Missouri Catholics CAN Support The Fair Tax

St. John of God, Patron of Publishers
Pray for us!

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  On January 21st, 2011 the Missouri Catholic Conference Messenger ran a number of articles outlining it's case against the Missouri Jobs Act, otherwise known as the "Missouri Fair Tax."  This series of articles was very condemning of the measure, creating the illusion that the legislation harmed the poor and opposed the social teachings of the Catholic Church. Catholic Missourians reading the articles were likely to walk away with the notion that one cannot support the measure and still remain a Catholic in good standing with the Church.  To make matters worse, the Missouri Catholic Conference (MCC) cites as it's board of directors the Catholic bishops of the State of Missouri (Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Bishop Edward Rice, Bishop John R. Gaydos, Bishop James V. Johnston and Bishop Robert W. Finn).  The "Messenger" claims to write on behalf of the MCC and as a voice for Missouri's Catholic bishops.

There were two things I found particularly disturbing about this.  The first was the way the articles were written.   They left the reader with the impression that there was no redeeming quality to the Missouri Jobs Act, thus giving the reader the false impression that one cannot support it and remain a good Catholic.  The second was that the lead article was written by a person who may not necessarily have the best interests in mind for Missouri's Catholic bishops or the Catholic Church's social teaching in general.

Amy Blouin

Amy Blouin is the Founder and Executive Director of the Missouri Budget Project which David Catanese of KY3 News in Springfield Missouri described as a "liberal leaning" organization. Ironically, she is the former Director of Advocacy for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of St. Louis from 2001 to 2003. While she doesn't appear to be working within the internal structures of the Catholic Church anymore, she apparently still has connections with the MCC and the "Messenger." 

A snapshot of Rep. Oxford's blog
taken on 3/8/2011
Click Image To Enlarge

While it is difficult to discern Blouin's personal political leanings with a brief search on the Internet, we can learn a lot about somebody from the things she says and the people she associates with. Blouin's father, who was a Democratic Congressman in Iowa and ran for Governor in 2006, was listed as having a significant influence on her life in an interview with the St. Louis Business Journal in 2008. Blouin also listed her husband, Joe Squillace who teaches as an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University School of Social Work, as a significant influence who encouraged her to start the Missouri Budget Project. Background aside, what is revealing about Amy Blouin and Joe Squillace is their apparent connection to Democratic Missouri Representative Jeanette Mott Oxford - the first open lesbian elected to the Missouri Legislature. Representative Oxford is pro-abortion, and in 2010 received a "Pro-Choice" grade from NARAL. Oxford also appears to be a supporter of same-sex unions. The connection between Oxford and Blouin comes from a post on Oxford's own Internet blog dated July 14, 2006 in which she claimed a fundraising Party at Amy Blouin and Joe Squillace's home for her reelection would be held on Thursday, July 27, 2006 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. and would be co-hosted by "Amy and Joe." 

Assuming this information from the State Congresswoman is accurate, and we have no reason to believe it isn't, it would appear that Amy Blouin has no problem actively supporting (even hosting fundraisers) for political candidates who oppose the Church's most basic social teachings against abortion and gay-marriage. This gives us some background context for Mrs. Blouin's article in the "Messenger."

Before I dig into the article, and Mrs. Blouin's consistently left-wing bias on many issues she speaks to on behalf of the Missouri Budget Project, I would like to ask some questions. Why is this person writing articles for the Missouri Catholic Conference? Do the bishops on the MCC's Board of Directors approve of people writing opinion articles on their behalf, who think so little of the Church's teaching against gay-marriage and abortion, and doing so in a newspaper that reports to speak for them? If Amy Blouin demonstrated such egregious lack of judgment, as to support and fund raise for an open lesbian candidate who supports the murder of innocent unborn children, why would the bishops of the MCC trust her judgment on any lesser social issue? Let alone, why would they let her speak for them on it? Furthermore, what has become of the "Missouri Catholic Conference Messenger?" Is it nothing more than a soapbox for Left-wing activists promoting their agenda under the cloak of episcopal representation? Is this how Missouri's Catholic bishops want to be represented?

Now while The Catholic Knight does not personally know the minds of the bishops of the MCC, I have been able to ascertain from their writings, statements and homilies that they are not men who would likely condone this.  I am left with the impression that the bishops of the MCC may not know (or may not have been fully informed) of the issue at hand, and the type of representation they got in Amy Blouin's article.  I suspect they may actually be misinformed by those running the MCC "Messenger."  I admit this is just an opinion on my part, but based on the evidence I've just presented above, I think it's a fair assumption.  In light of this, the bishops of the MCC may want to revisit this issue and perhaps investigate the way things are being run by the administrative staff of the MCC with particular attention to the kind of message that is being printed in the "Messenger."  Furthermore, to address the damage that may have been done to the conscience of Missouri's Catholics, the bishops might want to consider some form of statement, or press release, that addresses the matter directly.  These are just my humble suggestions, for as it stands right now, thanks to the January 21st edition of the Messenger, it would be fair to assume that a large number of Missouri Catholics are under the impression that they can't be good Catholics and support the Missouri Jobs Act at the same time.  This impression almost appears to bear the seal of Missouri's Catholic bishops, or at least that's the notion that was created by the Messenger.

Another notion created by the Messenger is the idea that matters of economics and taxation trump the Church's social message of abortion and same-sex marriage.  This message was created by giving Amy Blouin such a prominent position in the newspaper.  Her apparent support and fund raising for a pro-abortion lesbian candidate is scandalous to say the least, especially when she is placed in a position to speak for the bishops in their own newspaper.  One can only wonder how many Missouri Catholics now think fiscal matters and taxation are more important than abortion and family.  Again, this is another issue the bishops of the MCC may want to publicly address.

All that aside, let's get down to the nitty gritty of the topic at hand. The subject of the article written by Blouin was about the Missouri Jobs Act, sometimes referred to loosely as the "Missouri Fair Tax." Other articles written by different columnists followed - all of them negative.  Now the MCC opposes the Missouri Jobs Act, and Amy Blouin's article was used to back their position. How much Blouin's article influenced the MCC is not clear, but it is certain the MCC is using articles written by this Left-leaning activist to bolster their position. 

With all of the pressing social issues that surround us today, one would think Catholic newspapers would be preoccupied with addressing the big three - Life, Family and School Choice. Certainly the Wisconsin bishops have wisely decided to stay neutral in the ongoing dispute between labor unions and state budget cuts. To clarify the Wisconsin bishops' stand on the ongoing labor/budget dispute, Bishop Morlino of the Diocese of Madison issued the following statement...

...The teaching of the Church allows for persons of good will to disagree as to which horn of this dilemma should be chosen, because there would be reasonable justification available for either alternative. (This is unlike the case of abortion or euthanasia, for which reason can offer absolutely no justification in terms of the killing of an innocent victim.)...

read full statement here

This was a wise move indeed, as these bishops know full well that Catholics can hold to good-faith positions on both sides of the issue. Pope Benedict recently pointed out that the pressing issues facing modern civilization can be summarized as the...

"protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception to natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family -- as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage -- and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its de-stabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role, and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children."

- (Pope Benedict XVI, March 30, 2006).  

In a society where literally none of these big three necessities are met, one would think Catholic newspapers would focus on them with the full intensity of a red-hot laser beam, shuffling the other issues (such as budgets, taxes, government spending, etc.) to a secondary status.

Not so with the Missouri Catholic Conference Messenger, which for 2011 seems to have decided to put the issue of state taxes at the top of the list. Now Missouri is not like the West Coast or New England states with crushing state income and property taxes that burden families. In fact, Missouri ranks about middle of the road in income and property taxes in comparison to the rest of the country. The Missouri legislature is not contemplating a tax hike that threatens families either. No, what the Missouri state legislature is contemplating is a complete change in THE WAY it collects taxes. The Missouri Jobs Act is Missouri's version of the increasingly popular nationwide Fair Tax proposal. The measure is designed to attract jobs to the state of Missouri, which in the end is the greatest form of social justice and option for the poor in a depressed economy facing a "jobless recovery." Across the nation, economists of all stripes have pointed out that legislation of this kind would indeed attract business and grow the economy.

Here's how it works. All current state income, capital gains and sales taxes are completely eliminated. In exchange, the state implements a low state-wide sales tax on all new retail goods and services, gradually phased in over five years. There is no tax on the sale of used goods, income, investments or savings. The plan assures the changes will be revenue neutral for the state and local communities in each year of transition and allows revenue to grow as the state and local economies grow. Now before we go on let's review...

1. All current state income, capital gains and sales taxes are completely eliminated.
2. These are replaced with a single state-wide retail sales tax, on new retail goods and services that is phased in over five years.
3. No used goods, income, investments or savings are taxed.

Now of course, any good Catholic should ask the question "what about the poor?" Yes, that's a good question. How are we to insure that the poor do not pay the same sales tax rate as the rich on the basic necessities they need to survive and thrive in Missouri's economy? This issue is specifically addressed with a sales tax prebate that is paid out to all Missouri citizens, compensating them fully for all taxes paid on basic retail necessities based on the poverty line. That means nobody in extreme poverty pays retail sales taxes, reducing the retail sales tax rate for the average Missourian in extreme poverty to zero percent (0%). This is because people in extreme poverty obviously can't buy as much retail goods to begin with.  The prebate insures that when they do buy retail goods (or have to buy retail goods) they will pay no state sales tax on those goods.  Those who buy more retail goods will obviously pay a slightly higher average percentage (1%, 2%, 3%, etc.) when averaged out with the prebate, depending on how much they spend. It is an established fact that people who make more money tend to spend more money. Those who make the most money, will obviously spend the most money, and those people will in turn pay the highest average percentage of retail sales tax. No income tracking mechanism is needed because the percentages average out on their own based on the prebate and how much you spend.  If you spend below the poverty line you pay 0%.  If you only spend a little above that, your average sales tax might be around 1% or less.  If you spend a little more, it may go up to 2%, all by itself, based on averages, because everyone is reimbursed with a prebate based on the poverty line.  What makes this system unique is that it requires considerably less money to operate, as the collection system is already in place at every cash register in the state. It's no different than collecting the state sales tax already collected at Missouri's cash registers....


So now the most commonly asked questions follow...

1. Is this system perfect? The answer is no. That's because no system is perfect. 
2. Is this system impossible to cheat? Again, the answer is no. There are ways to cheat the system, but then there are even more ways to cheat the current income and sales tax system already in place in Missouri.  Besides, this new system will eliminate far more cheating than that, in the sense that people who currently don't pay Missouri taxes (criminals, illegal aliens, people who are paid "under the table") will now pay Missouri taxes every time they buy something at the cash register.
3. Is the system absolutely and perfectly fair? No. That's because no system of taxation is absolutely and perfectly fair, but in many ways it's a lot more fair and reasonable than the current system. 
4. Is this system better than the current system? Now that's up for debate. A lot of it depends on how you look at at. The truth is nobody really knows the answer, because nothing like this has ever been implemented anywhere in the world before. It is truly a unique and different idea that has yet to be tried. Now this idea is growing in popularity, and in time somebody will try it. It may be another U.S. state, or it may be a completely different country, but somebody somewhere is going to try this eventually. When they do there is a very strong likelihood that state or country is going to experience some economic growth and an increase in jobs. So the question is should Missouri be the first to try it? That is the question before the Missouri state legislature now.  It's a question that should get a fair hearing and does not deserve to be crushed prematurely by rogue episcopal newspapers leaving Missouri Catholics with the false impression that no good Catholic can support this.

The Catholic Knight holds to the position that issues of taxes and economics are secondary compared to the far more pressing social issues of abortion and gay-marriage.  I think I'm in good company, as the pope holds to a similar point of view.  That being said, I am certain that good Catholics can hold good-faith positions on both sides of the Missouri Jobs Act.  This is an issue that should be up for healthy debate in which Catholics are free to support or oppose without feeling bullied by rogue newspapers claiming episcopal representation.

Now there are a few issues that are of direct concern to Catholics, which I will attempt to address fairly here.  The first has to do with the accusation that Catholic parents would be forced to pay sales tax on the tuition for Catholic schools.  This accusation is completely false according to Carl Bearden, the Executive Director of United For Missouri, who points out that under the current legislation proposed no charitable organization will be made to collect the sales tax and no taxes will be collected on any level of education.  Meanwhile, the Messenger painted a completely different picture, leading readers to believe churches and religious schools would be taxed.  This is misleading.

The Messenger also leads readers to believe that the poor would be taxed disproportionately.  As pointed out above, this is simply not the case, as the extremely poor would pay no tax at all, and those who spend at levels just above that would pay an extremely low average sales tax, compared to people with higher incomes and spending, once the prebate is factored in.  Also as pointed out above, the legislation rewards thrift.  So people who shop at second hand stores, garage sales, swap meets, flea markets, and so on will not pay any state sales tax whatsoever.  The legislation encourages the poor to save their money by buying second hand items whenever possible.  Once again, the Messenger gets it wrong and misleads readers into false information about the bill.

As I pointed out above, churches and private charities will pay no taxes under the current form of the bill.  In Tennessee, which has no state income tax, charitable giving is much higher than Missouri, even though Missouri has a specific income tax deduction for charitable giving.  In other words, Tennessee Catholic parishes are collecting more tithes per family than Missouri parishes.  Yet the Messenger would have you believe churches will lose money under the Missouri Jobs Act.  Once again we have misleading information from the Messenger.

Finally, the Messenger paints the picture that Missouri's public services will suffer under the proposed legislation, that revenue will be cut, and there simply won't be enough money to go around anymore.  Well, that's a pretty bold assumption when you consider that not even the State Auditor Tom Schweich could make such a claim.  Schweich admitted that the cost or savings to the state could not be determined at this time.  However, we can look at other nearby states that have eliminated their income tax in favor of a sales tax, and what we see is that indeed these states do have the necessary revenue to keep their public services operational and sufficiently funded.  Proponents of the Missouri Jobs Act never claimed it was a panacea to solve all of Missouri's financial woes.  What they claim is that the legislation will simplify the tax code, eliminate the need for Missourians to report their income to the state, attract more jobs to the state, and be just as fair to the poor as the current system if not more so.

Yes, Missouri Catholics CAN support the Fair Tax.  They can also choose not to support it.  It's a matter for an informed conscience and open debate.  Catholics can hold good-faith positions on both sides of the issue, and still be good Catholics in good standing with the Church, and I dare say remain in good standing with the Catholic bishops of Missouri.  Again, it would be helpful if Missouri's bishops would publicly address this issue themselves, since the MCC has already seen fit to address it for them in such a troubling and confusing way.  Until then I want to encourage my fellow Catholic Missourians to get both sides of the story, look into this matter carefully, and not be bullied by rogue Catholic newspaper columnists who claim to be speaking for the bishops of Missouri.  But you don't need to take my word for it.  If you want to know what your bishop really thinks, write him a letter and just ask.  "Dear Bishop, Is it possible for a Catholic to hold a good faith position on either side of the debate surrounding the Missouri Jobs Act?"  The Catholic Knight says "yes," while the Messenger seems to say "no."  Maybe it's time for Missouri's Catholic bishops to research both sides of the debate and speak for themselves on the matter.

Gay Marriage And The Fall Of America!

(SFGate) - Prop. 8 would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing "activist judges" of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.

Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.

The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.

Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The people of California have spoken, homosexual marriage is officially abolished. However, as is typical in the People's Republic of California, the courts threaten to overturn the will of the people even in a state constitutional amendment. To be sure, so long as it stays within the California courts, this is California's problem. The California government hasn't represented the people of California in decades, and why the people haven't abolished the state government with a constitutional convention is beyond me. Alas, that is California's problem for Californians to deal with. However, I don't believe the lawyers advocating gay-marriage will keep it in California's courts at all. Just as soon as they fail to get the ruling they want from the California courts, they'll appeal it to the federal courts, and once that happens California's problem becomes America's problem.

Before the federal courts will be the question of whether or not the federal government can annul a state constitutional decision by the people of a state on the issue of gay-marriage. Should the federal courts rule against the people, every state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage within the nation will be at stake. The issue will be put before the United States Supreme Court in what will amount to a U.S. Constitutional crisis. At the feet of nine Supreme Court justices will lie the fate and future of the United States of America.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to uphold a federal court's decision to strike down a state constitutional marriage ban, then gay-marriage will effectively be forced on every state in the Union by judicial fiat. What will that mean? It will mean that the United States government, via the federal court system, will be effectively waging an ALL OUT WAR on Christian civilization and the traditional family. It will place the United States federal government as the sworn enemy of every Catholic family and Catholic parish in the nation. The same would go for any Evangelical Christian family and congregation in this nation as well. The United States government would effectively be waging war against traditional Christianity itself.

At that point, there will be no more reason to preserve the U.S. Constitution, the federal government, or Union of the United States of America. For any government that wages war against it's own people, and the civilization they have created, is effectively a false government and has lost it's right to govern. The people of the United States would have only two options available to them at that time.

1. They can convince Congress to pass the 'Federal Marriage Amendment' (F.M.A.), so the states could immediately ratify it, and uphold their state bans on gay-marriage. Unfortunately, the people have recently elected officials to the U.S. government who have made it clear they have no intention of ever passing such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Both the new President-Elect, Barack Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, have made it clear that they support "gay-rights" and have no intention of doing anything that would stop gay-marriage from becoming the law of the land. If it never gets out of Congress, the states can never ratify it. So option number one is now next to impossible.
2. The people of states that ardently opposes gay-marriage can begin organizing and drafting measures for the secession of those states from the federal government and the United States of America. This of course would have to be done through the peaceful, democratic and lawful means outlined for us in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Only by becoming free and independent countries can those states then uphold their own constitutions and the will of the people. After two or more of those states successfully secede using only peaceful, democratic and lawful means, then they can reorganize under whatever form of community, confederation or collective they see fit. Economically, such measures would be viable by restructuring tax laws in those newly born nation-states to attract business investment. The "Fair Tax" proposed by the 'Americans for Fair Taxation' (read more here) would be one possible way this could happen, and should prove more than enough to bolster the economic viability of newly born nation-states. Other measures of deregulation and free market reforms would also serve to make secession a financially attractive and profitable alternative. As for national defense of these nation-state, treaties could be signed with the United States government, allowing it to keep U.S. military bases within these nation-states free of rent or lease, provided the U.S. government pledge to defend these nation-states from all foreign aggressors. This would set the foundation for peaceful coexistence and fair-trade with states still choosing to stay within the United States of America.
   

Three IF's would cause these events to come about, and I might add that these three IF's are all real possibilities in the very near future, thanks to the aggressive tactics of lawyers pushing gay-marriage through the courts against the will of the American people.

1. IF the federal courts rule against a state constitutional measure banning gay-marriage, and...
2. IF the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that ruling, and...
3. IF the U.S. Congress will not pass the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'...
4. THEN the only way the people can defend their families and Christian civilization is to secede from the federal Union.

Otherwise, the only alternative is to accept the fall of Christianity within North America to a regime that favors and promotes homosexuality. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress would effectively make it the Christian duty of every God fearing believer in America to break all political ties with the United States government. Failure to do so would be failure to defend one's Christian faith against the external attack by a hostile and oppressive government. For the first time in American history, Christians would be forced to choose between their government and their faith. So you say you don't think it can happen. We can only hope.  But I have a bad feeling it will.  Just sit back and watch.

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

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.

McCain / Palin More Aligned With Catholic Social Justice

John & Cindy McCain visit the shrine of Our Lady in Guadalupe Mexico.
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Mother of the Americas
Defender of the Unborn
read her story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: After careful evaluation of the top two presidential candidates (read more here), as well as their vice presidential running mates, 'The Catholic Knight' concludes that the McCain / Palin ticket is the one most sympathetic to the social teachings of Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church. There are third-party candidates who are more sympathetic and far more ideal. However, as far as the two major party candidates are concerned, McCain / Palin wins by a fairly large margin.

The criteria was based on the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI on the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. In 2006, the Holy Father issued a statement in which he identified a three-point rule of primary concern for Catholic voters in the world today (read more here). This three-point rule is to be used by Catholics as a quick and simple way to evaluate any candidate who runs for political office. It should be used for all candidates running in local, state and national elections. It is particularly applicable to presidential candidates. If the candidate scores high with this three-point rule, he/she can be considered "acceptable" for a Catholic vote. Candidates who do not score well with this three-point rule, should be excluded from the Catholic vote.

The pope's three-point rule is as follows...

1. Pro-Life: the candidate must oppose abortion outright
2. Pro-Family: the candidate must oppose gay-marriage outright
3. School-Choice: the candidate must support public funding for private education

When candidates perform well on this three-point rule, they can be further evaluated by Catholic Social Justice with more scrutiny. Issues such as healthcare, option for the poor, and environmental conservation can then be applied. However, they must first pass this initial three-point rule, or they are not worthy of the Catholic vote at all. Both Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin score well with the pope's three-point rule, promoting a Pro-Life and Pro-Family campaign. John McCain is an ardent promoter of School-Choice, which happens to be a subject highly favored by Pope Benedict XVI.

In contrast, both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden oppose the pope on every single point of this three-point rule. Because of this, Senator Biden, himself a "Roman Catholic," has actually been barred from receiving communion by Vatican edict, and many U.S. Catholic bishops will not allow him to approach the communion rail at all. Because of these reasons, the Obama / Biden ticket is significantly less aligned with the pope's three-point rule (even opposing it outright), which according to the Holy Father, should exclude Obama / Biden from the Catholic vote entirely.

Please email this information to your Catholic friends and family. Simply cut and paste the following web address into your email...
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-palin-more-aligned-with-catholic.html

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.

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