Roy Rogers and the Crying Indian: The White Man’s Legacy



When I was a kid — (here we go again, an old timer reminisces) — When I was a kid you could get into the Saturday afternoon double feature at the local movie theater for fourteen cents. And you could watch two new movies, a travelogue, two or three cartoons, a newsreel, a comedy serial, and if you were lucky enough, you could get to see a new Roy Rogers Western. At least once a month, Roy would be fighting off Wild Indians (those two words were inseparable in those days). And sometimes he’d be on his valiant horse Trigger (a kind of four-legged good guy), galloping across the badlands in a cloud of dust, pursued by two dozen or so Wild Indians, and he’d turn around and get off one shot from his trusty silver-plated six-shooter and three Wild Indians would immediately fall off their mounts, deader than a doornail. And we never questioned the logic behind this implausible scenario because he was the good guy and the Wild Indians were the bad guys, and the good guys had special powers that the bad guys didn’t have. This was why we were going to win the war, because we were the good guys and the good guys always win.

Now, I know how simplistic and foolish this all sounds — good guys, bad guys — but then again, we, the good guys, did actually win the war, and the bad guys did actually lose the war. And before we’re all too quick to dismiss this whole ridiculous paradigm it might be worth remembering that — as I pointed out in an earlier article — two historians of the caliber of Sir John Keegan and Professor Gerhard Weinberg both agreed unequivocally with the characterization of WWII as being a battle between Good and Evil, a war which the Good ultimately won. So perhaps there was something cogent about this simplistic paradigm after all. Perhaps —

When I was a kid things were simpler. Notice, I didn’t say they were better — that probably comes under the heading of a personal subjective opinion. But I doubt if anyone would argue that things were not simpler then. Bad was bad and good was good. It was always pretty obvious who the good guys were — most of them looked like us, or at least the way we imagined that we might look someday when we got older. And the bad guys mostly didn’t look like us. They looked like Wild Indians or Savage Zulu warriors or Space Monsters or especially Japs. And even if they did look like us, somehow they looked meaner and less trustworthy. Anyway, you could always tell who they were. And — now here comes the really controversial part — the good guys were almost invariably white guys. I’m sorry, that’s just the way it was. Sometimes they might be old white guys, like Gabby Hayes, or sometimes (but pretty rarely) they could be colored guys, and sometimes they could even be recently-converted Wild Indians, like the Lone Ranger’s loyal sidekick, Tonto. But, chances are, some white guy was probably in charge.

Then came those fateful cultural upheavals of the Self-Righteous Sixties and everything changed. Now, the surest way to alienate that good-looking brunette you were talking to at that Saturday night party was to say something — actually, say anything — at all derogatory about American Indians or colored guys. It would have had about the same effect as saying something derogatory about our fathers and brothers in uniform during that great war two decades earlier. The tables had turned and you’d better be careful now about what you were saying and who you were saying it about. The good guys weren’t necessarily the white guys anymore. In fact, the chances were pretty good that the white guys were now the bad guys and those other guys were now the good guys. There was a different take on that same old scenario. Now, the Indian (no longer stuck with that unpleasant modifier, ‘Wild’) was being chased by two dozen white calvary soldiers, and he’d turn around and get off one shot with his bow and arrow and immediately three white calvary soldiers would fall off their mounts, deader than a doornail.

It’s damn near impossible to talk about white people’s accomplishments nowadays, isn’t it? It is permissible, however, even commendable to honor and celebrate the achievements and the accomplishments of almost any race but the white race. Why? Because we are the bad guys now. We were all wrong back then, we had it all backwards. We only thought we were the good guys.

In one of television’s most successful Public Service commercials, “Keep America Beautiful”, a sorrowful Chief Iron Eyes Cody became the conscience of America, when he silently shed that now-famous tear in 1971 for the lost beauty of our great country, which we had thoughtlessly besmirched with our incessant and irresponsible littering. We had stolen his land and then we abused it. We believed him, too, because he had become a good guy now, the very personification of nobility and honor, reminding us new bad guys of all our many, many failures and sins.

Two years later, on March 27, 1973, Marlon Brando won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his unforgettable leading role in The Godfather. Although Brando won, he famously declined the award and boycotted the award ceremony, sending Native American Rights activist Sacheen Littlefeather in his place. Sacheen stated Brando’s reasons: Brando objected to the depiction of Native Americans by Hollywood. Thus, by declining this prestigious award, Marlon Brando had defined himself as a good guy — a white guy, but a good white guy who had seen the light and was publicly repentant. And this is what it meant now to be a good white guy, to proudly wear your Crown of Thorns and loudly proclaim your guilt to Mankind. We’re sorry, World. Your reparation checks are in the mail.

Of course, there are still those occasional voices of dissent. Here’s one now:

We of European descent need no instruction in those things higher from outsiders. We, who gave birth to Dante, Shakespeare, Leonardo, Plato, Newton, Mozart. We, who alone can perceive the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. How dare they!

They, who depend upon the genius, magnanimity, and nobility of our beautiful people. They, whom without us would lose everything that make life worth living in this world. They, who would see us exterminated. What words?!?

But for the White man’s agricultural genius there are literally billions of third-worlders who would not be breathing at this instant.*

This is the voice of white pride. Not the shrill threatening voice of the crazy white supremacist, or the loony eugenicist, but the angry voice of a frustrated but rational human being, one of those few unrepentant white guys who are not quite ready yet to shuffle apologetically off the stage, still in the costume of the cold-hearted villain of this play.

And so the world has moved on and you can’t get into a movie for fourteen cents anymore, not even to a Saturday matinee. And the chances are pretty good that the bad guys are all white guys now, and most likely work for the United States Government. Marlon Brando, whose real name was Marlon Brando, Jr. passed away in 2004. And those two original protagonists in this classic duel between the selfish imperialistic white man and the noble, more morally advanced savage are gone now, too. Roy Rogers, whose real name was Leonard Franklin Slye, who was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, rode off into the sunset in June of 1998; just six months later his erstwhile symbolic nemesis, Chief Iron Eyes Cody, who was in reality a Sicilian by the name of Espera di Corti, died peacefully in his sleep at his home in California.

But us white folks are still here and, despite all the rumors to the contrary, still strong and proud, neither arrogant nor apologetic. Still trying to sort out the meanings of those old scenarios; sifting through the ashes of our shared histories, searching for the truths of our separate but inextricably entangled stories. And so it goes.

*Quote from comments by Captian Chaos to article in Maggie’s Notebook.

Roy Rogers and the Crying Indian: The White Man’s Legacy



When I was a kid — (here we go again, an old timer reminisces) — When I was a kid you could get into the Saturday afternoon double feature at the local movie theater for fourteen cents. And you could watch two new movies, a travelogue, two or three cartoons, a newsreel, a comedy serial, and if you were lucky enough, you could get to see a new Roy Rogers Western. At least once a month, Roy would be fighting off Wild Indians (those two words were inseparable in those days). And sometimes he’d be on his valiant horse Trigger (a kind of four-legged good guy), galloping across the badlands in a cloud of dust, pursued by two dozen or so Wild Indians, and he’d turn around and get off one shot from his trusty silver-plated six-shooter and three Wild Indians would immediately fall off their mounts, deader than a doornail. And we never questioned the logic behind this implausible scenario because he was the good guy and the Wild Indians were the bad guys, and the good guys had special powers that the bad guys didn’t have. This was why we were going to win the war, because we were the good guys and the good guys always win.

Now, I know how simplistic and foolish this all sounds — good guys, bad guys — but then again, we, the good guys, did actually win the war, and the bad guys did actually lose the war. And before we’re all too quick to dismiss this whole ridiculous paradigm it might be worth remembering that — as I pointed out in an earlier article — two historians of the caliber of Sir John Keegan and Professor Gerhard Weinberg both agreed unequivocally with the characterization of WWII as being a battle between Good and Evil, a war which the Good ultimately won. So perhaps there was something cogent about this simplistic paradigm after all. Perhaps —

When I was a kid things were simpler. Notice, I didn’t say they were better — that probably comes under the heading of a personal subjective opinion. But I doubt if anyone would argue that things were not simpler then. Bad was bad and good was good. It was always pretty obvious who the good guys were — most of them looked like us, or at least the way we imagined that we might look someday when we got older. And the bad guys mostly didn’t look like us. They looked like Wild Indians or Savage Zulu warriors or Space Monsters or especially Japs. And even if they did look like us, somehow they looked meaner and less trustworthy. Anyway, you could always tell who they were. And — now here comes the really controversial part — the good guys were almost invariably white guys. I’m sorry, that’s just the way it was. Sometimes they might be old white guys, like Gabby Hayes, or sometimes (but pretty rarely) they could be colored guys, and sometimes they could even be recently-converted Wild Indians, like the Lone Ranger’s loyal sidekick, Tonto. But, chances are, some white guy was probably in charge.

Then came those fateful cultural upheavals of the Self-Righteous Sixties and everything changed. Now, the surest way to alienate that good-looking brunette you were talking to at that Saturday night party was to say something — actually, say anything — at all derogatory about American Indians or colored guys. It would have had about the same effect as saying something derogatory about our fathers and brothers in uniform during that great war two decades earlier. The tables had turned and you’d better be careful now about what you were saying and who you were saying it about. The good guys weren’t necessarily the white guys anymore. In fact, the chances were pretty good that the white guys were now the bad guys and those other guys were now the good guys. There was a different take on that same old scenario. Now, the Indian (no longer stuck with that unpleasant modifier, ‘Wild’) was being chased by two dozen white calvary soldiers, and he’d turn around and get off one shot with his bow and arrow and immediately three white calvary soldiers would fall off their mounts, deader than a doornail.

It’s damn near impossible to talk about white people’s accomplishments nowadays, isn’t it? It is permissible, however, even commendable to honor and celebrate the achievements and the accomplishments of almost any race but the white race. Why? Because we are the bad guys now. We were all wrong back then, we had it all backwards. We only thought we were the good guys.

In one of television’s most successful Public Service commercials, “Keep America Beautiful”, a sorrowful Chief Iron Eyes Cody became the conscience of America, when he silently shed that now-famous tear in 1971 for the lost beauty of our great country, which we had thoughtlessly besmirched with our incessant and irresponsible littering. We had stolen his land and then we abused it. We believed him, too, because he had become a good guy now, the very personification of nobility and honor, reminding us new bad guys of all our many, many failures and sins.

Two years later, on March 27, 1973, Marlon Brando won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his unforgettable leading role in The Godfather. Although Brando won, he famously declined the award and boycotted the award ceremony, sending Native American Rights activist Sacheen Littlefeather in his place. Sacheen stated Brando’s reasons: Brando objected to the depiction of Native Americans by Hollywood. Thus, by declining this prestigious award, Marlon Brando had defined himself as a good guy — a white guy, but a good white guy who had seen the light and was publicly repentant. And this is what it meant now to be a good white guy, to proudly wear your Crown of Thorns and loudly proclaim your guilt to Mankind. We’re sorry, World. Your reparation checks are in the mail.

Of course, there are still those occasional voices of dissent. Here’s one now:

We of European descent need no instruction in those things higher from outsiders. We, who gave birth to Dante, Shakespeare, Leonardo, Plato, Newton, Mozart. We, who alone can perceive the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. How dare they!

They, who depend upon the genius, magnanimity, and nobility of our beautiful people. They, whom without us would lose everything that make life worth living in this world. They, who would see us exterminated. What words?!?

But for the White man’s agricultural genius there are literally billions of third-worlders who would not be breathing at this instant.*

This is the voice of white pride. Not the shrill threatening voice of the crazy white supremacist, or the loony eugenicist, but the angry voice of a frustrated but rational human being, one of those few unrepentant white guys who are not quite ready yet to shuffle apologetically off the stage, still in the costume of the cold-hearted villain of this play.

And so the world has moved on and you can’t get into a movie for fourteen cents anymore, not even to a Saturday matinee. And the chances are pretty good that the bad guys are all white guys now, and most likely work for the United States Government. Marlon Brando, whose real name was Marlon Brando, Jr. passed away in 2004. And those two original protagonists in this classic duel between the selfish imperialistic white man and the noble, more morally advanced savage are gone now, too. Roy Rogers, whose real name was Leonard Franklin Slye, who was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, rode off into the sunset in June of 1998; just six months later his erstwhile symbolic nemesis, Chief Iron Eyes Cody, who was in reality a Sicilian by the name of Espera di Corti, died peacefully in his sleep at his home in California.

But us white folks are still here and, despite all the rumors to the contrary, still strong and proud, neither arrogant nor apologetic. Still trying to sort out the meanings of those old scenarios; sifting through the ashes of our shared histories, searching for the truths of our separate but inextricably entangled stories. And so it goes.

*Quote from comments by Captian Chaos to article in Maggie’s Notebook.

Justice for Princess

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

We all wonder what is the results of weak parenting and PC madness. We see children who should have a conscience turn into monsters due to the above. I thought I had heard or read every imaginable profanity that these monsters could do. I have heard of girls throwing their children into the trash, cooking them in the microwave to get back the child’s father, shooting paintballs at unsuspecting bystanders, but the following is one of the worst I’ve read.

Imagine you and your family going away on vacation during Christmas. Perhaps you are visiting family or the whole clan is having a special family reunion at a resort. You have had a wonderful holiday and return home to discover this.

5 hooligans break into your home. They punch holes in the walls, guitars were smashed, and a television was destroyed. The rampage lasted 2 nights. The group had a great time. $10,000 in damages were done. But these monsters didn’t just do this. They had the audacity to go one step further.

But the most disturbing crime was described in a felt-pen scrawl on the kitchen window and cabinets: “You had a nice cat” and “it’s in the microwave.”

Inside was the family’s pet, Princess.

The cat was screaming in the microwave for 10 minutes while it was essentially cooked to death,” said Crown prosecutor John Laluk.

What makes it worse is they not only tortured the cat, but they wanted to torture the family. This was a deliberate attempt to inflict pain on the homeowners.

These monsters really knew how to party. And what did the nice people in Alberta do to these monsters?

Two 16-year-old Alberta boys who admitted to breaking into a neighbour’s house, putting the family cat in a microwave and then watching it cook to death have been sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service.

Youth court Judge Shauna Miller also banned the pair from owning pets for two years, which means one of the teen’s family will have to give up a dog they purchased just 10 months ago.

A slap on the wrist. Why not send them to bed without their dinner? And what do the parents say? Do they hold their heads in shame and weep for what their sons did? No.

Chris Millsap, the other defense lawyer, described his client as a gifted musician who plays in the church band.

“There’s no explanation … for such a heinous crime,” said Mr. Millsap. “He’s a very good kid who did something very wrong.”

Wrong again! Good kids don’t do these things. Animals do.

These monsters got off, they said their sorry and the judge let them go. But the owners of Princess will mourn their kitty’s loss forever. And justice. Well she was no where in sight today. Maybe tomorrow, but not as long as PC rules the day.

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?

Cross Posted from Miss Beth’s Victory Dance here:

Anyone
who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am
Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that’s the old Latin,
Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its
forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or
incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against
women, I calmly tell them no, I’m simply pro-child. I don’t believe a
woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any
reason–when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being
but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me
anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve heard it all. And, when I
point out no matter how loud I’m screeched at, or how hysterical the
other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes
directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and
am entitled to my views. If you don’t like them, don’t listen. But
don’t attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical
manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very
prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly
pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this–you are either pro-life or
pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don’t
have to face the gruesome reality of your “choice”). Those politicians
are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They’re all democrats.

Surprise!
They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church
Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an
ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work like
that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen
faith or you don’t and you aren’t. When you are out of line with the
Church because you don’t understand something or don’t know something,
that’s fine–as long as you are striving for understanding or the
answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another
matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own
arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that
God gave us free will–yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of
that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or
distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don’t
get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the
Church has always been firm–life begins at natural conception and ends
at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years
ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968–in the wake
of the advent of “The Pill” and the subsequent sexual revolution–Pope
Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2.
The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and
varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in
population which has made many fear that world population is going to
grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many
families and developing countries would be faced with greater
hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to
take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact
that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands
made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation
in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for
a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new
understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the
value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal
acts to this love.

But the most remarkable
development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the
domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the
point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect
of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his
social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of
life.

The next subsection is “New Questions” Point 3:

Moreover,
if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it
not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more
rationally planned family might transform an action which renders
natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of
birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative
finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each
single act? A further question is whether, because people are more
conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when
the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and
will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, “Interpreting the Moral Law” Point 4:

No
member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent
in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact
indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that
Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the
other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2)
constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the
whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also
of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God,
and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation.
(3)

All
of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians
were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women,
nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling.
That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of
those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death,
including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and
her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes
are below it, from A Shepherd’s Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on “Meet the Press”:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP.
PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an
issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the
centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that
definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at th
ree
months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an
impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very
clear definitions of when the child–f
irst
trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third
trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion
on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors
and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I
don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

To answer the simple question “When does life begin?” Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don’t ask the Doctors of the Church to “make that definition.” One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: “And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, ” p256.
(Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University
of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at
the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not
to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make
this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for
legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But
truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must
not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper
authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore
the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the
morality of abortion:

“Therefore,
by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors,
in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned
abortion and
who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the
world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I
declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as
a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorde
r, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No
circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act
which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God
which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and
proclaimed by the Church.”

-Pope John Paul II; “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says “that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all–to do so would force her to change her position. And no “ardent, practicing Catholic” has ever been, or ever will be, “pro-choice” on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those
Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most
fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full
communion with the Church, an
d they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi’s Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

“I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently
settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic
Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help
open her heart,” he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

“Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family,” he said.

“For
this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the
intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at
its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,” the pope
said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The
fact is the Church is VERY clear on it’s stands regarding life and
death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a
practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It’s a dichotomy which will never
meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker’s Statements here:

If
a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly
and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or
knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral
issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her
communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a
situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic
celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In
The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human
life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of
conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral
evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and
remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as
an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The
Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of
the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating
from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the
embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since
Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings.
Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church
isn’t lax enough–they want birth control, women priests, Holy
Communion without Penance, “freedom” to cohabitate without marriage,
etc. They simply don’t understand the Church will not change her stance
on these items–ever. No matter the currently in vogue “revolution”,
the Church will not change for expediency. She can’t change. These are
doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the
unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the
Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since
Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing,
pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want
the changes. Those changes didn’t strengthen the Church, they weakened
her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was;
Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand
this–artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women
priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior–the doctrines
will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II.
Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been
on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her
warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to
be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you
are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied
Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to
approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of
Church and State? No–because you have to make a choice at sometime. If
you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith
has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a
steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those
who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of “women’s choice”
espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:


I
dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This
is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for
“women’s rights”.

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We
are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our
talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called “religious” as if it
were a dirty word. Perhaps it’s because those who believe in this kind
of “enlightenment” are truly dangerous–and yes, evil. This isn’t about
a woman’s choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the
wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden,
Kerry and Kennedy–I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope
you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children
whereas you cherish the killing of them.

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?


Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that’s the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I’m simply pro-child. I don’t believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason–when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I’m screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don’t like them, don’t listen. But don’t attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this–you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don’t have to face the gruesome reality of your “choice”). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They’re all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don’t and you aren’t. When you are out of line with the Church because you don’t understand something or don’t know something, that’s fine–as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will–yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don’t get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm–life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968–in the wake of the advent of “The Pill” and the subsequent sexual revolution–Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is “New Questions” Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, “Interpreting the Moral Law” Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd’s Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on “Meet the Press”:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

To answer the simple question “When does life begin?” Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don’t ask the Doctors of the Church to “make that definition.” One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: “And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, ” p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
-Pope John Paul II; “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says “that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all–to do so would force her to change her position. And no “ardent, practicing Catholic” has ever been, or ever will be, “pro-choice” on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi’s Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

“I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart,” he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

“Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family,” he said.

“For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,” the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it’s stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It’s a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker’s Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn’t lax enough–they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, “freedom” to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don’t understand the Church will not change her stance on these items–ever. No matter the currently in vogue “revolution”, the Church will not change for expediency. She can’t change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn’t strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this–artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior–the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No–because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of “women’s choice” espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:


I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for “women’s rights”.

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called “religious” as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it’s because those who believe in this kind of “enlightenment” are truly dangerous–and yes, evil. This isn’t about a woman’s choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy–I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?


Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that’s the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I’m simply pro-child. I don’t believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason–when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I’m screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don’t like them, don’t listen. But don’t attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this–you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don’t have to face the gruesome reality of your “choice”). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They’re all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don’t and you aren’t. When you are out of line with the Church because you don’t understand something or don’t know something, that’s fine–as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will–yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don’t get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm–life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968–in the wake of the advent of “The Pill” and the subsequent sexual revolution–Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is “New Questions” Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, “Interpreting the Moral Law” Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd’s Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on “Meet the Press”:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

To answer the simple question “When does life begin?” Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don’t ask the Doctors of the Church to “make that definition.” One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: “And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, ” p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
-Pope John Paul II; “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says “that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all–to do so would force her to change her position. And no “ardent, practicing Catholic” has ever been, or ever will be, “pro-choice” on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi’s Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

“I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart,” he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

“Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family,” he said.

“For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,” the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it’s stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It’s a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker’s Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn’t lax enough–they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, “freedom” to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don’t understand the Church will not change her stance on these items–ever. No matter the currently in vogue “revolution”, the Church will not change for expediency. She can’t change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn’t strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this–artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior–the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No–because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of “women’s choice” espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:


I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for “women’s rights”.

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called “religious” as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it’s because those who believe in this kind of “enlightenment” are truly dangerous–and yes, evil. This isn’t about a woman’s choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy–I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace. Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4646:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Qatada that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up among them (his Companions) to deliver his sermon in which he told them that Jihad in the way of Allah and belief in Allah (with all His Attributes) are the most meritorious of acts. A man stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, do you think that if I am killed in the way of Allah, my sins will be blotted out from me? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, in case you are killed in the way of Allah and you were patient and sincere and you always fought facing the enemy, never turming your back upon him. Then he added: What have you said (now)? (Wishing to have further assurance from him for his satisfaction), he asked (again): Do you think if I am killed in the way of Allah, all my sins will be obliterated from me? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, it you were patient and sincere and always fought facing the enemy and never turning your back upon him, (all your lapses would be forgiven) except debt. Gabriel has told me this.

Tafsir