Larry of A.M.D.G. points us to a group called Catholic Action Network for Social Justice in St. Louis. Judging by the content of their site it is another social justice for everyone but those in the womb groups. In a voters guide called 10 Questions to Ask Candidates we get questions about global warming, NAFTA, repealing the Patriot Act, and of course abortion. Actually I was kidding about them including abortion. It didn’t make it to their top ten lists of concerns. This is like sitting in the middle of a battlefield and complaining of the noise pollution because of the gunfire. Another common factor is that this groups is willing to quote Vatican documents as authorative when it suits them, but are also willing to advocate for women’s ordination. I found this part pretty funny. Under Prophetic Witnessing they had.
during local masses (using WOC’s fake dollar bills, etc.
Compiling a registry of local women called to ordination.
But what Larry had pointed to is a group of pictures that they encourage you to print out under the title "Voting Issues: More Than Abortion!!" This mention of abortion in fact is the only reference to abortion on their whole site. Their campaign is in response to Archbishop Burke strong action on denying Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
Besides them being graphically challenged this campaign shows a lot about their attitude. Their catch-phrase "Receiving Communion Anyways" sounds more like a line from the movie Dogma than a serious slogan for a Catholic group. Since Archbishop Burke Communion ban was specified for pro-abortion politicians or as he recently added actions like somebody wearing a "I support abortion" T-shirt. This group by complaining about this is saying that they support abortion even though like most "peace and justice" groups they never come right out and say it. Why complain about a Communion ban that did not apply to them?
The circular sign quotes from Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae). Taking this statement out of this document is like taking a Gold Fish out of it’s tank. As the rest of the document shows that conscience has to be informed by the truth, and once known to submit to it and to be obedient to proper authority.
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
…It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
…Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.
8. Many pressures are brought to bear upon the men of our day, to the point where the danger arises lest they lose the possibility of acting on their own judgment. On the other hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience. Wherefore this Vatican Council urges everyone, especially those who are charged with the task of educating others, to do their utmost to form men who, on the one hand, will respect the moral order and be obedient to lawful authority, and on the other hand, will be lovers of true freedom-men, in other words, who will come to decisions on their own judgment and in the light of truth, govern their activities with a sense of responsibility, and strive after what is true and right, willing always to join with others in cooperative effort.
…In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.
And from Evangelium Vitae:
The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.
They even have some form letters to send to the Archbishop and to the newspaper. They all start out:
I am a faithful Catholic, and active member of my faith community.
Nice tag line from a group that supports homosexual activity, same-sex marriage and women’s ordination. I wonder what their definition of a unfaithful Catholic is? Well here is what I think might be a more accurate campaign.
If you check out their “Core Community and Staff”, they have two of the Archdiocesan priests listed as well – one of them helped out at the last VOTF conference here.
Wouldn’t Moloch be interested in recruiting them?
I love it! But, umm . . . I think it should say “than” instead of “then” between “important” and “stopping” in the third line of the round graphic . . .
I know, I’m a dork . . . but seriously, I love them!
Odd how infuriated the Left gets over any sort of exclusion. I remember, before there were reliable HIV tests, the uproar when the Red Cross began asking about homosexual activity on their donor questionnaire. Several homosexual activists recommended lying about it on the form, so as to thwart discrimination in blood drives. That they might very likely be responsible for the deaths of people who relied on transfusions didn’t appear to trouble them in the least.
I remember reading somewhere that during the 1980s, some activists were literally threatening to poison the blood supply with HIV+ blood unless the federal government appropriated some serious money to research HIV/AIDS.
Nitpick: Receiving Communion Anyway, not Anyways
Sad… but true! Pro-abortion Catholics really need to follow the example of our Protestant Brethren and create their own Church! It’s better that they leave than perform sacrilegeous acts against Our Lord and Savior in the Most Blessed Sacrament!
The funny thing is that when one reads the full portions of what they quoted from, it would be much more logical to conclude that those that don’t want to pay taxes should not have to pay taxes if they feel such taxes work against their beliefs. While the liberals like to proclaim this when they talk about defense spending and such stuff it could apply across the board to anything.
For those talking about the blood tests, the gays are still at it. Saw a couple of months ago that a college in Washington State or Oregon excluded the Red Cross from a blood drive due to that question. The articles also mentioned that this has happened at another school…somewhere near Toronto, I believe. Such compassion.
The creed of the wacky left: Suck those Babies’ Brains Out.
Sorry for the above but you all know it’s true.
The questions asked when giving blood are quite extensive and if answered honestly I suppose could weed out those who are homosexual and/or who might have HIV and/or AIDS. I suppose they could lie though. God save us!
My father was a lieutenant in the NYPD, which maintained a well-supplied blood bank for the use of officers and their families. Sometime in the Seventies this supply was merged with that of the local Red Cross, for ease of administration. When the AIDS scare heated up the Department very quietly withdrew from this arrangement and resumed running its own blood bank. I don’t know how it was carried out without getting into the papers, but they managed to fly below the radar.
Really, it depends on how you define the word lie. Anyone who cares more about women’s ordination, abortion rights, gay rights and euthanasia, than risking their salvation by profaning the body of the Lord, can’t see anything as simple as a lie. To these people, if you are making a political statement, (ie. telling the Red Cross you are not gay) you can’t possibly be lying because you are speaking in truths more profound than mere adherence to the facts.
Thank you, Lily! I’ve been trying for some time to come up with a concise expression of the phenomenon of lying in what the speaker thinks a good cause, and you’ve given it to me.
I just love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!