It's official. The Catholic Knight is retired.  I'm hanging up the helmet and passing the torch. There will be no more articles, no more commentaries, no more calls to action. THIS BLOG IS CLOSED. I've spent a very long time thinking about this, I believe the time has come, and is a bit overdue.  I want to thank my readers for everything, but most especially for your encouragement and your willingness to go out there and fight the good fight. So, that being the case, I've spend the last several weeks looking for bloggers who are fairly active, and best represent something akin to the way I think and what I believe.  I recommend the following blogs for my readers to bookmark and check on regularly. Pick one as your favourite, or pick them all. They are all great..... In His Majesty's Service, THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT

Monday, March 9, 2009

Democrats Are Anti-Catholic

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A little clarification is needed to the above title. When we say "Democrats are anti-Catholic" we mean the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party, not necessarily every person who happens to be registered as a Democratic voter. Still, those registered Democrat are supporting a blatantly anti-Catholic party leadership, whether they realize it or not, and Democratic voters should take that under serious consideration. If you're a Democratic voter in the United States, or simply a member of the Democratic Party, you may not intentionally support the kind of things going on in the stories below, however, by remaining in the Party, and voting Democratic, you may very will be supporting these things unwittingly, without your knowledge....
(CatholicCitizens.Org) - Democrats have declared war on the Catholic Church, with new laws that threaten to bankrupt Catholic schools, hospitals, charities and parishes. Thus far, the worst attacks have come in New York.

"We've taken a lot of hits this year," Dennis Poust, spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, the policy arm of the state's Catholic bishops, tells Newsmax. "Outside the government, the Catholic Church is the largest provider of health, human services and education in [New York]. But some legislators are so driven by malice that they're willing to see our charities and schools go under."

The Empire State's Democrats are attacking on three fronts.

A proposal to require all hospitals to perform abortions, or lose their state license would put Catholic hospitals out of business.

Major funding cuts for Catholic schools by Gov. David Paterson, who continues to force the parochial schools to run state-mandated programs at their own expense.

An effort by Democratic lawmakers to abolish the statute of limitations on sex abuse lawsuits against the Church, allowing people to sue over decades-old cases in which the alleged perpetrators are dead.

The proposed sex-abuse law applies only to private institutions such as the Church and the Boy Scouts. Public schools are exempt. Yet sex abuse is more common in public schools than in private institutions.

"The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests", concluded a 2002 study by Hofstra University scholar Charol Shakeshaft. It estimated that 6 to 10 percent of U.S. public school students had been sexually abused by teachers and school employees.

An Associated Press investigation found that 485 "moral misconduct" charges were brought against New York State teachers between 2001 and 2005, most involving sex.

By contrast, new charges of sex abuse against Catholic priests in New York numbered "less than 10" during that same five-year period, says Poust....

read full story here


(Diocese of Bridgeport) - This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.

Now for a flashback, a Vatican official recently warned the U.S. Democratic Party is steadily becoming the "party of death" for it's unbridled support of abortion-on-demand and embryonic stem-cell research.
(CNS) -- The Democratic Party in the United States "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death,'" said U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Vatican's highest court.....

read full story here
Back in 2006, the Vatican and the U.S. Catholic Bishops warned all pro-abortion Catholic politicians that they could not continue to receive communion if they continued to support the grave sin of abortion, something that is well within religious rights of any Church. However, the pro-abortion DEMOCRAT Congressmen retaliated with condemnation and threats if the Church leadership didn't shut up!

Democrats To Clergy:
'Shut Up Or Lose Tax-Exempt Status!!!'

In the April 20 edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean is quoted as saying, “The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics.” Commenting on this is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“Howard Dean’s ultimatum to priests, ministers, rabbis and other members of the clergy plays to the stereotype of Democrats as the party of the faithless. Dean knows full well that houses of worship and religious organizations are afforded a tax-exempt status by the IRS for the same reason that colleges, universities, foundations, non-profit organizations and most hospitals are—they service the public good. He also knows that tax-exempt institutions are not allowed to endorse or contribute to candidates for public office, and that a mechanism is in place to punish those who violate this condition. And he must know that members of the clergy do not forfeit their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because of their clerical status. So what is his point other than to chill the speech of the clergy?

“This kind of demagoguery is not an isolated instance. For example, on April 19, the DNC announced a new radio ad campaign aimed at the Spanish-speaking community on the subject of immigration reform. The position that the Democrats have staked out on this issue is something many Americans, myself included, feel is superior to that of the Republicans. That is why it is so distressing to read the DNC’s statement on this matter: it literally accuses Republicans of supporting a plan that would ‘criminalize immigrants, families, doctors, and even churches just for giving communion.’ (My italics.) This is a lie—there is not one scintilla of evidence to support the idea that if the Democrats don’t win on this issue then we are faced with the prospect of cops arresting priests for giving Holy Communion to illegal immigrants.

“If Howard Dean is the true voice of the Democratic party on matters religious, they’re in big trouble.”
Washington, May. 15, 2007 ( - Eighteen Democratic members of the US House of Representatives have joined in criticizing Pope Benedict XVI for his statement that pro-abortion politicians should not receive Communion.

During a conversation with reporters on May 9, as he was flying to Brazil, the Holy Father had said that he fully supported the decision of some Mexican bishops to bar politicians from receiving the Eucharist after the lawmakers voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City. The Mexican bishops, the Pope said, had "simply announced to the public what is stipulated by the law of the Church."

But the Democratic legislators, led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, charged that the Pope's stand (and by implication the laws of the Church) "offend the very nature of the American experiment...

....The May 14 statement was signed by the following Democratic Congressmen:

* Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut
* Joe Baca of California
* Joe Courtney of Connecticut
* Anna Eshoo of California
* Maurice Hinchey of New York
* Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island
* James Langevin of Rhode Island
* John Larson of Connecticut
* Carolyn McCarthy of New York
* Betty McCollum of Montana
* Jim Moran of Virginia
* Bill Pascrell of New Jersey
* Tim Ryan of Ohio
* Linda Sanchez of California
* José Serrano of New York
* Hilda Solis of California
* Mike Thompson of California

read full story here
The Democrats vial hatred toward anyone of orthodox Catholic beliefs was painfully on display for all the world to see during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of John Roberts and Samual Alito...

Wed Jan 11 2006 17:22:11 ET

Judge Samuel A. Alito’s wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologized to the Judge’s family for the behavior of his fellow committee members during the course of the last three days.

Sen. Graham said: “Judge Alito, I am sorry that you’ve had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.”

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have attacked Judge Samuel A. Alito over his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his involvement in the Vanguard case.

One senior Republican in the hearing room said of the situation: “After three full days of attacks against her husband’s character, Mrs. Alito had enough. Democrat behavior during this hearing has not only been wrong, it’s been embarrassing. Ted Kennedy is nothing but a bully.”

read full story here
Larry King (CNN, 8-4-2005): "Anyone have a problem on him being a devout Catholic?"

Bill Press (Sun-Sentinel, 8-2-2005): "It is absolutely essential to explore Roberts' religious beliefs as part of the confirmation process."

John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, (Providence Journal, 8-2-2005): "The Roberts couple seem to be very well-educated; I wonder whether in their high-minded socializing with Clarence and Virginia Thomas (at the College of the Holy Cross) and Robert and Mary Ellen Bork (at the lay Catholic John Carroll Society), they find time for informal book chat…."

Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst for Slate, (NPR, 8-2-2005): "And I wouldn’t underestimate the influence of his religion, that Scalia and Thomas, one of the reasons they may not have drifted leftward has a lot to do with very, very strong religious views that pull them to the right. And I think that probably John Roberts will fall into that camp in that sense."

Christopher Hitchens (Slate, 8-1-2005): "If Roberts is confirmed there will be quite a bloc of Catholics on the court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are strong in the faith. Is it kosher to mention these things?"

Frances Kissling (NPR, 8-1-2005):
"If this pope will intervene in the ways he has already in Europe, it certainly raises questions for us in the immediate sense in terms of whether he thinks he can tell John Roberts how to vote when he gets on the Supreme Court."

Mario Cuomo (Meet the Press, 8-7-2005): "Are you (John Roberts) going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the Church says that, you will do it no matter what?"

Tony Harris (CNN, 7-24-2005):
"Roberts is a Roman Catholic and a political conservative. This week on our ‘Faces of Faith’ segment we’re going to examine how his faith might influence his profession."

Nina Totenberg (NPR, 7-23-2005): "Don’t forget his wife was an officer, a high officer of a pro-life organization. He’s got adopted children. I mean, he’s a conservative Catholic."

Brian Mitchell (Investor’s Business Daily, 7-21-2005): "The left has other reasons to fear Roberts. Roberts is a Catholic. His wife Jane is a former executive vice president of Feminists for Life."

Jonathan Mann, (CNN, 7-20-2005): "He is a Catholic. His wife…is involved with a group called Feminists for Life, it’s an anti-abortion group."

Barbara Walters (ABC, 7-20-2005): "John Roberts is a, a Roman Catholic. How important to him is his religion? Do you think that it might affect him as a Supreme Court justice?"

The Philadelphia Inquirer published this cartoon by Tony Auth

In addition, Democrats are well known for trying to crush free speech within the Catholic Church, and other Christian churches, by persecuting religious moral teaching. This is done by gagging priests from speaking Church teaching on homosexuality, and forcing religious institutions to hire practicing homosexuals...
( - "All other faith-based organizations – even though which are tax exempt – would be discriminated against under the bill. Groups such as Christian schools, Christian camps, faith-based soup kitchens and Bible book stores would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of their faith," he said.

"ENDA would ultimately give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for the exemption. It's the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys, and it would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith and even those who don't," he said.

LaBarbera said the word that White House staffers have been working on proposals makes the situation worse,

"Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the president …. and urge him to 'please publicly pledge to veto ENDA ... in any form if it passes Congress,'" he said.

He said it is a dangerous precedent to install in federal law "rights" based on changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior....

read full story here
Following on the heels of an 'anti-discrimination' plan Christians insist would virtually outlaw their religious beliefs comes another proposal – introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. Barney Frank – that requires businesses to give special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest women's public policy group, said H.R. 2015, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007," would be a disaster.

"This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an individual's changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender. Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, 'Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,'" Rendall said.

The proposal, from U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., follows H.R. 1592, the House-approved plan that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of valid arguments for allegations of a "hate crime" and allow the federal government to intervene when those occur, or even in order to "prevent" one..

..."This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for CWFA....

read full story here
Americans worried about new "hate crime" legislation that could be used to make criminals of those whose religious faith doesn't endorse homosexuality could be facing a two-pronged attack, according to groups that monitor those developments.

The newest threat is being prepared by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, whose work is being called "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," according to the Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network.

He said a letter to other members of the House was intercepted by Focus on the Family and indicated that it "gives the federal government even more power to create a bias motivation justice system, turning America into a police state."

Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and Pike both had alerted their constituencies earlier to H.R. 254, or the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which could create "anti-hate" restrictions and penalties...

...The H.R. 254 plan, proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is "stealth legislation at its most devious," Pike said earlier. He said people take a glance, and then say, "This bill just wants federal power to prosecute bias-motivated violent crimes in the states – what's wrong with that?"

"There's plenty wrong with that!" he said. First, the Constitution does not grant federal government the "police state privilege" of being your local law enforcement. "Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution's message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: 'Butt out of local law enforcement!'"

However, Pike said the authors of the new legislation have been clever, inserting in the proposal assertions that because five states do not have hate laws, the federal government has "no choice" but to "enhance federal enforcement of hate crimes." That includes new ranks of federal agents to address the "serious national problem" that exists.

Worse yet, there are some key phrases that open doors wide that many people don't want opened. For example, Pike said, the bill is to "prevent and respond to alleged violations," meaning "the government does not even have to wait until a hate crime has been committed but may act pre-emptively to 'prevent' crime...

read full story here
Of course, then there is the Democrat sponsored direct assault on the Catholic religion of conservative politicians...

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A Louisiana Democratic Party ad accusing Republican candidate for governor Bobby Jindal of calling Protestants "scandalous, depraved, selfish and heretical" has prompted a firestorm of criticism and calls Tuesday from the GOP to take the ad off the air.

Political watchers questioned whether the ad went too far and whether it accurately reflects Jindal's writings on Catholicism. Republicans and the head of a national Catholic organization called the ad a smear campaign.

Democrats say the 30-second TV spot — running in heavily Protestant central and north Louisiana — simply explains Jindal's beliefs with his own words, using portions of Jindal's religious writings through the 1990s, before he was an elected official....

read full story here
Democrat controlled City municipalities are no exception either, as we've recently seen with the anti-Catholic legislation passed by the City of San Francisco...
SAN FRANCISCO - The City’s stance against Catholic Church officials who oppose the adoption of children by same-sex couples is under attack by a powerful church group.

The Catholic League, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, has filed a lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors for adopting a resolution in March criticizing a high-ranking church official for directing Catholic leaders in San Francisco not to allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

The Catholic League maintains that the resolution violates the First Amendment, which prohibits government from passing laws against religious groups.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed a motion with the San Francisco District Court to dismiss the case on the grounds that it has no merit.

“Church officials weighed in on a matter of public policy and they are certainly free to do that. But the fact they are a religious institution doesn’t constitutionally shield them from being criticized,” City Attorney’s Office spokesman Matt Dorsey said.

The Catholic League is asking the judge to rule that the resolution is unconstitutional and is seeking an unknown sum in damages as well as reimbursement of legal fees.

The resolution, authored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, urged local Catholic leaders to “defy all discriminatory directives” from Cardinal William Levada, who instructed them to “not place children for adoption in homosexual households.”

The resolution also characterizes Levada’s directive as “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric.”

read full story here

Resolution urging Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity has head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.

WHEREAS, It is a insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City's existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need; and

WHEREAS, The statements of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican that "Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households," and "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children" are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco; and,

WHEREAS, Such hateful and Discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors; and

WHEREAS, Same sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples; and

WHEREAS, Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear; and

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.
The list of these stories goes on and on. Only a small sample is provided here.  The Democrat assault on Catholicism is specific and focused.  It is primarily Catholic orthodoxy and orthodox Catholic leaders who are the targets of this kind of anti-Catholicism.  Frequently, the party will trot out the most unethical and heretical politicians calling themselves "Catholic" to lead the charge.  Examples of this include, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Joe Biden, Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.  Those Catholics who oppose Catholic orthodoxy become the little darlings of the Democratic Party, while those who support Catholic orthodoxy become the targets of Democratic anti-Catholic bigotry and legislative persecution.  If you're a Democrat, you deserve to know what the movers and shakers in your party are doing. If you support this, then by all means continue to send your money to the DNC and vote Democrat every chance you get. If however, you do not support this kind of religious bigotry, then maybe it's time to reconsider your membership in the party, and support of Democratic candidates.