Hillary we never knew you!

Jewish groups are lamenting Hillary Clinton's recent criticisms of Israel over its failure to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel claims it is a conduit to resupply Hamas. Jewish leaders in the US wonder what happenned to the ardently pro-Israel Senator Clinton?

Whatever the truth of the Gaza situation, Jewish leaders should hardly be surprised about Hillary's about-face, since the singular mark of politics today, especially but not exclusively among liberals, is to be whatever is needed to get elected. Hence, First Lady Hillary, perhaps showing her true opinion, was a supporter of Palestinian rights. When she decided to run for the US Senate seat from "Manhattan", she suddenly discovered her inner Jewish child. Now that she is liberated from the unwavering support of Israel demanded of that office, and serving in what conservative Jews feared would be a Palestinian-leaning Obama administration, she is back at it again. Which Hillary is the authentic one?

In fact, it doesn't really matter. The issue is the duplicity and hypocrisy of liberal politicians, for whom truth is a maleable concept and the end fully justifies the means. While it may be possible to "admire" the clear conviction of the far left in ideas that betray mental corruption, in the same way one can admire death-defying stunt artists without the least desire to imitate them, the moderate left is far more dangerous. They are many more of them than the extreme left and they are perfectly willing to say and do anything to get elected and stay elected. Once elected they either implement or lay the ground work for the far left, which would never otherwise, govern. After all, there are only a few zip codes where Sean Penn could get elected.

So, what of Obama? During the campaign he portrayed himself as a "moderate" leftist, on the economy, on social issues such as abortion, marriage and gay rights. He did this despite a history of extreme positions on all these issues, and a Saul Alinski mentality about how to bring about political change. The vast middle of the electorate believed him, hoped in him, and loved him into the White House. Since there, he seems to have taken moderate, or at least realist, positions on most issues. But are his paybacks to the extreme left, such as the end of the Mexico City Policy and the expected reversal of the conscience rule that protects health care workers, merely political ploys or the tip of his own extreme agenda? Only time will tell, of course, but after only a month, government policy has already taken some extreme left turns.

Pope St. Hilary, pray for us.

SPQR

Will Nancy Pelosi be courageous?

Nancy Pelosi has met the Pope. According to the Holy See Press Office,

"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development".

Before going to Rome, we have learned, she met with her bishop, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco, who had previously invited her to a conversation regarding her lack of understanding of Catholic teaching on abortion. As her spokesman noted regarding the outcome of that meeting, "She is not changing her position on abortion."

http://www.osvdailytake.com/2009/02/archbishop-niederauers-meeting-with.html

So, it is Nancy (Joe, Ted, Chris, Patrick and friends) against Christ and the Church. What can the Church do, or must she surrender to the leadership of the Culture of Death, bent on promoting abortion around the world?

Canon 1311 The Church has an innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful by means of penal sanction.

But what coercion could be applied? I can think of two possible ones.

1. Withholding Holy Communion for obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin: the objectively grave evils of tolerating the murder of the innocent, of propagandizing for the right to murder the innocent, for legislatively enabling the murder of the innocent by laws and public moneys, and for the scandal involved in each of the above. (N.B. Scandal is an additional sin in each case, given the public and well publicized nature of the acts of government officials, which then lead others into believing such sins are perfectly alright.)

Canon 915 Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

2. Excommunication for persisting in heresy, Pope John Paul II having declared on apostolic authority that abortion is a grave evil.

Encyclical Letter The Gospel of Life:

5. The Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals held in Rome on 4-7 April 1991 was devoted to the problem of the threats to human life in our day. After a thorough and detailed discussion of the problem and of the challenges it poses to the entire human family and in particular to the Christian community, the Cardinals unanimously asked me to reaffirm with the authority of the Successor of Peter the value of human life and its inviolability, in the light of present circumstances and attacks threatening it today. In response to this request, at Pentecost in 1991 I wrote a personal letter to each of my Brother Bishops asking them, in the spirit of episcopal collegiality, to offer me their cooperation in drawing up a specific document. I am deeply grateful to all the Bishops who replied and provided me with valuable facts, suggestions and proposals. In so doing they bore witness to their unanimous desire to share in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the Church with regard to the Gospel of life.

[The Pope then shows the unanimous and unbroken tradition of the Church on abortion. Apparently Nancy Pelosi had never read the Gospel of Life before she decided to expound on Church teaching about abortion. But I digress...]

62. ... Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.

The authority for excommunication would be,

Canon 750
1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

Canon 751 Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Canon 1364
1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.

Some may argue that the teaching on abortion is 1) not a doctrine but morality, 2) it is not infallibly taught, and finally, 3) it is not a matter of divine and catholic faith revealed by God, and therefore professing the contrary is not subject to a charge of heresy.

To the first, Catholic moral teaching is indeed doctrine, moral doctrine. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

As to the second, the teaching on abortion is infallibly taught, on two grounds. The first is the infallible exercise of the ordinary Magisterium. By this is meant that any teaching that has been taught "semper et ubique" (always and everywhere), by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, by the Popes and Councils, even if not solemnly defined as infallible, is infallibility taught. To this is added the second reason, the formal exercise of the Petrine charism by Pope John Paul II in defining abortion as a grave violation of the moral law.

Finally, as to the third, this could be a matter of some debate. However, the person who would settle the debate is already on record on the matter. In its commentary on Pope John Paul II's Ad Tuendam Fidem, which delineated what Catholics must believe by faith, or, need hold only as authoritatively taught, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's doctrinal congreagtion included among examples of teachings of divine and Catholic Faith,

11 ... the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. [John Paul II, Encyclical Letter , 57]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

So, to the extent that Catholic politicians hold and teach that abortion is not a grave evil they would be guilty of heresy and excommunicable on those grounds. This may already have occurred automatically because of the interior disposition of individuals, even if their erroneous belief is known only to themselves and God. However, it can be recognized in the external forum for their public acts by being publicly declared by their bishop or the Pope.

To the extent that they act contrary to the teaching without formally denying it (which has been their usual practice), they would be in manifest grave sin and Communion should be withheld from them. They also could not receive, without repentance of their actions, sacramental absolution (which by its very nature requires repentance for validity), anointing of the sick (canon 1007) or a Catholic funeral (canon 1184).

They would also be no different than the German politicians who did not oppose the immoral laws of the Nazis, but facilitated them in the name of political expediency or self-preservation. Though, in the Germans' favor one can ask, when was the last time an American politician was shot or imprisoned for following his or her conscience?

Happy Birthday Abe

On this the 200th anniversary of the birth of President Lincoln, all Americans should give thanks for the many good presidents our nation has had, and pray for the current President, that he will rise to the office, and without regard to special interests provide for the common good of all Americans.

To the best of my knowledge, Bishop Malooly of Wilmington, DE, has produced the only pastoral letter ever written about a President of the United States, or any civil official not canonized. You can read it on the diocesan website.

Remembering President Lincoln

Way to go Barnie and Chuckie

Beginning in 2001 the newly inaugurated President Bush and his administration began warning about problems with Fannie and Freddie.

In the 2002 budget request to Congress the problems with these institutions were noted and warnings issued.

In 2003 the administration was calling them systemic, and Treasury Secretary Snow pushed Congress to regulate them more. Massachusetts Barnie's response was, we are not in a crisis, we should be encouraging more [unqualified] poor families into buying homes.

In 2005 Fed. Chairman Greenspan said that problems with these institutions was putting the future financial system at risk. New York Chuckie defended Fannie and Freddie and said there was not a problem.

In 2006 John McCain introduced legislation to regulate these entities, and while it passed in Committee (all Republicans for, all Democrats against), it was not brought to the floor. Meanwhile, the Democrat friends heading these agencies are pulling down huge salaries and bonuses.

Today, of course, Democrats, in particular Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Schumer, blame Bush, Snow, Greenspan and everybody but themselves, taking no responsibility at all, in some of the boldest demagoguery in Congressional history.

Eventually, however, the political chickens will come home to roost. 2010 here we come!!!

See Fox News summary of this history from September 2008

Pork along Chuck

"Most Americans don't care about pork."

Au contraire, Senator Schumer. Pork is a symptom of political corruption. Pork shows partiality for some Americans over others. At a time of national economic turmoil when the Congress should be putting tax dollars where they will help, it should not be putting them where they won't, or advancing a liberal political agenda (such as gov't controlled health care) under cover of a needed stimulus bill. Meanwhile, the President rails against those who would delay this pork bill.

Instead of being the most transparently honest government in American history, this Congress and this administration is quickly shaping up as arrogant, demagogic, and transparently corrupt.

St. Scholastica pray for us!

The God who does not condone

But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

Or, so opined the President of the United States at the National Prayer Breakfast. At the 1994 event Blessed Teresa of Calcutta spoke these words which agree with the President's sentiment, but not his actions:

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness.

And so it would seem to be, that, on the one hand the killing of the innocent is condemned, and on the other the killing of the innocent unborn is justified and promoted. Yes, Mother Teresa, abortion brings people to moral blindness.

St. Agatha the martyr, pray for us!

SPQR

NObama on Abortion

In one of his first forays into controversy, on his 4th day in office President Obama overturned the Mexico City policy, permitting the use of US tax dollars to promote abortion overseas. A Gallup poll out today shows that appeasing the far left of his party was not popular with the great middle that elected him. While large majorities have supported many of his foreign and domestic decisions so far, a minority approves of his decision to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay (only 44%), and barely a third (35%) approve of his abortion decision.

The figure of 35% agrees well with past surveys that show that only about a third of the electorate fully subscribes to the liberal agenda of the Democrat Party. Rather, a large majority of Americans favor varying degrees of restrictions on abortion (such as parental consent and informed consent), as well as do not want to pay for abortions or promoting abortions with their taxes. We must hope, and pray, that the President gets the message. However, expect more trouble from the abortion and environmental true-believers, for whom no child left behind in the womb is an axiom.

For the complete poll, go to Gallup.com

The Social Assistance State

As the American republic's leadership in DC considers how to deal with the economic crisis of the city and of the world, many of the Catholic members of the U.S. House and Senate seem to be considering a Euro-socialist model of economic involvement for government. Catholics on the left often put it forward as Catholic social teaching, a seeming concession to a Catholic conscience in an otherwise pragmatic or ideological political program.

Since these are the terms on which the Catholic left "sells" its political plans to Catholic citizens, it is worthwhile to see just exactly what the Ecclesia Romana has said on state-economic involvement. The following is from Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter Centesimus annus (1991), commemorating the 100th anniversary of the ground-breaking social encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Rerum novarum, and cited ad rem in the Holy See's 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "Welfare State." This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State." Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[fn. 100: Cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981), 45: AAS 74 (1982), 136f.]

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

If the current plans to help the economy continue on course, it is fairly certain that the results will serve neither justice or the economic health "of the city and the world."

Our Lady of the Purification, pray for us.

SPQR