The end of Roe v. Wade

 

Great news.  As reported here.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the draft which was circulated inside the court before someone leaked it to the news outlet. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life, 

And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters. 

I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion, 

Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death 

by the Resurrection of Your Son. 

I am ready to do my part in ending abortion. 

Today I commit myself 

Never to be silent, 

Never to be passive, 

Never to be forgetful of the unborn. 

I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement, 

And never to stop defending life 

Until all my brothers and sisters are protected, 

And our nation once again becomes 

A nation with liberty and justice 

Not just for some, but for all, 

Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

Father Frank Pavone on the stolen election

 Open Letter from Father Frank Pavone:

A Letter to My Fellow American Citizens

December 22, 2020

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We are blessed to live in the most exceptional nation on earth, a nation to which more people from around the world are drawn each year than to any other, because of its promise of opportunity and freedom.

One of the key ways we have lived out and protected that freedom is to conduct fair and free elections, by which we the people choose those who will represent us, write and enforce our laws, and judge our disputes. Those who govern us derive their powers to do so from the consent of the governed, and subject to the laws of Almighty God.

Our Founders understood God’s law and the value of human freedom. They also understood human weakness and sinfulness, and foresaw how that sinfulness could threaten our freedom. They therefore built into our system of government and our manner of elections provisions to safeguard us in the event that human error or willful deception would taint our elections or threaten our freedom.

It is not unprecedented that in the conduct of our national elections, we have had to resort to procedures and remedies which are rarely utilized but nonetheless completely legal and constitutional, in order to assure that our elections reflected the will of the voters and the demands of honesty, integrity and fairness. These remedies have been employed in order that public confidence in our electoral system would be maintained.

Today, in the elections of 2020, we face the need to do so once again. Since Election Day, the percentage of our fellow citizens who believe that these elections were tainted by fraud has risen from nearly one third to nearly half.

Americans have become increasingly aware of the more than 50 lawsuits, thousands of affidavits and declarations, testimony presented in various state hearings, published reports and analyses by think tanks and legal centers, videos and photos, public comments and first-hand accounts, and various press reports, all of which suggest that something went seriously wrong in the way our Presidential race was conducted and tabulated, particularly in six disputed states (PA, AZ, GA, WI, MI, NV).

These concerns cross partisan lines, as well they should. If the most powerful nation and greatest system of government in the world cannot conduct free and fair elections, then we and the rest of the world have little hope for the survival of freedom.

The concerns about our election are well documented, and summarized in documents like this report by Peter Navarro and this brief by the State of Texas. Problems include outright voter fraud (e.g. counting ballots multiple times, destruction of ballots, creation of fake ballots, ballots from people who were ineligible to vote because they live elsewhere or have died), mishandling of ballots (e.g. failing to check for signatures, accepting ballots after the legal deadline, backdating ballots, lack of identification, ballots without security envelopes, unauthorized or unsupervised access to ballots), violation of procedures (e.g. throwing out poll watchers, fixing mistakes on ballots in violation of state law, allowing people to vote who were not registered), violations of equal protection (giving certain voters and poll watchers preferential treatment over others), voter machine irregularities (inaccuracies and inexplicable surges of Biden votes), and statistical anomalies (below average rejection rate of absentee ballots, voter turnout exceeding 100%, unusual vote surges and statistically improbably vote totals).

State officials have changed election laws and loosened election security in an unconstitutional manner by bypassing the state legislatures, which are the only bodies empowered by the Constitution to set the manner for choosing electors.

Besides these specific problems, countless Americans wonder why the vote counting in various key states suddenly stopped on election night, when President Trump was leading by hundreds of thousands of votes in four of the disputed states (PA, WI, MI, GA), and then, upon resuming, saw Biden ballots come pouring in to erase that lead. Americans wonder how Biden could have won when he lost in the bellwether counties across the nation, and did worse than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 in the major urban centers except only for the four cities in the key states he had to win: Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.

These and numerous other questions persist, and the refusal of courts to grant relief has not been because they have examined the evidence and provided satisfactory answers to these questions, but rather precisely because the merits of the questions have not been given the examination they deserve.

But the courts are not the final resort here. Both state and federal legislators have authority to make things right in these disputes. State legislators determine how the electors will be chosen in a given state. And the Congress, on January 6th, must meet in joint session to count and make official – or object if necessary – to the votes taken by those electors.

All of our public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And that duty is carried out according to how each of them understands the Constitution. It is not an oath to carry out a court’s understanding of the Constitution.

On January 6th, certain courageous members of the US House and the US Senate will rise to object to the electoral vote as it has been cast in various states that are in dispute. These members hold that if the election results in a given state are so questionable that they cannot be certain they are a valid representation of the will of the voters in that state, then those electoral votes simply cannot be accepted. To object in this case is not only a right but a duty. It is not only logical, but patriotic.

It is up to us, the people these Members of Congress represent, to strengthen them in their resolve, and to communicate to the rest of the Members that we share these concerns and that we also object.

Now is the time to communicate with those who will serve in the 117th Congress, to let them know where we stand, and to urge them to object to the electoral votes in the disputed states. If, as a result of this process, neither presidential candidate receives the requisite 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives should choose the President, and the Senate choose the Vice President, as the Constitution provides.

Some of our fellow citizens dismiss all these concerns and say we should “just move on.” But “move on” to what? We are dealing here with a fundamental threat to our freedom, and a weakening of one of freedom’s most crucial safeguards: the confidence of the people in fair and free elections. This is not a fight we put off to some other time. The time to resolve this is now, and to do so with the full measure of courage it requires.

To dismiss the concerns of half the country on a fundamental matter, and to leave as an open question whether this election was stolen, is to “move on” to an unstable republic and an unsteady footing for all future elections. It is to “move on” to the possibility – and for tens of millions, the conviction – that we will have inaugurated an illegitimate President who stole an election. It is to “move on” to a position in which election law – whether by statute or the Constitution itself -- doesn’t matter anymore, and where the consent of the governed is replaced by brute force.

This is as unacceptable today as it was in 1776, and should be met with as much resistance by citizens today as it was by our Founding Fathers at the dawn of our Republic.

Indeed, from those of us who are religious leaders, there should be a battle cry for honesty, integrity and transparency in our election process – a call based not on partisan preferences but on the fact that the Commandments prohibit lying, cheating and stealing.

And from those who are Democrats, and indeed from Joe Biden himself, and from every elected official and candidate, there should be a clear message sent to American voters: I do not want, and refuse to accept or benefit from, a single illegal vote.

Whatever else is needed for national healing and national unity, these are undoubtedly necessary ingredients and starting points.

We have arrived at a pivotal moment in American history. Fortunately, we have a President who is fighting, not simply for himself, and not for some passing glory or power, but for us, the American people, and for the freedom we all enjoy. Let us pray to God that we and our public officials may have the insight and courage to do what is right. Our founders pledged to one another their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. We can do no less.

Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone

National Director, Priests for Life

Father James Martin, S.J., and a formation which looks to the person's final end...

My good friend to the North, Vox Cantoris writes: - about Father James Martin, S.J. -

"Rather than correct the poor child [a transgendered child whose parents want to ensure he is educated in a Catholic school] from what is clearly confusion and probably some kind of mental illness, he leaves him in his state and deceives the parents. He dares to write that it is a 'scandal.'"

For Father Martin, it constitutes a "scandal" that the Catholic school in question has refused the boy entry.  But Catholic schools must consider the good of the child.

Are his parents concerned with the good of their child?  In other words, is their idea of “the good” in conformity with Church teaching and Canon Law?

Canon 795 of the Code of Canon Law states quite clearly that, “Since a true education must strive for the integral formation of the human person, a formation which looks toward the person’s final end, and at the same time toward the common good of societies, children and young people are to be so reared that they can develop harmoniously their physical, moral and intellectual talents, that they acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and a correct use of freedom, and that they be educated for active participation in social life.”

So “the good of the child,” according to Holy Mother Church, must consist of a formation which looks toward a child’s final end.  And that education is only true which strives for a child’s integral formation and which contributes to the common good.  How then can the Church partner with parents who raise their child as "transgendered"?

As Father Vincent Miceli, a great Jesuit scholar and my mentor, once noted, “It is said that ‘the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.’  But if the person who rocks the cradle is warped and crippled in personality then the world will not be ruled but ruined.”

Father Martin doesn't understand the nature of Catholic formation.  But then, he's not the intellectually gifted Jesuit that Father Miceli was.

Daniel Greenfield gets it...Obama does not.

Writing for the Canada Free Press, Daniel Greenfield notes how, "Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion—Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people’s sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place." (Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom, Canada Free Press, August 15, 2010).

While President Obama has nothing but respect for "peace-loving Islam" (even as the body-count continues to explode across the globe), he has described Christians in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest as people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." (See here). This says much about Barack Obama. But then, so did his assertion that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality [primarily Christians who accept Revelation and the Natural Law] are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes."

Is the Archdiocese of Boston ignoring Church teaching?

That's the question Joe Sacerdo is asking here. It is utterly amazing how many who pride themselves on being "Vatican II Catholics" simply ignore those passages of the Conciliar documents which they find "irrelevant." In its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that "family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man" in which "the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children," and that their situation of dependence would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." (No. 7).

Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.


Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here.

Antoniano.

Related reading: Antoniano and Christian education of youth.

As the Man of Sin approaches....

"We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest." - Archbishop Fulton John Sheen.

Related reading here.

Catholic League: Homosexual coverup must end

As I mentioned in a previous post, "On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).

This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as 'objectively disordered,' constitutes an irregularity ex defectu. In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.'"

I was criticized by some when I posted this five years ago.

Update: New York Times heavily influenced by homosexual activists?