Opinion: Alfie Evans and the UK National Health Service

For the second time in as many years, we have seen Great Britain embrace one of the ideologies of Nazi Germany. That is, they now believe, as the Nazi's believed, that the execution of some members of the weakest and most vulnerable in society, is what is best for the overall welfare of the state.

The individual, and his or her life is expendable, and they must be eliminated to prevent a drain on the resources of the British National Health Service. The same excuse was used for programs the Nazi's implemented to eliminate the mentally and physically handicapped.

The only difference is, that the Nazi's hid their murders of the helpless, while their counterparts in Britain carry out their heinous crimes in the open for all the world to see.

In both cases, the cold blooded murder of the innocent is neither acceptable nor civilized.

It wasn't acceptable for Nazi Germany of the 1940's, and it is most definitely not acceptable for the United Kingdom of the 21st century.

Charlie Gard deserved better, and so does Alfie Evans.

When I Say No, I Mean 'No'

I recently made a post which you may read here, in which I explained why I would no longer be utilizing GoFundMe in an attempt to raise funds for my cataract surgery.

Now it seems that GoFundMe has deleted yet another campaign. This time for a Christian florist, Arlene’s Flowers, a Washington state flower shop that also faces a fine for refusing to provide flower arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding.

GoFundMe has also changed their terms of service (according to an article on TheWashington Post online) to now exclude “campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts”.

As GoFundMe has decided to exclude those Christians who have been persecuted by the elements that GoFundMe apparently fears, I have decided that I will not personally contribute to any fund raising efforts made by any group or individual that chooses to utilize GoFundMe.

If GoFundMe can exclude persecuted Christians, than this Christian will exclude GoFundMe as well.

Why Don't People Get It?

Last week, one of my Facebook friends shared a post from author Richard Paul Evans.

Now I will be frank, and admit that I am not familiar with Mr. Evans work. When I am not at work, I suppose I spend far too much time on my computer, taking care of the blogs, researching for posts, reading the news, etc. I seldom read a book anymore, and I am out of touch with who writes what lately.

The thing I am talking about here though, is not about Mr. Evans writing, but a post he made and asked to be shared regarding a letter he received from an "anonymous" person from a church where he had in his own words: "I came to your church to tell you about God’s love for His children. And to talk about the beauty of His forgiveness. I don’t think you heard me. Or, at least, believed me. You wrote in your letter that I had no place in a house of God, as I was clearly a sinful man and that my sins were “manifested across my face”, revealed by my many facial tics."

Now, I am not going to reproduce his entire response on this post, but you can go read it here.

It makes me wonder, how the person who wrote him, deems themselves to be so qualified as to judge the heart of a person. How do they deem someone...anyone... to be sinful as being indicated by their "many facial tics"?

Did I miss out on something? Did Jesus Himself....any of the apostles...any of the many saints...any of the great Church writers... teach that we could always spot a sinner by his or her "many facial tics"? If having facial tics is proof that someone is a sinner, then who among us would not be constantly plagued with tics?

The "anonymous" letter writer apparently failed to read two very, very important passages from scripture. The first being about judging as found in Matthew 7: 1-2 and the other from 1 John 1: 8-10 where the Evangelist warns us about saying we have no sin. It might also benefit anonymous to read 1 John 2: 9-11 as well.

The thing that also got me was the assertion from "anonymous" that Mr. Evans "had no place in a house of God" because Mr. Evans, in the view of "anonymous", "was clearly a sinful man".

How can anyone not know...not realize... that the House of God is a place for sinners, and full of sinners. Jesus said to the Pharisees who caught the woman accused of adultery, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I can't cast a stone. Can you? Can "anonymous"? Has "anonymous" ever read Romans 3:23?

We have all sinned. We have all fallen short of the Glory of God. The house of God is meant for sinners. It is full of sinners. If the house of God excluded sinners, who would be in it? Who could be in it? Not me, or you who are reading this. The house of God is meant for the sinners to come before God and to seek His forgiveness, and His Redemption through Jesus Christ. If a House of God excluded sinners, then there would not be any salvation for anyone. Indeed, a House of God would not even exist!

What "anonymous" also fails to see, is that Mr. Evans is bearing his cross in Christ. He has been given a cross to bear, and he bears it with conviction and courage. Many have crosses to bear...whether they be facial tics...mental illness...physical illness...spiritual weakness...all have crosses to bear and in different degrees. None of us are told that we will never have to suffer.

Our Lord suffered for us, so why should we think that since He suffered for all of our transgressions, we should never have to suffer at all? Saint Augustine of Hippo reminds us "God had only one Son without sin, but never one without suffering".

Saint Ignatius of Loyola also tells us "If God causes you to suffer much, it is a sign that He has great designs for you, and that He certainly intends to make you a saint. And if you wish to become a great saint, entreat Him yourself to give you much opportunity for suffering; for there is no wood better to kindle the fire of holy love than the wood of the cross, which Christ used for His own great sacrifice of boundless charity."

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga also said "There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials."

So "anonymous" willingly allowed themselves to miss seeing a man willingly bearing his cross, in unity with Christ bearing His cross. This person failed to do, what we should all do, and that is to see Christ in each and every person we meet.

For Christ is in all who believe and trust in Him, and follows His commandments.

To not see Christ in others...to only see Him in ourselves...is to deny Christ and His salvific power.

In the end, the letter from “anonymous” to Mr. Evans, says more about the serious spiritual work “anonymous” needs to learn about and practice than it does about anything else.

Obama Must Increase Egyptian Pressure to Protect Christians, USCIRF Declares

The following excerpts are from AINA.org:

• President Barack Obama must increase pressure on the Egyptian interim government to protect Christians who have been violently targeted in the past couple of months, urges a letter sent by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) on Monday.
• "I respectfully urge you to speak out clearly and forcefully about the unprecedented sectarian attacks committed against Christians in Egypt that proliferated at a frenetic pace on August 14 and the immediate days thereafter," wrote USCIRF Chairman Robert P. George.
• "It also is vitally important that the Egyptian interim government understands from you that it must promptly and thoroughly investigate violent incidents, prosecute perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law, and provide greater protections for Christians and their places of worship."
• While Obama has repeatedly spoken out against the violence in Egypt following the ousting of former President Mohamed Morsi, Coptic Christians have found themselves targeted by Islamic mobs blaming them for taking part in the protests that led to the government change. Muslim Brotherhood-backed attacks on Christians resulted in fatalities, as well as burnt down churches, monasteries, Christian schools and book stores.
• Both the Islamic protesters and the interim government have been blamed for using excessive force, which has led to thousands of Egyptians losing their lives, leading to a state of emergency in the African country.
• "We were deeply troubled that leaders and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood tolerated or even encouraged incitement against Christians, and that the interim authorities stood by or were slow to react when attacks occurred," George continues.
• "The extent and scope of attacks since August 14 have resulted in the sectarian-related killings of at least seven Copts and attacks on more than 130 churches and Christian religious structures, homes, and businesses."
• The letter to Obama adds that Morsi's leadership, which began in June 2012, had been marked by sectarian rhetoric targeting religious minorities, including Copts and other Christians, Shi'a, Sufis, and Baha'is. It also says that although Muslim Brotherhood leaders have called for peace in official statements, their supporters who have turned to violence have been tolerated and even encouraged at times.

Read more by clicking below:
Obama Must Increase Egyptian Pressure to Protect Christians, USCIRF Declares

Today's Christianity

NOTE: The post below originally appeared on our "Spiritual Warfare" blog (now archived) in 2006. I thought it worth posting here for those who may not have ever read it.

Pick and Choose Theology

There is a trend in today’s Christianity that is ever growing, and is an alarming trend that threatens the very foundations and tenets of our faith. That trend is not limited to any one geographical or denominational identifier, but, is widespread among all nations, all peoples, and all systems of Christian belief. Thousands and thousands of people who would identify themselves as Christian have willingly been led into "pick and choose" theology. Most of these pick and choosers tend to identify themselves as “progressive Christians”.

What was that? You’re asking me what is a "progressive Christian"? You sure you want the answer? Especially coming from me, one who is an unabashed conservative. You really want my answer? OK, then…you asked for it…too late to cry now, so here it is: A “progressive Christian” is a person or group of people who though they claim to be nominally Christian, do not have the faith, courage, integrity or intestinal fortitude to stand up for God and His truth, but, have the unwavering, unflinching, unmitigated gall to stand up for anything and everything that opposes God, opposes His Church, opposes the teachings of His prophets and His Apostles. They are the ones who will call sin good, and call that which is good evil.

We see these people making their outlandish and ungodly stands on television, radio, the internet, and in the print media as well. If there is a camera, a microphone or pen and paper to be had, they will do all that they can to try to destroy all that God has wrought. You will see them use terms like “social justice” where they accuse the conservatives of ignoring the poor and vulnerable while focusing on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

I tend to think they want we conservatives to ignore abortion and same sex marriage issues, because deep down they know that theologically the “progressives” don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to those two issues. The “progressives” would like for us all to think…no, to believe that because man changes, God changes, too. I think they actually believe that God should reform to suit what they think and what they believe, and that God and His law are merely words written in a book that can be taken or discarded at will.

They really don’t understand scripture or the teachings of the Apostles and the Church, and they tend to prove so each and every time they open their mouths. For instance, when conservatives oppose the gay lifestyle that is so often promoted by these “progressives”, the progressives will tell us, and in quite a smug manner, too, that “if Jesus was walking on earth today, He would be spending His time with the gays and lesbians” and so forth. I have to agree. He more than likely would. What they fail to comprehend with what they have said, is that they themselves have just made an admission of the gay lifestyle being a sin, and that they...like all of us... are in need of His redemption. For when Jesus taught in Palestine, He was always with the sinners, and in Mark 2: 16 And the scribes and the Pharisees, seeing that he ate with publicans and sinners, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat and drink with publicans and sinners? 17 Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners. Further, they also should realize, that as His instructions to them would be as His instructions to the woman caught in adultery in John 8: 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? 11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

So, yes. I agree Jesus would be with them, and He would tell them, as He tells us all to “go and sin no more". His being with them would not be to approve their lifestyle, but, to reprove it.

What people do not want to realize, do not want to admit, is that no matter how much man changes, no matter how much the times may change, God does not change. God is not bound by time, He is beyond all time, and His ways and His thoughts are above our ways and our thoughts. God is not bound by what we may think is right or wrong, but, man is bound to honor and obey what God says is right and what He says is wrong, and there is nothing or no one who can change what God’s law is, and no matter what man may think it should be, God has told us all what His law is, and a feeble excuse on His Day of Judgment that “the times had changed” is not going to hold up. We know what His law is. It is up to each of us to do it. Calling oneself “progressive” is just an excuse to live as we please, and not as God pleases. After all, God’s way is tough. The progressive way is not, and is a way of denying that sin is indeed, sin.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.21 Woe to you that rue wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits. 22 Woe to you that are mighty to drink wine, and stout men at drunkenness. 23 That justify the wicked for gifts, and take away the justice of the just from him. 24 Therefore as the tongue of the fire devoureth the stubble, and the heat of the dame consumeth it: so shall their root be as ashes, and their bud shall go up as dust: for they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and have blasphemed the word of the Holy One of Israel.

2 Timothy 4: 1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

Copyright © 2006 - 2013 Gary Stephen Smith. All Rights Reserved.

Dear President Obama, please leave Africa out of your intolerant world of redefined marriage | LifeSiteNews.com

The following excerpts are from LifeSiteNews.com:

• I believe that every design, good or bad, starts in the heart of the designer; every building plan arises in the imagination of the architect and every sculpture is conceived in the creative thoughts of the sculptor. 
• It is becoming increasingly evident that a new design has been conceived in the imagination of the wealthiest class of social engineers and cultural architects in the Western world.  
• The most terrifying and disconcerting thing about this reality is that when all is said and done and the new design is unveiled for all to see, it will many times demand the deconstruction of what has always been.  
• It was with great shock that many people across the developing world received the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that reflected a tectonic shift in the perception and reception of marriage in America. This happened at the same time as the victory cries of LGBT rights advocates are resounding over France, UK, Australia and even parts of Latin America where the new world order is being established. In these parts of the world, the rulers and leaders are declaring, in an almost dictatorial manner, their unshakeable stance on the redefinition of marriage and reconfiguration of family structure through new legal mandates, new parliamentary moves and new executive manoeuvres.

Read more by clicking below:
Dear President Obama, please leave Africa out of your intolerant world of redefined marriage | LifeSiteNews.com

Obama: Banning late-term abortion shows ‘contempt’ for ‘the Constitution,’ assaults women’s rights | LifeSiteNews.com

The following excerpts are from LifeSiteNews.com:

• President Barack Obama has announced that, if Trent Franks' bill to restrict late-term abortion nationwide passes, he will veto it.
• In a Statement of Administration Policy, the president called the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (H.R. 1797) “an assault on a woman's right to choose” and said it shows “contempt for...the Constitution.”

[Since when has BHO given a rats hiney about the Constitution?]

Read more by clicking below:
Obama: Banning late-term abortion shows ‘contempt’ for ‘the Constitution,’ assaults women’s rights | LifeSiteNews.com

If Late-Term Abortions Are Sacred Ground to Pelosi, She's Like Kermit Gosnell | LifeNews.com

Nancy Pelosi

The following excerpts are from LifeNews.com:

• No matter how frustrating things are on Capitol Hill, we can all be grateful for one thing: Nancy Pelosi is no longer in charge.
• Regardless of the GOP’s flaws, the former Speaker reminded pro-lifers how much worse the leadership could be. During a press conference Thursday, the House Minority Leader picked a fight with the men on the Judiciary Committee for passing Rep. Trent Franks’s (R-Ariz.) bill onto the House floor.
• First, Pelosi accused them of sexism — “All the people who voted for the bill were men,” she insisted. (Only because there are no Republican women on the committee!) Then, she took aim at the legislation, Franks’s Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, for somehow “disrespecting” the “health and safety of American women.”

Read more by clicking below:
If Late-Term Abortions Are Sacred Ground to Pelosi, She's Like Kermit Gosnell | LifeNews.com

Just a thought from me:

Heaven and earth...all who are in them, and all they contain... are God's creation. To have hatred for one person, is to hate all of God's creation.

A Survey On News Media Polls

Please participate in our survey about news media polls. Thank you!
Click here to take survey

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world's leading questionnaire tool.

Just Say 'No' To Starbucks

So, now the CEO of Starbucks, has told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in another company. You can read about it here and get the full report from Forbes here.

The shareholder had complained to CEO Howard Schultz that the company had lost customers because of it's support for gay “marriage”. Last year, Starbucks announced it's support for the Washington State referendum backing gay “marriage”, and declared same sex “marriage” one of Starbucks' core values. As such, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) launched a boycott of Starbucks, and you can go sign their petition here at Dump Starbucks.

Depending on which poll you read, the claim is made that anywhere from 54% to 58% of Americans now support same sex “marriage”. According to another poll that I read today, 56% of Catholics now support same sex “marriage”.

Well, this is one Catholic who does not support same sex “marriage”, and who still believes that God's Law and the teachings of the Church are still just as relative and applicable to today as they have always been. No matter how many laws or referendums are held that declare same sex “marriage” as valid, it will never, ever be valid in God's truth and Church teaching.

Now that all being said, you can still get good coffee....excellent coffee...the best coffee in fact...by buying your coffee from Mystic Monk Coffee as blended and sold by the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming. That way, you can have the satisfaction of not supporting a company that endorses unnatural “marriage”, while knowing that steaming hot cup of Mystic Monk Coffee you are enjoying supports the good Carmelite Monks of Wyoming and their monastery.

While you are at the Mystic Monk Coffee website, be sure to check out their religious gifts, drink-ware, and equipment, too.

From The Dignitatis Humanae Institute: UK: "Creeping Towards Liberticide"

Note: The following is a press release from The Dignitatis Humanae Institute

Rome, 20 January 2013

Step by step, with each successive loss at whichever court of appeal, the freedom of Christians to act in accordance with their faith and their conscience is being steadily but systematically eradicated within the United Kingdom.  The latest demonstration of this destruction can be seen in the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in four separate cases of British Christians; each sanctioned differently by their employer in a way which would have been unacceptable had they been a follower of any other religion.

The cases of Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin concerned the freedom to wear a crucifix in the workplace. In one pyrrhic victory, the Court deemed that British Airways did indeed infringe Mrs Ewieda's rights.  Conversely and contradictory, Mrs Chaplin's choice to wear a crucifix at work was denied on health and safety grounds, despite evidence given that exceptions had been made for employees of other faiths, and no risk to safety could be proven.

Freedom of conscience was dealt two blows in the cases of Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane.  Mrs Ladele, a civil registrar for ten years, saw the conditions of her work change dramatically when homosexual civil partnerships were made legal in 2004. Islington Borough Council sought to make an example of her, and subsequently dismissed her from work.  Similarly, Mr McFarlane had gone to his superiors to express his doubt (not refusal) of his own ability to provide therapy for same-sex couples.  Rather than seeking to accommodate Mr McFarlane, his employers dismissed him for gross misconduct.

In both these cases, the practice of reasonable accommodation was entirely possible.  Accommodations within the workplace are commonplace for a wide-ranging variety of reasons and indeed other councils and employers have shown the broad-minded maturity to do so.  Despite this, the Court ruled that dismissal was a 'proportionate' measure for failing to adhere to what it called, ironically, equality and diversity policies.

In response to the court rulings, Founder of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, Benjamin Harnwell, spoke of the far-reaching consequences:

"The cases of Mrs Chaplin, Mrs Ladele and Mr McFarlane exacerbate what is already becoming common practice throughout Britain, an enforced curtailment of the liberty of Christians to act according to their own religious conscience in the workplace.  This slow creep towards 'liberticide' has risen to the point where people of specifically Christian faith are not merely treated with hostility but now met with instant dismissal.

"There is now a disturbing paradox being exercised in Britain; that in the name of plurality and tolerance, the previous custom of accommodation is being replaced with a legal requirement to adhere to a monopolistic secular conformity.  The precedents set here will surely open the doors to further attacks against the Christian conscience within the workplace, namely the freedom of pro-life medical practitioners to refuse to perform abortions.  We must now hope and pray that if these cases are taken to appeal before the Grand Chamber, those entrusted with the responsibility to defend religious freedom, enshrined by Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, will not make a further mockery of the human dignity that God has entrusted them to protect."    

The Dignitatis Humanae Institute aims to uphold human dignity based on the anthropological truth that man is born in the image and likeness of God and therefore has an innate human dignity of infinite worth to be upheld. The Institute promotes this understanding by supporting Christians in public life, assisting them to present effective and coherent responses to increasing efforts to silence the Christian voice in the public square.

Politics And Receiving Communion

Note: The following post was originally written and posted by me in 2005 on my blog "Church Under Attack". I have re-posted it here now, because I believe it to still be relative to 2012.

 

With the 2004 election, we began to hear more and more about communion and politicians who support abortion. Several bishops from around the country made headlines when they either refused, or stated that they would refuse communion to any politician who proclaims them self “pro-choice” while still nominally maintaining that they are Catholic. This became an almost weekly news event, especially when certain high profile Catholic politicians attended Mass, and reporters waited to see if that politician would be denied communion.

Lets make one point absolutely clear in the terminology in vogue in regard to abortion. When a politician, or any other ordinary citizen states that he or she is “pro-choice” or supports “reproductive rights”, they are proclaiming themselves PRO- ABORTION. No nice little clean terms like “pro-choice” or “reproductive rights” hides that fact nor changes it, and hopefully the American people are not blind to that fact. The pro-abortion faction is also adamant in insisting that a bishop or priest denying them communion crosses the line on the so called “separation of church and state”, which is another term thrown at random by anyone who opposes anything the Church teaches. Although those people are hard pressed to show where this is supposedly contained in the United States Constitution. They are hard pressed because it does not exist anywhere within the Constitution.

The hue and cry over this began when Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a letter to American Bishops entitled “"Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles". Stated in "General Principles," no Catholic should seek to receive Holy Communion if he or she is guilty of "a grave sin," and abortion is a grave sin. Further, he wrote that a priest "may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,”. (An interdict, which can only be imposed by a bishop, bars a Catholic from receiving any of the Sacraments, including Holy Communion.) Banning communion is not limited to those who perform abortion Cardinal Ratzinger also wrote that it included anyone "whose personal cooperation becomes manifest," including "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws. The pastor should meet him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of the sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Holy Eucharist."

In the end, any politician who campaigns or votes in a manner that is pro-abortion effectively excludes himself or herself from receiving Holy Communion. Further, any Catholic who votes for any pro-abortion politician based on the politicians pro-abortion stance, then that voter has also excluded him or her self from receiving Holy Communion as well. In both cases, the politician and the voter should partake in the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession) before going to receive the Holy Eucharist.

This does not cross the line in the so called “separation of Church and State” at all. As stated previously, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America, does the term “separation of Church and State” exist. Go read the Constitution yourself and find out. Don't take my word for it, alone. A well known Catholic politician once told a group of Baptist ministers that he would never allow the Catholic Church to influence any of his decisions for the United States. In essence, what that politician was saying was, that he would not allow God's One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to influence any of his decisions, and thereby making such a statement, he was also saying, that he would not allow God to influence any of his decisions as well. No one, in any walk of life, be they king, president, politician, bishop, priest, or citizen, can not leave out God, God's influence, or God's Church from their decisions, public or private. To leave out God is to invite destruction and ruin within their lives, with those whom they lead, and with those whom they love.

Let's look at Catholic Teaching on abortion from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”:

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being." (CDF, instruction, Donum vitae, intro. 5.)

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.(Gen 4:10) Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. (Cf. CDF, Donum vitae I, 1)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11)

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. (Ps 139:15)

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

(Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320)

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"(CIC, can. 1398) "by the very commission of the offense,"(CIC, can. 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. (Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324) The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death." (CDF, Donum vitae III)

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights." (CDF, Donum vitae III)

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

(CDF, Donum vitae I, 2)

Copyright © 2005-2012 Steve Smith. All rights reserved.

On The News : USCCB statements on other political topics are harming the campaign for religious freedom - Catholic Culture

The following excerpts are from Catholic Culture columnist Phil Lawler's article "USCCB statements on other political topics are harming the campaign for religious freedom". The emphases are mine:

• In March the US bishops’ conference (USCCB) announced that “we will not rest” until Congress ensures that religious freedom is protected in the federal health-care reform program. The USCCB followed up that clear and forceful message a few week later with a new, statement announcing a major offensive in defense of religious liberty. These powerful statements seemed to indicate clearly that religious freedom would be the focus—the focus—of the bishops’ political efforts this year.

• The USCCB issued a clarion call to the Catholic laity, asking for help with this campaign. Cardinal Dolan called out President Obama; Bishop Lori challenged Congress. The bishops signaled that they would not retreat. The battle lines were drawn. The troops were summoned.

• Unfortunately, since that time the bishops have lost their focus, and thus complicated things for the active Catholic laity. The USCCB has done what the USCCB always does: muddied the water, by issuing statements on a host of different political issues—including many of which good Catholics have differing opinions, and on which Catholic bishops have no special expertise.

Read more by clicking the link below:

On The News : USCCB statements on other political topics are harming the campaign for religious freedom - Catholic Culture

Republicans Nullifying Conservatives - Steve Deace - Townhall Conservative Columnists

The following excerpt is from TownHall.com columnist Steve Deace:

• “It seems the Oklahoma GOP leadership is trying to fill the Romney Republican mold, which is a lot of pro-life speech but no pro-life action,” Personhood USA’s Keith Mason said. “What’s happening in Oklahoma begs a question pro-lifers must ask themselves: if the Republican leadership won’t vote pro-life why should we vote for them?”

Click the link below for the entire article:

Republicans Nullifying Conservatives - Steve Deace - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Catholic Bishops of North Carolina: Vote FOR Marriage Part 3

Third in a series of videos by the Bishops of North Carolina explaining the position of the Catholic Church in support FOR the marriage amendment. Bishop Peter Jugis of the Diocese of Charlotte, NC explains additional Church Teaching about the institution of marriage. Both Bishop Jugis and Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Raleigh urge all North Carolina residents to vote FOR marriage on May 8, 2012.

It's About the First Amendment

Do you recall a 1997 movie called "Wag the Dog"? The Internet Movie Database describes it as:

"Before elections, a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer join efforts to "fabricate" a war in order to cover-up a presidential sex scandal."

According to UsingEnglish.com the expression "wag the dog" is an idiom (which is a fixed expression with a nonliteral meaning) defined as:

To 'wag the dog' means to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning proper attention to what was originally the more important issue.

Why am I bring this movie up? Because that is exactly what is happening right before our eyes with the HHS Mandate on contraception.

The Obama administration, with a complicit main stream media, complicit liberal talk shows, and with the frantic caterwauling of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Sandra Fluke, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of that crowd that shares an IQ, has deemed the attack on the First Amendment to actually be a "war against women" and their "right" to "free" contraception.

They are counting on the Obama base, and the pro-death crowd (you can call them pro-choice if you want to, I call them what they are) not paying attention to what is actually going on, which is a blatant attack on religious freedom and conscience. They are counting on them to be convinced of the fallacious idea that there is an underlying attack on women, and that they want women to suffer and to die.

That my friends, is just a truck load of bull hockey.

When President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the contraception mandate, they blatantly issued an "in your face" attack on the United States Constitution, and in particular, an attack on the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

With the issuance of the HHS Mandate, the Obama administration has once again thumbed it's nose at the United States Constitution, and is in fact prohibiting the free exercise of the religious beliefs and tenets of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church my friends, is not just a large, religious institution headquartered in Rome. The Catholic Church is me, you, your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, your co-workers, your local parish, a local high school, the hospital across town, countless universities and colleges, the food kitchen, the homeless shelter, the medical clinic, the adoption agency and more.

Yes, the Church encompasses far more than people realize, and what they fail to realize is, that with forcing this mandate upon the Catholic Church, many if not all of those services provided by the Church will be gone, because the Church will be forced to end those services before we will deny our religious conscience.

To demand that the Catholic Church deny it's religious conscience is to demand that the Catholic Church deny Christ. To demand that we deny Our Lord and Our Savior is something that will never happen to satisfy any mandate from President Obama or any other government official.

On the Culture : Are Babies Not Persons? Seeing Patterns - Catholic Culture

From Catholic Culture there is an article well worth reading, "Are Babies Not Persons? Seeing Patterns" by Dr. Jeff Mirus. The following excerpts are from that article:

• A recent article in The Journal of Medical Ethics argued that infanticide is morally equivalent to abortion, and therefore perfectly justifiable. This might have been surprising, except that a month earlier the same journal had published an article arguing that it is morally permissible for doctors to kill patients if their organs might be used for effective transplants in others. So let us recognize the pattern and realize that The Journal of Medical Ethics has an agenda.
• We must first acknowledge the human capacity to discern the nature of things before we can see the folly of the opinion of these authors in The Journal of Medical Ethics. They claim that, while a human being is present from the moment of conception until natural death, only a person has a right to life, and a person cannot be said to exist until a human being develops to the point of reflecting on the worth of his own life. Only then does it become an injury to have life taken away.

Click the link below to read the entire article:

On the Culture : Are Babies Not Persons? Seeing Patterns - Catholic Culture

California Catholic Daily - A Lie is a Lie

Read the following opinion piece on the HHS mandate by Father Juan Vélez, a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei, who resides in San Francisco. He is author of Passion for Truth, the Life of John Henry Newman.

Click the link below to read the entire article:

California Catholic Daily - A Lie is a Lie

Vote FOR Marriage - 2 - Bishop Burbidge

Second in a series of videos by the Bishops of North Carolina explaining the position of the Catholic Church in support FOR the marriage amendment. Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Raleigh explains four important points of Church Teaching about marriage. He also urges all North Carolinians to vote FOR Marriage on May 8, 2012.