Tag Archives: abortion

Supreme Injustice

I intended to rant on this subject much earlier, but unfortunately have been incapacitated by severe burns, but now I’ll go ahead and finish it, as this still burns me up. . . .

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another abortion of justice, striking down Texas’s state laws requiring abortion clinics to be subject to the same medical and sanitary restrictions as hospitals (and preventing the existence of Kermit Gosnell-style horror shows) in a 5-3 decision.  These laws had significantly lowered the rate of abortions in the Lone Star State.  This was a terrible loss, not just for the unborn of Texas, but for states’ rights and federalism.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that for the political Left, and its judicial puppets, the “right” to kill unborn children is regarded as ultimate and supreme, trumping and triumphing over all else.

It, of course, builds on the unholy precedent of Roe v. Wade, which first enshrined baby-killing as a sacred and inviolable “right.”  But this decision takes this evil principle even further; not only is murder in the womb a “right,” but virtually no restrictions or regulations on the killing are to be allowed.

Of course, if the SCOTUS actually followed our Constitution (yeah, okay, you can stop laughing now), we would have neither Roe nor this decision, as nowhere in the Constitution is a right to abortion ever mentioned (all silly “emanations of the penumbra” bullcrap to the contrary).   Neither, of course, is the federal government given an enumerated power of deciding state abortion laws or regulations.  (In many places, taco shops and tattoo parlors are subject to more government regulation than abortion mills.)  Once again, the all-powerful Men in Black simply piss all over the laws of both God and man in service of the almighty leftist idol of “reproductive rights” (aka unrestricted baby-killing).

Ironically, many of the same liberals/leftists celebrating the SCOTUS’s striking down all restrictions on the “right” to abortion (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) at the same time loudly demand all kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And bizarrely, following the SCOTUS decision, I saw a number of self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” turn their righteous ire, not on the Supreme Court justices who made this abomination of a decision, but instead on the Texas state legislature which made the restrictions on abortion mills, decrying their “devious” and “underhanded” methods.  This was accompanied by much pious finger-wagging lecturing over how “the ends don’t justify the means.”  Thus, the SCOTUS was right to strike them down.  But this is just more nonsense.  There is certainly nothing inherently immoral about the means of toughening standards on abortion clinics to try to bypass pro-abortion court rulings.  Nor, contrary to their shrill accusations, is there any actual “deception” involved.

This seems part of a disturbing trend I’ve noticed within the pro-life movement.  It seems there are more and more people who proclaim themselves “pro-life” and opposed to abortion, yet appear obsessed with attacking other pro-lifers (especially those more politically conservative than themselves), while passively bowing to the pro-abortion left at every chance.

Even though this 5-3 decision would have stood even had Scalia remained alive or replaced by a similar constitutionalist, this should focus conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, on the absolute necessity of defeating Hillary.  Under a Supreme Court, and most federal courts, solidly dominated by leftist justices and judges, things will only get worse, much worse.  While I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, he’s at least provided a list of solid constitutionalist judges he promises to nominate from for Supreme Court Justices.  Can I trust him to keep his word?  I honestly don’t know.  But I know I absolutely can 100% trust Hillary Clinton to nominate leftist activists who will scrap what little’s left of constitutional rule of law, and destroy any semblance of religious liberty.

You’d think Catholics and pro-lifers would wake up and develop a sense of urgency about this.  Yet, instead we have holy folks such as popular “pro-life” left-wing apologist Mark Shea (oh, sorry, Mr. Shea prefers to call himself a “Catholic apologist”) urging Catholics in swing states to vote for Hillary Clinton.  (Ironic coming from a man who spent much his career denouncing voting for “the lesser evil.”)

Nor, I’m afraid, can we look to much in the way of leadership from the U.S. Bishops and their bureaucratic mouthpieces.  They continue to play the charade of rightly preaching against the evils of abortion and euthanasia, while at the same time proclaiming virtually every contentious political issue to be a “life issue,” and insist that we must take the left-wing stance on the rest of these issues (immigration, “gun control,” environmental regulation, etc.) in order to be “truly pro-life.”  This sends the courageous, clear-as-mud message to us saps in the pews to vote however the hell we want, especially if it’s for a left-winger.

Catholic pro-lifers can keep playing these stupid games and losing, or we can take a stand and fight.  Time’s running out.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Standing Against the “Prophet”

Over a week ago (since I didn’t finish this rant in a timely fashion), I attended the local March for Life in Dallas (where the original case was heard that would lead up to the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.  Of course, the predictably spineless Republicans in Congress failed to push a bill banning late-term abortions (otherwise known as infanticide).

Later that same day in nearby Garland, another demonstration occurred, a “Stand with the Prophet” rally of Muslims, against the urgent threat of “Islamophobia” to America and the world.  (No, I didn’t make it to that one.)

Of course, the “Stand with the Prophet” march, and the counter-demonstration in favor of free speech, got all the media attention.  And for good reason, because irrational fear of Islam (much like that other great phobia of our times, that of the homo variety) is an issue of far greater importance and urgency than the murder of millions of babies.

After all, the rising bloody tide of violence and hate of Islamophobia (so the event’s organizers inform us) is indeed horrific, and a threat to us all.  I mean, just  look at the recent murder and mayhem caused by Islamophobes in France, and earlier in Australia.  Oh wait. . . .

You mean to tell me “Islamophobia” was not to blame, but rather the more fanatical practitioners of the “Religion of Peace”?  You hateful bigot!  Yes, just as they were responsible for the 9-11 attacks here in the U.S., countless other terrorist activity around the world, and the bloody savagery and aggression of ISIS.  Not to mention the large-scale slaughter, rape, and enslavement of Christians by Muslims in Africa.  (The media only pays attention when white people in affluent Western countries are victims.)

Atheists and other secularist types (as well as plenty of bleeding heart Christians) insist that such behavior is hardly unique to Islam, but happens just as often among members of all religions (especially Christianity), at least among conservative members who really seriously believe their own religion.  Which explains all the suicide bombings by Traditionalist Catholics, and deadly hostage situations perpetuated by Orthodox Jews.  Let’s not even get started on the global scourge of Amish violence.

The media just keeps quiet about these things because of its right-wing pro-Christian bias.

Suggest that Islam may in fact be responsible for a far greater share of the world’s violence, and you’re a racist bigot.  (I’ve heard leftist types actually argue that Islam is in fact a race.  Hey, they said it, not me.)

After the terrorist attacks in France, the world seems to at last be waking up to the reality of the ugly nature of Islamism, though it seems largely clueless as to how to deal with it.  (I’ll let others debate whether Dear Leader should have marched with other world dignitaries in France or not.  Yes, it was merely a probably ineffectual public gesture, and I’m sure he had important golfing to do.)

In any case, we’ve come a long way since the time of Obama’s first election, when the left assured us that Islamic terrorism was all Bush’s Fault, and would no doubt soon dissipate as our Dear Leader spread peace, luv, and hopeychange around the world.

Also, looking increasingly ridiculous are the various forms of unseemly “ecumenical” ass-kissing towards the so-called “religion of peace” which Catholics have engaged in since Vatican II.  This nonsense has led to all sorts of confusion among the faithful, some believing (wrongly) that the Church actually endorses the religion of Mohammed, and many Catholics ardently defending the false religion against any and all criticism, or babbling pious poppycock about Islam being “another path to Jesus.”  Of course, never mind the reality that Islam blatantly denies key Christian doctrines, including the divinity and crucifixion of Christ (according to Islam, Jesus was really a prophet who preached Islam, and prophets are invincible and cannot be put to death by their enemies), and was originally spread mainly by violent military conquest, much of the conquered lands being formerly Christian.  (Most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian, and the Muslims did not convert the people in those places through peaceful dialogue.)

In fact, Islam has been the greatest external enemy of Christendom through the bulk of its history.  It deserves to be taken seriously, and ultimately, the only end to the Islamic threat will come through conversion to Christ.  This won’t be done, however, by singing Kumbya and pretending we really all believe the same thing, which will accomplish absolutely nothing.  Muslims know better than that, and the first step to any progress is to acknowledge the truth.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Immigration and the Suicide of the Right

Republicans in Congress are debating the passing of an “immigration reform” bill that would grant amnesty to 11 million aliens living in the U.S., as well as make it easier for non-immigrant workers to enter the U.S.

Today’s wishy-washy “moderate” Republican “leadership” (McCain, Boehner, & co.) would have us believe that this is somehow a good thing for America and for their party.  For time now, I’ve heard the line from many Republicans and self-described conservatives that Mexicans and other Hispanics are natural conservatives, who will happily flock to the GOP if only we do more to grant amnesty and open the borders.

This is despite the fact that Hispanics, as well as most other immigrant groups, consistently and overwhelmingly vote Democrat.  Democrats won over Hispanic voters by landslide numbers in every single presidential election since 1980, including two years after Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of Mexican immigrants in 1986.  And this was with the GOP running largely “moderate” candidates who would do nothing to restrict immigration, such as Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.

However, I keep seeing conservatives casually state things such as, “all the Republicans need to do is grant amnesty, and their problems with Hispanic voters will be over.”  (While on the internet, this appeared to be said with a straight face.)  This, despite the fact that Republicans granting amnesty has completely failed to win over Hispanics in the past, and the fact that polls show that the majority of Hispanic voters oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of Hispanics and those from other immigrant groups vote Democrat rather than Republican, not because of perceived Republican opposition to immigration and amnesty, but for the simple reason that they tend to be more liberal/socialist on just about every issue.

Polls show, for instance, that they are far more in favor of big government policies, and things like gun control, than most Americans.

But, aren’t Hispanics religious, pro-family, pro-life people who are socially conservative?  Some years back, a pro-life conservative woman cheerfully informed me, with a tone of absolute certainty, that Mexican immigrants would create a pro-life Republican majority in America.

Well, not exactly.  Polls show that Hispanics are actually more in favor of legal abortion than Americans as a whole, as well as somewhat more in favor of “gay marriage.”  (That last one actually surprised me.)

The reasons Washington politicians like unrestricted immigration and amnesty are clear enough.  The big-gov Jackasses like it because it ensures a steady supply of new Democratic voters, ensuring that they become a permanent majority and remain in power forever.  The big-business corporatists who have the GOP “leadership” bought and paid for like it because it ensures a steady flow of cheap labor to be exploited.  (Even though it will ultimately ensure the end of the GOP.)  In neither case does it have a damn thing to do with genuine concern for the poor and downtrodden stranger.

However, plenty of well-meaning ordinary folks, including many conservatives and Catholics, have their heads far up their pious posteriors on this issue.  The US Bishops, those reliably enthusiastic cheerleaders for welfare state socialism, continue to crusade for amnesty and open borders, as well as universal tax-payer-supplied benefits for illegals – all in the name of hospitality for the stranger.  (At least one good Bishop went so far as to declare that those opposing amnesty or “immigration reform” are “not pro-life.”)

One conservative commentator (a family friend) even condemned alleged conservative opposition to immigration as a form of “right-wing idolatry of the state.”  This sparked pious gushing from a reader about how much the influx of those holy Mexicans with their “deep devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe” would improve our country.

And plenty of libertarians adamantly support open borders on “anti-statist” grounds.

The brutal truth is that unrestricted immigration and easy amnesty policies will in fact do nothing to advance the cause of either social conservatism or of liberty, but will result in the increased destruction of both, by ensuring continued left-wing statist rule into the indefinite future.

In fact, it will ensure that Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians will lose on almost every single issue.

The brutal truth is that unrestricted immigration and easy amnesty policies will in fact do nothing to advance the cause of either social conservatism or of liberty, but will result in the increased destruction of both, by ensuring continued left-wing statist rule into the indefinite future.

In fact, it will ensure that Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians will lose on almost every single issue.

Hospitality to the stranger does not mean we must blithely accept and welcome anyone who sneaks or breaks into our homes, much less that we make them members of our household.

Conservatives want enforcement of existing reasonable restrictions on immigration, and not granting law-breakers the same path to citizenship as those who played by the rules.

And anyone who thinks that a country can maintain its unique culture and identity while being flooded with new-comers who do not share it need only ponder the fate of the American Indian after the coming of the white man.

The irony is that if our current trends continue, America will no longer be prosperous land of opportunity that for hundreds of years drew immigrants from over the world to her shores.  Immigration from south of the border actually slowed considerably in the Obama years, not because of increased border security, but because of lack of jobs in the dismal U.S. economy.

My point here is not to bash Mexicans, Hispanics, or immigrants in general (of which, in fact, there are many wonderful, and even conservative, individuals). Rather, Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians, need to wake up and get their heads out of the sand before they give enthusiastic support to policies that will ensure their own demise, as well as that of America.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Day That Lives in Infamy

Tomorrow, as you’re probably aware, we commemorate the 41st anniversary of the abominable Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade which (absurdly) declared killing one’s unborn child a “Constitutional Right,” and in effect made abortion-on-demand the law of the land.   The Bishops have declared this a day of prayer and fasting.  (And no, again, the Pope has not told Catholics to shut up about abortion, all liberal lies to the contrary.)

People (including now , sadly, many “Catholics”) try to pigeonhole or dismiss the abortion issue and the right to life as simply another “rightwing” political issue, invented by conservative Republican politicians to divide the country – or something.  However, the right to life should not be a “conservative” or a “liberal” issue, but is in fact a fundamental human value, which should transcend politics.

The right to life is the most fundamental human right the law can guarantee; without the right to life, all other human rights are rendered void.  If the law does nothing to protect the lives of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable, it is worthless.

And, yes, unborn babies (or “fetuses” or “embryos,” or whatever you want to call them) are in fact human beings from conception.  From conception the human embryo/fetus/child is a living being, genetically and biologically distinct from both parents.  And it is human; it does not change at some point from a non-human species.  Yes, the human being in its very early stages of life is undeveloped compared to more mature stages, but so is a newborn infant, or a toddler, compared to an adult.

Growth and development is a continuous, gradual process from conception to adulthood.  This is confirmed by modern biology.  While pro-aborts love to accuse pro-lifers of wishing to impose unscientific religious dogmas on everyone, it is the idea that a human baby suddenly, magically, changes from dead to living, or from non-human to human at birth or some other point that is superstitious and unscientific.

It used to be that advocates of legal abortion typically denied that an unborn child is a human being, calling it a mere “clump of tissue” and such.  But ultrasounds and other modern technology are helping expose that lie.

However, there’s a truly disturbing trend of more and more people who are willing to admit that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but say that it’s okay to kill it anyway.

These folks, following the godless philosophies of Dr. Peter Singer and his ilk, seek to separate the concept of legal “personhood” from an individual being a human being.  According to Singer, not all human beings are “persons,” and “personhood” should be based on various extrinsic factors such as cognitive development and such.  (Using such standards, most liberals should be excluded from “personhood,” but I digress.)

Of course, once we base legal personhood and the right to life on anything other than the fact of being a human being, the standards of “personhood” become ultimately completely arbitrary.  Thus, Singer uses the fact that there is little real difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn infant, to argue not that abortion should be illegal, but for legalizing infanticide.  According to Singer, killing the severely disabled is also acceptable.  In this brave new world, courts and panels of “experts” determine who is and is not a legally-protected “person” – and there’s always room to move the lines.

Ultimately, the fight over abortion is between those who believe human life is itself intrinsically sacred, against those who see human life as in itself worth, and only given worth to others on subjective extrinsic criteria.

Some people (pro-abortion liberals, as well as some “conservatives”) accuse pro-life conservatives such as myself of hypocrisy.  How can we claim to be for small limited constitutional government, while at the same time support the power of the government to take away the individual’s choice to have an abortion?

The truth is that the Roe v. Wade decision was hardly a victory for limited, constitutional government, but trampled the rights of states and the peoples, granted god-like powers to the federal judiciary, and made hash of the Constitution.  Before Roe, per the Tenth Amendment, laws concerning abortion belonged to the individual states.  Roe v. Wade took this power from the respective states and granted it to the federal government, smashing any state restrictions on abortion.  The SCOTUS justices justified their decision by citing unstated “rights” supposedly hiding deep in the dark “emanations of the penumbra” (literally, “emissions from a shadow”) of the fourteenth and other amendments.

Thus, in one blow, on no solid basis in the Constitution whatever, killing the unborn child was declared a universal “constitutional right,” and the Supreme Court granted itself the power to declare which human beings are and are not legal “persons” having a right to live.

Legal protection of the life of all innocent human beings (including the unborn) is simple justice.  Every law puts some restriction on human choice (or rather puts legal consequences on certain choices).  No one talks about being “pro-choice” in matters such as theft or rape (or the murder of persons already born).  So unless you’re an absolute anarchist, “pro-choice” arguments are utterly bogus.

Ironically, many liberals and leftists arguing that an all-powerful “right to choose” trumps the baby’s right to life, oppose the right to choose in countless other areas.  I’ve argued with many a liberal who adamantly argues for the right to choose to kill an unborn child, while equally adamantly arguing against the right of individuals to choose certain health insurance plans, or weapons for personal defense (to use just two examples.)  For the liberal, many things in fact trump absolute human choice, but human life itself is not one of them.

“Pro-choice” was never anything more than a dishonest and sophistical propaganda slogan.

And speaking of abortion, Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture beat me to this one last week, but his piece, “Pope Decries Abortion; Sun Expected To Rise in East,” confirms some points I’ve been making here regarding the shallowness of the “mainstream” media in reporting on Pope Francis and abortion.  Apparently, according to the AP, the only reason the Vicar of Christ could possibly have for upholding the Church’s two-millennia-old teachings against abortion is to throw a bone to us disgruntled conservatives.  Sigh.

Yes kids, the Pope is Catholic, and abortion is still very, very bad.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Great Religious Right Schism & Other Fantasies

You gotta hand it to the folks in the “mainstream” liberal press.  Their consistent ability to cram enormous amounts of nonsense, distortions, and falsehoods into brief articles – especially with regards to religion, especially with regards to the Catholic Church – is nothing short of amazing.

This piece I stumbled across last week from some guy named Peter Weber is pretty typical.  It’s titled, “Why Pope Francis Won’t Cause a Schism in the U.S. Religious Right,” and the gist of it was that the current Pope’s allegedly liberal “pro-choice,” “pro-gay” positions had failed to create a rift between faithful Catholics and conservative Evangelical Protestants on hot-button “culture war” issues such as abortion and “gay marriage.”  Shocking.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I detected a hint of disappointment in the piece’s title.  Maybe even a tear or two.  You see, it seems those darned orthodox “conservative” Catholics will just stubbornly cling to their unenlightened positions against abortion and “gay marriage” regardless of what the Pope says.

After quoting some rather ignorant statements of alarm at the Pope from some conservative Evangelicals, Weber quotes some typical delirium from lefty gay-activist “journalist” Andrew Sullivan, who crows, “The Catholic hierarchy has been knocked sideways by the emergence of Pope Francis and his eschewal of their fixation on homosexuality, contraception, and abortion. That fixation — essentially a Christianist and de facto Republican alliance among Protestants and Catholic leaders — has now been rendered a far lower priority than, say, preaching the Gospel or serving the poor and the sick. Francis has also endorsed secularism as the proper modern context for religious faith.”

(Ooh!  There’s that scary, scary word, “Christianist”!  If you’re pro-life, or don’t want “gay marriage,” you’re some blood-crazed fanatic eager to lop the head off of Infidels.)

And never mind, of course, that not a word of Sullivan’s gushing is actually true, but more on that later.

Weber disagrees with Sullivan’s liberal triumphalism, concluding:

“The long papacy of happy culture warrior John Paul II didn’t turn Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi — Catholics all — into anti-abortion activists. And Pope Francis’ shift away from cultural politics won’t convert John Boehner or make any of the conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court — Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas — less eager to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

True (excepting, I’d argue, the eagerness of Roberts & co. to overturn Roe v. Wade).

But Weber (like most of his media brethren) remains completely clueless.

Both Weber and Sullivan, like most in liberal press, are unable to see Catholic moral teaching in any context other than American “liberals vs. conservatives” politics.

They apparently labor under the delusion that opposition to abortion and homosexual activity is a recent invention of the Republican Party, rather than what the Christian Faith has always taught for 2000 years, as found in the epistles of St. Paul and in the Didache.  (And, unlike the GOP “leadership,” the Church is actually serious about what it says.)

Besides the fact that personal papal interviews contain zero magisterial authority, and, as I noted previously here, Pope Francis did not change or do away with any of the Church’s moral teachings, which remain clearly stated in the Catechism.  (Excellent article in Catholic Culture by Phil Lawler here.)

The notion that Pope Francis reversed the Church’s teachings on abortion, etc., and that pro-life Catholics are now just as much in dissent from Church teaching as Pelosi, Kerry & co. were back in the pre-Francis days, is a heaping load of absolute and total excrement.  Sorry, if you ain’t pro-life, you still ain’t Catholic!

Those who think the current Holy Father is “pro-choice,” “hates dogma,” or wants the Church to just shut up about abortion and other moral issues, need to read his recent address to Catholic physicians, where he spoke of the importance of the right to life of all persons from conception, proclaiming:

Every child who, rather than being born, is condemned unjustly to being aborted, bears the face of Jesus Christ, bears the face of the Lord . . .  And every elderly person, even if he is ill or at the end of his days, bears the face of Christ. They cannot be discarded, as the “culture of waste” suggests! They cannot be thrown away!

Hardly the words of a Pelosi-esque “pro-choicer,” or of one who thinks the Church needs to “get over its fixation” on abortion.  Of course, those words of Pope Francis got almost no “mainstream” media attention.

Much as lefties may eagerly anticipate it, a socially-liberal Catholic Church leading the faithful to the light of acceptance of abortion and sexual immorality remains a deluded fantasy.  As it always will be.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Papal Bull, Part III: The Spirit of Vatican II Arises from the Grave

Hey you cool cats and kittens, haven’t you heard the news?  The times they are a-changin’ in the Church.   The Eternal Bride of Christ and Bark of Saint Peter is finally casting off its irrelevant dusty, musty 2000-year-old moral teachings on things like the grave sinfulness of abortion, contraception, and homosexual activity, at last seeing the light proclaimed by the wise luminaries in Hollywood and the secular media.

Everybody’s now free to commit sodomy and slice and dice babies all they like without fear of hellfire and loss of Eternal Salvation.

The Catholic Church now realizes it must get over its ancient sexual hang-ups and get with the current liberal zeitgeist, or else be swept into the dustbin of history.

Freed from its archaic obsessions with sex and the sanctity of human life, the Church is at last free to focus exclusively on the issues that really matter, like gun control and global warming.

Hey, don’t look at me like that, Da Freakin’ Pope himself said so!

Or, at least that’s the impression the casual reader will get from reading the brouhaha breathlessly reported by the AP and others in the “mainstream” media concerning Pope Francis’ recent remarks in an interview with an Italian Jesuit magazine.

he AP dutifully recorded the various  gushings of an assortment of liberal “Catholic” advocates, as well as Hollywood celebs (including Jane Fonda “who said the Pope “loves the poor and hates dogma” and Chris Rock, who tweeted that the Pope “may be the greatest man alive” regarding Francis’s spectacular wisdom in allegedly leading the Church to embrace the Hollywood set’s social values).   (As we all know, the opinions of comedians, Hollywood actors, rappers, and such are of infinitely greater importance than those of us mere mortals in mundane lines of work – especially on matters of Faith and Morals.)

The AP story was linked to on a conservative website with the shocking headline, “Pope Francis says Church Obsessed with Homosexuality and Abortion.”

Of course (if you actually bother to read the fine print), Pope Francis in reality said nothing of the sort.  His words were essentially about the importance of Christ-like charity and mercy towards the sinner, summed up in the Church’s age old admonition to “hate the sin and love the sinner” (a concept of which the modern world is utterly clueless,) and that the Church is not in the business of judging the state of individual souls.  After all, without charity as St. Paul declared, without love, we are but a “noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.”

The Pope did not declare any change in the Church’s 2000-year-old moral teachings regarding the grave immorality of the sins of abortion, homosexual activity, or contraception, nor did he declare such doctrines irrelevant – much less that he “hates dogma.”  In fact, Pope Francis stated that he was simply teaching what the Catechism teaches (which clearly states that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” and sodomy gravely sinful, but also that homsosexual persons should be treated with respect and compassion).

Mainstream media reports on the Pope’s remarks were careful to emphasize the alleged “sharp break” between him and his predecessor, that awful meanie homophobe Benedict XVI.  Thus, the story was woven into its standard narrative myth of Loving Progressive Catholics vs. those horrible phariseeical Conservative Catholics, who impose rigid dogma by day and bugger altar boys by night.  (Never mind the inconvenient fact that most of the vile and disgraceful sexual abuse and cover-up were conducted by liberal and heterodox clergy, including ultra-libs Cardinal Mahoney and Archbishop Weakland).

While this is yet another example of media distortion, and will likely have little effect on the faith of solidly orthodox Catholics, it has the potential for widespread destructive effects.

I’m afraid it may have a “Spirit of Vatican II”-type effect.  I’m referring here not to the actual black-and-white words of the documents produced by that Council, but that foggy, ethereal undead wraith which perpetually haunts the halls of liberal “Catholicism,” and has been invoked to justify every manner of heresy and liturgical abuse, and has declared everything existing in the Church prior to the mid-sixties to be null and void.  (That unholy ghost is actually close kin to that other liberal American horror, the constantly-mutating monstrosity known as “the Living Constitution.”  “Coming soon to your local drive-in, Twin Terrors Double Feature:  The Spirit of Vatican II and Night of the Living Constitution!”)

Liberal pro-abortion and pro-homosexual “Catholic” dissidents will (as they already have begun) claim that they have the full blessing and approval of the Pope and Rome, and declare the Church’s moral teachings to be discarded by the Church, while pro-life Catholics and those who publicly uphold the Church’s moral teachings will be denounced and derided by liberal clergy as troglodyte throw-backs opposed to the Church’s new progressive teachings.

Nothing really new here, but this will likely spread further confusion among the ill-informed pew-sitters (or as Rush Limbaugh would say, “low-information Catholics”) who are too ignorant to know better, and too lazy to learn the truth for themselves.  (“What, I thought the Church got rid of all those old teachings about gays and abortion!”)

While the Pope’s interview and subsequent media distortion may win him the approval of the Jane Fondas of the world (though only a spectacular idiot of Hanoi Jane’s caliber could read him as “hating dogma.”), it will do nothing to win over conservative Protestants and Orthodox concerned with actually following Biblical Christian morality, and will only further drive away “Rad-trads” convinced the Vatican has fallen into the clutches of the Beast.

While I believe the Pope’s message has been grossly distorted by the media, his words are ambiguous enough to lead to some unnecessary confusion and misinformation.  For this reason, the Pope needs to choose his very words carefully in interviews and such with the media – being mindful that most “journalists” today are not unbiased seekers and reporters of truth, but a ravenous pack of wolves and brood of vipers who will distort every word to promote an ideological agenda 100% at odds with the teachings of the Church.

While it’s right to promote love and charity, moral teaching must be made clear more than ever in this time of lies and confusion.   Truth is worth nothing without charity, but true charity does not neglect the truth.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion Über Alles: Obama’s Real Agenda

The HHS recently withheld $30 million in Medicaid funding from Texas’ Women’s Health Program (WHP), a Medicaid program which provides family planning services to low income women. The reason for this was Texas’s rule passed last year preventing any WHP funds from going to clinics which provide or refer for abortions, notably Planned Parenthood. Patrick Brennan has a good article about this here: “HHS Messes with Texas,” in which he makes the following observation;

This HHS policy begins to confirm what conservatives have suspected all along: While the Obama administration has made it clearer than it would like to claim the mantle of “protecting women’s health,” its real aim is unfettered access to abortion and ubiquitous, free contraception.

The primary agenda of the Obama administration, as well as that of the national Democratic Party in general, could not be clearer. Contrary to their propaganda, they care absolutely nothing about providing for “Women’s Health,” only with funding contraception and the killing of babies. While liberals love to preach sanctimoniously (and hypocritically) against rich corporations and lobbies controlling government, their own party is squarely in the pockets of Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest and wealthiest provider of dead babies, and the multi-billion dollar abortion industry. Obama is nothing more than the puppet of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby, which insists that nothing – not the Constitution, nor state’s rights, nor principles of religious liberty – must be allowed to stand in the way of tax-subsidized abortion and contraception for all. For liberals today, that has become the all-important, all-overriding purpose of American government.

Of course, Texas and other states would not be in this conundrum if we abolished such socialist federal welfare programs, and the individual states had not become so many squealing piglets tussling for a better position at the teats of the grotesquely obese and bloated sow that is our federal government. Dependence breeds slavery. Secession now more than ever, I say!

But returning to the topic at hand, the utter falseness of the idea that support for the Obama administration and the Catholic Faith (or even basic principles of religious freedom) are in any way compatible should be glaringly obvious. How self-proclaimed “Faithful Catholics” can continue to tolerate, much less support, Obama is truly mind-blowing. Sorry– silly me! – -I forgot for a second there that Jesus’ primary message was to spread socialism, and that we must be willing to sacrifice anything—including religious liberty and right to life—in order to help bring about the Socialist Kingdom promised by Karl Ma – I mean, Jesus. After all, to the “progressive”-minded “Catholic” and the pious worshippers at the shrine of Saint Kennedy (Jack or Ted, take your pick), Jesus, Marx, and Che Guevera are all essentially different avatars of the same Deity. (But I digress. Look for more on this topic in future Rants.)

As Mark Steyn  has pointed out, we’re now the brokest nation ever, yet the Obama administration insists that the government must pay for everybody’s abortions and condoms with tax-payer money, while as our national debt tops 16 trillion. The madness continues.

Meanwhile, we must wait while the Supreme Court debates whether the Constitution should actually apply to Obamacare, as James Madison rolls in his grave.

Tagged , , , , , , ,