Monthly Archives: May 2007

OT: Article by one of my professors!

Found this linked on Catholicity. Dr. DeMarco is one of my professors!

Catholics against Rudy

Rudolph the Red-faced Catholic
Was embarrased by his faith
And when he talked abortion
He would lie right through his teeth.

All of the social conservatives
Used to laugh and call him names
They could see that ol’ Rudolph
Cheated on his wife with dames.

When disaster struck one day,
Rudy came to say,
“I’ll lead you in this sad event,
So I can run for president.”

Then all the war hawks loved him,
They would holler out with glee,
“Rudolph the Red-Faced Catholic,
We don’t care about babies!”

USCCB Responds to "Gang of Eighteen"

Reminds them that those who are in a state of mortal sin should not go to Communion and that the Church has every right to speak on matters pertaining to public affairs; further admonishes them to seek pastoral counselling about the states of their own souls.

The Limbo Debate

You know, in all the recent “limbo debate,” it never dawned on me that I should be discussing it, in honor of the one for whom this website is named.

Now, I have a lot of problems with this recent statement from the Vatican. First of all, it really doesn’t say anything new. What it says, that there is a difference between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” means of salvation, is already established Catholic teaching.

However, it basically encourages parents not to have their kids baptized. On the other hand again, in this day and age, that’s probably a good thing. Why, you ask? Because those who are baptized and go to Hell suffer far worse than those who are unbaptized, plus they scandalize the Church. The Church says you’re only supposed to baptize an infant if you, as the parent, have the intention of doing everything possible to raise that child as a good Catholic, which most “Catholic” parents these days have no intention of.

But in the “mercy” and “making people feel good” department, the “trust God’s mercy” attitude is one of the main reasons we started the Lewis Crusade, and why we named it that.

When Little Lew died, we wanted to give our baby a Christian burial. That that would be possible is, in and of itself is one “post-Vatican II” change in this regard.

When Mary was going through the miscarriage, I put holy water everywhere I could in the hopes of baptizing the baby.

The response we got from the Church, though, was that it didn’t *matter*. It didn’t *matter* if the baby was baptized. It didn’t *matter* if the baby was formally buried. It didn’t *matter* if we had some kind of funeral service for the baby. Trust God’s mercy was what we were told.

But God’s mercy wasn’t the issue: recognizing our dead baby as a real baby in a society that said he was just a “blob of tissue” was the issue, and the Church wouldn’t help us get that kind of formal recognition.

Meanwhile, the article linked above makes the following claim:

The issue behind such ungraceful teaching is rooted in the arrogance of the
church, both Catholic and Evangelical, that it holds exclusive rights to the
gates of heaven.

Actually, it’s the “arrogance” of God Himself, who said,

Jesus answered, “Amen,
amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of
water and Spirit (Jn 3:5)


Although, the question becomes whether “born anew” or “born from above” requires being “born” to begin with?

New! News and Links

I’ve done some upgrades to the page. I’m hoping to make it more a “one-stop” shopping for Catholic and pro-life news and commentary. Blogger/Google now allows topical newsreels on blogs, so I’ve added several of those both to the sidebar and to the bottom, under the posts frame. I’ve also added more links to organizations I support and to some of my favorite columnists and bloggers.

Christina Blizzard, aptly-named Canadian airhead

Earlier, I blogged a column that Mark Shea linked to about Canadian Premier McGuinty’s McGuilty conscience. I also wrote directly to the columnist, Christina Blizzard. Here’s what I said:

You and Mr. McGuinty miss two important points. First, abortion is evil,period. That is not just a Catholic teaching. It is a tenet of the NaturalLaw (see, for example, the Hippocratic Oath). If Mr. McGuinty truly servedall the people of Canada, he would help those innocent children that arebeing slaughtered in abortuaries and IVF clinics.
At least he gets one thing straight: he and the Pope have different”constituencies.” The Pope’s “constituency” are those who actually followJesus Christ and His Church. That is the same Jesus Christ who said, “Whatdoes it profit a man to gain the world and lose his very soul in theprocess?”

This is not about Canadian or US politics, as such. This is about the Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the blessed Sacrament. Thosewho favor legalized abortion are in a state of objective mortal sin.Politicians who support pro-abortion legislation are enabling others to haveabortions, which warrants automatic excommunications under Canon Law.

By receiving Communion, they are commiting an act of sacrilege, just likeeveryone else who goes to Communion in a state of mortal sin. By going toCommunion in a public state of defiance of Church teaching, they also committhe sin of scandal, which also warrants excommunication (if only suchexcommunications were applied to the liberal, pro-feminist, pro-homosexualbishops who’ve been sheltering gay priests accused of sexual molestation).After all, people like Premier McGuinty teach other Catholics that it’s “OK”to be “pro-choice,” and it’s not.

And, yes, the same goes for “same sex marriage,” which is ontologically impossible, since people of the same sex cannot have sexual relations. Theycan engage in acts of mutual masturbation, but sexual relations are onlypossible when there are two sexual organs that can relate to one another.Satanic regimes always try to redefine reality.

The American South tried todeny humanity to African Americans; the Nazis denied humanity to Jews. Modern day “liberals” deny humanity to the unborn and try to
redefine reality by saying it’s possible for people of the same gender to have sexual relations.

And, no, the Pope is not barring Catholics from public life. He’s juststating the age-old position of the Church that Catholics *must* engage inpublic life and *must* do so by upholding the dictates of the natural law.

Notice how I emphasized natural law, not “religion,” and how I noted that it the religious side is entirely within the Church and not a matter of politics. In other words, Catholic politicians have a duty to enforce the Natural Law, but they do not necessarily have a duty to require a national Sabbath day or ban the sale of meat on Fridays (although both things would be kind of nice). They *do* have an obligation to legislate against intrinsic moral evils like abortion and homosexual behavior.

They *do* have an obligation not to compromise their purported religious beliefs for the sake of power.

On the other hand, the Church has every right to determine who is welcome or unwelcome at the Altar. This is not particularly a political issue. After all, it applies to anyone who publicly endorses legalized abortion, regardless of being a political official or not. It also applies to everyone who publicly “lives in sin” or publicly proclaims the kinds of ideas expressed in The Da Vinci Code.

Well, impressively, this lady replied. I was expecting some sort of vitriolic spew of insults. Instead, her only response to my e-mail was:

From Christina Blizzard

Sent Friday, May 18, 2007
11:59 am
To John and Mary Hathaway

Subject RE: Your article on
the Premier and the Pope

You can’t mix politics and religion.

Christina Blizzard
Queen’s Park Columnist
Sun Media

??????????

Where did I say any such thing? And, more importantly, who says you can’t mix politics and religion? In my reply, I asked her what deity she worshipped that decreed such a thing?

OT: International Affairs

Slightly off topic to this blog, but related loosely in terms of spiritual warfare issues and the “Why do they hate” us question (with its various answers including our moral decadence), one of Mark Shea’s readers sent him the following passage:

The warring nations are jealous of America and bitter against her for her neutrality. Americans are snubbed and insulted everywhere in Europe and even in Australia. The best intentions of our President and his own personality are ridiculed–so blind are the poor people in respect to the real issues of the war.

The quotation came from Charles Taze Russell of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, regarding World War I. Now, Shea discusses it in regard to apocalypticism (hence relevance to spiritual warfare), but I notice something else.

“The warrning nations are jealous of America and bitter against her for her neutrality.”

Nowadays, those on the Left, along with the Libertarians and Washingtonian conservatives, try to say that international anti-Americanism is due to our “imperialism.” This was of course made a national issue a few days ago by Ron Paul’s statement at the Presidential Debate in Columbia, SC.

Yet, here we have a quotation from the days when the Monroe Doctrine was in effect, about foreigners condemning America for non-intervention.

Just goes to show that anti-Americanism is really about our system of government and not about any particular policy. Liberal foreigners hate us for our conservatism; conservative foreigners hate us for our liberalism. Whether or not we intervene in foreign problems, we’re blamed for meddling too much or not doing enough. What it all boils down to is that they’re envious of our Republic and how well it actually functions.