Punditry

One of the phrases being used in referring to the late Sen. Kennedy is that “He was a Catholic in good standing.”

This seems to me to be phrase that almost always pops up in referring to somebody who was at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. If can’t think of reading an article ever where this term was used in connection to someone totally faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Now what exactly is a Catholic in good standing? Is there a list on the internet somewhere of good standing Catholics? If so where is the list of Catholics in bad standing? Is there some Catholic equivalent of Santa Clause out there compiling this list and checking it twice?

Now this term is often used in hiring by diocese, but the term itself does not seem to have a technical definition. Though you would think it means something like a person who is a faithful follower of Christ, accepts the authority of the Holy See, follows God’s law, and whose personal life gives evidence of this. Though dissenters that say the are “Catholics in good standing” like the infamous abortion advocate Francis Kissling and the way it is used in many articles I think that it means “A Catholic who is not excommunicated, yet.”

The term is used in such a way as saying that since the Catholic Church has not sanctioned me in any way then they must not have a problem with me as a Catholic. In many cases they are able to say this because their bishop has done little or nothing in regards to the public scandal these publicly dissenting Catholics have caused. Nancy Pelosi, another “Catholic in Good Standing” made outrageous comments on abortion and remains a strong abortocrat. Her bishop did have a talk with her on this that she finally got around to attending. I am all for bishops working to persuade those Catholic politicians by dialoging with them on a personal level. It just seems to be that the dialog never ends and the public figure goes on causing scandal with no repercussions. Why exactly was a figure like Sen. Kennedy able to flouted Church teaching and positively support intrinsic evil over a large period of his life and never experience a medicinal remedy like excommunication? So many Catholic politicians have done exactly the same thing and have been the impetus for the Culture of Death. Though there are also a lot of Catholic priests and theologians that gave these politicians cover by inventing justifications for allowing a Catholic to support abortion. Fr. Drinan and others have a large hand in this. Though Fr. Drinan was also called a “Catholic in good standing” despite his support of abortion.

I am quite glad that more and more bishops seem to be speaking out and I hope this continues to happen. I just hope more realize that the care of souls includes both stopping scandal and providing medicinal remedies as provided by Canon Law. If men could be excommunicated for resisting integration, then why does not the same happen when public figures support intrinsic evils? If this leads to repentance than they can actually say there are “Catholics in good standing” without the tone of “Haven’t got caught yet.”

(CNSNews.com) – A June report from the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggests children of all countries and cultures are entitled to sexual and reproductive education beginning at age five.

The report, called International Guidelines on Sexual Education, was released in June in conjunction with the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization which works for universal access to “reproductive health care.”

In its rationale for creating the guidelines, the UNESCO report said it is “essential to recognize the need and entitlement of all young people to sexuality education.” An appendix backed that claim by pointing to a 2008 report from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that argued governments “are obligated to guarantee sexual rights,” and that “sexuality education is an integral component to human rights.”

Because I guess before sex education people could not figure it out. Got to wonder how for thousands of years people managed to procreate.

You got to wonder if Joycelyn Elders is now advising UNESCO since this is to be taught to children 5 – 8:

Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that “girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”

For 9 to 12:

— “specific steps involved in obtaining and using condoms and contraception, including emergency contraception” and the “signs and symptoms of pregnancy.”
— That “legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.”
— Discussing the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.”

Yes Transphobia, the fear that your transmission will go bad resulting in a costly repair. Well maybe not, but surly this is another “phobia” that faithful Catholics can now also get assigned.

For those aged 12 to 15, the report recommends discussing “access to safe abortion and post-abortion care” and the “use and misuse of emergency contraception.” [reference]

There has been a lot of talk recently about Obama-Hilter-Nazi references. Though ironically must of it was started by a poster displayed by a Democrat Lyndon LaRouche supporter. Though of course there have been plenty of other references.

First off Obama is not Hitler. Just as Stalin was not Hitler and Mao Zedong was not Hitler. These other men were all deeply evil in their own ways. Am I saying that Obama and these other men all ranked equally on the evil scale? Well no, but these men all supported intrinsic evils and operated in different circumstances. The times they lived in and the people who supported them helped them all to kill others, though it was murder by proxy.

The biggest problems with Nazi and Hitler references is that it usually does not advance, but torpedoes a conversation as Godwin’s law points to. BusHilter and Obama Hitler is worthless in providing any light,

An [reference]>article today takes issue with these comparison and references some of the great evils of the Nazi regime. He makes some good points, but does this mean that any comparisons can’t be made?

Comparing intrinsic evils to intrinsic evils is not much of a cause. You can trade back and forth evils committed by one regime as compared to another. Hitler as a person was deeply disturbed and even not being a Obama fan I think it is a ridiculous comparison on the personal level. But the phrase the “banality of evil” I think can be applied to the Obama administration. The evil they support is so ingrained in them that they don’t even notice it. The Culture of Death has trained many people into an acceptance of evil that they would call a right.

But even in a Culture of Death Obama sticks out. Nazi ideology made a group of persons to be non-persons. Jews and Gypsies and anybody not fitting the Aryan mold could be classed as non-persons and thus could be killed. Throughout history whenever you wanted to justify killing a group of people certain words and phrases were used to do the task of referring to the human person as inhuman. One book written several years ago did an in depth study of the words and phrases used that were quite consistent whether the targets were slaves, Jews, or the unborn. So there is the obvious parallel in the dehumanization of human persons by both our modern culture and Nazi Germany. The murder of innocent directly result from this dehumanization.

That these comparison have come out with the health care debate is also no surprising. Nazi Germany had socialized health care. As costs increased they looked for ways to cut those costs. This directly resulted in the murder of those institutionalized or in hospitals. This did not happen overnight, but slowly developed. Zyclon B was originally developed to efficiently gas these patience. Now I don’t expect in any way to see a repeat of this even if we do go the socialized medicine route. The Nazis were brutally efficient. Our bureaucracy would certainly cause health care to result in rationing and euthanasia. There will be death of the innocents, just not on the same scale and not as evil of motive. Though in any case any form of euthanasia is intrinsically evil regardless of the intent of the “care-giver”. One thing that most people don’t realize is that it was American that often served to give advice to Nazi Germany when it came to eugenics. Some of the people that worked with Margaret Sanger and her Birth Control League and wrote for her magazine served as advisors to the Nazi regime. America at the time was on a eugenics kick and some of the laws since repealed are really disturbing.

Every person should be judged on what they do and making charged comparisons do not help. So let us focus just on what the President himself supports:

• Infanticide. State Sen. Obama decided it was better that a baby born of a botched abortion should just die and not be given any medical attention than to have any possible effect on abortion laws. He has never admitted that the last vote on this the language in the bill that was passed by the Senate was identical. The Senate bill passed 98-0. In fact when the NRLC brought this fact to light, he called them “liars.”
• Partial Birth Abortion. He also has no objection to sucking the brains out of a child as the child is being born. The child would have been taking its first breath if they didn’t reposition the child to bring out the head last.
• Abortion at any time for any reason. He does not support any restrictions at all when ti comes to abortion. He is quite happy to go along with the 50,000,000 killed and to add to that number. These children who are chopped up daily by the thousand and disposed in medical waste containers for the most part is not objectionable to him. He will hedge and haw about it being a “moral decision”, but we know what would he would prefer if his daughter was “punished with a baby.” His promise to reduce abortion given to the Pope was an obvious lie and his idea of common ground initiatives would only increase abortion. He directly supports the slaughter of innocents and is politically beholden to those who also support this.
• Public funding of abortion. His support of paying for abortion in D.C. shows that he has absolutely no problem with the public funding of abortion. One of his initial executive orders did in fact allow public funding of groups overseas who perform abortion. His divisiveness when it comes to the funding of abortion in the current health care plan also shows that he has no problem forcing people to pay for abortions. It seems his only caveat is what politically he can do in this regards.
• Embryonic stem-cell research. He has zero problems with creating human persons and then harvesting the embryo for research. Politically he has restricted this to using so-called leftover embryos from IVF. But there is nothing in what he has said and his ideology that would actually have any problem with cloning embryos and “harvesting” them. In his triumph of ideology over science at the same time he federalized the slaughter of human embryos he also stopped public funding of adult stem-cell research. So this is a President who supports morally problematic research over moral research that actually leads to cures. It is hard to see why if you are going to support public funding of research that you would choose embryonic over adult stem-cells other than a rigid ideology that once again must never admit the humanity of the human person once conceived.

So on a whole range of life issues he comes out on the side of the angels – the fallen angels. He supports multiple intrinsic evils with a smile and I did not even mention his assault on marriage by going after DOMA.. In the support of this he has told multiple lies about the extent of what he supports.

• Euthanasia. He once said his only political regret was that he did not help Terri Schiavo to die earlier. He has gone on to talk about “futile” care. “in April Obama favored some sort of government sponsored panel that would help assess treatment options with one eye on the patient’s quality of life and the other eye on the public purse.” Over and over Obama repeated the words “difficult” when it comes to this. The “difficulty” is in getting people to pull the plug to save money. Death boards is pure hyperbole, but hyperbole rooted in the truth that some bureaucratic agent will be involved in determining if you are allowed treatment.. The president can’t see human dignity at the beginning of life and it appears that he has a hard time seeing it at the end of life.

One of the blessings of the Catholic faith is what we are taught about the human person. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that people are seeking a good even when the actuality is that they have performed an evil. They are seeking some good and not seeking to do evil just to do evil. So as much as I am totally at odds with all of the intrinsic evils the President supports I don’t have to dehumanize him with derogatory terms. I can pray for his conversion while at the same time speaking out against the evils he supports.

So while for the most part comparisons of the President, his administration, and party with the National Socialism of Germany is problematic. Let us also not forget the great evils he does support and the slaughter of the innocents that he will contribute to extending, but most of all never forget to pray for him.

WASHINGTON (CNS) — Leaders representing 59,000 women religious are questioning what they say is a lack of full disclosure about what is motivating the Vatican’s apostolic visitation that will study the contemporary practices of U.S. women’s religious orders.

In an Aug. 17 press statement, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious also said the leaders “object to the fact that their orders will not be permitted to see the investigative reports about them” when they are submitted in 2011 to the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and its prefect, Cardinal Franc Rode.

In addition, the women religious expressed concern about secrecy they say is surrounding the funding of the study, said Sister Annmarie Sanders, director of communications for LCWR.[reference]

Yeah what could possible be the reason for such a visitations. Scratching my head trying to figure this one out. Could it be rampant dissent to the magisterium? Can’t be that. How about widespread support of women’s ordination? Couldn’t be. How about the massive destruction in religious life over the last four decades with so many orders having few if any novices? Surely not that. How about the web pages for most religious orders looking more like a page for some left wing advocacy group than a Catholic religious order? No, just because they seem to pay a lot of attention to the United Nations and none to the Vatican surely could not be a reason. Maybe it is the range of wacky ideas ranging from radical feminism to eco-theology? No, that couldn’t be it. Well, what about the fact that there is zero interest in the pro-life cause by so many orders. No, just

– that doesn’t mean anything.
This is certainly a case of someone in the Vatican holding a grudge for some unknown reason and initiated an Apostolic Visitation.

Actually though the LCWR saying this is like a guy driving 130 mph, getting pulled over and asking “Is there something I can do for you officer?”

Even more annoying is Catholic News Service basically passing on the LCWR’s news release with no discernment whatsoever.

The president of a small Catholic college said Friday he would rather close the school’s doors than violate the church’s teachings on contraception should the college lose the latest battle involving health-insurance laws and religious freedom.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that Belmont Abbey College violated discrimination laws because the school’s employee health insurance plan does not cover contraception, according to a letter the EEOC sent to the school.
“I hope it would never get this far,” college President William K. Thierfelder told The Washington Times, “but if it came down to it we would close the college before we ever provided that.”

I listened to an interview with President Thierfelde this week on Al Kresta’s show and it was quite nice hearing him defend the truth the Catholic Church teaches and to take a hard stance on the encroachment of the government into a Catholic college. He was even quoting Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Catholic college presidents who quote this document are rarer than hens teeth. I am sure there is some mutant hens out there with teeth.

“By denying prescription contraceptive drugs, [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives,” the EEOC wrote in a letter to the North Carolina college. “By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.”

Yes this is the same tactic they always use – make it a case of gender inequality, even if it makes no sense. Liberal groups who hate the Catholic Church are quite willing to use the government to enforce their will on the small number of holdouts who still believe what the Church teaches. This is just on the state level, imagine the red tape they would try to strangle the Church with as a Federal manner.

… Mr. Thierfelder wrote at the time that “it is the clear, consistent, incontrovertible, public, official and authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization are actions which are intrinsically wrong and should not be undertaken because of their very nature.”
The college, which has about 1,500 students, no longer covers contraceptive services as part of its employee health coverage.
“As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church,” Mr. Thierfelder wrote in a letter explaining the changes.

Belmont Abbey College is one of the schools that is taking back its Catholic identity just as the University of Stuebenville did in the past. Unfortunately this case came about because of eight current and former faculty members. I guess they don’t make enough to be able to buy their own contraceptives. As if this was a significant expense in any way except on the moral calculator. Well any stick to beat the Church.

[reference]

I previously posted a story about vandalism of a Bible as art. The Telegraph reports under the headline “Pope condemns Bible ‘vandalism’ exhibition”.

The subsequent complaints have led to the organisers of the exhibit putting the holy book on show in a locked case and inviting visitors to write their comments on blank sheets of paper instead.

But it was too late to appease the Pope.

The adviser to the head of the Catholic Church said the project was “disgusting and offensive”.

With no actual quote from the Pope and a quote from unnamed advisor I call BS on this story. Plus it does not sound like how he would phrase the reaction in the first place.

Good article on Alfred Kinsley the scientific fraud behind the sexual revolution. Good overview of how his fraudulent research changed the culture – none to the good. Though it does not cover the aspects of Kinsey the man who was a pervert’s pervert. Yet of course Hollywood made a movie about the man that of course didn’t mention that he masturbated babies as part of his research.