person and have a moral failing, but you try to pick yourself up and do right. It is another to be a nationally reknown person professing values in public that are anathema to 2000 years of Church tradition. I do not care how much Colbert says he suffered with the death of whoever in his family. He supports the murder and vivisection of the unborn, and the filth of sterile sexual perversion that is destroying our society. That being the case, he has no clue of what real suffering is. Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. That is what he is.

  • How insightful Don – if only you would address the first point I made or perhaps enlighten us with whom you think is the best Catholic celebrity (distraction). Perhaps you prefer Mel Gibson – he’s never done ANYTHING embarrassing especially when we talk about Jews. Jim Carry? Ask him about vaccines! Many whom I’ve read about aren’t nearly as dedicated as Colbert whom has taught Sunday School and been far more public about his faith then others. Perhaps I’m biased from watching too many of his shows…BUT please do tell me how to judge people on content from 4 years ago. I’d love to hear how you answer relevant questions to future controversies/allegations/scandals. Or avoid empirical evidence that makes this article mute.

  • Yes Paul – clearly Colbert should be put in the deepest fires of hell for his positions on abortion, same sex marriage, and being a ‘Liberal. Progressive. Democrat.’ He has soooo much influence on US government unlike Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. How dare Colbert have a public life and any opinion outside of the Church. If only we could be as faithful to the faith as convert Conservative, Traditional, Republican, the mighty Newt Gingrich.

  • Steve0 is an excellent example of our dilemma in the Catholic Church. The words of St. Pope JPII and abortion being an intrinsic evil that can not be tolerated, fall on deaf ears unfortunately. Sodomite supporters and pro-aborts are Catholic are right.

    Thank you Steve zero.

  • Wow Philip thanks – I’m glad you were able to infer my position on abortion as if I explicitly stated it here like I was at an inquisition! BEHOLD zero tolerance and understanding – it’s as if the last THREE PEOPLE have yet to address the DATES of the VIDEO! See my first post please and respond to it – coy accusations and attacking my character doesn’t get you points in heaven.
    Colbert said Matthew 5 (beatitudes) was his favorite bible passage but he quoted from Matthew 6. Perhaps this room would do well to read the beginning of Matthew 7. I don’t presume to know the mind of God much less the minds of others.
    For the record I’m pro life both before and after birth.

  • Pingback: Defund Planned Parenthood
  • “aren’t nearly as dedicated as Colbert whom has taught Sunday School and been far more public about his faith then others.”

    And he is in favor of baby killing Steve. In regard to the Faith, he is an example, an example of the type of Catholic not to be.

  • “Colbert said Matthew 5 (beatitudes) was his favorite bible passage”

    Judging from his embrace of abortion I assumed it would have been a truncated version of Matthew 19:14 which stops at “Suffer the little children”.

  • Here we go again.
    .
    Steve0,
    .
    I do NOT advocate Colbert be sent to the deepest fires of hell. Rather, I stated that St Paul would advocate that the Church should hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh in order that his soul might be saved on the last day. That would result in his NOT going to hell. But what has Bishop-elect Barron done? He has elevated Colbert’s Catholicism to national prominence instead of condemning what St Paul Paul would clearly have condemned, and by so doing he has greased the skids to hell not only for Colbert but for many others.
    .
    As for fallible Catholic Republicans like Newt Gingrich, there is a world of difference between such people and liberal progressive Democrats who insist that infanticide is repoductive rights and sodomy is marriage. One may be a Republican and a Christian. One cannot be a member of the Party of death and sexual perversion, and be a Christian. Yes, Republicans are often wrong, but generally they are not evil. Democrats however are evil and therein lies the difference.
    .
    One last thing – any one of us (myself most of all) who does not repent goes to hell. That said, (I repeat myself) there is a world of difference between being a private person and having a failing, and being a publc personality who maintains positions contrary to basic human morality. So while Colbert does not have the influence that Pelosi or Biden may have, people in the public by virtue of his televised presence do look up to him and as such he does have an influence. Any private opinion held publicly thus becomes cause for scandal, and that is what both Bishop Elect Barron and Steve Colbert have done.

  • I would think that Colbert’s advocacy for the baby killers at PP is a dealbreaker for his Catholic witness. It is certainly impossible to imagine apologetics on behalf of a prominent Catholic fronting for Maggie Sanger back when she was a going concern. The bishops and laity would have rounded as one on such a person–and rightly so.

    But now, hey–it’s a balancing test or something.

    In any event, SteveO, you are cordially invited to my house for dinner. I put a pinch of cyanide into the entree. You shouldn’t have a problem with that–taking the good with the bad, and all that.

  • Now Boethius was undoubtedly a Christian and even a theologian; his other works bear titles like De Trinitate and De Fide Catholica. But the ‘philosophy’ to which he turned for ‘consolation’ in the face of death contains few explicity Christian elements and even its compatibility with Christian doctrine might be questioned.

    Such a paradox has provoked many hypotheses. As:
    (1) That his Christianity was superficial and failed him when brought to the test, so that he had to fall back on what neo-Platonism could do for him.
    (2) The his Christianity was solid as a rock and his neo-Platonism a mere game with which he distracted himself in his dungeon[.]
    (3) That the theological essays were not really written by the same man.

    None of these theories seems to me necessary.

    Though the De Consolatione was certainly written after his fall, in exile and perhaps under arrest, I do not think it was written in a dungeon nor in daily expectation of the executioner. [ . . . . ] [T]he general tone of the book . . . is not that of a prisoner awaiting death but that of a noble and statesman lamenting his fall[.] [ . . . . ] The Consolation Boethius seeks is not for death but for ruin. When he wrote the book he may have known that his life was in some danger. I do not think he despaired of it. [ . . . .]

    If we had asked Boethius why his book contained philosophical rather than religious consolations, I do not doubt that he would have answered, “But did you not read my title? I wrote philosophically, not religiously, because I had chosen the consolations of philosophy, not those of religion, as my subject. You might as well ask why a book on arithmetic does not use geometrical methods.” Aristotle had impressed on all who followed him the distinction between disciplines and the propriety of following in each its appropriate method.

    C. S, Lewis, The Discarded Image

  • It is ludicrous to use a pro-infanticide, pro-sodomy secular comedian of questionable talent as a example of fidelity to the Catholic Faith.

    Then it’s a good thing Barron didn’t do that.

  • Mel Gibson?

    His contribution to Catholism will out live and out last any so-called contribution to Catholism that a popular Mr. Colbert will ever have. Mel used Venerable Catherine Emmerich as one of his sources for the moments of Christ’s passion. His, Mel’s retelling of the greatest sacrifice ever made, or ever will be made, is monumental. Mr. Steven Colbert can poke fun and parade as a theologian in disguise for the (Catholics) that don’t invest in the 1993 CCC.

    Even with Mel’s faux-pas, He’s healthier than Mr. Colbert. Much healthier in spirit, mind and soul.

  • “Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: ‘What punishments of God are not gifts?’”

    Who is God “punishing?” Does Colbert think God was punishing him, that’s why his father and 2 brothers were killed? If so, his comment previously seems a bit insulting and ridiculing of the Catholic faith, from which he learned to “rejoice” in their deaths.

  • Father Barron’s evangelical approach seeks out the good wherever it is, and whoever speaks it, whether they’re a heretical Catholic like Colbert, or a Protestant, or even an atheist. He is certainly aware of Colbert’s support for abortion, but just because someone isn’t in a state of grace doesn’t mean they haven’t said something true–in this case, Colbert has said something deeply true, summing up the essence of the Cross. Barron must have judge it a distraction to chastise Colbert in this particular instance, but that isn’t the same as letting him off the hook.

    Abortion, in our culture, is simply not regarded as the obscenity thoroughgoing Catholics know it is. Barron knows the public is sick of what they perceive as a constant harping on abortion by the leaders of the Church. His approach is to try to emphasize the teachings of the Church on the meaning and dignity of human life, for which people are deeply hungry. Barron has often spoken of how Dorothy Day’s commitment to social justice was intimately linked to her devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. That is to say, faith comes first; morals follow. Our Lord himself affirmed this when he said all of the Law is simply commentary on the commandment to love God fully, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. Colbert’s statement shows that his faith is right; it’s his morals that go astray. Barron chose simply to comment on the former. His silence on the latter was an act of diplomacy, not negligence. If we’re always scolding, we’re not going to attract anyone to the faith. Barron does not hesitate to scold on many occasions, but his greater concern, as he puts it, is to balance the “Yes” of Catholicism with the “No”.

  • Don – again you continue to ignore the fact that the video posted above was published in March and the latest PP videos are from June/July. Has Colbert posted his feelings about the latest PP videos? Am I missing something here or are we crucifying the man based off his position from 4 years ago?
    Paul – your patience is appreciated. It must feel amazing to have such a direct connection with God and all his saints to advocate St. Paul’s judgment. It would be truly merciful for Colbert to get this Purgatory you describe. I’m reminded of the story when Jesus was the first to stone the adulteress for her sins, but he didn’t – Jesus told her to ‘go and sin no more.’ It’s almost as if Colbert repented it wouldn’t be good enough for God because he’s a public figure and has lead so many others astray.
    Dale – thank you for the dinner invitation please forgive me if I don’t eat anything as my tolerance for cyanide is rather low. God didn’t seem to have a problem taking Saul as his leader even after he killed many Christians. Did I miss the commandment that abortion and sodomy was more egregious to God then murder? See God is able to take the flawed man and remove the bad to leave his perfect goodness.
    Philip – dating a woman half your age is ‘healthy’ – I’m sure the Passion will make up for all future sins too right? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3211713/Mel-Gibson-s-girlfriend-Rosalind-Ross-declines-speak-police-actor-s-alleged-attack-Australian-photographer.html

  • Who is God “punishing?”

    Were you to read the rest of the paragraph, and all of the paragaph following, the answer presents itself.

  • “Don – again you continue to ignore the fact that the video posted above was published in March and the latest PP videos are from June/July. Has Colbert posted his feelings about the latest PP videos? Am I missing something here or are we crucifying the man based off his position from 4 years ago?”

    What did he fail to comprehend about PP when he defended it? Has he lived his life under a rock? His drinking game about partial birth abortion was in 2012. Think about that for a moment. Mocking a politician, Rick Santorum, for opposing what pro-abort Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to as barely disguised infanticide.

  • A breath of fresh air response from a stale thread.

  • “Philip – dating a woman half your age is ‘healthy’ – I’m sure the Passion will make up for all future sins too right?”

    No, it will not:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/12/crazy-mel/

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/03/13/hollywood-should-continue-to-blacklist-mel-gibson/

    I will say one thing for Crazy Mel however. At his worst he has never defended the baby murderers of Planned Parenthood, Steve, and all your bloviating will not alter that fact in regard to Colbert.

  • So, we should not praise the piety and learning of Bossuet, because he defended the Four Gallican Articles, or Blaise Pascal’s, because he believed in the Limited Atonement?

  • ‘video of his drinking game, with a drink being taken whenever Rick Santorum mentioned partial birth abortion’

    A caveat from those with Holy Orders, in their appeal to the culture by using celebrity examples as Catholic, would promote wise teaching, higher learning and examples of Saints aside.

  • “To be fair to Father Barron, he has normally been orthodox. He recently released a brilliant video on the Planned Parenthood videos that I will feature in a post tomorrow. I wrote this post because I expect better from Barron. With many other clerics, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.”

    Yes, Barron has normally stayed within the technical bounds of orthodoxy, but he has shown, as I pointed out in the “Father Barron and the Bomb” piece, that he is not above using below the belt smear tactics against historical figures or giving glowing reviews to books that do so.

    Fr. Barron also does not have to worry anyone getting access to him that can level substantive criticism of what he says. This is especially true now that he will soon join the ranks of the episcopacy.

    I would also say that Catholic World Report shares equal blame here for allowing that piece to be run in their publication. They have also ran some of Mark Shea’s ridiculous “anti-consequentialist” screeds.

  • I cannot abide “Catholics” who defend the murder of babies in the womb. If any person, religious or not, believe that we as humans are invested with a metaphysical essence called ‘spirit’ then the killing of babies can not be rationalized. Even a materialist Darwinist recognizes that the zygote is a unique, living, creature with DNA rendering it a life form that can never be replicated. By what right do baby killers execute these life forms? These are people who wouldn’t kill a rabbit. Like Bork said, he supported abortion UNTIL HE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

  • “. . . the trauma that he experienced as a young man-the deaths of his father and two of his brothers in a plane crash – he told the interviewer how, through the ministrations of his mother, he had learned not only to accept what had happened but actually to rejoice in it: “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was ten; that was quite an explosion…It’s that I love the thing that I wish most had not happened.”

    “Flummoxed, his interlocutor asked him to elaborate on the paradox. Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: “What punishments of God are not gifts?” What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night.”

    Argue as you may, gentlemen, the hope and trust in God’s providence expressed in the passage above is what I am taking away from this website today.

  • Don – Thank you for addressing my first point about the video’s…this format of sharing can be difficult and frustrating especially on such a hot topic as abortion. Regarding Colbert’s television character from the Colbert Report Colbert plays a fictional newscaster to entertain. Was Colbert’s drinking game in good taste – NO but it does not define him forever. Please remember in 2012 Mr. Santorum was the butt of many jokes for his stance on many political issues. Remember when he told a lady to reduce her cell phone/cable bill to pay for her prescriptions? How about his support for ‘big insurance’ and their ability to discriminate against per-existing medical conditions. Perhaps we should label him a heretic for recently disagreeing PUBLICLY with the Pope on Climate Change?
    Don – your right about Mel he will not support PP! Let us continue to pray that he can pull himself together and not have another drunken incident. Much like we should pray for Colbert – that he might see the error in his ways and repent.
    I’ve rewatched the ‘Defense of Planned Parenthood’ video. What did he say in the video that was factually wrong? I found it hilarious because he pulled clips of newscasters and politicians saying idiotic things. In fact I’d say he didn’t show support PP but rather attacked the people that factually are incorrect. PP doesn’t do 90% abortions and no Fox&Friends – you can’t get the described medical procedures at Walgreen’s.
    Lastly Don – thanks for the new vocab word. It’s rather difficult to be laconic when addressing multiple commentators.

  • Daily body counts!

    Chet Huntley and David Brinkley would report the news. Remember? No not fashion or celebrity gossip crap, but news that impact the very core of our lives, like the daily body counts from Vietnam. I remember them.
    We prayed for their families and the deceased at the commercial breaks. We prayed for and end to that War.

    Until we get the nightly death count from each state where PP slaughter’s the Innocent’s, until then this debate is a drinking game to some, and the deterioration of the nation to others.
    Until we get those death tallies each night it’s not going to mean anything. We need a nightly reminder!

    Then the abortion rates will drop.
    Then providers will cease to have taxpayer dollars.
    Then the debate will cease.
    The War will end.
    Life will be respected once again.

  • Eventually it comes to the point where I refuse to engage people like Steven0. They are wrong. They will not be comvinced. They are not worth debating. I am 58 years old. I work in nuclear energy. I got more important things to do. Suffice it to say Colbert is a supporter of baby murdering and sodomy. He supports evil. He will answer for that. Barron ingratiating himself with liberals is disgusting. I got no time for anything further. God save America.

  • “So, we should not praise the piety and learning of Bossuet, because he defended the Four Gallican Articles, or Blaise Pascal’s, because he believed in the Limited Atonement?”

    Apples and rock salt MPS. When did either of them defend abortion?

  • “Argue as you may, gentlemen, the hope and trust in God’s providence expressed in the passage above is what I am taking away from this website today.”

    A pity that he does not apply that hope and trust in regard to the babies who come unwanted into this world and then are slaughtered by the contract killers of Planned Parenthood, the organization he defends.

  • Fr. Barron also missed an opportunity to point out how ironic it is that a pro-abort cradle Catholic cites his Catholic faith as something that helped get through the suffering of such a tragic loss, which is actually very life affirming.

    One of the most astounding truths of the reality of evil is how self-refuting it really is.

  • Ernst – if your referring to the link, I read the first link and still get the impression that the message is when bad things happens that is God’s punishment for something. What am I missing?

  • I participate with utmost care, like a not so strong swimmer in a stormy sea. Is not most sin a manifestation of spiritual ignorance? Christ from the Cross says, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. So I avoid to judge the state of another’s soul but out of love correct his error. In this case, the greater love is for the millions who are murdered before they defend themselves. I’d say more but at seventy-five I have a lot yet to learn. Then I think of good old Peter who with faith walked on the water……… a little.

  • “His contribution to Catholism will out live and out last any so-called contribution to Catholism that a popular Mr. Colbert will ever have. ”

    Well said Phillip.

    I don’t know much about Colbert, but he comes across as a sheep in wolf clothing.

    Mel Gibson with all his sins (and we ALL have them) struggles with alcoholism. And I would t be surprised if he struggles with mental illness too.

    But he does not defend his sins nor makes excuses, nor advocates for anything contrary to church teaching.

    Advocating for the killing of the unborn, laughing at it, laughing at those that defend the unborn is disgusting!

    You cannot CANNOT be Catholic and defend abortion. Period. Teach Sunday school, be a Eucharistic minister or find the cure for cancer- you are NOT a Catholic if you defend the killing if the innocent and defenceless unborn.

    Mel Gibson, is more if a Catholic in my eyes.

  • Of course, the lying liberal sacs of feces will employ whatever infallible (assuming it’s not the Truth) Colbert says as if it were ex cathedra Church Teaching. And, the lowing hordes of misinformed, single-digit IQ dem voters will be thusly enlightened.

  • I read the first link and still get the impression that the message is when bad things happens that is God’s punishment for something. What am I missing?

    .
    Not when bad things per se happen; when death happens. “[W]hat particularly intrigued me,” wrote Barron, “was the reference to Tolkien, which was culled, not from The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, but from a letter that the great man wrote to an inquirer, who had wondered whether Tolkien took death with sufficient spiritual seriousness in his literary work.”
    .
    Reread Genesis 3 in the light of Romans 5:12-21, and 6:15-23 (or maybe all of chapters 5 & 6).
    .

    O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
    which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

    .
    Planned Parenthood, arbortion, contraception, and Colbert’s manifest failures to uphold publicly the Church’s teachings on them, don’t enter into the Bishop-Elect’s essay because that’s not what he chose to write about, much as Donald might wish it were otherwise.
    .
    So in this very narrow instance, D Will made a valid point.

    Finally, by way of anticipatory prebuttal, Barron closed with:

    One of the most potent insights of the spiritual masters is that our lives are not about us, that they are, in fact, ingredient in God’s providential purposes, part of a story that stretches infinitely beyond what we can immediately grasp. Why are we suffering now? Well, it might be so that, in St. Paul’s language, we might comfort someone else with the same consolation we have received in our suffering. And that someone might be a person who has not even been born.

    St. John Paul II commented that, for people of faith, there are no coincidences, only aspects of God’s providence that we have not yet fully understood. The line that runs from Newman to Murphy to Tolkien to Colbert was not dumb chance, a mere coincidence; rather, it was an instance of the slow but sure unfolding of the divine plan.

    .
    The blood of the innocent crying out to Heaven won’t be ignored. Nor will their suffering go to waste.

  • “The blood of the innocent crying out to Heaven won’t be ignored. Nor will their suffering go to waste.”

    Nobody has a right to ignore the blood of the innocent crying in this life. It defies God. This is the real test.

    And nobody has the right to defend any TV clown that thinks it is ok to do so.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Apples and rock salt MPS. When did either of them defend abortion?”

    My point is that both departed from the fulness of the Faith on particular points.

    Even that great champion of orthodoxy, St Atahansius wrote of Arian baptisms, “”Is not the rite administered by the Arians, altogether empty and unprofitable? He that is sprinkled by them is rather polluted than redeemed,” a doctrinecondemned by Pope St Stephen some 50 years earlier. St Ambrose, one of the four great doctorsof the Latin Church, fell into the same error: “”The baptism of traitors does not heal, does not cleanse, but defiles.” Should we include a caveat, when we praise their writings?

  • “My point is that both departed from the fulness of the Faith on particular points”

    My point MPS is that your attempted analogy is nonsense.

    http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html

  • William P Walsh wrote, “Then I think of good old Peter who with faith walked on the water……… a little.”
    Concerning St Peter’s denial of Christ, St Augustine teaches, “”that God, in order to show us that without grace we can do nothing, left St. Peter without grace.” St John Crysostom also, “that the fall of St. Peter happened, not through any coldness towards Jesus Christ, but because grace failed him; and that he fell, not so much through his own negligence as through the withdrawal of God, as a lesson to the whole Church, that without God we can do nothing.”
    Very salutary this, in an age when the Church is so infected with Pelagianism.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “My point MPS is that your attempted analogy is nonsense.”

    It is not, strictly speaking an analogy at all, but univocal examples of departures from Catholic teaching.

    One could argue that some errors are more pernicious than others, but, by that standard, errors about the Atonement go to the heart of the Gospel and errors about the Primacy to the Church’s unity. Any error on a moral question, whilst deplorable, comes a long way down that list

  • “It is not, strictly speaking an analogy”

    Yes it is between Colbert and the examples you cited. And if you think that defending baby murdering is not more important than the doctrinal disputes you raised in the eyes of God, I respectfully suggest that you take a very long look in your mirror.

  • Defend/accuse Colbert or Fr. Barron ( or Fr. Martin) – ? We can all see the sin here, quite public because of the position these three have put themselves in as leaders, teachers, shapers of the culture
    What is important to me is that people, young and old, need to be warned about the messages coming from these three.
    In many ways TAC can act as a watchman on the wall.
    .
    All of the points made here in this discussion are thoughtful. Perhaps Fr Barron and Fr Martin are at risk for their actions because of their ordination and position as teachers of the Faith (James 3) They have maxed their response to the call to evangelize by taking their effort to highest levels of communication today in DVD’s, print, internet and personal appearances…but the content of what they are preaching should be checked. There is danger to their own souls for they are leading lesser minds astray from Truth.
    .
    also James say in 2:1-4 that favoritism toward one who is rich and influential can be dangerous. (if we give acceptance to one who is rich and famous Because he is rich and attractive) doesn’t help us and doesn’t help him. If we show such partiality and do not call these men out, despite their positional identity, we do not love them.
    Colbert seems to me to be confused and searching although very gifted and glib. He has knowledge but not faith I guess.
    Liberty comes with acceptance of God’s authority…”law” of faith or “obedience” of faith
    Love and responsibility – that is what we are called to as Catholics

  • Nobody has a right to ignore the blood of the innocent crying in this life. It defies God. This is the real test.
    And nobody has the right to defend any TV clown that thinks it is ok to do so.

    Then it’s a good thing that nobody is.

  • “Then it’s a good thing nobody is”

    Stephen Colbert is.

  • I had assumed you were talking about the commenters here.

  • Defending a TV clown, that is.

  • Well I am.

    Some comments come across as forgiving of this mans pro-abortion stance because he teaches Sunday school- ie. defending a TV clowns good qualities- and ending with the consolation that the blood of the innocent will not be forgotten. It can’t be both ways. If we don’t want to forget the blood of the innocent, then don’t defend those that do so arrogantly- like Stephen Colbert, because he calls himself “Catholic”.

  • And some comments come across like some commenter hasn’t bothered to read the original essay because some commenter is too busy condemning either Worse than Murder Inc. or Stephen Colbert, or both, and can’t be bothered to take the time to actually read and try to understand what Bishop-Elect Barron wrote about.
    .
    But that’s the problem with Some commenter. And you’ll have to take it up with him.
    .
    Or maybe I’ve just misunderstood what Some commenter was trying to say.

  • “Or maybe I’ve just misunderstood what Some commenter was trying to say.”

    I don’t know if you have. But Donald is completely right about criticising a Bishop of the Church using a catholic celebrity who supports the killing of the innocent, as an example for good Christian thinking- because Colbert knows what it’s like to suffer.

  • Donald is wrong because Barron’s essay isn’t about Colbert’s thinking, good, Christian, or otherwise. If it’s about anybody’s, it’s Tolkien’s thinking that it would be about. And really, what it’s about is “the salvific quality of suffering” in which one can discover that “that God’s providence is a mysterious and wonderful thing.”
    .
    But we’re all too busy to notice that, playing, as we are, the role of Pharisees tut-tutting that rabbi from Nazareth who consorts with women, gentiles, tax collectors and other assorted sinners.

  • “Donald is wrong because Barron’s essay isn’t about Colbert’s thinking, good, Christian, or otherwise.”

    Donald is right because the Bishop-Elect saluted the faith of a man who defends the contract killers of Planned Parenthood. If Barron did not know about Colbert, he is sloppy and ignorant, used in a literal sense, in choosing him as an example. If he did know and did not care, that is simply appalling.

  • “But we’re all too busy to notice that, playing, as we are, the role of Pharisees tut-tutting that rabbi from Nazareth who consorts with women, gentiles, tax collectors and other assorted sinners.”

    Christ told the sinners to go and sin no more. I can imagine the words that Christ would have for the defenders of child murderers.

  • Ernst.

    Kind Sir. I’ve read your posts from previous threads, and I sincerely mean this, your a good man.

    I disagree with your final assertion.

    What many of us are, is not Pharisees, but follows of Christ tired of others that claim the same, yet help to perpetuate the ongoing killing of innocent children. When one of “our fellow brothers” has a high profile position in and out of the church, we feel saddened that the innocent will suffer.

    Mr. McCleary will speak for himself, however my take on your words is one of misunderstanding. Please save the Pharisees description for those that deserve it.
    Try the Vatican first.

  • Baron wrote:
    “What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night”

    Ernst wrote:
    “Donald is wrong because Barron’s essay isn’t about Colbert’s thinking, good, Christian, or otherwise.”

    If Colbert supported Paedophilia and Baron praised his “wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering” would your response be the same?

    Enough already Ernst.

    Donald is presently mourning the passing of his good friend Chris, who by the way was a Methodist- who lived a life better than most Catholics- myself included (read his tribute post), not busy tut-tutting at other “catholic” clowns, like a Pharisee.

  • Donald is right because the Bishop-Elect saluted the faith of a man who defends the contract killers of Planned Parenthood. If Barron did not know about Colbert, he is sloppy and ignorant, used in a literal sense, in choosing him as an example. If he did know and did not care, that is simply appalling.

    I don’t read Barron as saluting Colbert’s faith. I read him as saying Colbert’s faith in God’s providence is deep and Catholic because it recognizes the paradox of salvation in suffering. Catholics have thought and continue to think about these things. I come from an evangelical background. They don’t really do suffering. And all the emoting doesn’t really leave time for thinking. I do concede that Colbert seems to have “a faith without works” problem, making him a deep hole of narrow circumference. Finally, without Colbert quoting Tolkien in GQ, my guess is that Barron would have chosen a differnt topic for his essay.

    If Colbert supported Paedophilia and Baron praised his “wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering” would your response be the same?

    Given that I read the Bishop-Elect’s essay before Donald put up this post, that, as I’ve already indicated, I don’t know Colbert from Carell, and that even a stopped clock encounters the truth twice a day, probably yes, it would be.
    .
    And it’s not Colbert’s sermon, it’s Tolkien’s. Colbert merely repeated it to a flummoxed reporter.

    Phillip,

    Thank you for your kind words. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said. Barron’s essay and Colbert’s witness, such as it is (and nowhere have I disagreed with anybody’s criticism of Colbert) are two seperate things, and focusing on the latter is to miss the point of the former.

  • I’ll revise my Pharisee remark to this extent:

    I think it’s pharasaical to criticize Bishop-Elect Barron’s essay on providential suffering by dwelling on Stephen Colbert’s shortcomings when Colbert is not the subject of the essay, but merely serves as the introductory hook and first of three exemplars of that suffering. That’s what I mean by missing the point. It’s like faulting Boethius for not writing about the consolations of theology.
    .
    Maybe I should have said that I think there’s a mote/beam problem going on here. But I expect that wouldn’t have gone over any better. In any event, I said it, so I’ll own it.
    .
    By the way, I did think of a way that one could use Barron’s essay, Colbert’s reference to the Tolkien quote, and a Barak Obama quotation to make a point about Worse than Murder Inc. and abortion. But since my entire stance is premised on the idea that it’s poor form to criticize an author either for what he didn’t write or for what he should have written integrity demands I keep it to myself.
    .
    Fortunately, it isn’t hard to figure out.

  • “And it’s not Colbert’s sermon, it’s Tolkien’s. Colbert merely repeated it to a flummoxed reporter.”

    Baron repeating Colbert who repeated Tolkien.

    No wander our religion is weaker than p&$@. It’s all those mental gymnastics we do.

  • Ezabelle wrote, “If Colbert supported Paedophilia and Baron praised his “wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering” would your response be the same?”
    Well, who would deny that Eric Gill’s Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral are an example of high Catholic art, the fact that he was a pædophile in his private life notwithstanding? To argue otherwise would be Philistinism of no common order.

  • Still haven’t taken that long, hard look in the mirror MPS?

    “1 AT that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, 3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. 6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Mathew 18: 1-6

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote, “I do concede that Colbert seems to have “a faith without works” problem.”
    But the Apostle says, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly [ἀσεβῆ, literally “lacking reverence,” impious] his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:5)

  • “18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

    James 2: 18-24

  • Wow, lots here to evaluate–so I won’t. I’ll merely give my opinion that this appears to be an issue of some good and some bad–real bad.
    My analogy: could we call a man faithful husband is he worked hard, loved the kids and wife, provided a nice home, went to Mass and holy days, was a Knight of Columbus in good standing in that community and only cheated with his mistress on Tuesdays?

  • Don L- good point- that husband/father is living a lie. The good works he appears to present to his family, do not forgive him his lying and cheating. We are only as good, in Gods eyes, as our most horrible sinful thoughts and deeds.

    We can fool each other, but God reads our hearts.

    But we’re not talking about mans personal sins. We all have sins and vices. What comes into question here, is when one publicly advocates for something contrary to God, calls it a good, and defies God publicly and deliberately. Like Colbert has. Colbert teaches Sunday school- big wool! We are only as good as his most horrible sins.

  • Lots of people “scan” their news. They look at pictures that accompany the story and read the first few lines. CWR put a picture at top that put S. Colbert right up there in an attractive banner with Tolkien and Newman. The first sentence said, “Just last week, Stephen Colbert gave an interview in which the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display”
    The end of the article put Colbert in line with those two great Catholics as part of God’s Divine Plan.
    .
    The tax collectors and the woman caught in adultery were told the truth, admonished. They were not lionized. Jesus is the point of their stories.
    .
    we can be delighted about the Good effect of the works of Tokein and Newman. Jesus is the point of their stories too. the words of these great men have positively affected many a troubled soul, .
    Colbert misses the point of the stories…he hears the words with interest but doesn’t internalize and integrate them into his life. He is like us all, A work in progress gifted and loved by God. But in his position of influence, the results of his confusion can be disastrous for many seekers.
    and I think Fr Barron though not missing the point entirely, confuses the issue. It is delightful to find someone famous in the media who can so charmingly spout the words … But the incongruity of his life mashes the message. He is more a symbol of the confusion of the age – rather than showing “the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display”.

  • “Well, who would deny that Eric Gill’s Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral are an example of high Catholic art, the fact that he was a pædophile in his private life notwithstanding? To argue otherwise would be Philistinism of no common order.”

    Again, it’s not about the persons private life. Leonardo da Vinci, allegedly, had homosexual affairs. Yet his Last Supper endures.

    Did Eric Gill promote and advocate for Paedophilia?

    If Gill did, then his Stations of the Cross should be removed- absolutely.

    Colbert promotes and advocates, even mocks the issue of abortion. Who cares what he does in his private life- that’s between him and God. He is using his popularity to support the killing of the unborn

  • Anzlyne; ” He is more a symbol of the confusion of the age-..”. Exactly!
    This confusion is running rampant due to the piss poor, walking the fence, don’t judge others leadership at the majority of the Bishops hands.

    Guess what?

    Expect more confusion until the likes of Cardinal Burke make their way into this culture.

  • St James says, “21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?”
    Contrast “What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom4:3)
    Here St Paul quotes Gen 15:6 T his is part of the story of the Covenant of the Pieces, before Isaacs’s birth.
    St James says, “SHOW me your faith &c”
    St Paul is speaking of the faith that justifies before God, “for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7); St James of the outward evidence of that faith.
    Faith alone justifies, but he faith that justifies is never alone.

  • The thing is that Cafeteria Catholics don’t change society for the better. The only way for abortion to be halted is for Catholics to really live their faith, and that unfortunately hasn’t been encouraged by many high up…

Is Abortion Moral?

Sunday, August 23, AD 2015

 

 

You’re going from dealing with people to dealing with what most people here at the Center consider a real hurdle, to do sterile room, because you have to deal with the actual abortion tissue. And for some people that’s really hard. They can be abstractly in favor of abortion rights, but they sure don’t want to see what an eighteen-week abortion looks like.

  • Anonymous clinic worker Abortion at Work: Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic Wendy Simonds (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick) 1996 p 69.

 

Dennis Prager zooms in on the essential question regarding abortion:  Is it moral?  Legal protection of the unborn is our goal, but winning the moral debate is all important, and the pro-life cause has been slowly winning that debate.

Today I will be driving by Galesburg, on my way to take my daughter back to college.  In the Lincoln-Douglas debate held at Galesburg on October 7, 1858, Lincoln got to the heart of the difference between him and Stephen Douglas regarding slavery:

But there still is a difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty-that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for free or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Every thing that emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy, carefully excludes the thought that there is any thing wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is any thing whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge’s speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him-as his declaration that he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or down”- you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don’t care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that any body has a right to do wrong. He insists that, upon the score of equality, the owners of slaves and owners of property-of horses and every other sort of property-should be alike and hold them alike in a new Territory. That is perfectly logical, if the two species of property are alike and are equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. And from this difference of sentiment-the belief on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong; and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung from that sentiment which will tolerate no idea of preventing that wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end of it through all the existence of things,-arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand, and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the Constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Is Abortion Moral?

  • Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  • Now let us praise great men. And thank you much for two in one post. TR is held up by some on the Left as a progressive. I suspect perhaps thinking they rub our nose in the observation. But TR was no kind of progressive that inhabits the body politic today. He was a hero to my lately departed best friend, and I cannot but admire the man. Bring back the Bully Pulpit and fill it with such a person.

  • If a nation’s people cannot recognize sodomy as inherently evil, then how can it recognize infanticide as inherently evil?

  • By the good guys not giving into despair and by continuing to fight. Sheesh, if the history of the pro-life movement has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that. As Saint Francis said, let gloom and despair be among the Devil and his disciples.

Limbaugh on Planned Parenthood

Friday, July 24, AD 2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh tends to take a lot of grief from Catholic commenters.  Some of it is deserved, but much of it is not.  When it comes to abortion, he has been one of the major media voices opposing it relentlessly for over a quarter of a century.  When he dies he will have his sins to answer for as we all will.  He will also have tens of millions, who never got to speak in this Vale of Tears, eloquently pleading his case before the Most High.  Here is Limbaugh on the current Planned Parenthood Worse Than Murder, Inc. atrocity:

Well, now we know why the advocates for the right to choose have been so advocating.  Always try to follow the money.  Here are these leftists that want everybody to believe that they don’t care about money, that everything they do is charitable because they’re nice people and they are compassionate and they’re understanding and they’re all for protecting the little people who get trampled on by the big people, and look who is doing the trampling. 

The greatest example of the essence of innocence that I can conjure, a baby in the womb.  I mean, it hasn’t done anything to anybody.  It represents and is new life.  It is the essence of innocence.  It cannot speak for itself.  It cannot protect itself.  It cannot defend itself.  While being the essence of innocence, it is the most vulnerable it will ever be.  And here come the people promising and telling and guaranteeing that they are protecting the rights of the little people, that they protecting the vulnerable, they’re making sure that the little guy, the vulnerable, the powerful, don’t get trampled on by who?  The rich, the powerful.  Usually this means Republicans. 

And yet in another case study of reality, exposing fraud, who actually is trampling over the defenseless, the innocent, the vulnerable?  The very damn people who claim to be their protectors, the protectors of liberty, individual rights, the right to choose, what have you.  The same people who want these body parts for stem cells that have yet to prove worthy of research, worthwhile, any of that.  It is just sick and it is completely and totally unremarked upon in the Drive-By Media. 

Carly Fiorina this morning on her Facebook released a new video responding to this second and latest Planned Parenthood secretly recorded video.

**************************************************

Somebody just asked me, “Rush, how can these people do this?  How can they not know what they’re doing to a baby?”  Ladies and gentlemen, I wish I could answer that for you.  I mean, these are the people that are extracting what they hope are workable, usable body parts. They’re taking great, great care not to crunch, not to crush, so what they extract are actual what they hope usable baby body organs they can sell. 

Now, how a person or the people doing this can then turn around and say that what they’re dealing with is an “unviable tissue mass,” I can only the guess.  I think you have to have the concept of evil. You have to understand it, and you have to acknowledge that it exists.  It’s a real thing.  It’s the same people that say “unviable tissue mass” or it’s actually an illness, pregnancy leads to an illness and so forth.

Every crazy justification they’ve offered for abortion, the very same people doing that are now extracting usable body parts and selling them for profit.  I mean, what are they telling themselves about what they’re doing?  They’re probably lying to themselves about medical research and saving lives.  They probably come up with “one life to save millions.”  It’s probably not hard to imagine the contortions they undergo to justify this. But the clearly think they’re doing a service.

They clearly believe they are serving mankind and medical research.

But to anybody with common decency, it’s just sick.  And it’s something that I dare say the vast majority of people in this country would never, ever dream would happen here.  We went to war to stop people like this before!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Limbaugh on Planned Parenthood

  • I’ve always liked Rush. Even when he had his drug issues and people wanted to discount what he said. I didn’t understand what they meant & they couldn’t understand that “truth is still truth, even if a druggie says it.”

  • Whatever Rush Lmbaugh’s siins are, I have always liked him as well. I suspect my sins outweigh his, and his efforts for the unborn outweigh mine.
    .
    As for the people of Planned Parenthood, what they are doing is what the Nazis who stood trial at Nuremburg had done.

  • Dittos. I don’t get to listen to him much, but I like him. My dad liked him as well.
    .
    ” I mean, what are they telling themselves about what they’re doing? They’re probably lying to themselves about medical research and saving lives. They probably come up with “one life to save millions.” It’s probably not hard to imagine the contortions they undergo to justify this.”
    .
    Perhaps, because I haven’t been able to listen in quite some time, I’m misreading Rush here, that he seems a bit mystified about these people in what they are thinking and doing and why they don’t stop and see what they are doing is evil.
    .
    Some years ago, my dad observed that other scientists around him in the chemical industry (but it could have been in other ones as well) would spend years going down a wrong path…and yet even when all the evidence was there that they were wrong, they stayed wrong. Why? Too much life invested in being wrong. Too much ego. I would add too much money made, and hey, those scientists (and likely abortionists as well) have kids to put through college. Where are these “tissues” going anyway? Your local state university, especially if it has some kind of medical school or cadaver lab.
    .
    I had a friend take to Facebook recently trying to justify this, and it seemed to me she was trying to continue to justify to herself her “pro-choice” stance. And it was so sad. I got the impression she knew this was wrong, but gosh, she has spent her life being a feminist and pro-choice. Who wants to wake up one day and realize he has wasted his life-time and energy-into being so very, very wrong?

  • Ah, the Mengeleites have been exposed for what they really…and so much of the world shrugs.
    What they are selling is “sustainable” parts.
    Meanwhile the friends of the UN say: hey, as long as we can prevent some CO2 from harming the world?

  • Pope Francis, Cardinal Dolan, Bishop Murphy (LI NY), USCCB, catholic-in-name-only colleges/universities, et al . . . deafening silence.
    .
    Is Rush more Christian than that pope and American catholic elites????
    .
    I’m coming to believe certain black-hearted protestant slanders. The crickets tell me that many so-called Catholics are not Christians.

  • Yup – peace, justice, mercy and hope that this, too, will pass with the appearance of some other atrocity(s).

    Silence was golden when people were still learning to think.
    In cases, such as infanticide (described in biblical stories with morality interwoven) , self control, miscarriages of justice, and inhumanity – willful murder – silence from ‘men of God’ is an embarrassing atrocity. Moloch has got their tongues, and they’ll yet again waste WYD giving no legacy to those who are truly poor in knowledge of Christianity and the essential narrow gate.

  • “I’m coming to believe certain black-hearted protestant slanders. The crickets tell me that many so-called Catholics are not Christians.”

    The truth is that so many Christians are not Christians. It is not slanderous to say so, except when seeing motes and not beams.

    If only we really thought about what we mean when we say “I do” to the question “Do you reject Satan?” during the recommitment of our baptismal vows. Over and over it can be maintained that we fail to exercise our moral imaginations, we fail to think about how Evil can grow and reach into our lives. We fail to see life as it is, we sleepwalk through life with our sweet dreams, and we are then surprised when Evil is dug out of it’s dens.

  • T. Shaw, you’re just “starting” to release “that many so called Catholics are not Christians.?”

    42 years post Roe v Wade, Catholics are still the largest single group to be endorsing with their names and supporting with their votes the only pro-abortion political party supportive of and promoting abortion while being 100% apposed to a Right-to-Life Constitutional Amendment. That support gives the Democratic Party the ELECTORAL POWER to keep abortion legal, and in doing so, supports Planned Parenthood with over !/2 billion $$$$ a year or taxpayer’s money to salvage useable, viable body parts from that “mass of tissue cells” being butchered that somehow has manufactured.

  • T. S. make that “realize.”

    I fight for the unborn, first of all, because I had a year of embryology in college, including lab work in which I created “new” life by dissecting chick embryos up to x number of hours after conception and re-cultured those slices in which they grew into new complete embryos. Those early cells are called stem cells today. Science does not know, yet, how to “control” their growth.

    But, I returned to the faith of my upbringing after college and Roe v. Wade, to correct the wrong done by that Supreme Court ruling. I knew when life begins. I find myself fighting the U.S. bishops who have all but abandon the unborn in favor of “the poor, and peace, and justices,” I have discovered that the biggest opponent the unborn have are “faithful Catholics” who endorse the pro-abortion Democratic Party. It is a major sin to join the KKK, or the Nazi Party, a mortal sin, with no exonerating conditions. The sin of joining those organizations is against the 5th Commandment, in Catholic teaching. How, then, can joining the Democratic Party NOT be a mortal sin? It’s a mortal sin with no exonerating conditions to join organizations that promote racial and religious discrimination, but it is NOT a sin to join an organization that supports and promotes the murder of innocent unborn babies those Catholics profess to believe are created by God?

    I’m concerned that those Catholics, including the clergy at the highest levels, are going to find themselves being told by Jesus, upon his return, to line up on “is left side.” And they will exclaim how that can be when they did so much for “the poor and strangers.” Needless to say, the bishops have interpreted Mt. 25, 35 for political reasons, for the benefit of the Democratic Party. Read the footnote in the Catholic New American Bible – to learn why those Catholics,, especially the clergy, are risking their salvation.
    And read why Cardinal Bernardine accepted the offer to be the Chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-life Committee upon the condition that he was going to expand the definition of pro-life “to keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (‘Cardinal Bernardin’ sub title “Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholics” pages 243, 244; by 30 year long friend Eugene Kennedy. The Cardinal lived 7 years after this book was published and never refuted what the author friend wrote.)

    BTW, Cardinal Bernardin was the “official leader of Chicago Catholics (the largest community of Catholics in the U.S.) and Chicago, is a city run by Mayor and 50 City Council Members called Aldermen; the Mayor and all 50 Alderman are elected Democrats. The Cardinal , and the U.S. bishops, added non sinful, prudential judgement issues to the meaning of “pro-life;” issues that the Church teaching favored liberal Democrat positions.

  • Oh, I heard Rush’s broadcast the day he talked about PPH. He spent the first hour and a half discussing it while every other talk radio or TV show was talking about Donald Trump and what he was saying.

  • Rush Limbaugh has always been the greatest defender of Holy Mother Church.
    More so then the well known Cardinals and Bishops that hob nob with the Catholic pro choice friends of PPH.
    He will have those millions of defenseless babies aborted to speak on his behalf.
    He is fearless and certainly not lukewarm, and defends the truth.
    God Bless and protect him.

  • Limbaugh’s failed marriages and his oxycontin addiction have done nothing to dull his razor sharp mind when it comes to the current political landscape.

    One must understand that Limbaugh is an entertainer who uses politics and his conservative viewpoints to entertain, inform and bring to light that which the Democrat Party and its allies want to remain hidden.

    The Catholic Church in North America treated Vatican II as if an entirely new church was started. Almost everything before it was sent to the dumpster and modernism was embraced. Ugliness was the new norm in church architecture and blandness was the new norm in the liturgy. The Church changed its focus from being with Christ in the next life to being an anti-poverty group – with government subsidies.

    The hierarchy is Democrat and wants to stay that way. This has NOT changed since Vatican II. Thus we have the silence on abortion, artificial birth control and homosexuality. Thus we have the attitude to “let ’em all in” when it comes to immigration, whining about the rarely used death penalty and tacit support for federal government expansion into healthcare.

    Being Catholic isn’t about idolizing our clergy, be it priests, bishops or the Pope. It is about worship of Christ. Church history tells us of the many times the Church leaders screwed things up. Reform will come from the remnant of the laity.

  • Donald,

    I ran across this article today. It has been completely ignored by Fox News. I would suspect because they’re in the tank for Jeb Bush. This is a huge story. Bush is another cafeteria Catholic, who claims he’s pro-life, but has exceptions for rape, incest and “life of the mother”. Now this revelation……..

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jeb-bush-was-director-of-philanthropy-that-funded-planned-parenthoods-globa

Veil of Lies

Wednesday, July 22, AD 2015

 

My favorite liberal, Kirsten Powers, has a first rate column on the Planned Parenthood Worse Than Murder, Inc. videos:

 

Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards apologized last week for the uncompassionate tone her senior director of medical research, Deborah Nucatola, used to explain the process by which she harvests aborted body parts to be provided for medical research.

Nucatola had been caught on an undercover video talking to anti-abortion activists posing as representatives of a biological tissue procurement company. The abortion doctor said, “I’d say a lot of people want liver,” and “a lot of people want intact hearts these days.” Explaining how she could perform later-term abortions to aid the harvesting of such intact organs, she said, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

A second undercover video released Tuesday shows another Planned Parenthood official talking about using a “less crunchy” way to perform abortions while preserving salable fetal tissue.

This is stomach-turning stuff. But the problem here is not one of tone. It’s the crushing. It’s the organ harvesting of  fetuses that abortion-rights activists want us to believe have no more moral value than a fingernail. It’s the lie that these are not human beings worthy of protection. There is no nice way to talk about this. As my friend and former Obama White House staffer Michael Wear tweeted, “It should bother us as a society that we have use for aborted human organs, but not the baby that provides them.”

Richards worked to discredit the video by complaining it was “heavily edited.” But the nearly three-hour unedited video — a nauseating journey through the inner workings of the abortion industry — was posted at the same time as the edited video. Richards intoned menacingly that the video was “secretly recorded.” So what? When Mitt Romney was caught by “secret video” making his 47% remarks, the means of attaining the information was not the focus of the story.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Veil of Lies

  • “The pro-aborts have never gotten much beyond their a “mere clump of cells” defense of abortion that I heard back when the abortion battle was new in the seventies”

    Is that really true?

    In his Rethinking Life and Death (1996), Princeton bioethicist, Peter Singer submitted that “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.

    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.

    This is implicit in the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy), “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law,”

    As Miss Anscombe pointed out, as long ago as 1958, “In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot even be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology. For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a “virtue.” This part of the subject-matter of ethics, is however, completely closed to us until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is – a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis – and how it relates to the actions in which it is instanced: a matter which I think Aristotle did not succeed in really making clear.” On this, I do not believe we are much further forward.

  • “Is that really true?”

    Yep, outside of ivory tower “bio-ethicists”, and what an Orwellian formulation that is in his case, like Singer, pro-aborts would sooner eat ground glass than defend an accurate account of what goes on daily in the abortion mills.

    From an abortion mill in New York:
    “Contrary to anti-choice rhetoric, abortion does not kill babies or children. Abortion does not kill persons. Abortion is only performed before a person is formed and long before viability or any consciousness, which is the ultimate determination of personhood.”

    http://www.libertywomenshealth.com/rtc.php

  • Where are our bishops? Where is the USCCB? Where is the outrage and, action as a result? PP must be defunded. There will be no better time.

  • Judging from their news releases, the USCCB could care less about this story:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/

    “1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.…”

    At least the Scribes and Pharisees gave their flocks empty words. Our Bishops do not even do that. I do not doubt that the word has gotten around that a Bishop being strong against abortion and taking actions to match his words, is not a good career move under the current Pontificate.

  • “Abortion is only performed before a person is formed…”

    Certainly, so preposterous an argument played no part in the debates that led to the Veil Law and would have had little traction in a country where the common term for an abortionist is « faiseuse d’anges » or “angel-maker.”

  • Wrong. Cecile Richards did not apologise. Nor did she come close to apologising.

    She did the following:

    A) Justify the practise of donating the tissue of the aborted babies for scientific research by likening it to regular organ donation. A complete falsehood because in regular organ donation scenarios, the person must sign a consent form. The aborted child has not consented, and never can. How stupid is this woman.

    B) Undermined the clear video evidence, as an example of the disgusting organisation she heads, by claiming the video was heavily edited. And those that never bother to lightly scratch the surface on this claim will believe her.

    My blood boils.

    Cecile Richards is a bald-faced liar.

    And I hope, for her sake, she doesn’t end up in that special seat that the devil has carved especially for her in the fiery depths of hell.

    An evil evil lady.

  • “Judging from their news releases, the USCCB could care less about this story:”

    But they are showing great strength of character in supporting the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

  • “pro-aborts would sooner eat ground glass than defend an accurate account of what goes on daily in the abortion mills”

    I note that GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina (officially a “pro-choice” “moderate”) sent out the following tweet yesterday with a link to the PP video: “Whether you’re a pro-choice woman or a pro-life woman, this video is depraved.”

  • For Cecile Richards. “I believe Man’s soul is immortal…. and will be treated with justice in another life respecting it’s conduct in this.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

    The justice that is not present in this life will, without a doubt, be present and final in the life to come. Watching C.Richards in the clip called to mind a puppet on a string. She did her floppy dance for the audience while Satan worked the strings.

    Poor soul.
    Let our prayer ask God for her conversion before she becomes another satanic toy for eternity.
    While we’re at it… ask God for help defUNding Murder Inc. $500,000,000 a year! This country has been desensitized and it may need shock-treatment as to appreciate the gift of life.

  • What did the Lord God do to King Manasseh for making his children to walk through the fire in sacrifice to Molech? Will God change His response? Or does God remain the same? Jezebel was thrown out the window to the dogs for stealing Naboth the Jezreelite’s vineyard and arranging for his murder. What should Cecile Richards expect?

  • PS I oppose violence. My questions are rhetorical. But even Robespierre got what he gave. That’s how God set up the Universe. Sow death, reap death. Lord have mercy – and He will – on the unborn babies. But nobody should throw PP people out windows. Let God do that if He so elects.

  • “What should Cecile Richards expect?”
    .

    Thomas Meagher in a 1848 Dublin statement upon his conviction and death sentence said that we will all appear before another judge (God), one of infinite justice and mercy; and that many of the decisions of this fell World will be reversed.
    .

    I assume (you know what that means) the liberal anticipates oblivion: nothingness. They only have concerns about this world and its their sole duty to make it (what they feel is) better.
    .
    In charity, we should attempt to persuade her to convert; to repent; to do penance; to amend her life; and to do good works to glorify God. For that, we would be labeled haters.
    .
    Catholics would be concerned with the last things: death, judgment, Heaven or Hell. The PP apologists and democrat voters should be terrified about judgment: Whatsoever you did to the least of my brothers . . . FYI Christ isn’t working a set of scales: one mortal sin and you’re literally toast; voting to raise someone (who you hate) else’s taxes to pay more welfare isn’t one of the corporal works of mercy. Someone tell that to OH Gov. Kasich.

  • T.Shaw-

    “For that we (could) be labeled haters.”

    We already are labeled haters for admonishing our wayward neighbors. Oh well. We do what were asked and with love we try to help them.
    It’s very difficult when the word sin is not in their vocabulary.

    I’ve been told by aquantices that they have never sinned. They just made bad choices that’s all.

    Funny world…sort of.

  • One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is “Admonish the sinner.” Charity for one’s neighbor includes concern for others’ eternal lives. By His life, death, and Resurrection Christ purchased for us the rewards of eternal life.
    .
    Christ descended from Heaven in order to convert us, not to promise us a “rose garden” in the here-and-now.
    .

    Mankind’s worst defeat (in the struggle for salvation) at Satan’s hand was when the demon deceived so, so many that he and sin do not exist.
    .

    Another gang that (I think) are in deep spiritual distress and denial believe that they have no sin and ergo are “arrogant (not poor) in spirit.”
    .

    Every time I see/hear the lie “Love wins” I silently scream “Sin wins.”
    .
    We live in a fallen World. It’s a Vail of Tears. And, it’s spiritually crash-diving faster than Hell. God help us.

  • T Shaw writes, “I’ve been told by aquantices that they have never sinned. They just made bad choices that’s all.”

    It is axiomatic that acts of the understanding are specified by their object and this should remind us that good and bad choices are no more equivalent than apprehension and misapprehension, truth and error are equivalent species of an identical genus; rather, bad choices are paralogisms, as Aristotle calls them (παραλογισμός = Unreasonable or fallacious). The good choice, “This – being such – is to be done,” is intelligible, because intelligent; the act of the bad will is a surd, ultimately unintelligible. True enough, we can often trace its causes to instinctive or dispositional factors, but it remains logically incoherent.

    That is why Aristotle insists that “All wicked men are ignorant of what they ought to do, and what they ought to avoid; and it is this very ignorance which makes them wicked and vicious. Accordingly, a man cannot be said to act involuntarily merely because he is ignorant of what it is proper for him to do in order to fulfil his duty. This ignorance in the choice of good and evil does not make the action involuntary; it only makes it vicious. The same thing may be affirmed of the man who is ignorant generally of the rules of his duty; such ignorance is worthy of blame, not of excuse” (EN 110b 25)

  • Thank you MPS.
    You’ve opened the door to this idea of bad choices vs. sin, with the help of Aristotle it’s ignorance of duty vs. due diligence.
    As always… great points and interesting food for thought. I will be better prepared to help them.

  • The “Love Wins” bumper sticker calls to my mind the final victory. Many who promote the message may not be aware of the author of Love. If so, the time will come when the meaning of the message might take them by surprise.

  • “I’ve been told by aquantices that they have never sinned. They just made bad choices that’s all.

    Funny world…sort of.”

    My thoughts exactly Phillip.

    Again, too many do not want to scratch the surface, in other words, they refuse to reason that a bad choice goes against what is universally right. Going against what is right or good is going against the natural order. Which is what we define as sin.

    Many choose to stay in a state of confusion.

    Funny world indeed.

  • “From an abortion mill in New York:
    “Contrary to anti-choice rhetoric, abortion does not kill babies or children. Abortion does not kill persons. Abortion is only performed before a person is formed and long before viability or any consciousness, which is the ultimate determination of personhood.””
    How do they know that the person is not acknowledging God in his transcendent soul while growing his body to worship and praise God in his immortal soul? How do they know? this elite intelligentsia is phishing and coming up with their wishful thinking that does not have a shred of proof or evidence, and is nothing more than hearsay in a court of law. Margaret Sanger said that we are” human weeds”. After God is removed from the public square, Planned Parenthood is saying that we are nothing more that a clump of cells. pink slime. This person is a constitutional posterity of George Washington and so are all other persons conceived. This person is also a constitutional posterity of Margaret Sanger. and now, I am a constitutional posterity of Cecile Richards and she would mutilate me as a clump of cells in a blender to get my stem cells. Freedom for all persons and our constitutional posterity.

  • Mary,

    The crux of pro-abortion and all liberal projects is that they, not God or facts or data or hundreds of years of culture, make the determinations. They not only deny God and objective truth, they usurp God’s Will as to who lives and who dies. They exhibit peak hypocrisy whenever they utter the words “death penalty.”
    .

    Soon they will be establishing death panels to rid the World of aged and infirm people.

  • Can I drive over the Coochs Bridge Road without remembering T. Shaw?
    The principle of separation of church and state is used to silence church members, while the unborn have their souls separated from their bodies. The Court has made atheism, abortion and sodomy of “We, the people”, “We, the people” who constitute the government, while catering to sodomites, atheists and abortionists. Equal Justice.

With Horror and Regret

Tuesday, July 21, AD 2015

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946)

 

 

 

Whatever comes of the revelations about Planned Parenthood and its participation in the traffic in fetal body parts, those revelations will have achieved one thing: they have parted the veil of antiseptic tidiness behind which the abortion industry has for so long operated. The sight of a senior Planned Parenthood official, and a doctor to boot, discussing the market for fetal body parts in between bites of salad and sips of wine was stomach-turning.

That’s because it laid bare the essentially brutal nature of abortion. Let’s be blunt: abortion involves the extraction and killing of a human life, which within a couple of weeks of pregnancy has a beating heart. Five weeks in, its hands and legs begin to grow. It is these tiny creatures, and too often ones that are far more developed, that are pulled from a mother’s womb and crushed with forceps.

Oh, but oh-so-carefully, lest body parts that can be sold are preserved. This gruesome procedure shows the extent to which we, as a people, have been anesthetized by the estimated 55 million—fifty-five million—abortions performed since the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to that procedure 42 years ago.

Will we as a nation not someday look upon that decision and what it has done to us, not to mention the 55 million, with horror and regret? One can only hope we will.

Brit Hume

Continue reading...

7 Responses to With Horror and Regret

  • A friend of mine, very much pro-abortion, contorting herself into all sorts of positions defending this practice. I don’t know how much this will change things.

  • Brit Hume. A man with a backbone and, hopefully, continuing msm employment.
    If only the Church leaders, and men with popular voices (from entertainment industry) can lend their voices clearly for the young who are the future of what’s left of nations. It’s time for sobriety and reality.

  • Brit Hume has said more on this issue than the United States Bishops Council. But, they did take the time to lecture against the death penalty.
    http://usccb.org/news/

  • George Orwell wrote that “politics are essentially coercion and deceit.” Keep that in mind when one of them opens his or her yap. Everything politicians say are lies used to deceive you to give them power to steal your property and curtail your rights.
    .

    None of these horrors could be committed if social justice catholics-in-name-only didn’t vote for it, after reading distortions, false equivalencies, exaggerations, omissions, outright lies, not just in the lying media but also in so-called catholic publications like the Jesuits’ “America.”

  • Please enlighten me-isn’t it a medical truth that to harvest a usable human organ, and more imprtant to Planned Parenthood a salable organ, the human must be alive during harvesting? And to get a salable human organ, don’t you have to have a human? Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • if these were 6-9 mo.old toddlers being harmed, would our church and we men folk NOT respond in a more decisive, intrusive and final manner?? So the difference is perhaps 10-13 months in age? and we only argue or March once a year?? really?? Why has the USCC not bought air time and shown a Dilatation with Curettage or Partial evacuation of a preborn to the american public? How numb have the consciences of men of good will become?? – we continue to operate as if in a nation of laws[sic] wherein this outrage to our littlest brothers and sisters,hence to ourselves and our God is tolerated ? Will no leader[s] come forward to rally people of action to stop this holocaust of innocents that cries out to Heaven for vengeance?

    Those who do not know must be taught, not punished. We do not hit the blind. We lead them by the hand.” – St Dionysius

    Will mother church not place the entire criminal organization a.k.a. the Democrat party under interdict, to start their education ? How bad is it when the’ Donald’ starts to look like a viable candidate for the Office of President of these united States ??

    Congress will investigate. pseudonym for Nothing will happen; the killing and estrangement of “WE the People ” from the Omnipotent shall continue to widen. …… Liberty, the god that failed will continue to do so at an accelerated pace…

    i fear for my children and grandchildren.
    God is Just or He is nothing.

    morning and night say O Jesus! King of Love, i put my trust in Thy loving mercy.
    Christe, Eleison…..

  • Atheism gave Charles Darwin not one extra breath. The Breath of Life comes from our God,”their Creator” and endower of all unalienable human rights. While the child is constituting the nation and the human species, his sovereignty is held in trust for him by his Creator, God. “In God we trust.” Defund Planned Parenthood . Not a single penny of my tax dollars is to be used for abortion. Taxation without representation. I was never accorded the freedom and right to voice my opinion and vote against murder incorporated of the unborn.

Jesus Wept

Sunday, June 14, AD 2015

francis

 

If any pro-lifers ever get tired or discouraged, please remember that the fate of “Baby Francis”, tossed away at the dawn of life like so much used garbage, is what we are fighting against:

In a simple, but dignified ceremony this morning in a section of Gate of Heaven Cemetery set aside for the repose of babies, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin presided over a Christian burial service for the unborn child he named “Francis,” fulfilling a commitment he made to officials five months ago after a fetus was found floating amid the sewage at a nearby wastewater treatment facility.

A tiny white casket, with “Baby Francis 2015” inscribed on a gold plaque affixed to one end, and flanked by flowers and a small teddy bear, rested upon a portable pine altar as the burial service was conducted under a brilliant blue sky.

“Now, we must entrust the soul of Baby Francis to the abundant mercy of God so that this beloved child may find finally a home in his kingdom,” Bishop Tobin prayed before a gathering of about 20 individuals representing the diocese and its active Respect Life Office and Human Life Guild.

Despite a five-month investigation into the case, not much is known about the circumstances in which the unborn child ended up at the Bucklin Wastewater Treatment Facility on January 12, when a worker saw what at first appeared to be a doll floating amid the slurry in a collection area of the plant’s Screen and Grit Building, according to the East Providence Police Department.

At the time, the Bishop offered a “decent and proper burial” for the unborn child, also offering prayers for his parents and the situation that led them to dispose of a child in such a tragic way. The State Medical Examiner’s Office indicated the child was a male, about 19-20 weeks gestation, but could not release the body while its investigation was ongoing.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Jesus Wept

  • A causality of War Donald, collateral damage from the imposters in public offices as political leaders. The liars like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden et al. They cherish this act.
    They have no formed conscience. They have no courage. No. None!
    To them this innocent life represents a victory for women!

    To all political officers a mandate should be imposed that requires each of them to have a 26 x 48 framed poster in their offices depicting an image of baby Francis floating in a cesspool, as to remind them of their own destination as they suppress the truth of abortions and wax on about the “war on women.”

    I’m upset!
    I’m pissed and I do cry for these babies.

    To supporter’s of abortions on demand…go to hell!

  • Strike the last comment.

    I wish no one to hell.

    I’m praying for those supporter’s of death. God have Mercy.

  • I thought legalized abortion meant no back alley abortions. This looks very back alley to me.

    I’ll be praying for you today Baby Francis.

    Phillip, I know how you feel. I am mad and sad to read this kind of stuff. We are supposed to come to the defense of the defenseless. Isn’t that the big moral of the story in “A Few Good Men” was? The Hollywood which preaches such morals supports behavior exhibiting the very opposite. But, I digress.

  • Kyle,

    It is Philip that posted and not me. We are two different people – he with one “l” and me with two.

    That being said, I respect his posts which in general very well thought out and well written. I can appreciate his anger in this matter.

  • Jesus Christ one day will return to Earth riding that great white horse. He will then show His mercy for baby Francis and His mercy ain’t a’gonna be pretty.

  • Phillip.

    Your message to Kyle included a kindness towards me. Your very gracious with your words and I thank you.

    @ Paul Primavera….. Amen!

  • This is one of millions of evils resulting from voting so-called social justice.

  • Traditionally, stillborn children, being unbaptized, were buried without ceremony in unconsecrated ground. Often a small, unconsecrated plot was left in the churchyard, on the north side of the church to receive their remains.
    In some parts of Scotland, along with unbaptized infants, their remains were considered unchancy and were buried at the boundary where three lairds’ lands met. So were suicides. I have never learned the origin of this custom.

  • God bless Bishop Tobin for conducting a very beautiful public service for Baby Francis and at the same remindng all what an ugly and sinful act abortion is. In 2009 he wrote a public letter to Rep Patrick Kennedy, RI (D) admonishing him for his pro abort stance and instructing him that a Catholic politician cannot ignore Catholic moral teaching when he votes. The bishop went head to head with Chris Matthews on abortion and the law, and led the rosary in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic. We need more of our bishops to be brave.

  • MP-S,
    Enjoyed your use of the Scottish “unchancy”.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION: – Big Pulpit
  • Another heart wrenching situation. At least this story had a happier ending.
    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/17/shocking-photo-shows-newborn-baby-abandoned-in-filthy-trash-can/
    The linked story within of the Russian baby and ants. :-(( The Devil is celebrating in the age of self.

  • A tragic reminder of the necessary work of Good Counsel and other homes like it where homeless, pregnant women facing a crisis pregnancy are given shelter, food, love, support, and guidance to create a new life for themselves and their baby. Visit our website for more information at http://www.goodcounselhomes.org

Democrats First, Catholics Second

Sunday, April 19, AD 2015

34 Responses to Democrats First, Catholics Second

  • it is good that God is merciful. Demoncrats are bloodthirsty baby killers. 50 million and counting? Makes the Holocaust look like a Garden Party. Hope these ‘Justice and Peace’niks never ask the Almighty for justice. Sometimes I wonder where in the Hell our Church is.

  • There is some degree of irony in that the Democrat Party, which is now nothing more than organized crime, was the party that most American Catholics called their political home. The Republican Party did favor abortion at one time. Goldwater and Rockefeller were as far apart as two men could be politically and yet they both supported legal abortion.

    Ted Kennedy is the reason the Democrat Party supports legal abortion. He always used a cover story that a Catholic priest told him it was okay.

    Look at the USCCB. How many are willing to enforce Canon 915? Cardinal Burke and Bishop Bruskewitz did and they were the only ones who did. The Canadian bishops are exactly the same as their American counterparts.

    No American Catholic bishop wants to offend the almighty Federal Government in threatening excommunication because that would force them to instruct their priests to talk more about sin at Mass. Can’t have that – it’s better to talk about health care and immigration.

    I was just a kid in the 1970s and I listened to my parents tell me how bad the Republican Party was. Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy turned me off to the Donkeys before I was old enough to vote. The national GOP has its share of weenies – Boehner, etc., but they are preferable to the criminals that inhabit the Donkey Party. We get the government we deserve and we Catholic have to make the bishops understand that it isn’t Catholic to always support an ever expanding welfare state. The USA cannot afford to give every poor Latino in Central and South America housing, food, health car and clothing. Their governments have a responsibility to their people and they have failed miserably.

  • “Goldwater and Rockefeller were as far apart as two men could be politically and yet they both supported legal abortion.”

    Goldwater supported it secretly, having arranged one for a daughter in the 50’s. In Congress he always voted against abortion and owed his reelection in 1980 in a close election to fervent pro-life support. He embraced his true beliefs after his retirement and ceased to be a hero of mine as a result.

    “He always used a cover story that a Catholic priest told him it was okay.”

    That is correct:

    http://patrickmadrid.com/sons-of-perdition-how-certain-catholic-priests-turned-the-kennedys-pro-abortion/

  • It was “Father” Robert Drinan who concocted the “I’m morally opposed to abortion but I will not impose my morality…”
    .
    The Immaculate Conception defined as dogma in 1854 by the Catholic Church must be embraced by the Democrat or anyone else calling himself Catholic. Mary was immaculate from the very first moment of her existence as all persons are sovereign persons from the very first moment of our existence.

  • “Mary was immaculate from the very first moment of her existence as all persons are sovereign persons from the very first moment of our existence.”
    .
    I do not think that entire statement is incorrect. While the Blessed Virgin Mary was certainly Immaculate, we were born in original sin and hence cannot be described as Immaculate at birth. Innocent of the actual willful commitment of sin yes, but not Immaculate or free from original sin. This human condition exists prior to birth and from conception onward, hence the need for baptism after birth.

  • Please bare with me. In my devotional this teaching is appropriate for discussion on this topic. I hope you think so well; If we know God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit we have eternal life. (Jn 17:3). However, if we don’t know the Lord, even if we say we do (1st Jn 2:4), we are caught up in “a great war of ignorance.” (Wisd.14:22). In this state of war and ignorance, people CELEBRATE EITHER CHILD SLAYING SACRIFICES or clandestine mysteries, or frenzied carousels in unheard-of rites, they no longer safeguard either lives or PURE WEDLOCK; but each either waylays and kills his neighbor, or aggrieves him by adultry..And faithlessness, turmoil, perjury, disturbance of good men, neglect of gratitude, besmirching of souls, unnatural lusts, disorder in marriage, adultery and shamelessness.” (Wisd. 14:23-26)

    We are to know God. (Phil.3:10).
    Ignorance of God is played out daily in our leadership, our political parties, our laws.

    Pray harder kind souls…your children deserve a better government. A better life. Not wealthier…but richer in knowledge of God.

    Peace.

    The teaching was from ONE BREAD ONE BODY. Sunday April 19th 2015.

    (emphasis was added.)

  • ….ps. The teaching ends with; We are to know God.

    My opinions followed that last statement.

  • I think Mary De Voe is reminding us that no one can be a faithful Catholic without believing life begins at conception, when saying, “Mary was immaculate from the very first moment of her existence as all persons are sovereign persons from the very first moment of our existence.” In the past, one incurred excommunication for joining the Communist Party. May I suggest the same for joining the Democratic Party?

  • Please excuse the bad email address above. Computer keyboard problem

  • You can’t be a Democrat and a TRUE Christian at the same time because their beliefs are totally contradictory to each others. It’s hypocritical to think you can be both!

  • With all of the medical info today and procedures there really is no reason to say the unborn baby is not a living person. Abortion clinics have know this all along, they just hid it and lied about it. Everyone knows that an pregnant woman has a baby inside. Someone to eat for, to watch over, to prepare for, to name. If a pregnant woman dies you lose two lives just ask anyone who loves them. Especially ask Our Lord and Savor and His Blessed Mother. They will set you straight.

  • That clip of M. Cuomo is a testament to the strength of the human will to pervert human reason. To believe whatever you want to believe..
    What vagaries of life bring some people to think what they previously thought unthinkable – I read that Ted Kennedy attended 10 different schools by the time he was 11… he was not good in school, compared unfavorably with others in family by his driven father (who had Ted’s mentally dependent sister tragically lobotomized…) When I first worked in services for developmentally disabled Ted Kennedy gave a clarion call for the human dignity and life of babies born with mental and physical handicaps– but he went from being pro-life–Goldwater arranged the abortion of his grandchild– confusion, disorientation, appeal to self-gratification. The devils’s weapons on modern souls.
    That’s when a person needs a good priest.
    To today’s “Judas” priests –
    Matthew 18.6
    ‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.æ

  • Lisag wrote, “[T]here really is no reason to say the unborn baby is not a living person”
    Who does? The first article of the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy) declares, “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law.” This law allows an abortion to be performed before the end of the tenth week of pregnancy by a physician in an approved hospital when a woman who is “in a situation of distress” because of her pregnancy requests the abortion. If two physicians certify, after an examination, that the pregnancy poses a grave danger to the woman’s health or if a strong probability exists that the expected child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable, an abortion may be performed at any time.
    Similarly, in his Rethinking Life and Death (1994), Princeton bioethicist, Peter Singer insisted that “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide, whilst being a proponent of Animal Rights, a logical consequence of his Preference Utilitarianism. In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.

  • “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law.”

    Translation: the law guarantees respect for every human life except when it doesn’t.

  • It is not only abortion. The progressive agenda presumptively politicizes envy and class hatred, employs velvet-glove orgainzed brigandage, and is opposed to the eternal virtues (Faith, Hope, Love, fortitude, justice, prudence, temperance).
    .
    Here is a quote by George Orwell.
    .
    In regards to the humanistic ideal: “Man is the measure of all things and our job is to make life worth living.”
    .

    “But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is ‘higher.’ The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all ‘radicals’ and ‘progressives’ from the mildest liberal . . . have in effect chosen Man.” Orwell: “Reflections on Gandhi”
    .

    Th secularistic humanists (in catholic clothing) hold to a definition of “Catholic Identity” that differs from the Gospels (seems the only teaching they recognize is using government coersion to comply with St. Matthew’s “final judgment narrative”) and the pre-modernist teachings of the Church, wherein there is no emphasis on the common good, human dignity, global warming, minimum wage, social justice, death penalty, etc.
    .
    Again, one decreases the probability one will get into Heaven when one votes democrat.
    .

  • Donald McClarey.

    That double-speak reminds me of; “Let your yes mean yes and your no be no, anything more is from the evil one.”
    Going from memory here and it seems plainly simple. Killing children at will is from the evil one…and his 28 million conspirators.

  • Matthew 5:37……the above quote.

    Do we make this world complex?
    Is it due to our different interpretation of freedom that the need to double-speak is acceptable and upheld in the courthouses across the landscape?

    You who wade through endless text in case history and mans law…well God help each and every one of you. Sincerely.

  • “Translation: the law guarantees respect for every human life except when it doesn’t.”
    .
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia responded that all persons must have “due process of law”. The unborn is an un-emancipated minor child with the endowed human rights of the sovereign person. Roe v. Wade never met the burden of proof that the unborn human being was not a person, the individual person protected by the Constitution, guaranteed the same legal protection as any criminal.

  • Ted Kennedy is the reason the Democrat Party supports legal abortion. He always used a cover story that a Catholic priest told him it was okay.
    .
    As a citizen we are all party to our country’s laws. Therefore that “If you do not like abortion do not have one” is worse than nonsense. We are all complicit and must be about preventing abortion or we are becoming participants.
    .
    Paul: God creates all souls in perfect innocence from the very first moment of existence. Mary was preserved from concupiscence. You and I are not. But this is not to say that you and I have not been created in perfect innocence.

  • T. Shaw: ““But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is ‘higher.’ The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all ‘radicals’ and ‘progressives’ from the mildest liberal . . . have in effect chosen Man.” Orwell: “Reflections on Gandhi””
    .
    These have not chosen man. These have rejected God. Man is next on their agenda to be eradicated.

  • William P Walsh: “” In the past, one incurred excommunication for joining the Communist Party” Thank you for clarifying my comment. I did enjoy reading it.
    .
    Fulton J. Sheen said that Democracy is predicated on the individual sovereign person for whom Jesus comes and who constitutes the government and state. The communist party is about the group. If you do not or cannot support the group you become irrelevant. A rational dissent that goes against the communist party is treason. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, commits treason against the communist party by speaking the Truth. The Democratic party is not longer the party of the individual sovereign person. The Democratic party has become the communist party and it has no soul, no truth, only unmitigated power and contempt for the human person. If the Catholic Church could teach what Bishop Sheen taught about communism, the Church could maintain its separation from politics and still guide souls away from perdition. Where there is a will, there is a way.

  • The human being is created in perfect innocence and procreated in concupiscence, simultaneously.
    .
    Atheism assumes the form of a man, the atheist, in this case a woman, and sues for sovereignty over all men. The principle of atheism or gay marriage, or communism avoids the censorship of a vice, a vice that denies human personhood, the sovereignty of the human soul and the man’s constitutional freedom by pursuing the form of a man and his innocence… kinda like the bodysnatchers, watermelons and clematis all over the place. People must realize that watermelons and clematis is no persons. Vice does not trump virtue. Principle cannot assume freedom until principle has been determined to be virtue or vice.

  • Remember Boston Congressman Father (Jesuit) Robert Drinan had a pro-abortion voting record the 10 years he served in Congress before Pope JPII disallowed priests from running for political offices. He was quoted as saying abortion “is a small issues.” His bishops originally approved his being a Democrat politician. So, if a Catholic priest can be elected to Congress when he supports abortion, what is surprising about Catholic college educated graduates being pro-abortion and getting elected to Congress?

    It is more important to half the Catholics to be Catholic Democrats; Catholic, alone, is not enough for their self identity.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour on Monday, April 20, A.D. 2015 at 6:03am (Edit)
    Lisag wrote, “[T]here really is no reason to say the unborn baby is not a living person”
    Who does?

    Tons of people.
    They’ll even argue biology with you about if an unborn child is “alive” or “human.” Eventually, you can usually get them to recognize they’re using “human” (a species) to mean “person” (a moral category), but that’s only if they don’t just start shrieking about you imposing your “morality” on them.
    (If anyone would like some sources to offer for the science part, I think I did a good job on finding objective and hard-to-attack ones for this article:
    http://www.catholicstand.com/conspiracies-catholicism-life-science/ )

  • Mary, I think you are right about the Democratic Party being the new face of communism. They are all about the group and see us not as individuals but as this or that group and all part of the herd to be managed, or by the philosopher kings with the supposed high IQs and the right degrees. They would abort us, control us, disarm us and dispossess us of what we earn. They care nothing for the sovereignty of the individual except in terms of their highly privileged selves as part of the ruling class.

  • @Foxfier; ” Eventually, you can usually get them to recognize they’re using “human” (a species) to mean “person” (a moral category)…”

    I had a year of embryology in college. I know when life begins – human life begins at conception, and as long as it is getting oxygen, nourishment and protection it grows to the point of being born, and even then it needs to be given those 3 elements in order to continue living for years afterward.

    Now, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has settled the question of human and person. I’ll quote the 14th Amendment: “All person born…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of he United States and the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due precess of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Cows and horses are born in the U.S., are they citizens? No. What does one have to be that when born in the U.S. they are citizens? One has to be a person, first, such that when born they receive their citizenship automatically. But that is not all the 14th Amendment says. It continues:”…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    There you have it – one must be a person that when born are citizens. All animals, species, what have you, are not citizens in the U.S. because they were born here, only those humans who are persons before they are born. Being a person has nothing to do with your biological state once you are created.

  • Suggestion for a shorter phrasing:
    “If an individual, when born in the United States, would be a citizen, then that individual is constitutionally speaking a person and thus due full, equal legal protection.”
    The if/then format seems to calm folks, if it’s possible.
    I didn’t have an embryology class in college, but I did grow up on a ranch, and I’ve had three successful pregnancies and one failure.
    “Dead” and “Alive” are really bleeping different, not so much for in or out. 🙂

  • Being a person has nothing to do with your biological state once you are created.
    *big grin* I have had some fun pointing out, on Catholic blogs, that we must believe in rational non-human persons– three Persons, especially, but there’s also the angels who are not exactly known for having a biological state….

  • The cover provided to these politicians by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church here in the United States is the real scandal. Corrupt politicians? To be expected. Year after year of so-called Catholic votes going to the party of Death, the clear byproduct of the failure of Catholic leadership. Time to place the blame where it squarely belongs.

  • Foxfier, something else I learned in embryology but never really realized its significance until many years later; Our bodies are made up of three kinds of cells, endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm. All three kinds of cells have a destined function in building the body, but they all come out of what is called a primal cell which functions for a specific period of time dispatching the three kinds of cells until each kind of cell takes over the job of reproducing itself to build to completion the body components of the skeleton, organs and muscle/skin tissues. What I realized years later was while science was able to discover the three kinds of cells released by the primal cell, science was never able to find those three cells in the primal cell. In other words, the primal cell was composed of three cells in one.

    Aren’t we taught that we are created in the image of God – three in one?

  • The Democrat agenda is destroying the United States via divisiveness, welfare-ism, immorality (abortion, sodomy), etc.. Conclusion: the Democrat Party is corrupt.

    Most of the Bishops and priests here are Democrats as we note their interest in income redistribution, climate change, open borders combined with, not only their general failure to proclaim and enforce Catholic doctrine, but in fact their desire to weaken it, leads one to the conclusion that many of them are also corrupt.

    Now we have Pope Francis, an Obama like presence, who appears to making the corrupt Democrat agenda official teaching in the Church. God Help Us!

  • I really think the word “person” is best avoided in debates around abortion, as it really gets us nowhere.

    According to the Veil Law, « La loi garantit le respect de tout être humain dès le commencement de la vie » The context makes clear that “human being [être humain] includes the unborn. Similarly, Art 16 of the Code Civil, declares, “Legislation ensures the primacy of the person [la personne], prohibits any infringement of the latter’s dignity and guarantees respect for the human being [l’être humain] from the outset of life.” Every commentator agrees that “person” and “human being” are here synonymous and also that « l’être humain » bears the same sense, both in Art 16 and in the Loi Veil.

    “Person” also raises rather knotty (and totally irrelevant) philosophical questions around identity. In the case of monozygotic twins, which “person” was the zygote?

    Finally, “person” has acquired unfortunate connotations in modern usage, with a tendency to identify it with the Cartesian Ego. By extension, we have the “self,” which is simply a misconstrual of the reflexive pronoun. Now, the underlying error here is to think that “I” is a referring expression at all. It is not; no more than “it” is a referring expression in “it is raining.” It follows that “I am MPS” is not an identity proposition, although it is connected to an identity proposition: “this thing here is MPS,” “this thing here” being a living human body (a “person” in the sense of “the person over there,” or “Offences against the Person). “Self-consciousness” is simply reflexive (i.e. non-observational) awareness of the actions, posture, intentions &c of this body.

  • Stilbelieve, seeing as He seems to have that kind of a sense of humor, wouldn’t put it past Him!
    (Seriously, He told us that the Christ would be called ‘God walks among us’. And folks took it to be a name….)

  • I really do not see how anyone can honestly be a Democrat and faithfully be a Christian at the same time since, oh, 1992.