INFINITE AUTHORITY: Why you can’t be Roman Catholic and support Barack Obama

Cross posted from Right Truth.

By R.J. Godlewski

“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to do evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” Catechism of the Catholic Church [407]

Usually, I am quite reserved when it comes to people’s political views and beliefs, so long as it represents an honest reflection. It is when dishonesty arises do I become terse and nowhere is this more evident than when “Catholics” try to subterfuge official Church dogma to support their personal political agendas. We’ve seen this as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, among others, have perverted their faith for political gain. There can be no greater amount of hate then I have towards such people. However, I will tame my desires for an Inquisition and simply proceed with outlining how adherence to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be reconciled with the liberal Democratic Party.
    
As Senator Barack Obama is now the de facto leader of the Democrats and although he is not Catholic himself, I will still use his beliefs against him to show Catholics why they cannot accept these policies and remain faithful to the Mother Church. In brief, no Roman Catholic can vote for Obama in good conscience. Because I, as a member of the human population, am ill suited to discuss matters of divine revelation, I will defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as final authority on matters of Church doctrine.
    
If you claim to be Roman Catholic, especially in public, you hold allegiance to these truths. Any deviation is grounds for major sin; any swaying of the “flock” against them threatens eternal damnation. Roman Catholics should never – ever – vote for any person, support any organization, or harbor any action that goes against these beliefs. Period.

Abortion

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin” [2273] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994,607)

 Simply put, the Catholic Church believes that human life begins at conception and no earthly authority – state or parent – can deny this fact. People like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would have you believe that the Church only recently adopted this doctrine. They are very wrong:

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, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish [2271] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 606).
    
This not only silences the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, but it highlights the grave infraction of a “Christian” such as Barack Obama who vehemently opposed law protecting children born live after failed abortions.

Homosexuality
 
Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” [2357]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 625).
    
Can anyone add anything better than “Under no circumstances can they be approved”? Judge people by what they do, not by who they are.

Spreading the Wealth

The responsibility of the state. ‘Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society  [2432]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 643-644).

In other words, if people break the law through greed and corruption, then throw them into jail. Otherwise, the state has to keep its hands off for “responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals”.

Furthermore, the concept of “those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor” and “work effiiciently and honestly” means that paychecks fall under what we in the marine salvage industry call “no cure no pay” agreements. Simply put, if you don’t work you don’t get paid. A simpleton could understand that so why thousands of college-educated Obama supporters can’t is beyond me.
    
However, I still believe in “fair wages”. Nobody likes ecking out a living in a minimum wage job. I didn’t like it. I’m not sure if Barack Obama ever earned minimum wage as a post-collegiate adult, but I bet that he wouldn’t have liked it if he did. The point is there is a world of difference between someone toiling their way through a hot, dangerous factory and someone who simply doesn’t want to work. Fair wages is a two-way street – eliminate all those industry-destroying “I’m only going to do my particular job at fifty bucks per hour” automotive jobs and lower the cost of living for everyone else. Unions kill jobs when they make people lazy. At their salary, they should be able to fill the shoes of nearly every position within their area (while working in computer software for General Electric, I couldn’t plug in a computer printer because that was a client union job. That kind of employment socialism needs to stop).

Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’[2427]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 642)
    
Barack Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” convoy just took a direct hit. That reference about “no work, no eat” comes straight from 2 Thessalonians: “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat” (3:10).  Remember when God Himself, the one who multiplied loaves of bread and fishes, came down to earth for a vist, He did not work as a “chartiable organizer” as some liberals propose. No, he worked as a carpenter. He worked with his hands in Joe the Carpenter’s shop and today would probably work well in Joe the Plumber’s shop too. No way could an office worker endure a Crucifixion. 

Self-Defense

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not’” [2263]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 603-604)

Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 
…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s” [2264]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.” [2265] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm” [2266]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
Barack Obama has made it perfectly clear that he wants to take away your right to own guns and punish you for protecting your life. Yet, in doing so, he is denying you your “grave duty” to protect yourself and your family. Innocent human life is so infinitely precious that even the Catholic Church itself understands that it cannot be left solely to the care of so-called “proper authorities”. If Barack Obama does not value all innocent human lives, he certainly does not value yours.

Capital Punishment

For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” [2266] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
This is probably the most misunderstood piece of Church doctrine. Several times I have heard liberals use the death penalty argument as a means to trap pro-life Republicans by saying such things as “You support the death penalty when the Catholic Church is against it so why can’t Democrats support abortions?” The truth is, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty in “cases of extreme gravity”. Sure, we all have aversion to killing other people but we’re not talking about people writing bad checks here. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject, take a good look at that phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”. We need to stop allowing sexual predators to go Scot free as the liberals desire. It does not function well for the “common good of the family”. Or of the state.

The Environment

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” [2416]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” [2417]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)
    
Simply put, we take care of the planet because we are religious, not because the environment is our diety. Without human utilization, the environment becomes a vastness of unappreciated nothingness. Now let’s consider that last quotation: “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing”. This should stop PETA and other activists in their tracks. The higher order of things places people at the top of the totem pole.
  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

To cover the eight hundred or so pages of the Catechism would require more time than we have left before Tuesday’s election. I have attempted to cover those topics that I feel are of most value to Catholic (and, perhaps, other Christian) voters. This election may very well lead to the subjugation of the Church here in America. It is very important to remember that you cannot reconcile a vote for Barack Obama and membership in the Faith. To do so cancels out one or the other.
    
So, if you consider yourself a faithful, truthful Roman Catholic, then please vote against Senator Barack Obama on November 4th (already, John McCain has gained a 20% surge amongst Catholic voters and now leads Obama by 11%). However, if you believe that Senator Obama’s social, economic, and military policies are more in line with your values, then by all means go ahead and vote for the gentlemen. Just get the hell out of my Church; you don’t belong here – yet.

Reference
United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Advertisements

INFINITE AUTHORITY: Why you can’t be Roman Catholic and support Barack Obama

Cross posted from Right Truth.

By R.J. Godlewski

“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to do evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” Catechism of the Catholic Church [407]

Usually, I am quite reserved when it comes to people’s political views and beliefs, so long as it represents an honest reflection. It is when dishonesty arises do I become terse and nowhere is this more evident than when “Catholics” try to subterfuge official Church dogma to support their personal political agendas. We’ve seen this as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, among others, have perverted their faith for political gain. There can be no greater amount of hate then I have towards such people. However, I will tame my desires for an Inquisition and simply proceed with outlining how adherence to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be reconciled with the liberal Democratic Party.
    
As Senator Barack Obama is now the de facto leader of the Democrats and although he is not Catholic himself, I will still use his beliefs against him to show Catholics why they cannot accept these policies and remain faithful to the Mother Church. In brief, no Roman Catholic can vote for Obama in good conscience. Because I, as a member of the human population, am ill suited to discuss matters of divine revelation, I will defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as final authority on matters of Church doctrine.
    
If you claim to be Roman Catholic, especially in public, you hold allegiance to these truths. Any deviation is grounds for major sin; any swaying of the “flock” against them threatens eternal damnation. Roman Catholics should never – ever – vote for any person, support any organization, or harbor any action that goes against these beliefs. Period.

Abortion

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin” [2273] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994,607)

 Simply put, the Catholic Church believes that human life begins at conception and no earthly authority – state or parent – can deny this fact. People like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would have you believe that the Church only recently adopted this doctrine. They are very wrong:

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, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish [2271] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 606).
    
This not only silences the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, but it highlights the grave infraction of a “Christian” such as Barack Obama who vehemently opposed law protecting children born live after failed abortions.

Homosexuality
 
Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” [2357]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 625).
    
Can anyone add anything better than “Under no circumstances can they be approved”? Judge people by what they do, not by who they are.

Spreading the Wealth

The responsibility of the state. ‘Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society  [2432]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 643-644).

In other words, if people break the law through greed and corruption, then throw them into jail. Otherwise, the state has to keep its hands off for “responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals”.

Furthermore, the concept of “those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor” and “work effiiciently and honestly” means that paychecks fall under what we in the marine salvage industry call “no cure no pay” agreements. Simply put, if you don’t work you don’t get paid. A simpleton could understand that so why thousands of college-educated Obama supporters can’t is beyond me.
    
However, I still believe in “fair wages”. Nobody likes ecking out a living in a minimum wage job. I didn’t like it. I’m not sure if Barack Obama ever earned minimum wage as a post-collegiate adult, but I bet that he wouldn’t have liked it if he did. The point is there is a world of difference between someone toiling their way through a hot, dangerous factory and someone who simply doesn’t want to work. Fair wages is a two-way street – eliminate all those industry-destroying “I’m only going to do my particular job at fifty bucks per hour” automotive jobs and lower the cost of living for everyone else. Unions kill jobs when they make people lazy. At their salary, they should be able to fill the shoes of nearly every position within their area (while working in computer software for General Electric, I couldn’t plug in a computer printer because that was a client union job. That kind of employment socialism needs to stop).

Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’[2427]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 642)
    
Barack Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” convoy just took a direct hit. That reference about “no work, no eat” comes straight from 2 Thessalonians: “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat” (3:10).  Remember when God Himself, the one who multiplied loaves of bread and fishes, came down to earth for a vist, He did not work as a “chartiable organizer” as some liberals propose. No, he worked as a carpenter. He worked with his hands in Joe the Carpenter’s shop and today would probably work well in Joe the Plumber’s shop too. No way could an office worker endure a Crucifixion. 

Self-Defense

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not’” [2263]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 603-604)

Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 
…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s” [2264]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.” [2265] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm” [2266]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
Barack Obama has made it perfectly clear that he wants to take away your right to own guns and punish you for protecting your life. Yet, in doing so, he is denying you your “grave duty” to protect yourself and your family. Innocent human life is so infinitely precious that even the Catholic Church itself understands that it cannot be left solely to the care of so-called “proper authorities”. If Barack Obama does not value all innocent human lives, he certainly does not value yours.

Capital Punishment

For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” [2266] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
This is probably the most misunderstood piece of Church doctrine. Several times I have heard liberals use the death penalty argument as a means to trap pro-life Republicans by saying such things as “You support the death penalty when the Catholic Church is against it so why can’t Democrats support abortions?” The truth is, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty in “cases of extreme gravity”. Sure, we all have aversion to killing other people but we’re not talking about people writing bad checks here. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject, take a good look at that phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”. We need to stop allowing sexual predators to go Scot free as the liberals desire. It does not function well for the “common good of the family”. Or of the state.

The Environment

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” [2416]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” [2417]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)
    
Simply put, we take care of the planet because we are religious, not because the environment is our diety. Without human utilization, the environment becomes a vastness of unappreciated nothingness. Now let’s consider that last quotation: “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing”. This should stop PETA and other activists in their tracks. The higher order of things places people at the top of the totem pole.
  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

To cover the eight hundred or so pages of the Catechism would require more time than we have left before Tuesday’s election. I have attempted to cover those topics that I feel are of most value to Catholic (and, perhaps, other Christian) voters. This election may very well lead to the subjugation of the Church here in America. It is very important to remember that you cannot reconcile a vote for Barack Obama and membership in the Faith. To do so cancels out one or the other.
    
So, if you consider yourself a faithful, truthful Roman Catholic, then please vote against Senator Barack Obama on November 4th (already, John McCain has gained a 20% surge amongst Catholic voters and now leads Obama by 11%). However, if you believe that Senator Obama’s social, economic, and military policies are more in line with your values, then by all means go ahead and vote for the gentlemen. Just get the hell out of my Church; you don’t belong here – yet.

Reference
United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

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.