A matter of law and order

 

 

The charges here

Francis, not known for "wisdom and prudence," calls for Jerusalem "status quo."

Already dark forces are raging against President Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  See here.

But Francis is opposed.  As reported here:

"Pope Francis spoke in support of the 'status quo' in Jerusalem on Wednesday, calling for 'wisdom and prudence' in order to avoid conflict.


The Roman Catholic leader's comments came after President Donald Trump announced plans for the U.S. to support the relocation of the Israeli capital to Jerusalem -- and for the U.S. Embassy to be relocated there as well.

The pope said he was 'profoundly concerned' about recent developments regarding Jerusalem, which he called a 'special vocation for peace' and a sacred place for Christians, Jews and Muslims.

He appealed to all sides to respect 'the status quo of the city' as according to the United Nations resolutions."

But Francis isn't known for his "wisdom and prudence."  Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish People:

“The oldest and holiest Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives is in East Jerusalem, (3,000 years old) as is the Western Wall, so to call new Jewish suburbs in East Jerusalem, settlements, is absurd, and designed to undermine Jewish legitimacy there.” -- Mervyn Bufton

• “[Jerusalem is the] "unified capital of Israel and the capital of the Jewish people, and sovereignty over it is indisputable.” -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

•“We are joyful and honored to commence the construction of our new neighborhood which strengthens the Jewish presence in united Jerusalem and stresses the fact that Jerusalem is the home of every Jew in Israel and throughout the world.” -- Rabbi Dani Isaac

• “The Land of Israel without Jerusalem is merely 'Palestine.' Down the generations the Jews have been saying not 'Next year in the Land of Israel' but 'Next year in Jerusalem'... One can create Tel-Aviv out of Jaffa but one cannot create a second Jerusalem. Zion lies within the walls, not outside them.” -- Menachem Mendel Ussishkin

•“After 2,000 years of sacrifice for the dream of returning to Jerusalem, we cannot allow it to be taken away.” -- Irving Moskowitz

•“All countries of the world should understand that attempts to endanger Jerusalem’s unity and Israel’s sovereignty in it, will be rejected immediately.” -- MK Ofir Akunis

•“It’s a noise of construction, not of destruction, thank God. And it will always be like this. Development in Jerusalem, it’s a good thing. Not to the studio but for other things.” -- Benny Elon

•“The Jewish people are in Jerusalem, not as settlers or invaders, but as of right. These rights are clearly spelt out in International Law and should be respected by the international community.” -- Jacques Gauthier

•“A non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem.” -- Hillel Fendel

•“You ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem; it was they who made it famous.” -- Winston Churchill

•“Jerusalem was the focal point for the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.” -- Dore Gold

Jerusalem belongs to Israel.  This is historical and legal fact.  See here.

Anyone who says otherwise is opposing God's Holy Word.

From the moment of conception, a person is entitled to protection under the law

CBN reports:


"A Harvard Law journal says one of the most important parts of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the rights of unborn babies.

Adopted in 1868, in the wake of the Civil War, that amendment sought to protect the rights of newly freed slaves.

It declares that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

According to an article in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, law student Joshua Craddock argues that a person becomes a human being at the point of conception, and from that moment forward is entitled to protection under the law.

The journal is a conservative and libertarian review and one of more than a dozen publications edited by Harvard Law students.

Craddock writes, "The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term 'person,' in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, applied to all members of the human species."

Based upon the premise that the lives of the unborn are constitutionally protected, Craddock further argues that states that allow abortion are breaking the law.

"Congress or the courts must intervene," he writes, explaining that abortion must not be condoned by the courts.

He argues that legal abortion deprives a particular category of people, in this case the unborn, the equal protection of the law. In other words, it's unlawful not to prosecute people who murder the unborn while at the same time prosecuting those who murder other types of people.

Craddock asserts that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to include the protection of the unborn. "A general consensus treated preborn human beings as 'persons,'" he says. "The preborn were included within the public meaning of the term 'person' at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted."

Furthermore, at that time, most states outlawed abortion in laws covering "offenses against the person" according to The Stream.  Most states referred to an unborn child as a "child" in their laws.

Finally, Craddock points out that in 1859, the American Medical Association demanded the government protect the "independent and actual existence of the child before birth." Eight years later, the Medical Society of New York called abortion at any stage of the child's life "murder."

As Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke explain in their book "Why can't we love them both: questions and answers about abortion," "Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual's life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father's sperm and his mother's ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization," or "fecundation." This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing."

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II said that: "Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act". Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" (No. 60).

Don't expect the liberal mainstream media, which has succumbed to a radical anti-life Culture of Death, to cover this story.  They prefer the lie to the truth.

But examine these photos of murdered babies and turn away from the liberal media.

I recommend One America News.  See here.

A resignation made out of grave fear.. is invalid by the law itself

An interesting question is posed at non veni pacem today.  See here.

Canon 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law States clearly that:

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Canon 188 States that:

"A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself."

At his inauguration, Pope Benedict XVI said, "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves."

Obviously the Holy Father said this for a reason.  If he was motivated by such fear to resign, the resignation would be invalid by the law itself.

"..girls can be married at age nine...it's Sharia law..."

Writing for The Daily Caller, Jonah Bennett notes that, "A bid to ban child marriage in Pakistan utterly failed, after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the legislation 'anti-Islamic' and 'blasphemous.'

The bill didn’t even move past the first stage in the legislative process, The Express Tribune reports. It was almost immediately pulled Thursday by Pakistan Muslim League party’s Marvi Menon following condemnation from CII, whose job it is to advise the legislature on whether bills are compliant with Sharia law. In this case, the bill clearly violated Islamic law as tradition holds marriage as acceptable when a girl hits puberty...

CII Chairman Mohammad Khan Sheerani reiterated in 2014 that girls can be married at age nine, so long as puberty is apparent, adding that attempts to revisit the issue are pointless and unnecessary."

But hey, all his well folks.  After deciding to rescind Robert Spencer's invitation to speak at the "Catholic" Men's Conference here in the Diocese of Worcester a couple of years ago, Bishop Robert McManus said that, "...the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men's Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern I came to share.  That concern was that Mr. Spencer's talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inner-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam...I based my decision solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims." (Bishop shares concerns about conference speaker, Catholic Free Press, February 8, 2013 edition).

Yes Bishop McManus, Islam makes provision for child marriage.  And the Qu'ran for killing "infidels" - non-believers.

Ignore Cardinal Donald Wuerl

As noted here:

WASHINGTON — The District’s top Catholic leader has weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

“The law of the land is the law of the land,” says Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl. “We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn’t mean we change the word of God. That doesn’t mean we change the scriptures, or the church’s millennia-long tradition of what marriage is.”

Sodomy is the law of the land?  Sure it is, and I play spin the bottle with Carmen Electra every Friday evening.

And now....sanity.

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear from the teaching of Pope John XXIII, "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".

This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Cardinal Wuerl has obviously succumbed to the diabolical disorientation of our time.

Ignore him.

"Public and private atheism is exalted in such a way that God and His law are being abolished..."

"This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

In his Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, No. 38, Pope John Paul II says, "The analysis of sin in its original dimension indicates that, through the influence of the 'father of lies,'* throughout the history of humanity there will be a constant pressure on man to reject God, even to the point of hating him: 'Love of self to the point of contempt for God,' as Saint Augustine puts it. Man will be inclined to see in God primarily a limitation of himself, and not the source of his own freedom and the fullness of good. We see this confirmed in the modern age, when the atheistic ideologies seek to root out religion on the grounds that religion causes the radical 'alienation' of man, as if man were dispossessed of his own humanity when, accepting the idea of God, he attributes to God what belongs to man, and exclusively to man! Hence a process of thought and historico-sociological practice in which the rejection of God has reached the point of declaring his 'death.' An absurdity, both in concept and expression! But the ideology of the 'death of God' is more a threat to man, as the Second Vatican Council indicates when it analyzes the question of the 'independence of earthly affairs' and writes: 'For without the Creator the creature would disappear...when God is forgotten the creature itself grows unintelligible.' The ideology of the 'death of God' easily demonstrates in its effects that on the 'theoretical and practical' levels it is the ideology of the 'death of man.'" (Citing Gaudium et Spes, No. 36). 

"That which seems to Us not only the greatest evil but the root of all evil is this: often the lie is substituted for the truth, and is then used as an instrument of dispute. On the part of not a few religion is passed by as a thing of no importance, and elsewhere absolutely prohibited in family and social life as a remnant of ancient superstitions; public and private atheism is exalted in such a way that God and His law are being abolished, and morals no longer have any foundation. The Press also too often vulgarly reviles religious feeling, while it does not hesitate to spread the most shameful obscenities, agitating and with incalculable harm leading into vice tender childhood and betrayed youth.

By means of false promises a people is deceived and provoked to hatred, rivalry and rebellion, especially when the hereditary faith, the only relief in this earthly exile, is successfully torn from its heart. Disturbances, riots and revolts are organized and fomented in continuing series, which prepare for the ruin of the economy and cause irreparable harm to the common good.

We must above all deplore with overwhelming sadness that in not a few nations the rights of God, Church and human nature itself are outraged and trampled upon" (Pope Pius XII, Anni Sacri, Nos. 3-5).

* John 8:44

The United States Department of Justice: Catering to mob rule?

The Department of "Justice" is considering civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.  See here.  Meanwhile, the Black Panthers have put out a contract on Mr. Zimmerman (see here) and the same DOJ apparently couldn't care less.

Justice is being obscured by race ideology and the politics of hate.  It's no surprise that the moral breakdown of America is coinciding with the homosexual juggernaut.  As Father Vincent Miceli explains in his work The Antichrist, "Dr. Abram Kardiner, distinguished physician, psychoanalyst, and anthropologist, states that homosexuality reaches pestilential and plague proportions in morally rotting societies during the final stages of total collapse. The cult of softness is perhaps the most pronounced public phenomenon among nations today. It is certainly responsible for the rotting of the moral fibre of Western Civilization not only in sex but also, in the erosion of Christian truth, in education, in art and in letters, in the repudiation of personal responsibility and in the increasing tendency to side with the forces of crime against the forces of law and order." (The Antichrist, p. 237).



As I have said before, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological. Sin must be justified so that a new religion can turn vices into gods.

What is this but a form of insanity? In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).


Some years ago, Fr. Vincent Miceli warned that: "The West has divinized Security and Technocracy; the East, Science and Revolution. But in both camps atheistic humanism has become the State religion. And both of these systems of secular humanism eclipse the person, eliminate his freedom, deny his human-divine value and subject him to the tyranny of technological impersonalism. The alarming signs of the times testify to a fierce spirit of evil advancing everywhere. It is the spirit of rebellion against God and man. Hitherto the powers of government in each country, as yet relying on God and reason, were firm and vigorous enough to restrain this rebellion. But today many agnostic countries can barely contain that lawless spirit, while many others have actually legalized the principle of lawlessness itself, the principle of license masquerading as liberty.

We are reminded of St. Paul's warning to the Thessalonians. In the last days there will be an aweful, unparalleled outbreak of evil everywhere. This will be called the Great Apostasy. In the midst of this general falling away a certain Man of Sin, having the image of Satan and breathing hatred toward God and man, will appear. He will exercise frightening preternatural powers of destruction against the just. This Child of Perdition will be so special and singular an enemy of Christ that he will be called Antichrist. For just as types of Christ went before Jesus, heralding his coming, so shadows of Antichrist have already preceded him....

But compared to the final Antichrist all forerunners of him were so many mini-Antichrists. This Arch-Antichrist will orchestrate revolutions so expertly that the very framework of society will shatter into pieces under his wicked hand. In a stunningly evil way, he will knit together his totalitarian rule of heresy, sedition, revolution, schism, war - indeed of every evil movement - and hurl them effectively against the Church. Preceded by apostasy, conceived in apostasy, gestated in apostasy, born in apostasy, the Man of Sin will come to power through a General Apostasy. In other words, Antichrist could never have existed except for the decision of the majority of persons in East and West to apostatize from God and to join the forces of atheism.." (Essay entitled "Detente All Around: Prelude to Antichrist?").

Evil is indeed spreading everywhere. Men have grown weary of being men and are beginning to deny Christ more and more. Even in the Church, many are coming to accept homosexuality and abortion as good. Such persons, such enemies of Christ, may still use Christian jargon as they go through the motions of Christian worship, but at base they have opted for evil and radiate the spirit of Antichrist. More than a century ago, Cardinal John Henry Newman predicted the Desolate City which we find ourselves in today: "Surely there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it..."

Our own time is a fulfillment of the prophecy issued by St. Louis de Montfort in his Prayer for Missionaries: "Tempus faciendi, Domine, dissipaverunt legem tuam: it is time to act, O Lord, they have rejected your law. It is indeed time to fulfill your promise. Your divine commandments are broken, your Gospel is thrown aside, torrents of iniquity flood the whole earth carrying away even your servants. The whole land is desolate, ungodliness reigns supreme, your sanctuary is desecrated and the abomination of desolation has even contaminated the holy place.." (PM, 5)
America is in profound crisis.  And that doesn't bode well for the rest of the world.

Will we be ruled by God's Commandments and law and order or by mob rule and the spirit of licentiousness?

The New York Times gets it wrong again

Miguel Woites, a confidant of Pope Francis while he served as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, is denying that the Holy Father ever endorsed homosexual civil unions as an alternative to same-sex "marriage."  Such was the claim of The New York Times.  See here.

Even those who produce The New York Times should know better than that.  But then the newspaper hasn't exactly been a bastion of journalistic integrity.  Pope Francis would never have endorsed "gay" civil unions.  For the acceptance of such unions would essentially redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If such unions are endorsed, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).


The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," had this to say: "The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8).

his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, Pope Leo XIII explained that: "It is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he please, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the state; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law . . . the binding force of the human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law . . . where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man we become disobedient to God."

Human laws are "incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law." This is crystal clear Catholic teaching. There is no room for doubt. All other "laws" are unjust and are, therefore, not laws at all. And Catholics are not bound to obey them. In fact, Catholics have a duty to resist them. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Any law supportive of same-sex 'marriage' is no law at all. This because any law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law. No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good. Laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5)."

Many homosexuals are now play-acting at getting married, much as a young boy might play at being a priest. We don't say that the child's play at being a priest really makes him a priest. Likewise, homosexuals might play at being married, but this doesn't make it so. We are sane when our minds conform to reality. I might tell people that I am Napoleon. But my saying so doesn't make me Napoleon. And if I really believe that I am Napoleon, I am not sane.

Men might actually believe that they have the right to change the definition of marriage, but this is merely symptomatic of an illusion which is rooted in pride. As such, it represents a form of insanity. Men are not free to change God's eternal law to suit their own pleasures. Recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his famous Encyclical "On Christian Marriage":"First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen 1:27; 2:22f.; Mt 19:3ff.; Eph 5:23ff.); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1603-1605, explain marriage in the order of creation: "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."

God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Again, we may choose to reject these truths. But in so doing, we lose our grip on sanity as it were. In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him [such as marriage, my note] is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

A pile of Manuse: Republican Representative Andrew Manuse accuses Bishop John McCormack of breaking the law

Vatican II teaches clearly that Catholics have certain responsibilities with regard to political matters: "In loyalty to their country and in faithful fulfillment of their civic obligations, Catholics should feel themselves obliged to promote the true common good.  Thus, they should make the weight of their opinion felt, in order that civil authority may act with justice, and legislation may conform to moral precepts and the common good" (AA 14; cf. LG 36, GS 43, 75).

This teaching applies to Bishops as well of course.  As Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted explains, "Bishops and priests are not to participate in the public administration of the government. Nonetheless, they do have the right, and sometimes an obligation, to speak out on political, social, or cultural matters impacting the Church or the common good.  In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (28), Pope Benedict XVI states: 'It is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.' The Holy Father goes on to write (ibid): 'The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to awaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.'"  (See here).

The First Amendment to the Constitution says absolutely nothing about keeping religion out of government.  As Archbishop Charles Chaput has said, "Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic."  See here.

But there are some who insist that religious expression should be private, marginal and ultimately irrelevant.  For such people, religion is okay "in its place" but should be sanitized from the public square.  One such individual is Republican State Representative and Tea Party leader Andrew Manuse.  This intellectual giant, angry because Bishop John McCormack spoke at a Statehouse rally last week criticizing a state budget proposal, has said that, "There is already a federal provision that prohibits a church leader from engaging in the political process if the church has a tax-exempt status. What Bishop McCormack did was in effect breaking that law. If he wants to engage in the process, he can step down as Bishop or have his church pay taxes.." (See here).

If this is the best the GOP has to offer New Hampshire, small wonder that the party has been floundering as of late.  What is it exactly that drives such animus against religious belief and Catholicism in particular?  See here.

A message from Karen Testerman: "Let's preserve marriage"!

I received an email from my friend Karen Testerman this morning.  Karen is asking us to make our voice heard and to let the HJC know that we support the repeal.  She writes:


This, Thursday, February 17th, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing two bills to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Both HB437 and HB443 will have the public hearing in Representative Hall inside the State House at 10 AM.


The Judiciary Committee members have been receiving communication against the repeal. They need to hear from you. There is also talk to "retain the bill." This is your chance to repeal Same Sex Marriage this year. Make your voice heard.

Please attend and testify. Let the Committee know that NH wants the 2009 Same Sex Marriage law repealed this year. If you cannot attend the hearing, please email the committee letting them know of your support of the repeal. Please email them with your name and town at: HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us.

This is your chance to support marriage between a man and a woman through your attendance and testimony. Let's work together. Let's Preserve Marriage!

Come on New Hampshire...this is a unique opportunity to serve the common good of society!  New Hampshire has been on the wrong road.  Let's change direction before its too late.

California legislators propose homosexual indoctrination of children

California lawmakers are proposing a law that would require schools to portray homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles [pedophilia?] as positive role models to children in all public schools.  The Campaign for Children and Families warns that under this proposed legislation, "children as young as kindergarten will be taught to admire homosexuality, same-sex 'marriages,' bisexuality, and transsexuality."

The Pontifical Council for the Family, in its document entitled The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, cites Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio: "'The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others', except in the case, as mentioned at the beginning, of physical or psychological impossibility." (No. 41).

This important document then explains that, "This doctrine is based on the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and is also proclaimed by the Charter of the Rights of the Family: 'Since they have conferred life on their children, parents have the original, primary and inalienable right to educate them; hence they ...have the right to educate their children in conformity with their moral and religious convictions, taking into account the cultural traditions of the family which favour the good and the dignity of the child; they should also receive from society the necessary aid and assistance to perform their educational role properly'. The Pope insists upon the fact that this holds especially with regard to sexuality: 'Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents'. The Holy Father adds, 'In view of the close links between the sexual dimension of the person and his or her ethical values, education must bring the children to a knowledge of and respect for the moral norms as the necessary and highly valuable guarantee for responsible personal growth in human sexuality'. No one is capable of giving moral education in this delicate area better than duly prepared parents." (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Nos 42, 43).

As I said in a previous post, the new humanitarian religion of Antichrist will embrace homosexuality and any other form of deviancy.  Pleasure will be the ultimate principle.  And children must be indoctrinated in the ways of Hell so that they may take their place in the New Satanic Society, the Moloch State where the only thing which will be forbidden is orthodox Christianity.  Under this new satanic religion, all will be encouraged to create their own reality according to what feels right to them.  This spirit is already infecting certain corners of the Church.  See here for example.

This New Age relativism is promoted by the Worcester Commission for Women [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts]. In a Blog post which may be found here, the Commission has published a prayer by New Age advocate Joyce Rupp. Ms. Rupp writes, "We will make choices and decisions in 2010 of how we create our reality." She prays that we will all "..let go of aversion and avoidance of the unwanted" so that we will, "welcome people and events disturbing [our] comfort zone."


Sister Joyce Rupp, a self-proclaimed spiritual midwife who feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism, has extolled New-Ageism as valuable and claims to have stretched herself "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality" while attending a "gathering of lesbians." And this certainly explains what she means when she prays that we "let go of aversion and avoidance of the unwanted." In an interview with US Catholic (April 2000), Sister Joyce Rupp said that, "In many ways, New Age has become the new enemy. That's unfortunate because some things about New Age are valuable...I think some Church people are envious about New Age, because it does draw people toward spiritual growth."

There you have it.  A new credo for a New Age.  Create your own reality.  And if that reality entails engaging in homosexual acts then so be it.  Do what feels good for you.  This is what the sons of hell want to impart to your children.  It is an education for Hell. 

Perez Hilton on Rick Santorum...

I don't know why a Washington think-tank hasn't snatched up celebrity gossip suckhound Perez Hilton.  The man is obviously a wordsmith as well as an intellectual.  Responding to Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who questioned President Obama's pro-abortion stance saying, "The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer, is that human life a person under the Constitution?..And Barack Obama says no.  Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people," Mr. Hilton writes, "Dear Rick Santorum...This sucks.  Wow.  Just wow.  What makes him think that anything about what he says is okay?"  See here.

Obviously Senator Santorum has hit a nerve in the liberal anti-life community, a community which claims to be interested in civil rights while denying the civil rights of the unborn.  It was Lisa Graas, a former lobbyist for Kentucky Right to Life, who framed this issue so eloquently:

"...it’s clear that had the Dred Scott decision been allowed to stand, our world would be a far different place right now and there would be no black candidate serving in elected office anywhere in this nation, let alone running for president. Indeed, Senator Barack Obama, who claims it was the Civil Rights movement of the sixties that is responsible for his being conceived, may never have been born. How ironic, then, that Mr. Obama is such a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that did the same thing to children in the womb that Dred Scott did to people of African descent – stripped them of 'personhood' status under the law."

As Dr. Germain Grisez has said, "Abortion and its legalization are great evils.  They differ in some ways from the mass murders carried out under Stalin, Hitler, and others, but also in some ways are comparable to those crimes and in other ways even worse; because of the greater numbers being killed, their total innocence and defenselessness, the essential role played by those primarily responsible for nurturing the victims, the widespread support of this slaughter by both rulers and people in so-called liberal democratic nations, and the complicity in the killings of so many religious leaders, educators, people trained in law, health care professionals, people in the mass media, and so on..Everyone who recognizes the evils of abortion and its legalization should do something to oppose them."

Yes indeed.  Mr. Hilton has a firm grasp of this issue.  And I date supermodels on the weekend.


Related reading: Stubborness and stupidity.

Father Anthony Di Russo gets it right

In a letter to the Editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise entitled Religious tolerance is a two-way street which was published yesterday, Father Anthony Di Russo wrote: "I found the Sept. 20 article on Ahmadiyya Muslims very interesting. We can sympathize with them and they with us because in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim-majority countries they would have no freedom of religion and would actually be at risk of losing their lives since they would be considered heretics.

In his recent trip to England, Pope Benedict said the Catholic Church is open to dialogue with other religions. But he also said there must be reciprocity. Reciprocity from the Muslim side is practically nonexistent. Where is there a church in Saudi Arabia? We cannot even go into that country with a Bible. In fact, the U.S. military recently burned Bibles in Afghanistan to avoid the appearance of trying to convert the Afghans.

Islam has a huge problem because the true believers think they must subject the rest of us to Sharia. They think later verses in the Quran supercede earlier verses. Unfortunately, the later verses are the violent ones and the peaceful, earlier verses are superceded. So the Jihadists actually have the Quran to back up their position.

The Sunoco station on Main Street in Leominster has been displaying a sign saying: Tolerance without reciprocity is appeasement. It is about time we demand reciprocity from Islam."

I've been saying this right along. 

The repudiation of the sovereignty of God and the denial of the primacy of the spiritual...

"..right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all." [ Cicero, Laws I x 28-30]


Lifesite News is reporting that Planned Parenthood once acknowledged (in an October 1952 pamphlet), that abortion "...kills the life of a baby after it has begun" and that "it is dangerous" to a woman's "life and health." But Mayor Lisa Wong and certain members of the Fitchburg City Council appear determined to welcome Planned Parenthood and its anti-life agenda into the city.
It was the first Bishop of Worcester, John J. Wright, in an address to the Worcester Ministers' Association given on January 15, 1952, who said, "The undermining of God's standard in community affairs has been further hastened by the denial or neglect of the primacy of the spiritual, with a consequent debasing of human personality and degradation of human society. Ours is a technical civilization, a know-how rather than a know-why civilization, and therefore one in which material and mechanical values tend to dominate thought and action. Excessive emphasis on know-how and impatience with know-why have produced the cult of the body, the predominance of the material, the worship of the gadget, an indifference to the spiritual and a repudiation of the moral...In the practical order, from the repudiation of the sovereignty of God and the denial of the primacy of the spiritual, comes the refusal, born, as it were, out of the blend of the two, to acknowledge the necessary relation which must exist between all human positive law worthy of the name and the moral law that God has writ in nature, that He causes to echo in the healthy conscience and that He has clarified through Revelation....

Before the appeal to conscience can recover its ancient power to change men, to renew the very face of the earth, there must be universal all-out witness to the sovereignty of God, the spiritual responsibility of man and the all-inclusive application of His law....Against the idea of God's Law there are a host of rival norms of conduct which plague our generation. Expressions such as my life is my own affair or I may do as I please or who cares? or in politics, anything goes or all's fair in love and war - all betray a gross misunderstanding of the moral order of those interlinking relations among men and nations of which God's standard is the only correct measure. All human rights and duties have their source in God's law*; otherwise they are meaningless.."

* Exodus 20:13

Fitchburg betrays the common good

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

"Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

JayG is reporting that "The City Solicitor and majority of the City Council were very hostile towards pro-lifers." Is this a matter for the Alliance Defense Fund? or Jay Sekulow and The American Center for Law and Justice?

On the spiritual plane, I wrote the following letter to Father Thien Nguyen and received absolutely no response whatsoever:


February 6, 2010


Rev. Thien X. Nguyen
Immaculate Conception
59 Walnut Street
Fitchburg, Ma 01420


Re: Proposed Planned Parenthood Office In Fitchburg


Dear Fr. Thien,


The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to whether or not you would be interested in leading a prayer-procession across Fitchburg to both the proposed site for a Planned Parenthood Office as well as City Hall. It is my idea that all three mysteries of the Holy Rosary could be prayed and holy water and blessed salt could be used to cast away this evil which threatens the fair city of Fitchburg.

I believe now is the time for robust spiritual action. We Christians need to pray and fast as never before since some demons are cast out only by this means (Mark 9:29). The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, No. 2, states that the Vatican Council “…gazes upon that world which is the theater of man’s history, and carries the marks of his energies, his tragedies, and his triumphs; that world which the Christian sees as created and sustained by its Maker’s love, fallen indeed into the bondage of sin, yet emancipated now by Christ. He was crucified and rose again to break the stranglehold of personified Evil, so that this world might be fashioned anew according to God’s design and reach its fulfillment.”

Planned Parenthood’s arrival in Fitchburg would constitute yet another stranglehold of evil. But our hope is in the Crucified One who shatters such strongholds and liberates us. Now is the time for us to invoke His Holy Name and to pray for deliverance. Sacred Scripture (e.g., Daniel 10) testifies to the truth that evil can infect not only people but cities, countries and entire regions. Fitchburg has been infected by evil. And while pro-life demonstrations and letters to the editor of the local newspaper can be very useful, still, as Jesus taught so clearly, some demons are only driven out through prayer and fasting.

I believe our Catholic community can, and will, triumph over this evil through such means. Fr. Thien, will you lead such a procession and deliverance prayer? Perhaps other area Churches could participate? Please let me know if you are willing and I will do everything I can to coordinate such an endeavor.

I am, Yours in Christ,


Paul Anthony Melanson

And so, the spiritual battle continues.

Related reading here, here and here. Also here and here.

A question arises in my mind: The federal government plans to spend 55.5 million to extend the Fitchburg commuter rail line and build a new station. See here. Is it possible that the Obama administration has used these stimulus monies to influence the City Council in its decision regarding the proposed Planned Parenthood office? Lifenews has reported that Obama has given the Planned Parenthood abortion business unfettered access to the White House. See here. This would certainly explain (if it were true) the City Council's perceived hostility toward pro-lifers. It might also explain other inconsistencies in this whole sordid affair.