Saturday, August 30, 2008


PRAY for those people who are about to be hit by Hurricane Gustav

As of this evening, a probable category 4 to hit the Gulf coast of the USA.

Texas, Louisianna, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi targets

Friday, August 29, 2008

We may not agree on abortion, but ...

Senator Barak Obama gave an impassioned speech at the Democratic National Convention. The one line that stood out, however, was this line:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of
unwanted pregnancies in this country.

At face value, many Americans, including Catholic Christians, will say, "well, its sounds reasonable and not too fanatical." Problem is that there is no middle ground with moral evil. The unjust killing of innocent human life is always grave evil. Abortion and euthanasia are always wrong, evil and immoral. Replace the word abortion with slavery or segregation. Imagine a politician saying "we may not agree on slavery" or "we may not agree on segregation (or apartheid)" BUT ... There is no BUT. Just as there can be no tolerance and no exception for child pornography, likewise, there can be no wiggle room for abortion. Innocent human life is being killed and of the most defenseless of all, the unborn within the womb.

We have some politicians who openly support abortion and profess to be Catholic. We have some religious leaders who refuse to denounce and repudiate such incompatibility. Thanks to some courageous bishops (like Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal Rigali, Cardinal Egan, Bishop Aquila, Archbishop Wuerl, Bishop Zubik and Bishop Sheridan) who plainly reiterated and reaffirmed that politicians who openly support abortion should not go receive Holy Communion. It is sad that we cannot rejoice in having a Catholic Vice Presidential candidate since he staunchly defends Roe v. Wade. He should be defending unborn life instead. He admits that he believes life begins at conception, yet Senator Biden feels compelled to support some arcane notion of 'privacy rights' which is a euphemism for abortion.

It would have been nice when Senator John Kerry ran for office to be proud that we had a Catholic Presidential candidate back in 2004. Sadly, he, too, was pro-choice and not pro-life. Maybe we will see in the near future a devout Catholic candidate for Vice President and President where he or she is also openly PRO-LIFE. I suspect before that happens, however, we will need to convince those Governors, Senators and Congressmen (and Congresswomen) who profess to be a Catholic Christian that their faith is compatible with the Constitution when it defends LIFE rather than making a 'choice'. It is no accident that the Founding Fathers put the word first as our inalienable rights ... "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Unfortunately, our culture is too influenced by secular humanism and therefore it distorts this notion by perverting and isolating two of the three God given rights. Liberty is perverted into sheer license, i.e., doing whatever I choose. Happiness is distorted into mere pleasure and comfort. Yet, LIFE precedes the other two. The right to life is combined with the right to use my free will and DO WHAT I OUGHT TO DO and that will lead to me finding true HAPPINESS and JOY which transcend pleasure and comfort.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Papist Points to Pertinent Picture

American Papist had this link on his blog from the classic movie, Becket, with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole

(no connections to any living politicians are inferred or implied)


Monday, August 25, 2008

Bad and Badder (or Dumb and Dumber)

Exhibit A: Catholic candidate who openly admits that human life begins at conception AND openly defends the so-called 'privacy rights' of Roe v. Wade to keep abortion legal and available and thus allows for the unjust killing of innocent unborn lives.

Exhibit B: Catholic politician who erroneously believes and espouses that the Catholic Church's condemnation of abortion is recent (within 50 yrs.) and bases that on a misinterpretation of scholastic philosopher's use of Aristotelian biology that wrongly asserted the premise that human beings first begin as vegetative souls, then animal and finally human while in the womb.

Who is more culpable? Both are wrong in their defense of legalized abortion. Both are presumed honest in their disclosure of what they believe. Only the Good Lord knows with metaphysical certitude if the ignorance is invincible, however, the more dangerous position is the acceptance of an acknowledged moral evil (direct killing of innocent unborn human life).

Humanae Vitae was written forty years ago (1948) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 and Evangelium Vitae 1995. Yet, as the CCC states in #2271

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law

The Didache goes back more than fifty years (more like two THOUSAND years), so Exhibit B's argument is false and specious. Worse, though, is Exhibit A's formal cooperation (as well as material) in evil.

How About This Catholic Candidate for VP?

McCain - Santorum 2008 ???

a much better Pro-Life voting record than Joe Biden's

My Blog List

Blog Archive