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.

Advertisements

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.

J. F’n Kerry Displays Racist Dishonesty

ABC News

Kerry: Obama Could Help US Relations with Muslim Nations ‘Because He’s a Black Man’

March 20, 2008 2:45 PM

In an interview with Massachusetts’ SouthCoastToday (watch it HERE), Obama-backing Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., says among other reasons he’s supporting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is his belief that “it would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people. if we could elect an African-American president, young leader, who is obviously visionary about the ability to inspire people.”

Asked about Obama’s credibility, Kerry said:

“Because he’s African-American. Because he’s a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country.”

Quotes from Rush Limbaugh’s transcript

It would give us an ability to talk to those countries, to, in some cases, go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can’t otherwise. I think in the end, um, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism, to maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.

Because he’s African-American! Because he’s a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. His life story, you know, a Kenyan father who abandoned him and he was raised by a single parent and — and — and found the purpose and values to go to college and make something of himself. That’s an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places in the world where disenfranchised people don’t get anything.

  • “in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can’t otherwise.”

Is Senator Kerry really stupid enough to think that, because of his skin color, Barack Hussein Obama could hypnotize the Islamic street so that they would quit supporting Jihad? Alan Keys is blacker than Obama, could he do a better job of influencing the mobs?Do you recognize racism in Kerry’s interview?

  • “He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism,” ; “To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.”
  • “religious extremism ” implies the existence of a standard and a deviation from that standard. I will provide links to critical parts of the standard; these are not extremism, these are Islam. Is Kerry an ignorant fool, a traitor or both?
  • “Moderate Islam”? Islam was founded by a genocidal warmonger, it is not moderate! Anything less than Moe’s standard, set forth above, is hypocrisy, not Islam.
  • If Moe was a prophet of God, how in Hell could he misinterpret God’s message? I showed you a significant sub set of what Allah said, Moe said and Moe did. By means of the hyperlinks I supplied, you can read the rest for yourself.
  • legitimate religion”: Can an institution founded by the man who said “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command. be a legitimate religion?:
    • he was raised by a single parent” Yeah, right. His mother re-married, and he was later raised by his maternal grandparents.
    • make something of himself” Yeah, right. A Chicago politician.; just what the world needs more of.

    J. F’n Kerry Displays Racist Dishonesty

    ABC News

    Kerry: Obama Could Help US Relations with Muslim Nations ‘Because He’s a Black Man’

    March 20, 2008 2:45 PM

    In an interview with Massachusetts’ SouthCoastToday (watch it HERE), Obama-backing Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., says among other reasons he’s supporting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is his belief that “it would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people. if we could elect an African-American president, young leader, who is obviously visionary about the ability to inspire people.”

    Asked about Obama’s credibility, Kerry said:

    “Because he’s African-American. Because he’s a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country.”

    Quotes from Rush Limbaugh’s transcript

    It would give us an ability to talk to those countries, to, in some cases, go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can’t otherwise. I think in the end, um, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism, to maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.

    Because he’s African-American! Because he’s a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. His life story, you know, a Kenyan father who abandoned him and he was raised by a single parent and — and — and found the purpose and values to go to college and make something of himself. That’s an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places in the world where disenfranchised people don’t get anything.

    • “in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can’t otherwise.”

    Is Senator Kerry really stupid enough to think that, because of his skin color, Barack Hussein Obama could hypnotize the Islamic street so that they would quit supporting Jihad? Alan Keys is blacker than Obama, could he do a better job of influencing the mobs?Do you recognize racism in Kerry’s interview?

    • “He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism,” ; “To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.”
    • “religious extremism ” implies the existence of a standard and a deviation from that standard. I will provide links to critical parts of the standard; these are not extremism, these are Islam. Is Kerry an ignorant fool, a traitor or both?
  • “Moderate Islam”? Islam was founded by a genocidal warmonger, it is not moderate! Anything less than Moe’s standard, set forth above, is hypocrisy, not Islam.
  • If Moe was a prophet of God, how in Hell could he misinterpret God’s message? I showed you a significant sub set of what Allah said, Moe said and Moe did. By means of the hyperlinks I supplied, you can read the rest for yourself.
  • legitimate religion”: Can an institution founded by the man who said “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command. be a legitimate religion?:
    • he was raised by a single parent” Yeah, right. His mother re-married, and he was later raised by his maternal grandparents.
    • make something of himself” Yeah, right. A Chicago politician.; just what the world needs more of.

    Jon Carry Lyes Aboot Blud Baffs Aftur Vetnam

    Crossposted by Snooper:

    Before I show a video of the moron from Massivetwoshits denying “no one died because the democrats lied” in the aftermath of the military loss we suffered in Vietnam, here is a quip from Don Surber: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in the Senate.”

    HA! Ain’t THAT the truth? Kerry: Moron. Fraud. Jerk. Liar. Scum. Democrat. Leftinistra.

    Jon Carry Lyes Aboot Blud Baffs Aftur Vetnam

    Crossposted by Snooper:

    Before I show a video of the moron from Massivetwoshits denying “no one died because the democrats lied” in the aftermath of the military loss we suffered in Vietnam, here is a quip from Don Surber: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in the Senate.”

    HA! Ain’t THAT the truth? Kerry: Moron. Fraud. Jerk. Liar. Scum. Democrat. Leftinistra.

    San Francisco Priest Tells nancy pelosi she is PRO-DEATH

    This article is directly from Spree at Wake Up America here.

    I am a practicing Catholic, and me and my family have been participating in Tridentine Masses for approximately 3 years now. It shames me to call pelosi, kerry, kennedy, etc. fellow Catholics, particularly with their shameless pandering to their own aggrandizement rather than following their inculcated moral teachings.

    For myself and my own conscience and soul (yes, I believe in those old fashioned “things”), I examine my conscience nightly; I read my Bible daily (those that know me personally know I’m going through a particularly trying time with my children and the Bible above all else brings clarity and comfort); and I generally participate in the old-fashioned notion of Sacramental Confession. I do NOT participate in Holy Communion without having cleansed my soul first. To my chagrin, I have not been to Mass, Confession or Holy Communion since my mother’s funeral a little over a year ago. I have strayed from the teachings of my youth multiple times and I have done a considerable amount of maturing. I am thankful and grateful to God for giving me the opportunity to mature in wisdom and in life, through Him. I know my responsibilities and He hasn’t let me down; I’ve let Him down.

    I hope to NEVER be included with such wastes of skin as the aforementioned pseudo-Catholics, in their actions or deeds. For such people to continue to claim Catholicism while giving in to secular values and the culture of death is abhorrent and I think this priest is SPOT ON TARGET. To claim, well times change is NO EXCUSE–times may change; God and His teachings and His values are eternal and unchanging.


    Now, the post from Spree:

    As usual, I follow the links that I find in my email, this particular email came to me from Political Pistachio, so, I followed the links, then started a few searches and lo and behold, a letter from a San Francisco Priest telling Nancy Pelosi that she should stop calling herself a catholic, that her record belies high moral standards, she should not receive Eucharist when she attends mass and compares her to Nazi’s as well as telling her, in their view she is Pro-Death..

    WOW.

    Harsh words from a priest.

    Do you think I exaggerate?

    Here is the PDF of the letter and below is the letter in full.

    Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned this “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” which was recently published in the parish bulletin.

    Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.

    The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but your answer to the question are you a conservative Catholic was:

    “I think so. I was raised in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics, and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will, and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, then that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.

    ”That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.

    The NARL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”

    Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby’s brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.

    Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.

    Rev. John Malloy,
    SDBSan Francisco, CA

    Ouch, gotta hurt when your own proclaimed religion, doesn’t even want you because your claims do not match your actions.

    For those that would say the Priest overstated what Partial Birth Abortion is, take a look for yourself and see if the Priest is right? (Pictures of the process are at that link)

    You can also link to a former post of mine called THIS is Partial Birth Abortion here. Fair warning to the faint hearted–my post is EXTREMELY graphic in showing exactly what this form of murder does to children.