Jan 182016

Trump is going to make God great again! Take that Christopher Hitchens..

I am sure most people would balk at Donald Trumps “great” relationship in God, but in the service of charity I will try to explore the topic.

So how exactly did Donald Trump develop his great relationship with God? Well few know this but he meets regularly with Joel Olsteen for spiritual direction. Trump maintains both his health and his wealth so this is obvious Olsteenian proof of Trumps great relationship with God.

Trump respects the sanctity of marriage so much he employed this great institution three times. He possibly could respect it even more in the future. In fact while married to Ivana he started a romance with the women who was to become his “second” wife among the pews of a Manhattan church. This also shows that Trump does not find church boring and seeks to reach out. Trump is really a model Christian as he has “married” three models.

Some have doubts about Trump’s humility, but he lists the Bible in front of his own book “The Art of The Deal,” as his favorite book. In his amazing humility today he said “the Bible blows it away”. When first asked about his favorite verse and why he replied.

“I wouldn’t want to get into it because to me that’s very personal. You know when I talk about the Bible it’s very personal.I don’t want to get into it.”

This shows that Trump has a personal relationship with this favorite scripture verse. Although a month later he did manage to come up with a vague reference regarding envy in Proverbs and his aids eventually managed to find one that fits. So The Donald is willing in humility to give us his personal favorite scripture verse despite how personal it was to him.

Proverbs 24:1-2: “Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them. For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief.”

Now at first glance this might seem quite an odd choice as a personal favorite. This just proves that Donald Trump has studied the scriptures much more than we have and us willing to go obscure instead of pandering with perhaps John 3:15. In fact today he was at ease referring to “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians” showing his fresh look at scriptural references.

Trump is also not afraid to show that he is a renaissance man and talk about art, movies, and scripture comparisons. Here is compares the bible to the Mona Lisa and a movie.

“it doesn’t look as great at the beginning and by the time they see it many, may times they can’t take their eyes off it” — and to watching a “great, incredible movie.”

Another area where it seems Trumps actions are at odds with his great relationship with God is that the Trump Taj Mahal could make history early next year by opening the first strip club inside an Atlantic City casino. He hopes that it would “take off” showing his adeptness with both political language and strip clubs. I’ve heard rumor though that he plans to tithe ten percent of the stripper’s tips to charity. Yeah it will all be mostly dollar bills, but so are the collections in many churches.

Another proof is Trump’s conversion to the pro-life cause. This is an amazing story regarding how he went from being fervently pro-abortion to pro-life. Now he has never mentioned what changed his mind, but it must be a great story and as good as Mitt Romney’s or Charlie Crist’s – oh wait scratch Charlie Crist. I find it amazing how running for President as Republican causes such deep conversions and reflection on previous culture of death views. On same-sex marriage he said “The Supreme Court ruled on it” and previously he had attended a same-sex marriage. This bodes really well for appointments to the Supreme Court just as long as you are not a social conservative in any way. Still he has no definitive comment on “same-sex marriage” proving once again he is so humble as to not give an opinion on an issue of the day.

Trump is also a great ecumenist and is willing to reach out and attack the faith of other Presidential Candidates such as Ben Carson and Ted Cruz “not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba.” No doubt as a Presbyterian he sees the losers competing against him as predestined to loose. Not to mention inter-faith dialogue – or as The Donald calls it “in your face” dialogue like with Muslims. Well actually he has never called it by that term, but I am sure he would approve.

Today Trump said “We’re going to protect Christianity”. Hopefully it is from Donald Trump. Now who would be a good intercessor to pray for Donald Trump? I mean besides St. Jerome.

References and quips:

Oct 152014

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The leader of Rhode Island’s Catholics suggests voters could write in Mother Teresa or sit out the Nov. 4 election because of a field of candidates he says isn’t “terribly promising” on the abortion issue.

Bishop Thomas Tobin says in The Rhode Island Catholic diocesan newspaper that writing in Mother Teresa in protest would send a signal that some voters want an anti-abortion candidate.

Tobin recently took aim at Democratic gubernatorial nominee Gina Raimondo (ray-MAHN’-doh), who is Catholic, after she won the endorsement of Planned Parenthood and spoke in favor of reproductive rights. Republican nominee Allan Fung also supports abortion rights.

Tobin says it’s a “pathetic spectacle” when Catholic candidates “choose” Planned Parenthood over the church.

He says voters don’t necessarily need to vote for every office or at all. Source

In the runup to the 2008 election I proposed voting for two Doctors of the Church instead in this parody video.

Sep 112014


They’re back, yes it is the Nuns on the Bus part 3 returning like a sequel to a bad horror movie.

This time it’s the Catholic sisters versus the Koch brothers.

That’s one way to look at the upcoming “Nuns on the Bus” tour, which hits the road next week (Sept. 17) for the third time in three years, a month long trip though 10 key U.S. Senate battleground states to campaign against the influence of outside money on politics.

The issue has come to be identified with the wealthy industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, whose huge contributions to conservative political causes have raised concerns about the role of “dark money” on elections.

The spigot for such undisclosed donations, which can be made by unions as well as corporations, was opened by the controversial 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That was followed by another 5–4 ruling in April of this year, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

“It’s all about ‘we the people’ standing up against big money,” said Sister Simone Campbell, who heads Network, a Catholic social justice lobby on Capitol Hill that is organizing more than 75 events in 36 cities along the 5,252-mile route.

There is at least this at the end of the column:

(Editor’s note: David Gibson assisted Sister Simone Campbell in writing her memoir, “A Nun on the Bus: How All of Us Can Create Hope, Change, and Community,” which was published earlier this year.)

But hey you know David Gibson is totally subjective. Oh and just by the way he just kind of forgot to mention that the Nuns on a Bus are partially funded by the George Soros “Faith in Public Life”. Yes they are complaining against evil political money if it is donated by conservatives. Although since the Koch brothers support same-sex marriage and abortion you would think Sister Simone would see them more as allies. Still she probably follows the Harry Reid Koch fanaticism.

Still it comes down to the nuns removing the speck from their brothers eye while having their vision obscured by a plank. This is known as the Plank constant, the proportional constant between what you rail against and your own complicity measured in hypocrimeters. So a course a nun partially funded with Soros money who spoke at the 2012 Democratic convention and basically went on a bus tour for them is the perfect representative to speak about wealthy people and their political causes.

In a related story here is one that has not gotten the attention it deserved. Via A Shepherd’s Voice

This week’s _Catholic San Francisco_, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco has an important and comprehensive expose of the motivations and funding of ‘Catholic’ homosexualist groups seeking to undermine the Church.

The actual article starts with:

Gay rights money funds archbishop’s critics

Faithful America part of national progressive advocacy network

September 10th, 2014

By Valerie Schmalz

“Many Catholics in the San Francisco Bay Area were surprised by the strong negative reaction to Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone’s decision to give a talk about traditional marriage at a June 19 Washington, D.C., rally organized to support marriage.

_A national online petition from Faithful America and a nationally publicized June 10 letter from 78 politicians and others urged the archbishop to withdraw from the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. The letter and petition citing “hate” speech by the National Organization for Marriage and the labeling participant Family Research Council as a “hate group” created a media storm and disturbed many local Catholics and pastors.

Most are used to attacks on the archbishop for his strong advocacy of the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage and family, but the reaction seemed disproportionate to the event – which was a talk at a rally by a Catholic Church leader who has given many talks in support of marriage and family across the country and in the media.

The cause for surprise among Catholics may be they assumed the powerful reaction was spontaneous. Now there is abundant evidence the reaction was both well planned and financed by Faithful America, an organization that is supported directly and indirectly by politically powerful and wealthy men and by grant-making foundations who have devoted millions of dollars to promoting acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) behavior....”

It goes on to detail funding via a flow chart and promises two more parts in this series with the next coming out on September 12th. It is rather rare to see something like this come out in a Diocesan newspaper and it is certainly welcome.

Jan 222014

One of the interesting things about President “selfie” is how all that self-absorption is devoid entirely of self-awareness. Not an unusual connection. He isn’t really a hypocrite when he released a proclamation regarding Religious Freedom Day on 15 Jan, 2014 while eighty plus groups are suing his administration for violating their religious freedom. He has so little self-awareness that he can’t detect such discrepancies and his bubble world does not allow for facts to the contrary.

More evidence of this:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

He can use the word “everyone” and the phrase “all our children” with no bothersome nudges of conscience since he has relegated persons in the womb to a status that even Dred Scott did not attempt.

What he is telling persons in the womb is that “If you like your life, you can keep it – period.” That being able to have “the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams” includes being sliced and diced in the womb.

Hat tip: Creative Minority Report

Jun 262013

The two decisions from the Supreme Court today were pretty much what I expected them to be.

We comfort ourselves by saying “It could be worse” and while certainly true in many ways “It could be worse” seems to be the new standard.

Mark Shea quoted J.R.R. Tolkien today in response to this story.

“I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ – though it contains some samples or glimpses of final victory.”

It is easy for me to loose my equilibrium regarding this. This mockery of marriage in the name of equality. When the very problem of so-called same-sex marriage is that it is too equal. Same-sex marriage is like being giving a Lego set where the blocks only had “studs” and no connectors and told to build something with them.

Yet while being greatly annoyed by this I remember Ps 146.

Praise the LORD!

Praise the LORD, O my soul! I will praise the LORD as long as I live;

I will sing praises to my God while I have being.

Put not your trust in princes,

in a son of man, in whom there is no help.

When his breath departs he returns to his earth;

on that very day his plans perish.

Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob,

whose hope is in the LORD his God,

who made heaven and earth,

the sea, and all that is in them;

who keeps faith for ever;

who executes justice for the oppressed;

who gives food to the hungry.

The LORD sets the prisoners free;

the LORD opens the eyes of the blind.

The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down;

the LORD loves the righteous.

The LORD watches over the sojourners,

he upholds the widow and the fatherless;

but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

The LORD will reign for ever,

thy God, O Zion, to all generations.

Praise the LORD!

There are certainly a lot of oddities in regards to the response to this decision.

The President who signed DOMA rejoicing that the law he signed was declared unconstitutional.

Democrats happy that the will of the people of California was overturned by a Judge and two member so the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Vaughn Walker has punk’d the whole system. A judge with Same-Sex Attraction had more than just a conflict-of-interest. Democrats again show their consequentialism and that it doesn’t matter how dirty the process as long as they get what they want.

Plus I have been rather disturbed by number of otherwise-faithful Catholics who have been promoting Same Sex Unions as a compromise. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the document regarding giving legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons:

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

While there might be cases where such a support of this could be to limit the harm, the problem is that this is seen as an acceptable compromise and not an evil in itself.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. Jimmy Akin when writing on this subject under the section “Limiting the Harm of Homosexual Union Laws” said:

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.

If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided [Evangelium Vitae 73].
This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

Just on a prudential level I think it is foolish to support same-sex unions since this would never appease the homosexual activists and would just be a steeping stone. Instead of limiting evil, it would only be seen as a partial victory with encouragement for the the figment of same-sex marriage.

Mark Shea also wrote today:

Guy who promised he would not interfere with religious liberty before forcing Catholics to pay for somebody else’s contraception at gunpoint, and who tried to force Lutherans to ordain who he said they should ordain now promises that he will not try to force religious institutions to accept gay “marriage”. This is the Constitutional Scholar who also believes the Executive–who coincidentally happens to be be him–has the raw power to jail citizens forever without charge and even, when he deems it appropriate by his royal, secret, and unilateral will, to murder citizens without evidence, arrest, trial, judge, jury, or appeal.

Interesting how the supine media reports it. Not that Obama “can’t” force religious institutions to accept gay “marriage” (because, you know, the Constitution), but merely that he “won’t”. Message: A royal stay of execution from our Just and Wise Leader who has pity on a defeated foe of Progress. Not an executive prevented by the rule of law from doing whatever he likes.

Right now we are in the first week of the Fortnight for Freedom. I am thinking more likely we need a Fortyear for Freedom for prayer and fasting in regards to religious freedom. While the Supreme Court decisions could have been worse, still this is seen as a victory for those supporting the fiction of same-sex marriage. Our religious freedom is under direct attack and the attacks will only grow.

Pray or we will become prey for the elites that would shut us up under the intolerant banner of tolerance.

Jan 042013

When the 113th Congress is sworn in today, its new members will include the first Hindu member of Congress and the first Buddhist to serve as senator. Also for the first time, Congress will welcome a member who describes her religion as “none.”

Democratic Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who was raised a Mormon, is religiously unaffiliated but does not describe herself as an atheist. Her campaign was unavailable for comment to Whispers due to the swearing in, but spokesman Justin Unga told the Religion News Service in November that Sinema favors a “secular approach.” He told the New York Times the same month that Sinema “believes the terms ‘nontheist,’ ‘atheist’ or ‘nonbeliever’ are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character.” (source)

Now that is a very odd answer by her spokesman. Not fitting of a life’s work or personal character? What in the world does that have to do with anything? How about fitting of belief? Although the term “believer” seems to usually only get applied to theists, really atheism, theism, and agnosticism is a form of belief – an act of the will based on your knowledge and conclusions.

Atheism, agnosticism, and theism seem to me to be the acceptable choices that pretty much cover the issue of God’s existence. Unless I am missing something here you don’t get to vote “None of the above” and agnosticism covers a lot of the muddle in between. When she votes does she get to choose, yes, no, and present? Perhaps since she also says she is bisexual maybe she is just covering all the bases – male, female, theism, agnosticism, and theism.

On the other hand I can appreciate a politician caller themselves a “None” to some extent. Too many describe their religion as being something that is not apparent in their actions. I would suspect many more to be in the “None” category or honestly in the atheist/agnostic category. She does replace the only admitted atheist in Congress – Pete Stark.

Jan 032013

His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, has written a two-page letter to be read and/or placed in the bulletins of his parishes this weekend. He is certainly not one to hold his punches.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Our state’s elected lawmakers will soon consider a bill called “The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.” A more fraudulent title for this dangerous measure could not be imagined. The proposed law is, in truth, a grave assault upon both religious liberty and marriage. All people of goodwill, and especially Christ’s faithful committed to my pastoral care in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, should resolutely oppose this bill and make their opinions known to their representatives.

If you want to know what a bill is not about, read the title. Bill titles share something with headlines. They both are poor indicators of the content. Although while headlines are hyperbolic representations urging you to read the content., bill titles are the opposite where they want you to be satisfied with the title and to read no further.

Read the whole letter at Servant and Steward.

Oct 302012

Every election cycle we get stories about people upset by Catholic voting guides or strong statements from some bishops. The narrative is almost always that “somebody is telling me who to vote for.” The fault is with the bishop or the voting guide.

No doubt one or more of the Israelites griped something to the same effect when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments. “How dare you dictate to me denying my right to (insert favorite sin).”

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.” (G. K. Chesterton)

Now really it is the case that when these guidelines are given regarding moral principles and voting it is not about telling you for whom you can vote for. It would be more accurate to say they help you to determine who you can’t vote for if the candidate meets some disqualifying criteria. In what is mostly a two party system like ours the idea that one candidate is eliminated does not mean that you must choose the other. This is a prudential judgement and act of your conscience where you might decide to go all Don Quixote instead of just choosing the other dominant candidate with whatever certified lesser evil rating.

Those that do get mad about voting guides and staunch bishop statements have been misdirected from the real problem. The real problem is politicians who endorse and cooperate with intrinsic evils. The fact that with Catholic help we are putting forth morally unqualified candidates is a big part of the problem. In one political season we had usually five non-negotiables listed in voting guides. This time around we added religious freedom. It makes me wonder what intrinsic evil we are going to be adding next time?

The reason people get mad about moral guidelines regarding voting is that they are attached more to their political party than to their faith. Go ahead an put your trust in princes.

One of those bishops that party first Catholics get upset about is Archbishop Chaput who recently said:

“We’re Catholics before we’re Democrats. We’re Catholics before we’re Republicans. We’re even Catholics before we’re Americans because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us,” … “And this has been the story of the martyrs through the centuries,”

One of the indicators of the party first Catholic is that they will quickly diminish whatever flaws their favorite candidate has. The flaws of their candidate fade in the glare of the other candidate’s flaws. This can also happen with those who choose a candidate not because they really like them, but because they have determined they would be a lesser evil that would more contribute to the common good. In the current political situation I have seen this with some Catholic supporters of Gov. Romney and that even though he was nowhere near their preferred candidate, the also seem to gloss over his flaws. That somehow a lesser evil is just really not all that evil.

I bring this up because in my own political examination of conscience I have to keep reminding myself of this fact. Gov. Romney is a seriously flawed candidate who just really is not a social conservative. His answers to social conservatives are reflexive and don’t really show any serious commitment to the pro-life cause or other important issues regarding the family. I would certainly love to be proved wrong. Now President Obama has done some really bad things, but one more that sticks in my craw is having to support Gov. Romney as a deterrent. While I will give my vote to the Governor, I will not give my soul to him in ignoring his flaws and ignoring any intrinsic evils he does support. It is natural that when we support a candidate we really want to like them even in the case when we are really voting against the other guy. This is one reason I really liked Dale Price’s Romney for President. Sigh. He stated his reason for support while not diminishing serious problems with him.

What is frustrating is that if Gov. Romney does win it means that at least for eight years we are stuck with a morally compromised candidate. If he wins he is the GOP candidate next time and the Democratic candidate next time will no doubt be totally morally unacceptable. The candidates we have available is a case of garbage in garbage out as we go from the Primaries to the General election.

I seriously doubt that within my lifetime in a Presidential election I will ever have a choice between two candidates based totally on prudential decisions. Wow wouldn’t that be nice to not have to choose which candidate supports less intrinsic evils when playing Catholic voting guide Bingo.

Oct 202012

You really can’t expect much from an article titled Why isn’t Paul Ryan on Catholic bishops’ ‘wafer watch’?

Mitt Romney and his Catholic running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, while pro-life, allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

That might sound more conservative than Obama and Biden, but it is not in keeping with Catholic orthodoxy, argued Fordham University theologian Michael Peppard in the New York Times last week. Peppard says the sanctity of life is a prophetic teaching — not a political position.

In his op-ed, headlined “Paul Ryan, Catholic Dissident,” Peppard writes that there are no allowable exceptions when it comes to abortion.

None. Nada. Zero.

Therefore Ryan, who was in lockstep with Catholic orthodoxy before becoming Romney’s running mate, no longer is.

Have the bishops put Ryan, as they have Biden, on what’s called “wafer watch,” warning that he better not be taking communion if he continues to support a woman’s right to choose?

Not that I have heard.

First correction is that it is certainly true there is no allowable exceptions for direct abortion, this does not include cases involving double effect such as in ectopic pregnancies which are indirect abortion. Just to make a minor clarification.

Now first off it seems rather odd that a theologian who has written for the Huffington post and Commonweal is really the person who is going to schools people on Church teaching regarding abortion. Kind of the Church says this, but I am willing to write for the extreme pro-abortion organizations and write an article for the NYT proclaiming Rep. Ryan as dissident. Considering he has no track record proclaiming extreme pro-abortion Democrats as such. Besides the theologian who would even use the term “wafer watch” is more concerned with using an offensive neologism than being a truly Catholic theologian.

Michael Peppard had written.

The Catholic stance on abortion is not political but prophetic — a holistic and unyielding defense of the sacredness of life. The church’s staunch position on fetal personhood was on display two years ago in Phoenix, when Margaret McBride, a nun on the ethics board of St. Joseph’s Hospital, authorized an emergency abortion to save the life of a dying woman. Sister McBride was automatically excommunicated by her bishop (though later reinstated quietly). Mr. Ryan’s new position unites him with Sister McBride in defending the threatened life of a pregnant woman.

A theologian who says abortion “not political but prophetic” seems to me not to be a very good theologian. The teaching on abortion is a truth grounded in the natural law. Regarding the truth of Church teaching is not a “staunch position” and he couldn’t even bring himself to capitalize “Church.” Plus the phrase “automatically excommunicated by her Bishop” is so stupid it even makes armchair Canon layer like me chuckle. The Sister  was automatically excommunicated by her action and the bishop recognized the fact. As for Sister McBride being later reinstated quietly. The Hospital had emailed the Catholic News Service that she was no longer excommunicated. If this is true (never confirmed by the Diocese as far as I know) then she had repented of her action which is a very good thing. Mr. Peppard is trying to have it both ways here.

But it is always a good idea to look at your dismissiveness of what somebody said for reasons outside of what they said. This article really proclaims a “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” appeal. The so-called Communion wars that broke out with Sen. John Kerry’s Presidential run and that rears its head from time to time now has lead to Democrats wanting to put the shoe on the other foot. Though with Sen. John Kerry this was hard since his foot is often in his mouth.

There has been some outcry against Peppard’s original article, for example by the Catholic League. Though I think some of the critics have missed the point. It does not come down to a question of whether a Catholic may vote for a politician who is much more restrictive of abortion. The real question is would Rep. Paul Ryan meet the criteria under the infamous Canon 915? Here is a bit of trivia for you Canon 915 is the only Canon with its own Wikipedia page.

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Previously Rep. Ryan had not supported such exceptions and is now going along with them. He basically has promised that the Romney/Ryan team will not act in regards to legislation and these exceptions. Leave off the fact that they will have no way to legislate on this in the first place at the Federal level, I don’t excuse such an attitude as simply being politically pragmatic and we know that he is “personally opposed.” The law is a teacher and what a politician publicly supports is also a teacher to a some extent. A political compromise concerning the moral law is a compromise of the moral law. Does this rise to the level outlined in Canon 915? It doesn’t seem to me to be such a solid case as in Catholic politicians who have voted for the evil of abortion and supported abortion in almost all cases. That being said I would also think it would be a good thing for Rep. Ryan’s Bishop to talk to him about this.

Michael Peppard  called for consistency and I would ask it from him as well. He is using this as a gotcha with no real concern with Mr. Ryan’s moral compromise. If what Ryan has said really does rise to the level explained in Canon 915 than it should be applied to him as a medicinal remedy to get him to repent of his support of the exceptions. I would certainly like to see a wider application of this Canon as a way to help Catholic politicians to receive the truth and to fully repent and when the case is just. I don’t care a whit about what political party the person belongs to but first off for their soul and then for the common good.

This brings me to another point. Earlier this week Matthew Warner wrote an excellent article I’m always confused by the “incest” exception for abortion. He brought up a point that had eluded me before. The large majority of cases involving incest are also cases of rape (statutory and otherwise).  He certainly makes some good points.

Oct 122012

This must be certainly the first time the USCCB has issued a statement correcting a false assertion in a Vice Presidential debate.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement, October 12. Full text follows:
Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

For more details, please see USCCB’s regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed “accommodation”: www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf

I tuned in to the debates late, but did catch when Vice President Biden said:

    My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.

First off I need some Listerine Mindwash to remove this statement.  Now there is no surprise he would say something so morally incoherent; he is only following the bloody footsteps of those before him who used this morally vapid dodge.  Even dumber he calls life beginning at conception as a “de fide doctrine” when it is no such thing.  Though liberal often try to make something that is in the area of science as an area of theology so they can make it a matter of opinion.  They do the same with issues involving the natural law so as to seem to restrict something to just one religious body.

I think the really sad thing besides his statement is that there are many that will swallow the argument about “imposing on others.”   This argument is so shallow that even a laser measuring device won’t be able to measure any depth to it. The fact that he would use this excuse while at the same time the Obama administration is imposing directly on Catholics in many areas including the HHS Mandate makes this ironic in the extreme.

As for Rep Paul Ryan’s answer to the same question. I liked how he took it out of the area  of theology to that of science and added a personal story to illustrate the humanity of the unborn.  He then went on to say:

“The policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Now many will defend him saying this since it is not politically pragmatic to oppose this area of abortion.  After all the Executive Branch is not the Legislative Branch and it will take an overturning of Roe V. Wade before any legal movement against abortion will occur.  Plus even if it is overturned it will then become a matter for the states and not the Federal government. So practically there really will not be an opportunity to oppose abortion in these circumstances.

So I understand the practical arguments and I thank God the saints were not so pragmatically practical.  This viewpoint would say that St. Thomas More should have just gone along and signed away his conscience since it wasn’t politically practical for him to oppose his friend King Henry VIII. Instead we get a statement that an intrinsically evil act will not be opposed even generally. This also continues to enforce that opposing abortion for these exceptions is extreme when it is extreme to murder someone for the sin of their father. In some ways Ryan’s statement parallels Biden’s in that Ryan is personally opposed to these exceptions, but won’t impose it on others.