U.S. Bishops Snookered By Obamacare

President Obama Signed the Healthcare Bill on March 23, 2010

(EWTN News) — President Barack Obama has not kept his promises about conscience protections for abortion opponents, and those who trusted him to exclude abortion from the health-care bill seem to “have been played,” Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami said.

“His administration is running roughshod over conscience-protection provisions’ long part of the law that find their justification in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, a foundational human right,” the archbishop wrote in a Dec. 2 essay in the Miami Herald.

“It is one thing for an administration to support and promote an agenda; it is quite another to force those who disagree with it to violate their moral and religious principles.”

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: You were warned your excellency. You and your brother bishops were all warned. We Catholic bloggers told you this day would come. We yelled it from the top of our lungs. YOU CANNOT TRUST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS!!! YOU CANNOT TRUST BARACK OBAMA!!! YOU CANNOT TRUST THE LIKES OF NANCY PELOSI!!! (My God! Is she still in the Church? Have you not excommunicated her yet!?! What does this woman have to do to be excommunicated???) WE WARNED YOU. YOU DID NOT LISTEN. WHERE IT NOT FOR YOUR SUPPORT, OBAMACARE WOULD HAVE NEVER PASSED. BUT YOU DID SUPPORT IT, AND YOU TRUSTED THOSE WHOM YOU KNEW WERE NOT TRUSTWORTHY. NOW WE MUST ALL PAY THE PRICE!!!

The first to pay will be Catholic healthcare workers. Doctors, nurses and technicians will become the first martyrs of your naivety. Next it will be you! I do hope your excellencies will lead us now by example in martyrdom. I do hope you would not permit your sheep to be fined and jailed before you. I do hope you have not left us, the laity, to fight for the faith in your place. You led us into this situation, and since you cannot now lead us out of it, we do hope you will at least lead us into martyrdom.

In HIS Majesty's Service,

The Catholic Knight

(PS - I work in healthcare. I am prepared to be martyred for this. If I'm lucky, I may only lose my job. If necessary however, I am prepared to face fines and a prison sentence for following my conscience. It's just too bad my kids will have to go into poverty should it come down to that. Maybe you could help them out when the time comes?)

Catholic Men Should Be Knights Not Masons

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Knights of Columbus, of which I am a 4th degree member, is a fraternal Catholic order with a membership of some 1.7 million men. It is designed primarily to serve the Catholic Church, and secondarily the men who are members, by providing a means and conduit through which they may help each other, their families, the Church and third-party charities. The Knights of Columbus also provides life insurance policies to it's members and uses the proceeds to benefit the Catholic Church in various ways.

The Knights of Columbus was founded by The Venerable Father Michael J. McGivney in New Haven, Connecticut on August 2, 1881. His primary motivation was to organize a mutual benefit society to assist widows and orphans of families who had lost their primary bread winner. Life in the late 1800s was extremely harsh for Catholic immigrant families in the United States. During that time discrimination made it difficult for a Catholic man to get a good job. Catholics were regularly excluded from labor unions. Local charities and benefit organizations also frequently excluded Catholics. Catholics were also disenfranchised politically, as it was nearly impossible to get a Catholic elected to government office. Most Catholic men were forced to work in coal mines, sweat shops and ship yards, where they were subjected to harsh labor, poor working conditions, and less then minimum wage. As a result, many Catholic husbands and fathers lived short lives. The one organization well established in America, which could potentially help them, was Freemasonry. Unfortunately, Freemasonry had a strong religious/occult element that challenged the Catholic Church's claim of absolute truth revealed through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Because of this, Freemasonry was soundly condemned by the Catholic Church. In addition to that, the Church also had significant political problems with Freemasonry in Europe.

These things prohibited Catholic men from joining the Freemasons under penalty of excommunication. In the late 1800s, this put many Catholic men in the terrible situation of having to choose between the Church and the welfare of their families. The Venerable Father McGivney sought to create a Catholic men's organization that would allow men to pool their resources, talents and energies for the common good and for the sake of their families, but he sought to do so without the religious/occult element that earned Freemasonry the scorn of the Catholic Church.

So the Knights of Columbus was formed under the ancient precepts of medieval chivalry, paralleling in some ways the degree programs used by the Freemasons, but without the unchristian oaths and occult rituals. The Vatican prohibition against Freemasonry remains today, and the reasons for this are fully explained by Catholic apologist John Salza (learn more here). According to the New Code of Canon Law (1983), this prohibition remains in effect under penalty of interdict.

The Venerable Father McGivney initially authored three degrees though which the Knights of Columbus would receive their initiation into the order.

Now if you looking to know the secrets of the degree rites, you won't find them here. 'The Catholic Knight' has taken a pledge not to reveal them on my honor. However, I should point out here that what I have taken is a pledge, not an oath, and there is a significant difference. A pledge is a promise. That is all. It is based on one's honor. Nothing is sworn, and there are no penalties if the pledge is broken. All that is lost is the honor of the man who broke the pledge, simple because he did not keep his promise. When I took my degree rites, I pledged not to tell what goes on there based entirely on my honor as a practicing Catholic man. No threats were made, and no penalties were warned. If I tell the secrets, nobody is going to slit my throat or cut my heart out. Nobody is going to kill me or harm me. Nobody is going to seek retribution against my family or business. I'll still be able to get a good job. I'll still be able to do business. I might even still be allowed to keep my membership in the Knights of Columbus. However, I will have lost my honor. I made a promise, and I would not have keep it. That prospect alone, is enough to keep me quiet. For I wish to be an honorable man. That's why you won't find the degree rite secrets here.

In addition to that, these pledges are made with the explicit exception to religious or civil duty. So for example, if my priest or bishop needed to know something about my knowledge of the degree rites, I could reveal that to them even if they were not members of the Knights of Columbus, without breaking my pledge. Furthermore, if an officer of the law, judge or courtroom attorney needed to know my knowledge of the degree rites, again, I could reveal that information without breaking my pledge. That's because these exceptions of civil and religious duty are explicitly written into the pledges. I could take it a step further, and some of my brother knights may take issue with this, but so be it. If my wife, whom I am sacramentally bound to in matrimony, for some reason needed to know my knowledge of the degree rites, again citing religious duty to honor this holy sacrament of matrimony, I could reveal that information without breaking my pledge.

When I took my pledges, I did not swear on anything. I did not call curses upon myself. I did not use the Lord's name in vain. I simply made a promise. That is a pledge. Unlike an oath, which frequently involves swearing, calling down curses upon one's self if the oath is broken, and often invokes the name of someone holy (like God for example) to bind one to the oath. Freemason's do take oaths, and that is very much a part of their degree rites. In contrast, Knights of Columbus do not take oaths. It is not part of our degree rites. And this is because the Scriptures are very clear...

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." - Exodus 20:7

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." - Matthew 5:33-37

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." - James 5:12

Now as for the degree rites themselves, this is what I can tell you without breaking my pledge...

1. They are based on (1st degree) Charity, (2nd degree) Unity and (3rd degree) Fraternity. There is of course the optional 4th degree of Patriotism which was developed later. But these first three degree rites were crafted by The Venerable Father McGivney himself.
2. Everything taught in these rites is 100% Biblical. There is no occult or "secret knowledge" conveyed in the Knights of Columbus. You could just as easily find the lessons of these degree rites in a Sunday homily or Scripture reading.
3. Lessons are best remembered when emotion is attached to them. For example, when you get a good scare, you are far more likely to remember the lesson associated with it. A similar thing could be said for positive emotions as well, such as relief and joy.
4. The degree rites are specifically designed to evoke emotion on the part of the candidate who is taking the rite.
5. Because the degree rites are designed with the intent of evoking emotion, they MUST be kept secret, so as not to spoil the surprise for the candidate. The candidate must be unaware of what will happen, lest it spoil the intended emotional response, and the lesson of the degree rite be lost to mundane procedure, failing to leave an indelible mark on the candidates heart and mind.
6. There is no ritual hazing in the Knights of Columbus, and nothing is ever done that would undermine the dignity of a Catholic man.
7. Degree candidates are not ever asked to divulge deep dark secrets about themselves, nor say anything that would compromise their integrity, nor put themselves into a compromised position.
8. Alcohol is never used, and is not permitted, during degree rites.
9. Knights and candidates are exhorted to be good Catholic Christians, and to show no partiality between members and non-members. As Catholic Christians, knights do not look down upon non-members, nor are they permitted to consider themselves "better Catholics" simply because they are knights.
10. Priests are permitted to audit and observe degree rites, nothing within the order is kept secret from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This is one reason why the Church has historically supported the Knights of Columbus and is currently considering the order's founder, The Venerable Father Michael McGivney, for canonization as a Saint.
11. While the Knights of Columbus offers quality life insurance to it's members, at a reasonable price, no member is required to buy it. Nor is any member "pressured" to buy it. The insurance plans are simply offered as a benefit.
12. Membership in the Knights of Columbus has many other benefits besides life insurance.

I'm afraid that's all you'll learn from me. Some might say I've already said too much. If so, I apologize, but I do not believe I have revealed any of the secrets of the order, nor do I believe I have violated my pledge to keep the elements of the degree rites secret. Personally, I have found my experience with the Knights of Columbus to be a rewarding one. Simultaneously, I have taken time away from the Knights of Columbus as well, so as to attend to family matters, in which my brother knights have always been very understanding and assured me that family comes first. They have also been quick to offer assistance whenever I was faced with personal and business difficulties.

If your a Catholic man who would like to learn more about the Knights of Columbus contact your local chapter. Personally, I would encourage getting involved in a knights council that is directly attached to a particular parish. This helps coordinate parish and knight activities in such a way that they become mutually beneficial.

* 'The Catholic Knight' blog does not speak for the Knights of Columbus organization, nor do the 'Knights of Columbus' necessarily approve the contents of this blog. 'The Catholic Knight' makes this blog entry merely as a testimony of my own personal experience.

Election Day = Judgment Day For America

"How can I bless this nation when the blood of the babies cries out to me from the ground"

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Like it or not, this election will determine our nation's eternal destiny. With the cast of our votes, we will decide if this holocaust of abortion-on-demand will be enshrined into our national law FOREVER. If Obama wins the election, he has promised to do this by signing the "Freedom of Choice Act" (F.O.C.A.) into law as his "first act as president." Once that happens, there will be no reason to believe that God will bless America anymore. He will bless us only in the same way he "blesses" other unrepentant nations that commit genocide.  He will "bless" us with our national demise.  This election decides it all.  Vote wisely...

(Remnant) - As this edition of The Remnant reaches you, “This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history,” as Pat Buchanan wrote on October 17 at WorldNetDaily.com.

A day later, Bishop Robert J. Herman, administrator of the Diocese of Saint Louis, published a column in which he warned, both literally and metaphorically, that “Judgment day is on its way… For many, this coming election may very well be judgment day, for this election will measure us…. The right of our children to be protected from destruction is greater than my right to a thriving economy. My desire for a good economy cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion. My desire to end the war in Iraq cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion.” (CNA, October 18, 2008).

A vote for B. Hussein Obama is unquestionably a vote to remove all restrictions on abortion. This man of mystery—who is he, where was he really born, and who are the equally mysterious financiers of his Harvard law degree?—has vowed precisely to eliminate all restrictions on abortion by signing FOCA into law, whose passage by a Democrat super majority will be his for the asking. This is a man who, in the one moment of visible nervousness I observed during the last presidential debate, doggedly defended the practice of leaving the victims of botched abortions to die in a utility room at a Chicago hospital....

read full story here

Joe Biden May Cost Obama The Election

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: In nominating Senator Joe Biden as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama hoped Biden's "Catholic" identity would help him net the Catholic swing vote. However, in nominating a backsliding Cafeteria Catholic, Obama made a catastrophic miscalculation, and now that just may cost him the Catholic vote entirely.

The idea that Obama was specifically targeting the Catholic vote with his V.P. nominee pick is almost indisputable. During the selection process, news agencies across the nation reported Obama's probable short list - the overwhelming majority of those on it being "Catholic." All of them, however, would have backfired this year, because of the Vatican's crack down on pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians. However, the selection of Biden was quite possibly the worst pick imaginable at this time.

This is the fist presidential election held in the United States during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, and he is definitely having an impact. Indeed, it is no secret that the current pontiff wants to influence the world's social politics - especially on matters of human life. In short, he wants Catholics to put aside their partisan politics, and start voting like Catholics. That means Catholic voters must be educated, and communion must be withheld from them when they knowingly vote for pro-abortion politicians. It also means that bishops must take an aggressive stand against Catholic politicians who espouse heresy in a public setting (such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Joe Biden) and deny them communion so long as they fail to uphold the Church's teachings on life. It also means that Catholic organizations, like the 'Knights of Columbus' must aggressively work toward educating the general population about authentic Church teaching, and squarely oppose Catholic politicians who misrepresent it. All of these things, Pope Benedict XVI has aggressively pushed for during the last few years, and he's indicated he'll continue to push harder.

If Senator John Kerry thought he had it rough in his run for president in 2004, he had better thank his lucky stars that his name isn't Joe Biden who is running for Vice President this year. Indeed, Obama miscalculated severely, and picked a supposed "Catholic" who only irritates more Catholic voters than he draws. The last two elections has done nothing but prove that the selection of ANY pro-abortion Cafeteria Catholic (like John Kerry or Joe Biden) has become more of a political liability than an asset. This doesn't just apply to Democrats. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, also a pro-abortion Cafeteria Catholic, discovered this during the Republican primary season. Obama's pick of Biden, in this Benedictine papal era, may very well cost him the election.

(WorldNetDaily) - Members of the Knights of Columbus Catholic organization have taken out ads to appear tomorrow in USA Today, the Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and Delaware News Journal asking Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden to correct his statements about abortion.

Reminding him that under Catholic teaching, "abortion is a grave sin to be avoided at any time during a pregnancy," the organization attributes to Biden a "unique responsibility" to be correct when making public statements about the faith.

"Sen. Obama stressed your Catholic identity repeatedly when he introduced you as his running mate, and so your statements carry considerable weight, whether they are correct or not. You now have a unique responsibility when you make public statements about Catholic teaching," the letter says.

The issue of abortion has become a flashpoint in the 2008 presidential election for the Democratic nominees, Sens. Obama and Biden, at least in part because Obama is an ardent abortion proponent who has gone beyond the desires of even the National Abortion Rights Action League in advocating for the controversial procedure....

read full story here

Barack Obama Supports Infanticide

"We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live.... They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
August 26, 2008

OFFICIAL: Catholics May Not Vote For "Pro-Choice" Candidates

(LifeSiteNews.com) - During the opening day of the Catholic Leadership Conference yesterday, Baker Oregon Bishop Robert Vasa clarified the teaching of the US Bishops Conference regarding voting in favor of pro-abortion politicians. The question of whether Catholics may remain in good standing with the Church while voting for pro-abortion politicians was raised.

Bishop Vasa responded referencing the document of the United States Catholic Conference titled "Faithful Citizenship", noting a pro-abortion stance disqualifies candidates from consideration by faithful Catholics...

read full story here

Nine Bishops (And Counting) Respond To VP Nominee's Heresy

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Obama's Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, has earned the rebuke of at least nine U.S. Catholic bishops so far...

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
2. Bishop James Conley of Denver joined him
3. Bishop Robeert Morlino of Madison devoted his Sunday homily to it
4. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
5. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa
6. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia
7. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT
8. Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL (Biden's diocese)
9. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo

The gist of their rebuke is over Senator Biden's heresy that one's views on abortion are a "private religious matter," and should not be imposed on the general public. The bishops rightly point out that human life is a public matter of civil rights. It has nothing to do with religion, and that any public figure who would endorse the killing of helpless innocent babies is not worthy of public office in a civilized society. Senator Biden is a "Cafeteria Catholic" who opposes the Church's most important issues of Social Justice and defies the authority of the pope and bishops. He has been officially banned by automatic Vatican interdict from receiving communion in every Catholic diocese throughout the world.

VP Nominee Advocates Killing Babies To Reduce Disabled Children

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: How long must we endure this man, who is a disgrace and a scandal to our Catholic faith?...

(LifeSiteNews.com) - Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden has been accused of "sinking to a new low" by suggesting that critics of embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research have less compassion for developmentally disabled children.

During a campaign event in Columbia, Missouri, when asked what the Obama/Biden administration would do for disabled American children, Biden said, "I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have...the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?"...

read full story here

Biden was referring to embryonic stem-cell research, not adult stem-cell research, because Republicans support adult stem-cell research. In fact, nobody opposes adult stem-cell research, not even the Catholic Church. In fact, every promising cure from this technology is derived from adult stem-cells, not embryonic stem-cells. The problem the Catholic Church, and the Republican Party, has with embryonic stem-cell research, is that in order to get the stem-cells for research, you have to destroy a human embryo. Since the Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at conception, and the Republican Party backs this teaching in it's official platform, neither the Church nor the Republican Party can advocate what is clearly the intentional killing of human babies for scientific research. It's no different than abortion, and borders on the same kind of human experiments done on Jews during the Holocaust. The premise behind both is the same. That premise being that certain types of human beings have no rights and are therefore expendable.

Senator Joe Biden is a self-described "devout Roman Catholic," who has received an automatic interdict from the Vatican, and is no longer allowed to receive communion in the Catholic Church lawfully. Biden joins the ranks of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Ted Kennedy; all supposedly "Catholic" politicians whom the Church effectively disowns by denying communion. Later this year, after the election, the U.S. Catholic Bishops will debate a resolution that will call upon all U.S. bishops to deny them communion more aggressively. Until now, many of these politicians have been sneaking into communion lines, and receiving the sacrament unlawfully, as a photo op for the press.

Democratic VP Nominee, Joe Biden, Condemned By U.S. Catholic Bishops

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Well, our favorite self-loathing cafeteria Catholic - Senator Joe Biden - has stepped in it again. Now he joins Pelosi on heresy row over heretical statements he made over the weekend to NBC's Tom Brokaw. See the video below...


The gist of Senator Joe Biden's heresy is relativism, plain and simple. The premise of his argument is that there are no moral absolutes on the issue of abortion. His "morality" may be different from somebody else's morality, therefore he can't impose his views of abortion on anybody else.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops have issued the following statement in response...

WASHINGTON-Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman, U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:

Recently we had a duty to clarify the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against abortion, to correct misrepresentations of that teaching by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “Meet the Press” (see www.usccb.org/prolife/whatsnew.shtml). On September 7, again on “Meet the Press,” Senator Joseph Biden made some statements about that teaching that also deserve a response.

Senator Biden did not claim that Catholic teaching allows or has ever allowed abortion. He said rightly that human life begins “at the moment of conception,” and that Catholics and others who recognize this should not be required by others to pay for abortions with their taxes.

However, the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, one which cannot be “imposed” on others, does not reflect Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

source

----------------------------

Public Servants and Moral Reasoning:A notice to the Catholic community in northern Colorado

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

When Catholics serve on the national stage, their actions and words impact the faith of Catholics around the country. As a result, they open themselves to legitimate scrutiny by local Catholics and local bishops on matters of Catholic belief.

In 2008, although NBC probably didn't intend it, Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants. On August 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, describing herself as an ardent, practicing Catholic, misrepresented the overwhelming body of Catholic teaching against abortion to the show's nationwide audience, while defending her "pro-choice" abortion views. On September 7, Sen. Joseph Biden compounded the problem to the same Meet the Press audience.

Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn't excuse poor logic or bad facts. Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, "it's a personal and private issue." But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human "personhood" begins - though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions - but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion.

Sen. Biden also confused the nature of pluralism. Real pluralism thrives on healthy, non-violent disagreement; it requires an environment where people of conviction will struggle respectfully but vigorously to advance their beliefs. In his interview, the senator observed that other people with strong religious views disagree with the Catholic approach to abortion. It's certainly true that we need to acknowledge the views of other people and compromise whenever possible - but not at the expense of a developing child's right to life.

Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong. If, as Sen. Biden said, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith [emphasis added] to accept that life begins at the moment of conception," then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there.

As the senator said in his interview, he has opposed public funding for abortions. To his great credit,he also backed a successful ban on partial-birth abortions. But his strong support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the false "right" to abortion it enshrines, can't be excused by any serious Catholic. Support for Roe and the "right to choose" an abortion simply masks what abortion is, and what abortion does.

Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation. In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can't "impose" their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people's convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law.

American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their "pro-choice" beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades. If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us - from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews - fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver

+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

source

BREAKING! Pelosi's Bishop Calls Her On the Carpet

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bishop has called her to join him in a "conversation" about the pro-life position of the Catholic Church...

By Most Rev. George H. Niederauer...

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters....

source

Let us pray that three things happen. First, Speaker Pelosi responds to her bishop and makes an appointment to see him. Second, Archbishop Niederauer has the courage to act as a true shepherd, correcting as needed with care, and disciplining those who are unrepentant. Third, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as a result of this "conversation," actually repents of her heresy and embraces the Pro-Life position of the Catholic Church fully, both personally and politically.

Now we shall see what Speaker Pelosi is really made of. Nobody can deny that she's a "Liberal Catholic" (which is an oxymoron), but now we shall see if she's a Liberal before she's a Catholic, or a Catholic before she's a Liberal. I have a bad feeling it's probably the former.  For her sake, I hope I'm wrong.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Reject Pelosi Heresy - Prove Church Has ALWAYS Opposed Abortion

From the U.S. Catholic Bishops...

(print PDF version here)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “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” (No. 2271).

In response to those who say this teaching has changed or is of recent origin, here are the facts:

• From earliest times, Christians sharply distinguished themselves from surrounding pagan cultures by rejecting abortion and infanticide. The earliest widely used documents of Christian teaching and practice after the New Testament in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) and Letter of Barnabas, condemned both practices, as did early regional and particular Church councils. 

• To be sure, knowledge of human embryology was very limited until recent times. Many Christian thinkers accepted the biological theories of their time, based on the writings of Aristotle (4th century BC) and other philosophers. Aristotle assumed a process was needed over time to turn the matter from a woman’s womb into a being that could receive a specifically human form or soul. The active formative power for this process was thought to come entirely from the man – the existence of the human ovum (egg), like so much of basic biology, was unknown. 

• However, such mistaken biological theories never changed the Church’s common conviction that abortion is gravely wrong at every stage. At the very least, early abortion was seen as attacking a being with a human destiny, being prepared by God to receive an immortal soul (cf. Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”).

• In the 5th century AD this rejection of abortion at every stage was affirmed by the great bishop-theologian St. Augustine. He knew of theories about the human soul not being present until some weeks into pregnancy. Because he used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, he also thought the ancient Israelites had imposed a more severe penalty for accidentally causing a miscarriage if the fetus was “fully formed” (Exodus 21: 22-23), language not found in any known Hebrew version of this passage. But he also held that human knowledge of biology was very limited, and he wisely warned against misusing such theories to risk committing homicide. He added that God has the power to make up all human deficiencies or lack of development in the Resurrection, so we cannot assume that the earliest aborted children will be excluded from enjoying eternal life with God.

• In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas made extensive use of Aristotle’s thought, including his theory that the rational human soul is not present in the first few weeks of pregnancy. But he also rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage, observing that it is a sin “against nature” to reject God’s gift of a new life.

• During these centuries, theories derived from Aristotle and others influenced the grading of penalties for abortion in Church law. Some canonical penalties were more severe for a direct abortion after the stage when the human soul was thought to be present. However, abortion at all stages continued to be seen as a grave moral evil. 

• From the 13th to 19th centuries, some theologians speculated about rare and difficult cases where they thought an abortion before “formation” or “ensoulment” might be morally justified. But these theories were discussed and then always rejected, as the Church refined and reaffirmed its understanding of abortion as an intrinsically evil act that can never be morally right.

• In 1827, with the discovery of the human ovum, the mistaken biology of Aristotle was discredited. Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father. Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult. From 1869 onward the obsolete distinction between the “ensouled” and “unensouled” fetus was permanently removed from canon law on abortion.

• Secular laws against abortion were being reformed at the same time and in the same way, based on secular medical experts’ realization that “no other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception” (American Medical Association, Report on Criminal Abortion, 1871).

• Thus modern science has not changed the Church’s constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.

• Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church’s opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person. This is the foundation for the Church’s social doctrine, including its teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration. Conversely, to claim that some live human beings do not deserve respect or should not be treated as “persons” (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights. Such a claim undermines respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before and after birth.

For more information: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), nos. 6-7; John R. Connery, S.J., Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (1977); Germain Grisez, Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments (1970), Chapter IV; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, On Embryonic Stem Cell Research (2008); Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995), nos. 61-2.

Traditional Catholics To Vote Republican This Year

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Please do not mistake my praise of vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as an endorsement of the Republican Party. 'The Catholic Knight' is an Independent voter, and holds membership in pro-life organizations within many American political parties. However, being an Independent means being free. I'm not locked into any political party or political ideology. I place the social teachings of the Catholic Church first, and vote for whatever candidates are more closely aligned.

That being said, I had to point out this story, and do so in the context of the Republican Convention's decision to revise it's Pro-Life plank, so that it is now the most Pro-Life platform ever in the history of American politics (read more here). In effect, what this tells us is that regardless of who wins the presidential election in November, when it comes to fighting the war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, WE WON! When I say "we" I mean the Pro-Life Values Voters - social conservatives - regardless of our party affiliation or lack thereof. With the new Republican Platform, compounded with the nomination of Sarah Palin to the presidential ticket, the Republican Party has finally admitted that they can't win an election without us. So they're willing to change the Republican Party platform to a position 100% compatible with the Pro-Life teachings of Catholic Social Doctrine, and nominate a militantly Pro-Life maverick governor to the vice presidency, who has proved her willingness to root out government corruption - even when it exists within the Republican Party...

(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) I never thought I would say this, much less write it for public consumption, but here it is: In recent days I have become convinced that Catholics are not only justified in voting for the McCain-Palin ticket in November as the lesser of two evils, but that they are morally obliged to do so. Please, hear me out.

I have not arrived at this conviction because there is even a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in their adherence to the Cult of Liberty that has destroyed a once Christian civilization and brought the Western world to the brink of an apocalypse. Nor do I have any expectation that President McCain or Vice President Palin would be able (or even willing) to save a single life in the womb through an exercise of executive authority in defense of the divine and natural law, or through the appointment of Supreme Court justices who would construe the Constitution in accordance with the divine and natural law. On the contrary, the candidates for both parties remain equally submissive to the dogmatic teaching of the Cult that, as UCLA sociologist Robert N. Bellah has put it, “the national magistrate, whatever his personal religious views, operates under the rubrics of the civil religion as long as he is in his official capacity.”

Rather, I am convinced we have a moral duty to vote Republican for two reasons that make this election significantly different from previous elections. The first reason is Sarah Palin: an unreservedly “pro-life feminist” mother of five, who gave birth to her fifth child knowing that he had Down Syndrome; a woman who has been married to the same man for twenty years; a self-described “hockey mom,” avid hunter and NRA member; a fiscal and social conservative (by contemporary standards) who—and this alone is reason to cheer—endorsed Pat Buchanan’s presidential bid.

Yes, during her acceptance speech Palin did pay tribute to Hillary Clinton’s “determination and grace,” which is hardly the way to describe Clinton’s frenetic attempt to sink her steely fangs into the presidency like some desperately flapping famished vampire bat. And yes, Palin, baptized a Catholic, suffered the misfortune of being made a member of something called the “Wasilla Assembly of God” by her parents when she was still a little girl. As a participant in one of the innumerable Pentecostal enthusiasms born of the Cult of Liberty (cfr. Nathan O. Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity), she would be just as insensible as the rest of Protestant (and liberal Catholic) America to the radical errors of pluralist democracy which are the catechism of the Cult. Yet despite the religious decisions that were made for her when she was a child—during the mid-70s, when Catholics were deserting the Church en masse thanks to the postconcilar “reforms”—the appearance of Sarah Palin on the Republican Party ticket is nothing short of a minor miracle. This woman clearly possesses the kind of decency, integrity and simplicity of intention that American politics has bred out of practically every contender for public office at any level in this country. Where did this lady come from?

Obviously, McCain chose Palin in a bid—calculated and cynical—to mobilize electoral support among the evangelical Christians who were quite rightly threatening to boycott this election (along with many traditional Roman Catholics, this writer included). And had McCain chosen anyone on the menu of losers that reportedly comprised his short list, that boycott would have denied him the White House. But McCain chose Palin—a right-winger called in from left field—thereby signaling that he knows, and that the Republican Party apparatus knows, that the limit has been reached in the Republicans’ game of the carrot and the stick.

In fact, McCain has abandoned his once dogged effort to add exceptions for rape, incest and “danger to the life of the mother” to the Party platform on abortion, with its call for a Constitutional amendment to declare that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to humans in gestation. It seems to me that this year, at least, the Republican Party has sufficiently distinguished itself from the Democrats on the greatest moral issue of our time to justify voting Republican, with the selection of Palin tipping the balance in favor of that conclusion.

read full story here

Sarah Palin Will Net The Catholic Vote

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Not only will she reel in the Catholic vote, but the Evangelical vote, and the pro-life vote in general. McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin for the vice presidential slot was brilliant, but perhaps not for the reasons he might have expected. Going into this decision, McCain had a major problem. While making a strong pro-life commitment at the Saddleback Civil Forum, and appearing to back away from embryonic stem-cell research there, he still had not energized the social conservative vote. Among those social conservatives who did indicate they would vote for him, it wasn't necessarily because they were supporting John McCain, but rather because they were voting against Barack Obama. Obama's nomination of Senator Joe Biden to the vice presidential slot, a brazen "Cafeteria Catholic" who opposes the Church's teachings on human life, only served to solidify the pro-life, anti-Obama sentiment. McCain's problem however was that voting against somebody isn't usually good enough to win an election, and if John McCain wants to win, he MUST have the conservative Evangelical and practicing Catholic vote. In order to do that, he's got to have a solid pro-life running mate - somebody who has a stronger record on life then he does.

Thus enters Governor Sarah Palin. Sure, she had a pro-life voting record, and has sported all the pro-life rhetoric, including the conservative Evangelical credentials. But there is something about Sarah Palin that makes her more pro-life than any person who ever ran for the Whitehouse. Sarah Palin not only talks the talk, but she has walked the walk. When confronted with the diagnosis that her preborn baby carried and extra chromosome, and would certainly be born with Down Syndrome, Sarah Palin chose to give birth to her baby boy Trig. She stood for life both politically and personally, and that was something no Whitehouse contender has ever done in that way.

John McCain, himself a pro-life Southern Baptist, may have considered this, but my guess is it wasn't a major factor in his decision making process. There are those who believe he was simply trying to reach out to Hillary voters, and they may have a point. Personally, I think that is only a minor reason, which I'm sure he'll exploit to it's fullest potential. The reason why I think John McCain likes Sarah Palin is because she too is a maverick. She's got no problem going against her own party establishment to do what she thinks is right, and that is just the kind of person McCain wants at his side during his presidency, when he plans to stick it to the Republicans just as much as the Democrats. The theme song of John McCain's political career could easily be "I Did It My Way," and for that matter, it seems that Palin is following right in his footsteps, for better or worse.

Back to the Hillary vote factor. I think McCain considered this as a minor issue, behind the maverick reputation of Sarah Palin, but one he's surly not going to let slip by without exploiting to it's fullest potential. In the Senate, McCain and Hillary Clinton have a warm relationship, though they disagree on more than a few matters. Last year, he promised Hillary the most fair and polite contest in recent political memory, should the two of them get the nominations from their respective parties. Bill Clinton reiterated that sentiment in an interview around the same time. It is the opinion of this blogger that the two of them (Hillary and McCain) entered into a "Survivor" style alliance during the early primary season of 2007. That being if one of them didn't get the nomination, the other would do whatever he/she could quietly, behind the scenes, to get the other elected. Then once the other got elected, the one who lost the nomination would find himself/herself in political favor with the Whitehouse for the next administration. This would have worked for McCain because it would be his last slap at the GOP for not giving him the nomination, which I believe he felt he was entitled to. It also would have worked well for Hillary, because if McCain gets elected, it would insure her a chance to run again in 2012. She can't do that if a Democrat (Obama) is already in the Whitehouse. Mark my words, if John McCain is elected, Hillary Clinton will play some kind of important role in his administration, even if it's just as a Senate liaison. McCain will use her resources to get things done in the Congress, and Hillary will use her pull with McCain to get what she wants out of the Whitehouse. But the nomination of Palin was something that I don't even think Hillary saw coming. It is nothing less than John McCain's thumb in the eye of Barack Obama and the entire Democratic Party establishment. In effect he's saying; "if you won't give a woman a place on the ticket, then I will!" This must be a bitter-sweet moment for Hillary. Bitter because the history-making role of a female nomination is being given to somebody else, but sweet because this makes it all the more easy to torpedo the Obama campaign at an opportune time. Is McCain hoping this will reach across the isle to disaffected Hillary voters? Sure! But who cares! This is politics, and that's the way the game is played. Will it work? I doubt it. In my experience, Hillary Clinton attracts Liberals, and Liberals are Liberals before they are anything else. A Liberal Catholic is a Liberal before he's a Catholic - that's where the term "Cafeteria Catholic" comes from. Liberal blacks are Liberals before they are black, and that is evident in the way they regularly assail Justice Clarence Thomas. And Liberal women are Liberals before they are women, so I don't expect the conservative Sarah Palin to steel many Hillary voters. I do however expect her to get a few Hillary votes just out of spite, simply because so many Hillary supporters are still hacked off about how things went down in the Democratic primaries this year. But I don't expect to see a mass exodus of Hillary Democrats to the McCain/Palin ticket.

Where Palin helps McCain is in the area he needed the most, that being the social conservative vote, particularly among conservative Evangelicals and practicing Catholics. Already practicing Catholics (meaning those who take the teachings of the Church seriously) are fuming mad over Obama's pick of "Cafeteria Catholic" Joe Biden, compounded by the heretical statements made by Nancy Pelosi last Sunday, which earned her the rebuke of every major Catholic bishop in the United States. This practicing Catholic demographic will surely pick a pro-life Evangelical over a pro-abortion "Cafeteria Catholic" in this election, just as they did in Ohio during the 2004 election. But one more thing has happened, that John McCain desperately needed, which I'm not even sure he expected. He's excited the conservative Evangelical vote, and that is the demographic that got George W. Bush elected in 2000, and reelected in 2004. Republican candidates cannot survive without this demographic, and up until today, John McCain had no certainty they would even show up to the polls in November. With the selection of Sarah Palin, that dynamic just changed. It's a whole new election now...

Palin a ‘Natural Choice for Catholics’
Fidelis Urges Catholic Support for Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Ticket
August 29, 2008
CHICAGO – John McCain’s decision to pick a pro-family and pro-life running mate will make the McCain-Palin ticket a ‘natural’ for Catholic voters, said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis Political Action.

“A presidential candidate’s first major executive decision is selecting a running mate and John McCain’s unexpected choice of Sarah Palin inspires real confidence that a McCain Administration will be a strong ally in the pro-life and pro-family cause,” said Burch. “Governor Palin is the most pro-life vice presidential candidate ever to run. We are thrilled with this choice.”

“John McCain and Sarah Palin have matched their public defense of life with their own personal commitment to life,” said Burch....

read full story here

-----------------

Pro-Lifers Applaud Palin Pick

By: Jim Meyers

The influential pro-life Susan B. Anthony List is applauding John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

“Sarah Palin is the whole package. There couldn’t be a better vice presidential pick,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“Women voters are electrified, and Sarah is someone who is truly in sync with the way real American women think. She is a reform-minded woman who will give all Americans, born and unborn, the authentic leadership they deserve.”

“The majority of American women support commonsense restrictions on abortion. Adding Palin to the GOP ticket will resonate with independent women voters nationwide. By choosing the boldly pro-life Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has taken his stand as the one true, authentic pro-life ticket....

read full story here

-----------------

Dobson: "I would pull that lever" for John McCain - Sarah Palin

by Dennis Prager

Earlier this year Dr. Jim Dobson, President of Focus on the Family made news when he announced on “The Dennis Prager Show” that he “cannot and will not vote for Senator John McCain.” Today, on The Dennis Prager Show, the conservative leader changed course and announced his enthusiastic support on the heels of the announcement by Senator McCain of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate.

Dennis Prager: I have a guest here who’s extremely significant in American life, whether you call it American political, certainly American religious life, one of the best known Christians in America— Dr. James Dobson who is president and founder of Focus on the Family…. The last time you were on was a very serious conversation about your feeling at the time that you just couldn’t vote for John McCain, and where do you stand now?

Dr. James Dobson: Well, Dennis, I shared with a colleague just a few minutes ago exactly what you said about the period of time when Ronald Reagan had broken onto the scene and I was in Washington D.C. the day he was inaugurated. That was one of the most exciting days of my life, because everything that we had hoped for and been working for had come to pass. I feel very much that way today. Maybe that’s an overstatement. Maybe time won’t validate it, but this is a very exciting and encouraging day for conservatives and pro-family activists. I am just very, very pleased....

read full story here

McCain's VP Pick - Who Is Sarah Palin?

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: When I first heard her name I was a bit skeptical. My first reaction was to say "who is that?" Then I read a bit about her and thought "hey, she sounds pretty good." Then I saw a picture of her: "WOW!" She's pro-life, pro-family, conservative, powerful and gorgeous! I've got to hand it to John McCain. In spite of whatever problems I may have with the man, he knows how to surround himself with beautiful women, and I certainly can't fault him for that. I don't know how the old codger does it, but more power to him!

Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska. She was elected in 2006 as the 11th governor of that state. Currently, she enjoys an 80% approval rating. That makes her the most popular governor in America! The people love her, but the political establishment hates her. Why? Because she's made her crusade against government corruption a hallmark of her administration. Though herself a Republican, she has even gone after corruption in her own party.  

She is a fiscal conservative who has line-item vetoed over 13% of the state's capital budget. She is militantly pro-life and opposes gay-marriage outright. She is also a gun owner and a card-carrying member of the NRA. She was born and baptized Catholic, but raised as a Pentecostal (Assemblies of God).  She now  attends a nondenominational and independent Evangelical Church (learn more here).  She is married, the mother of five children, and soon to be a grandmother.  Her youngest son has Down Syndrome, and her husband, Todd, was a union worker on Alaska's North Slope before becoming a full-time stay-at-home dad. 

On the pope's three-point rule for Catholic voting (see details here), Palin appears to rank well, and would be a perfectly acceptable choice for vice president based on the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Unlike Obama's vice presidential choice (Senator Joe Biden), there are no disqualifying factors. Though Biden claims to be a "Catholic," he actually opposes the Church on every major social doctrine the pope views as most important - namely abortion, gay-marriage and school choice. McCain's pick of Palin eliminates this problem, and though she was never raised Catholic, her political views are in perfect harmony with the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church on at least the major issues of most importance.

Governor Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, an interstate organization that promotes efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas while protecting the environment. For that, the media hates her. But any enemy of the anti-Catholic leftist media establishment is a friend of mine, and a friend of practicing Catholics in general. The media ruthlessly attacked her in the 2006 general election, but she still won by a fair margin - eight percentage points! If McCain wins this election, she may potentially be a "Hillary" spoiler in 2012 and/or 2016 by becoming the first female president of the United States, and folks, this is one woman I would definitely vote for.

Her conservative Christian record makes for a sure attack by the Christophobic leftist media, and they will most certainly try to dig up any scrap of dirt they can on her. But in doing so they'll only energize practicing Catholics and Evangelicals, all the while showing themselves to be anti-feminist hypocrites, who oppose the success of a woman whenever she doesn't agree with their leftist political agenda. She is sure to make McCain look quite moderate and "open minded," and that can only help McCain in the general election as most American voters seem to be leaning in that direction. She'll appease the conservative voters, and the values voters as well. She may even help McCain pick up some disaffected Hillary voters.

Biden Joins Pelosi On Heresy Row

From left to right...
Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli
Senator Joseph Biden
Bishop W. Francis Malooly

Archbishop George Niederauer
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Archbishop Donald Weurl

"My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," says Biden, a six-term Democratic senator from Delaware. "There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that...

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: One would think that after the Pelosi heresy flap, Biden would be keeping a low profile. But then, that wouldn't be consistent with Joe Biden's personality. Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee, a supposed "Catholic," charged right into the whole heresy row over whether it is permissible for Catholic politicians to go against Church teaching and adopt a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) political posture.

House Speaker Nanci Pelosi, also a so-called "Catholic," recently made a complete fool of herself on national television last Sunday, by actually committing what the Church defines as heresy. She asserted that a "pro-choice" political viewpoint was totally consistent with Church teaching (read more on that here).   She then went on to say that one can be a "good Catholic" and a "practicing Catholic" while holding to the view that abortion is morally permissible because the Catholic Church really does not profess to know when life begins. This immediately prompted a flurry of official responses from bishops, archbishops and cardinals around the nation, reiterating the Church's teaching that all human life is sacred, discrediting Speaker Pelosi's argument, and lamenting that such a high ranking official in the U.S. government would be so ignorant about her own religion.

Now Senator Joe Biden joins the mix. A long time advocate of "abortion rights," the vice presidential nominee has now come out wearing his Catholic religion on his sleeve. Eager to point out that he's a "practicing Catholic" who carries a rosary in his pocket, and looks forward to mass every week, he concluded his religious bluster with the assertion that his political views (apparently including those on abortion) are "totally consistent" with the social teachings of the Church.  That sounds a lot like the position held by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Hopefully Biden's comments will not go unnoticed by the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church, many of whom reacted strongly to Pelosi's heretical assertion. They should be applauded for that. Unfortunately, as laudable as their rebuke of Pelosi was, it all goes to underscore the notion that talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Both Pelosi and Biden are a product. They were created, partly by their own political choices, and partly by the atmosphere of "tolerance" that has far too long existed within many diocese of the U.S. Catholic Church. Virtually all bishops, throughout America, echo the Vatican in it's defense of the unborn. One would be hard pressed to find a single American bishop who does not assert the sanctity of all human life from the womb to the tomb. But by the same measure, one would have to look far and wide, just to find a handful of bishops willing to back this teaching with concrete disciplinary action toward Catholics who publicly oppose the Church on this matter. 

The former Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, stands out as a shining leader in this arena. He denied communion to "pro-choice" Catholic politicians in his archdiocese, forbade them from speaking at Catholic gatherings, and did not hesitate to exercise his episcopal authority over all matters of rebellion within the Church. For this, the pope rewarded him with the office of Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura - effectively the "chief justice" of the "Vatican Supreme Court."  In an recent interview he divulged his official opinion that "pro-abortion" Catholic politicians should be denied communion, and that it is indeed the responsibility of the one administering communion to withhold it when such politicians present themselves at the communion rail. How this will actually translate into official Church policy remains to be seen, but one thing is certain. The U.S. Catholic bishops, for the most part, have been completely derelict in this duty. 

In refusing to exercise their episcopal authority on this matter, in accord with Canon Law 915, the bishops have effectively created an atmosphere of "tolerance" toward dissenting Catholic politicians - one which was ripe for the production of "pro-choice" heretics like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Here we have Catholic men and women, who may honestly believe that their dissent against the Church, on the issue of human life, is morally permissible simply because, in their personal experience, the Church does not back what it teaches on the matter with concrete disciplinary action. The simple fact of the matter is this. In most diocese throughout the United States, a Catholic may be excommunicated from the Church for many reasons, but publicly advocating the legalized murder of helpless unborn babies is not one of them. Is it no surprise then that some politicians, steeped in the political rhetoric of a highly polarized culture war, might start to believe their own lies - especially when their own bishops do virtually nothing (of any real consequence) to stop them?

Once again, the focus falls back to the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church. What will they do now? They can publicly rebuke the likes of Pelosi and Biden, as well they should, but after all is said and done, the bishops have to recognize they are more than partially to blame for this. A good majority of them are principally responsible in creating the environment necessary for such Catholic politicians to rise to power. Now that they've "tolerated" this mess for so long, should they be the least bit surprised when these very same politicians turn around and try to tell the public what the Catholic Church "really teaches" about abortion? Come on! We all know the Vatican comes down tough on abortion, and the U.S. Catholic bishops have to echo that in their own statements. But when it really comes down to it, the average pro-abortion Catholic politician is met at the communion rail with the proverbial "wink and nod" just before receiving the sacrament. With that, what kind of message are our bishops really sending?

Archbishop Says Democrats No Longer Know Christianity

(WorldNetDaily) - Denver Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput says Democrats simply don't know Christianity if they insist on continuing to spin the Bible's teachings on abortion.

"It's always important to know what our faith actually teaches," he said in a "clarification" for Catholics in northern Colorado as Democratic National Committee members met in Denver this week to hear a speaker from the National Abortion Rights Action League promote Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as the next "pro-choice" president....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: What can I say? He's right. If the leaders of the Democratic Party insist on twisting the Scriptures, ignoring the 2000-year history of the Catholic Church on this issue, and continue to imply that a "pro-choice" position on abortion is somehow compatible with Christianity - even Catholicism! (read more here) - then we can only conclude that they do not know Christianity at all.

Mexico Falls -- God's Judgement to Follow

Pro-Abortion activists dressed as Roman Catholic clergy celebrate outside of the City Legislature in Mexico City, Tuesday April 24, 2007.

Mexico City Lawmakers Pass Abortion Bill

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion Tuesday, a decision likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America.

The proposal, approved 46-19, with one abstention, will take effect with the expected signing by the city's leftist mayor. Abortion opponents have already vowed to appeal the law to the Supreme Court, a move likely to extend the bitter and emotional debate in this predominantly Catholic nation.

"Decriminalizing abortion is a historic triumph, a triumph of the left," said city legislator Jorge Diaz Cuervo, a social democrat who voted for the bill. "Today, there is a new atmosphere in this city. It is the atmosphere of freedom."

Nationally, Mexico allows abortion only in cases of rape, severe birth defects or if the woman's life is at risk. Doctors sometimes refuse to perform the procedure even under those circumstances....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A sad day in North American history has come. Mexico City has returned to human sacrifice on par with the ancient Aztec civilization. The only difference is the deity worshipped. Like the United States government, the Mexico City government now offers human sacrifices to the gods of convenience, lust and wealth. We have all seen the result of America's cruel national idolatry. God has punished the United States with wars and terrorism. It would seem that so long as America's unborn remain unsafe, none of us can be assured of our safety -- yours truly included. Canada believes it has escaped this type of judgement, and perhaps it has so far, but like Europe the Canadian population is dwindling, and the government has no choice but to import immigrants (many from the Islamic world) to fill the nation's growing social welfare gap. So like Europe, the Canada we once knew is disappearing. Now that Mexico City has fallen to the gods of modern paganism, the only question that remains is how God will deal with Mexico City's crime against humanity. God's judgment is now certain, how He will exact it remains a mystery -- for now.

More Protestants Admit Catholics Are Right About Birth-Control

SAN ANTONIO, TX, November 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-life trend among conservative Protestants is picking up steam in the US, Newsweek reports. In 1995, David and Suzanne Bortel of San Antonio, Texas developed a website called Quiverfull.com to lend support and encouragement to couples who are totally open to as many children as God gives them. Under the name of Quiverfull, the group encourages its members to reject all forms of birth control and welcome children as "a gift and blessing from our gracious heavenly father."

The name of the group is taken from Psalm 127 of the Bible which says:

"Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one's youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them."

Members of Quiverfull reject not only birth control but also Natural Family Planning, a natural method and one condoned by the Catholic Church as a moral way, under serious circumstances, to avoid conception by abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile periods of a woman's monthly cycle.

Quiverfull's beliefs also do not condone any form of artificial conception, such as in-vitro fertilization. Mary Pride, a Quiverfull believer and author of the book, 'The Way Home', says, "You shouldn't be unnatural in going to a fertility clinic or in trying to avoid having children by regulating when to have sex with your husband."

The Quiverfull website is careful to emphasize that family size is not what makes one a Quiverfull believer. It says, "Whether your quiver is large or small, you are welcome." Regarding all children as blessings and leaving fertility in the hands of God is the Quiverfull mission.

Rejection of birth control is a growing trend among many denominations of Protestants. Many Protestants who previously espoused birth control methods, are becoming more and more alarmed by the contraceptive mentality that has overtaken the country. In today's society, sex and procreation of children are commonly viewed as two separate components of marriage. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is very convicted and outspoken on the subject. He says, "If a couple sees children as an imposition, as something to be vaccinated against, like an illness, that betrays a deeply erroneous understanding of marriage and children."

read full story here

St. Louis Archbishop Becomes Major Leader In U.S. Catholic Church

By Tim Townsend
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

BALTIMORE — St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke took center stage during debate on two controversial topics Tuesday as the nation's Roman Catholic bishops met in Baltimore for their annual fall meeting.

Burke, who is trained as a canon, or church, lawyer, submitted 10 amendments to two proposed documents, more than any other bishop except former St. Louis and current Philadelphia archbishop Cardinal Justin Rigali, who submitted 15.

During the debate on preparing to receive Holy Communion, Burke was adamant that the bishops address an issue he's dealt with in the last few years.

In early 2004, Burke said he would deny Communion to Sen. John Kerry, who was running for the U.S. presidency and who supports abortion rights.


Burke said there was "a clear presence of scandal" in situations involving Catholic politicians who repeatedly legislate contrary to church teaching and yet receive Holy Communion. Many bishops spoke in support of Burke's words. The document was approved overwhelmingly, 201-24, with two abstentions.

The other document was a set of new guidelines for bishops interested in ministry to gay Catholics. It also was approved by a huge margin, 194-37, with one abstention.

During debate before the vote, Burke asked that a national, Vatican-approved group called Courage, which counsels gay Catholics to lead chaste lives, be added to the text as an example of an organization doing the kind of work spoken of in the guidelines. He mentioned that the Courage annual meeting was held this summer in St. Louis and said he'd met with "members and priests who serve as directors and advisers, and it confirmed my view that they are filled with hope and joy, assisting one another in leading a chaste life."

read full story here

Europe To Fall To Islam By 2050

As I've said in this blog before, western civilization has only one hope of survival -- traditional Christian values! That's because traditional Christian values includes belief in larger traditional families, the rejection of abortion, and shunning of artificial birth control. Because western civilization has largely rejected traditional Christianity, these values have fallen by the wayside, and as a result materialism has prevailed. It's an undisputed fact that materialism results in smaller families, more abortions and widespread use of artificial birth control. Demographically this reduces the number of Christians, Jews and Secularists in western society -- making plenty of room for Muslims to move in and take over.

To all proud European and American Liberals out there, I've got some advice: You better make sure the few kids you have brush up on Arabic, because it won't be long before they'll be needing it. It might be a good idea to invest in the burka market too, as it won't be long before it skyrockets in the western fashion industry...

European Mullah Claims Islam Will Win

Norway's most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, told an Oslo newspaper on Monday that there's a war going on between "the West" and Islam. He said he's sure that Islam will win, and he also had praise for suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

"We're the ones who will change you," Krekar told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in his first interview since an uproar broke out over cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims.

"Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes," Krekar said. "Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children.

"By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim."

He claimed that "our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours." He loosely defined "western thinking" as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-islamic nations. Its "materialism, egoism and wildness" has altered Christianity, he claimed....

read full story here