Wednesday, September 24, 2008

"Today, Children of All Races Are Denied Recognition as 'Persons'"

I get disgusted hearing politicians say they cannot bring their religious convictions into the political arena. Having said that, I guess people like Joe Biden cannot pass laws against slavery, theft, murder, et. al. because the Catholic Church is against ALL of those issues...



Dear Senator Biden:
I write to you today as a fellow Catholic layman, on a subject that has become a major topic of concern in this year's presidential campaign.


The bishops who have taken public issue with your remarks on the Church's historical position on abortion are far from alone. Senator Obama stressed your Catholic identity repeatedly when he introduced you as his running mate, and so your statements carry considerable weight, whether they are correct or not. You now have a unique responsibility when you make public statements about Catholic teaching.


On NBC's Meet the Press, you appealed to the 13th Century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas to cast doubt on the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.
There are several problems with this.


First, Aquinas obviously had only a medieval understanding of biology, and thus could only speculate about how an unborn child develops in the womb. I doubt that there is any other area of public policy where you would appeal to a 13th Century knowledge of biology as the basis for modern law.


Second, Aquinas' theological view is in any case entirely consistent with the long history of Catholic Church teaching in this area, holding that abortion is a grave sin to be avoided at any time during pregnancy.


This teaching dates all the way back to the Didache, written in the second century. It is found in the writings of Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas, and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which described abortion as "an unspeakable crime" and held that the right to life must be protected from the "moment of conception." This consistent teaching was restated most recently last month in the response of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to remarks by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.


Statements that suggest that our Church has anything less than a consistent teaching on abortion are not merely incorrect; they may lead Catholic women facing crisis pregnancies to misunderstand the moral gravity of an abortion decision.


Neither should a discussion about a medieval understanding of the first few days or weeks of life be allowed to draw attention away from the remaining portion of an unborn child's life. In those months, even ancient and medieval doctors agreed that a child is developing in the womb.
And as you are well aware, Roe v. Wade allows for abortion at any point during a pregnancy. While you voted for the ban on partial birth abortions, your unconditional support for Roe is a de facto endorsement of permitting all other late term abortions, and thus calls into question your appeal to Aquinas.


I recognize that you struggle with your conscience on the issue, and have said that you accept the Church's teaching that life begins at conception - as a matter of faith. But modern medical science leaves no doubt about the fact that each person's life begins at conception. It is not a matter of personal religious belief, but of science.


Finally, your unwillingness to bring your Catholic moral views into the public policy arena on this issue alone is troubling.


There were several remarkable ironies in your first appearance as Senator Obama's running mate on the steps of the old state capitol in Springfield, Illinois.


His selection as the first black American to be the nominee of a major party for president of the United States owes an incalculable debt to two movements that were led by people whose religious convictions motivated them to confront the moral evils of their day - the abolitionist movement of the 19th Century, and the civil rights movement of the 20th Century.


Your rally in Springfield took place just a mile or so from the tomb of Abraham Lincoln, who in April 1859 wrote these words in a letter to Henry Pierce:

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to
have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves;
and, under a just God, cannot long retain it."


Lincoln fought slavery in the name of "a just God" without embarrassment or apology. He confronted an America in which black Americans were not considered "persons" under the law, and were thus not entitled to fundamental Constitutional rights. Today, children of all races who are fully viable and only minutes from being born are also denied recognition as "persons" because of the Roe v. Wade regime that you so strongly support. Lincoln's reasoning regarding slavery applies with equal force to children who are minutes, hours or days away from birth.

The American founders began our great national quest for liberty by declaring that we are all "created equal." It took nearly a century to transform that bold statement into the letter of the law, and another century still to make it a reality. The founders believed that we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights," and that first among these is "life."


You have a choice: you can listen to your conscience and work to secure the rights of the unborn to share in the fruits of our hard-won liberty, or you can choose to turn your back on them.

On behalf of the 1.28 million members of the Knights of Columbus and their families in the United States, I appeal to you, as a Catholic who acknowledges that life begins at conception, to resolve to protect this unalienable right. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues personally with you in greater detail during the weeks between now and November 4.

Respectfully,


Carl A. Anderson

Supreme Knight - Knights of Columbus

Sunday, September 21, 2008

"Vote for Real Hope..."

“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

–Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As we head toward November, Catholics might profit from recalling a few simple facts.

First, surrounding a bad social policy or party platform plank—for example, permissive abortion—with religious people doesn’t redeem the bad policy or plank. It merely compromises the religious people who try to excuse it. One of the more miraculous, or suspicious, side-effects of the 2004 election was the number of candidates in both political parties who suddenly began talking about their religious faith. There’s no doubt that many public officials, regardless of party, do take their religious beliefs very seriously and do try to live by them. That’s a good thing. So maybe this latest trend implies a new Great Awakening. Or maybe, as one of my skeptical friends says, “it’s just another charm offensive to get the shamans off their backs.” Time will tell. Words are important. Actions are more important. The religious choreography of a campaign doesn’t matter. The content of its ideas does. The religious vocabulary of a candidate doesn’t matter. The content of his record, plans, and promises does.

Second, there’s no way for Catholics to finesse their way around the abortion issue, and if we’re serious about being “Catholic,” we need to stop trying. No such thing as a “right” to kill an unborn child exists. And wriggling past that simple truth by redefining the unborn child as an unperson, a pre-human lump of cells, is the worst sort of Orwellian hypocrisy—especially for Christians. Abortion always involves the deliberate killing of an innocent human life, and it is always, inexcusably, grievously wrong. This fact in no way releases us from the duty to provide ample and compassionate support for unwed or abandoned mothers, women facing unwanted pregnancies, and women struggling with the aftermath of an abortion. But the inadequacy of that support demands that we work to improve it. It does not justify killing the child.

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit—but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Third and finally, national campaigns—of every political party—always run on the language of hope, change, and the American Dream. This makes sense. Our leaders should inspire us; they should stir our hearts and call us to live the ideals that make America great. But sometimes the answer to the realities we face is not “yes, we can,” but “no, we can’t.” No, we can’t spend money like hedonists and outrun our debts forever. No, we can’t ignore the poor of the Third World and expect to be loved abroad. No, we can’t allow the killing of roughly one million unborn children a year and then posture ourselves as a moral society. No, we can’t make wicked things right by spinning them in a clever way.

Robert D. Kaplan once wrote that “Americans can afford optimism partly because their institutions, including the Constitution, were conceived by men who thought tragically.” The American Founders, most of them Christians, had a hard and unsentimental understanding of the limits of human reason and virtue. The last thing we need in 2008 is the kind of bogus hope rooted in mystical good feeling.

The real world involves hard conflicts and intractable issues that can’t be talked away or smothered under evasive language. Plenty of very good Catholics inhabit both major political parties. It’s our job as Catholic citizens to press our parties and our political leaders to respect the sanctity of human life—all of it, from conception to grave—whether our leaders and party elites like us or not.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

*ELECTION 2008*

If you want to vote for the best Presidential Candidate possible, why not do it? That's what our Bishops want from you. Afterall, aren't we looking for a candidate with similar principles as Our Lord?

This is what I intend to do, with the help of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and Priests For Life's "Five Non-Negotiables," and I plan to help you do the same. The purpose of the USCCBs Voter's Guide is to outline what we should be looking for in a candidate based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ.

For instance, the Bishops have 8 major issues that are of the greatest importance (the greatest of "intrinsic" evils). They are:

Abortion
Embryonic Stem-Cell Destruction
Euthanasia

Genocide

Human Cloning

Racism

Targeting of Non-Combatants

Torture


Priests for Life have Five "Non-Negotiables":

Abortion
Embryonic Stem-Cell Destruction

Euthanasia

Human Cloning

Same-Sex Marriage



With this information, I've created a scoring system to rate the candidates on these 9 issues. Let me point out that the Bishops list 20+ additional less-major issues, but I think if we find a candidate solid on these 9 issues, their conscience is probably sound enough to make decent decisions for our country on foreign policy, immigration, health care, etc.

In determining scoring, I had to weight the issues where the direct targeting of the innocent and defenseless were the greatest. That results in the following:

20 Points
Abortion
Embryonic Stem-Cell Destruction
Euthanasia
Genocide

15 Points
Targeting of Non-Combatants (Weighted slightly less than the above 4, mainly because a nuclear weapon targets the "enemy," even though the imminent death of the innocent cannot be avoided)

10 Points
Human Cloning
Racism
Same-Sex Marriage
Torture


If you decide to not even consider voting for a pro-abortion candidate, I cannot fault you and no one should consider you a "single issue voter." If there was a pro-slavery candidate, I think we could all agree that declining to vote for him/her based on that "single issue" is completely acceptable and warranted. I must warn you though: Of the 6 Presidential Candidates, only 1 of them can be considered pro-life. The other 5 either have questionable past voting records or pro-abortion platforms.


And here are the 6 Presidential Candidates for the November 4th Election:



Chuck Baldwin








Bob Barr








John McCain








Cynthia McKinney








Ralph Nader







Barrack Obama








If your mind is already made up, at least continue reading to see the outcome...and keep in mind this is an unbiased study.


"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
John Quincy Adams



ABORTION (20)
20 - Baldwin
0 - Barr
10 - McCain
-20 - McKinney
-20 - Nader
-20 - Obama

EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL DESTRUCTION (20)
20 - Baldwin
20 - Barr
-20 - McCain
-20 - McKinney
-20 - Nader
-20 - Obama

EUTHANASIA (20)
20 - Baldwin
20 - Barr
20 - McCain
-20 - McKinney
20 - Nader
-20 - Obama

GENOCIDE (20)
20 - All Candidates

TARGETING OF NON-COMBATANTS (15)
10 - Baldwin
0 - Barr
-15 - McCain
15 - McKinney
15 - Nader
15 - Obama

TORTURE (10)
10 - Baldwin
10 - Barr
10 - McCain
10 - McKinney
10 - Nader
10 - Obama

RACISM (10)
10 - All Candidates

HUMAN CLONING (10)
10 - Baldwin
10 - Barr
10 - McCain
-10 - McKinney
5 - Nader
-10 - Obama

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (10)
10 - Baldwin
5 - Barr
10 - McCain
-10 - McKinney
-10 - Nader
-10 - Obama


RESULTS:
130 - Chuck Baldwin
95 - Bob Barr
55 - John McCain
30 - Ralph Nader
-25 - Cynthia McKinney
-25 - Barrack Obama


That is pretty clear that per the Bishops, the best candidate for us Catholics to vote for would be Chuck Baldwin. Even if you factored in the minor issues - which Joe Healy did (Thanks, Joe!) - Chuck Baldwin would still be the clear-cut "winner."
So now what are you going to do?

For some perspective, I'm going to unveil the results of some of the pre-Primary candidates and a couple Veeps:


135 - Ron Paul (R)

130 - Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)

115 - Sarah Palin (R)
115 - Alan Keyes (R)

105 - Mike Huckabee (R)

95 - Bob Barr (Libertarian)

55 - John McCain (R)

30 - Ralph Nader (I)

25 - Fred Thompson (R)

15 - Joe Biden (D)

5 - Mitt Romney (R)

-25 - Hillary Clinton (D)
-25 - Cynthia McKinney (Green)

-25 - Barrack Obama (D)


-55 - Rudy Giuliani (R)


HAPPY VOTING!

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Remembering

On the Anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 - remembring the Holy Father's 2008 visit to the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan and his prayer for the victims:




"O God of love, compassion, and healing,


look on us, people of many different faiths and traditions,


who gather today at this site,


the scene of incredible violence and pain.




"We ask you in your goodness


to give eternal light and peace


to all who died here -


the heroic first-responders:


our fire fighters, police officers,


emergency service workers, and Port Authority personnel,


along with all the innocent men and women


who were victims of this tragedy


simply because their work or service


brought them here on 11 September 2001.




"We ask you, in your compassion


to bring healing to those


who, because of their presence here that day,


suffer from injuries and illness.


Heal, too, the pain of still-grieving families


and all who lost loved ones in this tragedy.


Give them strength to continue their lives with courage and hope.




"We are mindful as well


of those who suffered death, injury, and loss


on the same day at the Pentagon and in Shanksville , Pennsylvania.


Our hearts are one with theirs


as our prayer embraces their pain and suffering.




"God of peace, bring your peace to our violent world:


peace in the hearts of all men and women


and peace among the nations of the earth.


Turn to your way of love


those whose hearts and minds


are consumed with hatred.




"God of understanding,


overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy,


we seek your light and guidance


as we confront such terrible events.


Grant that those whose lives were spared


may live so that the lives lost here


may not have been lost in vain.


Comfort and console us,


strengthen us in hope,


and give us the wisdom and courage


to work tirelessly for a world


where true peace and love reign


among nations and in the hearts of all".

Thursday, September 04, 2008

FEAR

A long time ago when asking a protestant about the differences with Catholicism, I was told they disagree with the Church's teaching to "fear" God. I wonder how many times "fear of God" appears in the Bible. Anyone want to count?



Below is commentary from the Holy Father from June of this year:



At midday today, Benedict XVI appeared at the window of his study to pray the Angelus with pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square.


"In today's Gospel", he said, "we find two invitations from Jesus: on the one hand, 'to have no fear' of men, and on the other 'to fear' God. Thus we are stimulated to reflect on the difference that exists between human fears and fear of God. Fear is a natural aspect of life. From childhood we experience forms of fear that then reveal themselves as imaginary and disappear; later other fears emerge which have specific roots in reality, these must be faced and overcome with human commitment and trust in God.


"But", the Pope added, "there exists - and above all today - a deeper form of fear, an existential fear, which sometimes spills over into anguish. It is born of a sense of emptiness, associated with a certain culture that is permeated with widespread theoretical and practical nihilism. Faced with the broad ... panorama of human fears, the Word of God is clear: those who 'fear' God 'are not afraid'. Fear of God, which Scripture defines as 'the beginning of true hope', means to have faith in Him, and sacred respect for His authority over life and over the world".


"Those who fear God are serene even amidst the storms because God, as Jesus revealed to us, is a Father full of mercy and goodness. Those who love Him are not afraid. ... Believers, then, are afraid of nothing, because they know they are in the hands of God, they know that evil and the irrational will not have the last word, but that the one Lord of the world and of life is Christ, the Word of God incarnate".

Equal Fruits

Nice op-ed piece by our friend George today in the Philadelphia Daily News:


Letters: The real story on abstinence

THE Daily News made heavy and false accusations in its Aug. 22 editorial, "The Ethical Fraud of Abstinence-Only Education."

Generation Life believes that young people deserve to hear the truth about the beauty of their sexuality and only teaches about saving all sexual acts until marriage. We do not demonize gays, and we can and do teach our message without religious proselytizing.

Continue reading...