More Comments From The Holy Father On Obedience

Running with our prior post regarding Pope Benedict's speech on Judas(es) and why dissenters should leave the Church, I thought this was worth posting as well.

In their economic and social activities, Catholics often come into contact with others who do not share their view of life. In such circumstances, they must, of course, bear themselves as Catholics and do nothing to compromise religion and morality. Yet at the same time they should show themselves animated by a spirit of understanding and unselfishness, ready to cooperate loyally in achieving objects which are good in themselves, or can be turned to good. Needless to say, when the Hierarchy has made a decision on any point Catholics are bound to obey their directives. The Church has the right and obligation not merely to guard ethical and religious principles, but also to declare its authoritative judgment in the matter of putting these principles into practice.


The Holy Father's comments are well-taken. We are bound to obey. The Church is bound to compel us to believe.

Oh, by the way, the Holy Father who wrote the above? It was Blessed John XXIII in Mater et Magistra.

Maybe someone should tell Joe Biden about this.

"The President's Nun"

That's the title of a recent article in the American Spectator. I suppose that it's only fitting that the Vatican II president should have his own nun.

Let me try to summarize the background here as much as possible. Some Catholic hospitals in Scranton, PA are going to be sold to some non-Catholic health systems. The CEO of Mercy Health Systems (Catholic group) initially said that the passage of the Obama health care legislation played a role in the decision to make the sale.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, immediately attacked this and every other report that tried to tie Obamacare to the hospital sales.

Why such a reaction, the Spectator asks. The answers are kind of depressing.

Let's go back to that presidential signing of the health care reform law. There were 21 very powerful people in that little group who received signing pens from the President. As mentioned that included the Vice President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy's widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy. And someone else.

That would be Sister Carol Keehan.

Impressive, no? The Catholic News Agency thought so, and prominently noted the story here. It also noted that Sister Carol was receiving her presidential pen from the President himself because she had been "supporting health care despite bishops' objections." The story even pictured the pen itself alongside the presidential seal on the box in which it came, with "Barack Obama" clearly visible scrawled along the side. Meaning, Sister Carol had enough clout to take on the Catholic Bishops on the President's behalf -- and win.

Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell? The much ballyhooed pro-life Democrat Congressman from Michigan? The Catholic Congressman Bart Stupak who was said to be such a sturdy obstacle to passage of ObamaCare because it would allow abortions? In the aftermath of the ObamaCare passage, Slate came forward to note that a letter signed by "representatives" of Catholic nuns finally swayed Stupak to break his staunch anti-abortion pledge and sign on for ObamaCare with a simple promise of an executive order on abortion, executive orders being overturned by successor presidents with the rapidity of rabbits doing the breeding thing. Wait! Stupak was persuaded by Catholic nuns? Isn't Sister Carol a …nun? How about that? What a coincidence? Yes indeed, the letter in question was signed -- solo -- by Sister Carol.

In other words, pay no attention to the dead babies.

I wonder what Bishop Martino would say if he was still around. Something profoundly and necessarily harsh, I think. One would hope something like this:



Combine all this with election-year jockeying by pro-Obamacare Democrats in a Catholic district who now have to deal with the issue of Catholic hospitals being delivered into the hands of facilities with no moral qualms about the slaughter of innocents, and it all turns into a horrible example of the disasterous downstream consequences of not punishing dissidents. I know all about the wheat and tares. I also know that, historically speaking, it seems like the anathema has a much better track record of fixing things than dialogue or just ignoring stuff.

And While Archbishop Hellin Plans Civil Disobedience

Nancy Pelosi accepts awards from an organization founded upon the principle of genocide:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, will receive an award from abortion giant Planned Parenthood at a reception Thursday evening. The award will be given in recognition of her efforts in passing the federal health care legislation, and in particular for her help in ensuring that the Stupak abortion funding ban was not inserted in the bill.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood confirmed with LifeSiteNews.com that Pelosi would be receiving the Champion for Women's Health award, which recognizes "efforts to support women and their reproductive health."

And why was Nancy chosen for this award?

In a statement, PP lauds Pelosi for having been “instrumental” in the passage of the federal health care bill, which was strenuously opposed by every major pro-life organization in the U.S., as well as the U.S. Catholic bishops, because of its abortion mandate. The statment also praises Pelosi for having "led her female colleagues in Congress as they stood strong against attempts to insert the Stupak abortion ban into the bill."

Precisely because she fought to promote abortion access. A self-proclaimed Catholic. Helping to increase abortions. And being praised for it.

Sometimes you wonder if there's anything that can stop this madness.

Abortion And Civil Disobedience In Spain

That's the talk from Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellin of Burgos, per CNA.

“Let’s be clear: this law is not a law, although it is presented as such by some politicians and lawmakers. It is no law because nobody has the right to take the life of an innocent human being. For this reason it is not obligatory. Moreover, it demands direct opposition without distinction,” the archbishop said in a letter.

He underscored that reason cannot recognize abortion as a right because it constitutes the killing “of a person who is not guilty.” “The right of a person to exist who has already been conceived, although not yet born, is not a belief stemming from any religion. One does not need to be a believer to hold that an innocent person has the right to be defended and respected in his or her integrity. Common sense dictates that one cannot take a human life in order to solve another problem or to “get money or votes,” he said.

This all leads back to our frequent point here that nobody seems to know what the hell a right actually is anymore. You can't have a right to do something that is evil. It's a weird development that the law proclaims a right to say whatever one wants, despite its vulgarity, yet blesses the murder of innocents.

Moreover, such rights can't be invented or fabricated by acts of legislative authority.

“The fallacy consists in giving politicians, judges or citizens a right they do not have. And nobody has the right to legislate the killing of an innocent person,” Archbishop Gil Hellin said. He urged Spaniards to help all mothers who are in difficult situations and to support motherhood “with all the means at our disposal” in order to “halt this plague of abortion that, in Spain alone has already destroyed more people than all those who live in the cities of Zaragoza, Cordoba and Burgos.”

If someone wants to claim to the contrary, let me just go ahead and zap straight through to Godwin's Law. If legislation and/or the popular will is the determinative factor for rights, then what obstructs the gassing of Jews or the extermination of Tutsis?

I wonder what the repercussions will be for His Excellency in making such statements. We've already seen what happened with Cardinal Ouellet. If this was the US, I'm sure he would be denounced on the floor of House and Senate, condemned by the President, blasted by the news media, and probably arrested if he followed through with his comments.

Bishop Slattery Of Tulsa On Immigration Reform

This is a balanced, common-sense statement from His Excellency, something sorely lacking in this whole debate. Instead of calling folks Nazis, as Cardinal Mahony did, Bishop Slattery has actually put forth a reasoned shpiel.

Illegal immigration is an issue which concerns every American; but the issues are complex and unless we are willing to recognize the fundamental human rights with which the Creator endows each individual - and enact laws which respect those human rights - our legislative response to the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration will be the creation of an underclass of hunted, marginalized families, whose children belong neither to this country nor to the land of their parents.

That last point is ignored by just about everyone. Illegal immigration or amnesty or whatever smells a whole lot like slavery. Folks talking about "jobs Americans won't do" is really just another way of saying that we need some variety of rabble who will get their hands dirty, so we won't have to. Whether or not Americans won't do these jobs is irrelevant. The underlying assumption that we need someone else to stoop down to do them is the problem.

However in recent years, the federal government has neither protected the sovereignty of our borders, nor has it provided a realistic means for workers to enter the country legally. Instead it has allowed millions of immigrants to enter the country illegally for the sake of our economy; while leaving it to state and local governments to deal with the resultant chaos of millions of valuable workers who have no legal identity, no automobile insurance (and are unable to obtain it), no health coverage (with no funds to pay for it) and no means of acquiring legal residency...

These men and women broke the law by entering the country illegally; but they did this with the tacit permission of the federal government and most have since become part of the fabric of everyday life in America.

No big news there in the first section, but that last part should be re-read over and over. I'm not a legal positivist or anything, but on a practical level, there is something about that absence of a sanction from the sovereign as an indication of no law stuff. If the government is letting all these people in, then not doing anything about it once they get here, it's accepting what the immigrants are doing on at least some level.

Bishop Slattery then proposes 5 bedrock points for the immigration debate. Given that they are the products of rational thought, we can be assured that, while some will be trumpeted, most will be ignored.

• First the Federal government must find a way to protect its borders;
• Some way must be found to give the 11-12 million undocumented workers presently in the country some form of legal status. This need not include citizenship and should exclude anyone convicted of a felony;
• The creation of various avenues for migrants to enter the country legally based on a formalized agreement between employers and the immigration office.
• The restoration of due process protections for immigrants; and
• A bi-partisan, non-political approach to the problem which avoids the political temptation of promoting immigration reform in such a way as to gain political advantage over one’s political opponents.

Good stuff that will unfortunately be lost in the abyss of polemic.

This Is What A Catholic Politician Sounds Like

And he's from Louisiana. Naturally, I've had a tough time finding this story on a mainstream news outlet.

Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, (R-New Orleans), the first Vietnamese-American congressman and a Catholic, announced this past weekend that, because of the “stealth mandate” for abortion still present in the Health Care bill, he prefers to “save his soul” rather than vote in favor of it. . .

“At the end of the day if the health care reform bill does not have strong language prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion, then the bill is really a no-go for me,” said Cao, who spent time in formation to be a Jesuit priest.

“Being a Jesuit, I very much adhere to the notion of social justice,” Cao said. “I do fully understand the need of providing everyone with access to health care, but to me personally, I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives,” he explained to the Louisiana newspaper.

Holy smokes. What is more shocking: an apparently orthodox Catholic politician or an apparently orthodox Catholic who spent time in formation to be a Jesuit?

“I know that voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career,” Cao said, “but I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, ‘How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul.’”

Contrast this fortitude with guys like Kmiec.

On a somewhat side note, this whole thing reminds me of a great bit from Man For All Seasons. You'll need to go to the 3:50 mark or so:



How many these days are opting for not even so much as Wales?

Happy 4th of July!

In the spirit of the holiday, I offer the following nugget from Pope Leo XIII's amazing work Immortale Dei:

It is not difficult to determine what would be the form and character of the State were it governed according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life-be it family, or civil-with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."

The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race.

They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State. Furthermore, the civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual or of some few persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all. But, if those who are in authority rule unjustly, if they govern overbearingly or arrogantly, and if their measures prove hurtful to the people, they must remember that the Almighty will one day bring them to account, the more strictly in proportion to the sacredness of their office and preeminence of their dignity. "The mighty shall be mightily tormented." Then, truly, will the majesty of the law meet with the dutiful and willing homage of the people, when they are convinced that their rulers hold authority from God, and feel that it is a matter of justice and duty to obey them, and to show them reverence and fealty, united to a love not unlike that which children show their parents. "Let every soul be subject to higher powers." To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that, rushes willfully to destruction. "He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation." To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God.

Just some food for thought. Reading the whole thing is greatly advised.

Archbishop Wuerl Will Allow Pelosi to Receive Communion

Before we get to Archbishop Burke's recent comments (and we will get to them), there's a story not getting too much play out there. Per LifeSite, Archbishop Wuerl of DC will be allowing Nancy Pelosi to receive the Eucharist.

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. has stated that he would not deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most notoriously pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians in the U.S., because he says historically "the Church just didn't use Communion" as a "weapon."

In an interview published in a Politics Daily article today, Bishop Wuerl said he disagreed with refraining from giving communion to manifestly pro-abortion politicians, which was equated with "Communion wielded as a weapon." "That's the new way now to make your point," said Wuerl. "We never - the Church just didn't use Communion this way. It wasn't a part of the way we do things, and it wasn't a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people.'' On the other hand, sanctioning Catholics tends to alienate them, he said.

Really? So all those canonical penalties over the years were just for laughs? Somebody get Henry IV on the phone. And yes, I know that the withholding of communion in these cases isn't really a penalty, per se, but that's what makes it even worse. You aren't barring someone from the Eucharist "as a weapon." You're doing it because they are committing sacrilege and wreaking horrible damage to their souls. I'm not really sure why this is even a controversy. Typically, you wouldn't think that we should be allowing acts that promote the damnation of others.

Blasphemy

If you ever have anyone tell you that the Messianic claims made about Obama are just hype manufactured by his opponents and that his supporters really have no such ideas, show them this picture:



The story is legit. The painting is real. There's a whole theology of icons. This is sort of an anti-icon, I think. For now, just reflect on how images affect our view of reality. For example, if I was to propose this image as a response to the one above:



Not that I'm saying Obama is the Anti-Christ or anything, but when folks start whipping out pictures of him rending veils with a crown of thorns on his head, the Abomination of Desolation definitely comes to mind.

No Rebuke for Obama's Anti-Catholic Appointee

Previously, we had the story of an Obama appointee who took it upon himself to insult Pope Benedict, the Knights of Columbus, and Catholics in general.

CNS has been trying to follow-up on this with the White House on this. They were told by a White House spokeswoman that the response was "no comment."

Maybe, under most circumstances, it would be reasonable to think that Obama didn't know about this. The problem is that there has already been a demand for a formal apology and withdrawal of this guy's appointment from Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, who is the House Republican Conference Chairman. That being considered, I think it's safe to say that the president knows about this. Given the lack of response, I think it's also safe to say that he doesn't really care.

Compare this to the John Edwards flap from a while ago. CNA has the story if you don't remember. It will be interesting to see the what the first negative story will be that does manage to stick with Pres. Obama and result in some accountability.

It also makes one reflect on the multiple stories coming out of Georgetown now over the White House requests to cover up religious references set in the backdrop of the president's speech. You can read about it here and here. This isn't such a big deal for me. Georgetown chose its path long ago.

"The Church Should Respect and Give Voice to the Diversity of Opinions."

Folks have thrown this statement to me about 3 billion times since I started this blog. I think 2.9 billion of them have come in since I started talking about the ND/Obama stuff.

I was looking at the daily readings and was reminded of what our first Holy Father said on the subject of diversity of opinions.

Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away,and that the Lord may grant you times of refreshmentand send you the Christ already appointed for you, Jesus,whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restorationof which God spoke through the mouthof his holy prophets from of old. For Moses said:

A prophet like me will the Lord, your God, raise up for youfrom among your own kin;to him you shall listen in all that he may say to you. Everyone who does not listen to that prophetwill be cut off from the people.

Acts 3:19-23

There is one Truth. Diversity from the Truth gets you cut off. It's that simple.

Obama Appoints an Anti-Catholic Moron to His Faith-Based Initiative Advisory Group

That's nice. I wonder if Fr. Jenkins got an invitation. There's a big article on the make-up of the entire board at CNS, but I'll just reproduce the relevant parts here:

President Barack Obama has named to the federal government’s faith-based initiative a gay-rights activist who, last month, described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Harry Knox, who is a newly appointed member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.

In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008.

The best part was that he reiterated all this when asked about it by CNS:

Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope. "The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives.”

Gee, Harry. Since we're talking about telling the truth and all, maybe you should educate yourself, what with your being in a position to advise the president and stuff. Maybe you could start here. Then embrace the fact that the Pope might actually be on to something.

On a more fortunate note, Knox is kind enough to let us know exactly what sort of agenda he's wanting to be this advisory board's capstone:

And, of course, we will support the President in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people.

I wonder if that includes Catholics. From what we've seen thus far, I'm wagering that will be a no. After all, why fund "foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression"?

In Awe of Genocide

That's Hillary Clinton for you. She seems to have a thing for lunatics who favor eugenics-driven ethnic cleansing. Specifically, she's a Margaret Sanger fan.

In a speech to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she admires "Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision." Secretary Clinton said she is "really in awe of" Sanger for Sanger's early work in Brooklyn, New York, "taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions."

They took a whole baseball team away from Marge Schott for saying less offensive stuff than this.

She told the abortion movement representatives assembled there, "The 20th century reproductive rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race."

Yeah. Just like the Holocaust was a transformational movement for Judaism.

The sexual revolution brought about in part by Sanger's promotion of contraception and abortion, Mrs. Clinton said, has "ushered in demographic and social changes that have brought us closer to gender equality than at any time."

Translation: If someone wants to exterminate an entire race, it's ok as long as we get some movement on that glass ceiling thing.

Despite this, she said that the work of Planned Parenthood and the movement inspired by Sanger "is not done." Linking birth control and women's "empowerment," she said, "women and girls are still the majority of the world's poor, unschooled, unhealthy, and underfed."

The similarities to the Ragsdale comments are astounding. All that was left was for Hillary to invoke God's blessing on these monstrosities.

"This is and has been for many years a matter of personal and professional importance to me, and I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women's rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this administration."

Translation: The President is going to do everything he can to destroy children all over the planet.

LifeSite has the whole story. There's other stuff there, but you get the picture, I think.

Too bad Hillary didn't bother to drop some praise for this Sanger gem:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities ... We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

That Marge. What a "vision."

Great Moments in Diplomacy

I haven't seen this reported anywhere else, but I just had to throw this out there. It's a wonderful story of Secretary Hillary Clinton visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. This is where they keep St. Juan Diego's tilma bearing the Blessed Mother's image.

Apparently, Hillary had no freaking clue why the place was so significant. Here's the account in Spanish (not sure where there's an English translation):

De acuerdo con el rector de la Basílica, Diego Monroy, quien recibió y acompañó a Clinton, la funcionaria dijo que la Virgen le impresionó e impactó, sobre todo cuando se le explicó que quedó plasmada en el ayate de Juan Diego, a lo cual ella preguntó: ¿Y quién la pintó?, a lo que el rector respondió que Dios.

Basically, Hillary saw the image and commented on how impressive it was. She then asked who painted it. The rector replied, "God."

Not a huge story, but I laughed for a long time.

Connecticut Attempts to Suppress the Church

I'm sure most of you have heard about this by now, but a couple of radically stupid congress-folk from Connecticut declared war on the Church this week.

Senator Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor introduced a bill that would require that parishes to adopt a lay board of administrators to govern certain aspects of the parish. Here's Archbishop Mansell's letter about it. At least the sponsors here weren't trying to hide their intentions. The bill targeted the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church. The Enemy has become quite bold.

Luckily, there were enough outraged Catholics in Connecticut to swamp the legislative phonelines and have this piece of hell-spawned trash withdrawn from consideration. This article is pretty informative.

Just so McDonald and Lawlor know, I hereby name them for what they are- Forerunners of the AntiChrist. And dumb ones at that. I don't think even Ginsburg could come up with sufficiently busted logic that could get this to pass Constitutional muster.

Get used to it folks. This is probably only the beginning.

Bishop Martino Calls Senator Casey Out

Bishop Martino is another award nominee for this year. Mostly because of this outburst, but that wasn't his only shining moment.

CatholicOnline has furnished us with His Excellency's latest rebuke to Senator Bob Casey. Here's the intro:

Now, after the Bishop had already corrected Catholic Senator Bob Casey, of the Scranton Diocese, for his vote against the Mexico City Policy and asked him to rescind it, Senator Casey has publicly questioned the Bishop’s assertion that his vote was improper for a Catholic in elective office. This Bishop will have none of the sophistry demonstrated by the follow up statements from the Senator’s office indicating that his vote - which in effect allows U.S. Taxpayer funds to be used to promote Abortions overseas - was somehow actually a “pro-life vote”.

Yeah, pro-life. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Murder is life.

Anyways, the letter is pretty good, even if it's not the sort of bomb-blast that we would have hoped for. He doesn't have to say anything about Casey's momma, but something like the "sophistry" bit above would have been nice. Here's the closing bit:

My letter of January 30 urging you to rescind your vote on the Mexico City Policy was in no way mistaken regarding the nature and the effect of President Obama’s order to rescind America’s long-standing policy to avoid using U.S. tax dollars to support organizations that promote abortion abroad. It is imperative that this fact be made known to the public. It is also imperative that there be utter clarity when it comes to the teaching of the Church on matters that pertain to the taking of innocent life and the special responsibilities that fall to you, Senator, as a lawmaker to oppose abortion and other clear evils.

Make sure you read the whole thing.

So Much for Conscience

Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

This is from the Chicago Tribune. Of course, this is all Ok because:

Officials stressed Thursday that the administration is looking for input from people across the ideological spectrum before it finalizes the rollback after the standard 30-day comment period."We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard," said one official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Of course. Obama's really shown a willingness so far to look for and gather pro-life input. Right before he wipes his butt with it.

This is further proof of the rank hypocrisy of the pro-abortion ranks of the left. Allow me to roll the clock back a years to 2006. If you'll recall, that was when 55 congressional heretics claiming to follow the True Faith wrote a letter containing the following textual turd:

In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

Hypocrites. And The Master commented on their ilk quite often:

Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.

Matthew 15:7-8

And, of course:

The lord of that servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not, and at an hour that he knoweth not: And shall separate him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 24:50-51

Pelosi Meets the Pope

From MSNBC, here's Nancy's account of how the meeting went:

She said it was with "great joy" that she and her husband, Paul, met with Benedict.

"In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel," she said.

Of course, we know that Nancy is a liar, so it's not like we can really buy her version of things. Strangely enough, the Vatican discussion of the meeting implies a slightly different tone.

"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural and moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death ..." a Vatican statement said.

It said such teaching "enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men of goodwill in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Since this was an admittedly brief meeting (15 minutes, per the article), I wonder how she and Pope Benedict got the chance to squeeze in all that stuff about global warming, etc in such a small amount of time. I'll admit that it would have been all kinds of awesome if he had met her at the door with bell, book, and candle, but it's a good start. Considering the rumors that his next encyclical is going to be on social justice, I'm wondering if he's going to take the opportunity to call out the Pelosis of the world on their manifest sin.

Speaking of Politicians and Abortions

Archbishop Burke, who is the head of the Vatican's equivalent to the Supreme Court, has come out again on the issue of pro-abortion politicians and reception of the Savior in the Holy Eucharist:

He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

To the Archbishop's credit, he brings up the issue that most often gets ignored in this entire debate, namely, the denial of the Eucharist is done out of concern for the souls of the politicians in question.

"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."

This is meaningless talk to the Bidens/Pelosis of the world, but any priest who is really worried about the salvation of his parishioners' souls should be doing this and making no bones about why. It is the Year of St. Paul, after all.

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:27

"There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."

Not my words. Or Pope Benedict's. These words were actually spoken by Pres. Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.

What we really know from this comment is that Pres. Obama is either a hypocrite or extraordinarily reckless.

Consider his well-known support for greater access to abortions. Now note that he has just affirmed that God does not condone the taking of an innocent life. What is the immediate question to be asked?

"Mr. President, when do you think life begins?"

We already know his response. He claims that such a thing is "above his pay grade," hence, he admits that he does not know. If one truly believes that God prohibits the taking of innocent life and also claims ignorance as to when life begins, what is the only rational and moral approach to the abortion issue?

One must be as pro-life as possible. The very possibility that the life of millions of unborn children could be slaughtered should make someone recoil from anything that would encourage such actions. Take the Mexico City Policy, for example. Is it logical to disburse funds and increase access to abortions unless one is absolutely certain that the unborn child is not a child? I suggest not. Such an action is reckless beyond words. Obama doesn't know if he's assisting in the murder of children, but apparently it fits into his pay grade enough not to care.

The President has shown a willingness to accept the murder of a child and render an offense against the Almighty so significant that he regards it as a truth about God knowable to everyone, despite their specific religious beliefs. There are only two possibilities here. Either he is a hypocrite and believes none of these things, or he is reckless when faced with the deaths of millions of innocents.

Which is it?