Daily Archives: January 22, 2009

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

Obama is shutting down Bush’s torture business pronto.
Also, reports are circulating in a few sites that he may *not* overturn the Mexico City Policy–at least not yet.

Looking for Allocution "Acerbissimum," by Bl. Pope Pius IX, dated Sept. 27, 1852.

When I found this page of Pio Nono’s Encyclicals, I got excited, but it’s not in there.

The Syllabus of Errors, as I’ve mentioned before, is essentially a summary of various errors Pius IX condemned in his long pontificate. It is a list of statements that he condemns, so they’re double negatives (i.e., each item listed is wrong). Each item includes a citation of the document it comes from. Liberal Catholics like to say that “Vatican II got rid of that.” RadTrads use the “Syllabus” to claim that certain teachings of Vatican II are, in their view, heretical.

One particular statement for Catholics in America is this one:
“55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. “

Now, as a traditional-leaning Catholic, I am more than happy to accept that “separation of Church and State” is a heresy, period. However, I don’t think that’s what His Holiness is saying here.

In official Catholic documents, each word is to be considered in its precise meaning. In this case, he says “ought”. It is *possible* that this statement could be interpreted as condemning a the philosophical principle that Church and State *ought* to be separated, although they can be separated in some instances. It is also important to know what he means here by “separated.” Obviously, the Church maintains to herself the right to advise the State, particularly in matters of Natural Law.

So, the interpretation faithful Catholics have traditionally used to justify our citizenship in America is that the US government cannot, constitutionally, endorse any particular religion. That doesn’t mean that the Church cannot be one of the many voices which influences public policy. However, I want to see the original source material before I make any definitive interpretation of this passage.

Why Freemasonry is wrong

PAPAL BULL OF POPE CLEMENT XII April 28, 1738

“In Eminenti”

His Holiness begins by explaining that

certain Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles called in the popular tongue Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; and men of any Religion or sect, satisfied with the appearance of natural probity, are joined together, according to their laws and the statutes laid down for them, by a strict and unbreakable bond which obliges them, both by an oath upon the Holy Bible and by a host of grievous punishment, to an inviolable silence about all that they do in secret together.

Traditionally, the secrecy itself is the danger, as the Holy Father continues:

these aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted. For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light.

In the next paragraph, the Holy Father expresses his duty–a duty which the Popes of late have been de-emphasizing–to protect the faithful from deceitful men and movements which might lead them astray:

Therefore, bearing in mind the great harm which is often caused by such Societies or Conventicles not only to the peace of the temporal state but also to the well-being of souls, and realizing that they do not hold by either civil or canonical sanctions; and since We are taught by the divine word that it is the part of faithful servant and of the master of the Lord’s household to watch day and night lest such men as these break into the household like thieves, and like foxes seek to destroy the vineyard; in fact, to prevent the hearts of the simple being perverted, and the innocent secretly wounded by their arrows, and to block that broad road which could be opened to the uncorrected commission of sin and for the other just and reasonable motives known to Us; We therefore, having taken counsel of some of Our Venerable Brothers among the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and also of Our own accord and with certain knowledge and mature deliberations, with the plenitude of the Apostolic power do hereby determine and have decreed that these same Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations, or Conventicles of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or whatever other name they may go by, are to be condemned and prohibited, and by Our present Constitution, valid for ever, We do condemn and prohibit them.

Note the part about “valid for ever”: contrary to the opinions of some Catholics who act like Papal Bulls and Encyclicals are like the executive orders of US Presidents and come up for renewal when a new Pope is elected, this bull, at least, declares itself to be “valid for ever.”

This isn’t the Bull i was thinking of, though, and I need to do some more research. I know I read excerpts from a Bull on freemasonry that emphasized its emphasis on charitable giving without Christ.

EWTN’s New Pro-Life Page

John Allen’s Double Standard

Dear Mr. Allen,

I find your writing highly disingenuous. For years, we’ve heard from you how disappointed the Holy Father allegedly is with Pres. Bush and our current War in Iraq (a war which I, personally, do *not* support as a Buchananite conservative). The only statement I have heard Pope Benedict make on this war—and I have looked—is his statement on the White House lawn praising our troops for promoting the cause of freedom.

You seem awfully happy about the death of Fr. Neuhaus. I admit I don’t know much about Fr. Neuhaus other than by reputation or his appearances on EWTN. I have not read much of _First Things_.

You make blanket statements about “conservative American Catholics” as well as Pope Benedict’s administration. Yes, many people were bothered by the appointment of Archbishop Levada as Prefect of the CDF. Yet I notice that we have heard more from the exiled Cardinal Law in the past couple years than we’ve actually heard from Archbishop Levada. Nevertheless, I personally was quite happy with the appointment: Archbishop Levada actually had the courage to sue the City of San Francisco for its policies on both contraception and giving special rights to those who commit the Sin Against Nature.

Almost every bishop that Pope Benedict has appointed in the US has been a “slam dunk” for pro-life, traditional Catholics. We have several dynamic young bishops who are actively pro-life, including participating in Planned Parenthood prayer vigils, and who support and even participate in the traditional Latin Mass.

I can see nothing in Benedict’s pontificate that should disappoint any faithful “conservative” or “traditional” Catholic. Yes, he acts slowly and cautiously, but he has been far more a “disappointment” to Catholics like your readers—and to lukewarm “conservatives” who claim to be “pro-life” but support artificial contraception and oppose traditional liturgies–than he has to those of us on the so-called “Far Right.”

I am no fan of former President George W. Bush. He has done several things wrong, including allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. His policies have been only nominally pro-life, and he has done little service to our country. Yet Pope Benedict, in their various communications, treated him very graciously. That is to Pope Benedict’s credit. Meanwhile, we have heard from your publication and other media outlets how allegedly disappointed Pope Benedict has been with Bush. Maybe he is, but he hasn’t said it.

Now, the tables are turned. Now, you have the pro-abortion, contraception-using, Marxist rhetoric-spouting president you want. Pope Benedict is treating him graciously, a sign to Pope Benedict’s own stated desire to work closely with the American government. Yet you are taking that politic graciousness as a sign of endorsement.

Meanwhile, the promotion of Archbishop Burke to one of the highest disciplinary offices in the Church—obviously a testimony to Archbishop Burke’s outspokenly strong positions on Canon Law issues—is taken as an attempt to “get him out of the limelight,” and the public statements Archbishop Burke has made since moving to Rome are dismissed, as are the statements of Cardinal Stafford.

I detect a double standard.

Pax et bonum,
John C. Hathaway
http://www.lewiscrusade.org

If St. John is not a liar, then Obama is an Anti-Christ

From Cal Thomas, quoting a 2004 interview with Obama by Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times:

Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”
So, Obama does not accept the call to evangelize. He denies the reality of Hell. He denies the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation:

Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)

Those statements alone should be reason enough that no Christian could have voted for him in good conscience. I’ve quoted it many times over the past year, but here it is again:

1 John 4:2-3
This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. (NAB)

1 John 2:18-22:
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.
(NAB)

“The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578 ” (Catechism 676).

Let’s hear it for Jim DeMint!!

Last year, there were people saying, ‘If your representative’s name isn’t Ron Paul, vote him out of office!”

Well, yesterday, at the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State:

“The Senate voted 94-2, with Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina opposing”.

A fantastic resource!!!

I was looking up the Papal Bull condemning Freemasonry, and I found this fantastic website with Papal and Conciliar Documents going back centuries.

I love anonymous posts!

Especially when they totally undermine the main stream media’s stereotypes of conservatives as angry and stupid, and show that pothead liberals are the real angry and stupid ones:
Anonymous said…
AREN’T YOU TIRED OF BEING A PUPPET FOR THE MINIONS OF REPUBLICAN HATE- MONGERS? A SIMPLE PLOY TO ESTABLISH THESE TWO NIMBLE-BRAINED POLITICIANS AS MESSENGERS OF HIGHER GOOD… AND YOU CONTINUE TO BE READY FOR THE NEXT FLEECING OF THE AMERICAN “REPUBLIC”, BY YOUR BRETHEREN!!

TWO THOUGHTS, IF YOU CAN HANDLE MULTI-TASKING WITHOUT HANNITY OR RUSH , HOLDING YOUR HAND:

#1 CONSIDER THE IMPLODING AMERICAN ECONOMY AS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL TERRORIST EVENT. CARRIED OUT UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF BUSH, CHENEY, AND WITH ALL THE WIRETAPS AVAILABLE TO ALL BUT GOD.

#2 THOSE BELOVED MORONS YOU WORSHIP ON FOX OR LISTEN TO ON ‘U-CAN’T-B-SIRIUS”, ETC… MISSED OR ARE IN COLUSION WITH THE BUDDIES OF OUR EX- COMMANDER AND VP. FURTHER IN THE GROUND THAN HALIBURTON’S TRUE ACCOUNTING FILES….AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BEEN HANDED THE NATIONAL TREASURE. THEY ALL CASHED OUT BEFORE W LEFT THE BUILDING.
3:00 PM

My response:

I appreciate your comments, though I don’t appreciate the “shouting” or the anonymity.
However, if you have actually read anything on my blog, you would see how horribly off-base your comments are. I only voted for the Republicans for president because of Sarah Palin and because I found no other third party candidate to match her credentials as a pro-life candidate. In the primary, I voted for Huckabee, who was my ideal candidate. Charles Baldwin, the favorite of many pro-lifers, made some pretty nasty statements about fellow Baptist minister Huckabee and about Sarah Palin. Bob Barr is not pro-life.

I like Rush Limbaugh well enough, but mostly for the entertainment value of his comments, and because he has the excuse of not being Catholic. I don’t condone his three divorces, his drug abuse (which I might have anticipated, as I detected a change in his tone and intelligence level between the early 90s and the early 00s), or his support of Dubya.

I can’t stand Sean Hannity, whom I find to be a bore and a fraud, particularly because of his professed “Catholicism” yet his support of artificial contraception.

I am no fan of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. I believe Bush, McCain and Barack Obama are all alike: freemasons.

One of the purposes of this blog has always been to chronicle the downfall of the GOP. In the 1850s, it took the fall of the Whig Party, which had been run by pro-slavery Northern Industrialists but supported by anti-slavery Christians, to inspire the founding of the GOP as a 100% anti-slavery party. In the meantime, the pro-slavery Democrats had control of the presidency and both houses for about 8 years. I am waiting for the GOP to dissolve, a new, authentically pro-life pro-family party to form, and then win in 2012 or 2016 in a three-way split, the way Lincoln won in 1860.

I worship Jesus Christ.

Ok, as for your “considerations”:1) The imploding American economy is the fault of one thing: artificial contraception.If *you* are capable of understanding any thought that isn’t spoon fed to you by Michael Moore or CNN, maybe you’d consider how a) economic “growth” can only happen with population growth; b) a populatoin is necessary to purchase goods and services; c) a population is necessary to have a workforce and d) a population is necessary to rent apartments and buy houses.
This economic crisis was predicted 40 years ago in _Mater et Magistra_ by Bl. Pope John XXIII.
The Great Depression was caused by the first wave of socially accepted contraception in the 1920s and 30s. My wife was recently reading about how the Depression, like every other famine in history, had to do with food rotting in docks and warehouses.
The Baby Boom–which was mainly caused by the high numbers of Catholics who came to the US following WWII–brought the economy back up.

It will take a new “baby boom” to do the same.

2) I don’t understand what you’re saying here. You are mischaracterizing me, as I already stated above, by appealing to *your* bigoted stereotypes. I am sick of hearing “Halliburton” and all those other liberal buzzwords thrown around with no context or explanation.

I don’t listen to FOX News. I have long said that FOX News does more than anyone to promote the cause of liberalism by making conservatives look like idiots. FOX News is anti-Catholic, and pro-contraception, and pro-gay rights. It is just one of the many arms of NewsCorp, an anti-life, anti-family corporation.

As for Sirius, I wish I had the money to waste on a satellite radio subscription, so I could get Eternal Word Radio in my car. Instead, I download EWTN’s MP3 files and listen to them in my car on my MP3 player.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Anonymous Shouter?

Remember not to eat meat today!

Probably should have posted this a few days ago, but today is a day of Penance, meaning we can’t eat meat, or we should do some other act of charity or self-denial, or preferably, all three.

In 2005, Kmiec pushed for Harriet Miers

I’m sick of this guy’s protestations about his “record” and his being a devout Catholic, even as he disses most of the pro-life movement, two Vatican Prefects (Burke and Stafford) and some of our best bishops (e.g., Chaput). So I’m trying to find out about his life *before* Obama, and this is one of the things that came up.

EWTN’s New Pro-Life Page

If St. John is not a liar, then Obama is an Anti-Christ

From Cal Thomas, quoting a 2004 interview with Obama by Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times:

Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”
So, Obama does not accept the call to evangelize. He denies the reality of Hell. He denies the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation:

Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)

Those statements alone should be reason enough that no Christian could have voted for him in good conscience. I’ve quoted it many times over the past year, but here it is again:

1 John 4:2-3
This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. (NAB)

1 John 2:18-22:
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.
(NAB)

“The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578 ” (Catechism 676).

Let’s hear it for Jim DeMint!!

Last year, there were people saying, ‘If your representative’s name isn’t Ron Paul, vote him out of office!”

Well, yesterday, at the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State:

“The Senate voted 94-2, with Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina opposing”.

Remember not to eat meat today!

Probably should have posted this a few days ago, but today is a day of Penance, meaning we can’t eat meat, or we should do some other act of charity or self-denial, or preferably, all three.

Here’s Kmiec’s _Apologia Pro Vita Sua_, and it’s not very convincing

“Yet not everyone in America is cheered by this triumph. Indeed, within certain embittered precincts, the penalty for having supported Obama can be stiff.”
Yes, like the millions of babies who will die in the coming eight years. Like those of us who want cures for our diseases that do not come at the cost of the lives of innocent babies or from compromising our own souls.

“Ever since, I’ve been subjected to unrelenting personal attacks launched from right-wing Catholic keyboards-blogs (and bloggers) so coarse and uncivil they make the insults of talk radio sound like actual journalism”
So, this “longtime Republican” is using “Right Wing” and “talk radio” as insulting associations?

He then cites “one usually thoughtful conservative columnist” without naming names. These are examples of words he considers “uncivil”:
“decadent,” Yes, the majority of American Catholics, especially those who supported Obama, live *very* decadent lifestyles. They sin wihtout going to confession. They use contraception. They live lives of luxury and then talk about “concern for the poor”. They get divorced and remarried. They cuss in a way that would make a Victorian sailor blush.

“tribal,” Let’s see. Most Catholic Democrats say, “I vote Democrat because my family has voted Democrat for generations.” Or “All Catholics vote Democrat,” as Kmiec himself turns to later in this column. If that’s not “tribal,” what is?
“immoral,” Yes, it is immoral, if not gravely sinful, to vote for a candidate who supports abortion, embryonic stem cell research, contraception and gay rights.
“certainly stupid,” OK, maybe this is an unfair characterization. Not all of Obama’s Catholic supporters are stupid, but their position is, especially when they try to defend it by appealing, vaguely, to “Catholic principles” the way Kmiec does. But it’s giving them the benefit of the doubt to assume they’re just stupid rather than to suggest they *willingly* participated in this blatant evil.
“mindless,” See previous comment regarding vague appeals to “Catholic social teaching” and sophistic arguments to excuse Obama’s pro-abortion stance.
“and in need of basic ‘adult education.'”: That’s a given for the vast majority of Catholics in America.
” I remain unabashedly prolife and I have never consciously misstated the doctrine of the church; indeed, I’ve publicly said that were the Holy Father to tell me I had contradicted the magisterium on any given page of my Obama book, I would tear out that page” First, I have just documents, a couple posts below, that, in 2005, he stated on international television that laws outlawing contraception are “arbitrary” and “unenforceable,” which contradicts the clear teaching of the Church. Secondly, the Holy Father rarely makes declarations such as that. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, if pressed, might do just that. But, I suspect, if Archbishop Levada (does he do *anything* at CDF?) were to make such a declaration, Kmiec would explain why he doesn’t need to listen to Archbishop Levada and say, like the drowning man of the helicopter: “I’m still waiting for the Pope to condemn me.”

“One online source even speculated that I had suffered a stroke.”
Again, that’s just trying to explain his drastic change of position and his unintelligible defense thereof. I’ve proposed that he’s possessed, a theory all the more supported by the contempt for the pro-life movement shown in this Commonweal article. So, suggesting he’d suffered a stroke seems, again, rather charitable.

He then lists some of the times he has criticized Obama: “or suggesting, out loud and even on camera, that his one-time pledge of support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) during the primary was “boneheaded.””
So, he says he called Obama’s support of FOCA “boneheaded,” yet accuses others of name-calling. Better yet,
“These are not politic statements, but unlike most blog entries, they represent honest, substantive dissent “
Oh, so “boneheaded” is “substantive”?

Here we go, his list of “Obama shares with the church: concern for the poor; support for the average family; a commitment to ending an unjust war; and respect for our environment”
“Concern for the poor”? The Church’s concern for the poor does not include killing them. I actually agree with some of Obama’s economic policies. But perhaps Kmiec should read the original Bull which forbade associationg with the Freemasons on the grounds that charity, separated from Christ, is Satanic.
“support for the average family”: interesting choice of words. Obama suppoorts what is now the “average family” in America: the socially engineered 2.5 children family. The Church supports families that are “open to life,” not “average families.”
“commitment to ending an unjust war”: The war may or may be unjust–the _Catechism tells me it’s up to civil leaders who have the full knowledge of the situation to decide. I am not a supporter of this war for several reasons. *However*, I would like to see a direct quotation–and citation–of Pope Benedict condemning this war, as the only words he uttered while here in April last year were very supportive.
“respect for our environment.” I don’t know what Obama’s environmental positions are, but most liberals’ attitudes depart from “respect” and into “worship.”

” the blogs’ Machiavellian FOCA gambit into the open”
So, now, those of us who oppose abortion 100% are “Machiavellian”?

“From Berlin to Denver’s Mile High Stadium to Grant Park, Obama does big campaign rallies exceptionally well”
So, now, the President’s ability to draw mass crowds of idolizing fans: the kind of thing that the Bible and CHristian tradition tell us to eschew–is credited as a *sign* of his Christianity?

Then he talks about how Obama is the veritable reincarnation of Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK and RFK. He’s certainly, from the Demonocrats’ perspective, the second coming of JFK: for forty years, they’ve been looking for another young, dynamic president with a pretty wife who reprsents a huge demographic group.

But this all sounds an awful like the very kind of hero worship that is worrying those of us in the “right wing.”

Then he goes on to condemn, without naming names but just saying “the blogosophere,” the efforts of the Newman Center and related groups to protect Catholic universities from pro-choice speakers, saying this harms “dialogue.”

Then he refers to One member of the U.S. hierarchy whom I greatly admire has renounced our past association, writing, “We are not friends, professor,” and answering my invocation of Christian brotherhood with a curt retort: “I do see you as a brother in Christ-a brother who is serving an evil end.” The greatest personal price I have paid is the loss of old-and the preemption of new-friendships.
Note, he has not identified a single person or group by name so far. But here he’s suggesting that a bishop could be swayed by this “hate-filled blogosphere.” Why is that, Prof. Kmiec? Maybe because we’re right?

” writer for the National Catholic Reporter threw up his hands, editorializing that “it might be less complicated to name” a non-Catholic.”
Yet he’s naming names in regard to the National Catholic Reporter, one of the worst pieces of liberal porn out there.

Then he calls Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Stafford’s comments regarding the Democratic Party and Barack Obama “unfortunate.”

“Archbishop Raymond Burke called the Democratic Party “the party of death,” an expression deeply hurtful to my octogenarian father and millions of other lifelong Democrats who still see the Democratic Party as Leo XIII saw it-the “working man’s” party. “
You know what, Prof. Kmiec, all those Democrat Catholis who’ve been complicit in the holocaust of our nation’s babies need some “hurt.” They need to repent.

And parties change. The Democratic Party today is not the Democratic Party of 110 years ago.

“Of course, faith calls upon us all to “turn the other cheek” to ridicule and hatred, and like the president-elect,”
So, rather than respond to criticism, Kmiec declares himself and Obama to be martyrs.

He makes an ambiguous statement about Joe Biden. Then he condemns Archbishop Chaput. Then he praises Cardinals Mahony and McCarrick(!)

” I know from experience the pain of being refused the Eucharist, having been denied Communion at a Mass preceding an invited lecture before a group of Catholic business people.”
Uh-huh. Ever hear the term “interdict,” Mr. Legal Scholar? Denial of communion for political reasons is a long-standing practice of the Church.

“These points of difference are regularly missed by bloggers who freely hurl the label “baby killer” at anyone who does not readily concede the equivalence of zygote destruction and infanticide. “
So he adopts the euphemisms of the Left. Zygote destruction??

“As it is, however, right-wing Catholic bloggers, acting as a thinly disguised political front for the GOP”
That’s funny, since the most vocal pro-life “extremists” are equally critical of the GOP.

“The president-elect does not share our faith, and like many modern men”
No, but that’s the whole point of Natural Law: people do not need to share faith to share Natural Law.

“Obama himself has written that the golden rule tells us that we “need to battle cruelty in all its forms, [with] the value of love and charity, humanity and grace.” “
Which is another problem right there: in Obama’s world, disagreement constitutes “hate” and “cruelty’.

He betrays himself with this one;
“And yet, as John Paul II told us, democracy detached from absolute truth can be little more than another form of totalitarianism.”
And that, in a nutshell, is what us “hate-filled Right Wing bloggers,” are afraid of about a president who has absolute adulation and no belief in Natural Law.

In 2005, Kmiec pushed for Harriet Miers

I’m sick of this guy’s protestations about his “record” and his being a devout Catholic, even as he disses most of the pro-life movement, two Vatican Prefects (Burke and Stafford) and some of our best bishops (e.g., Chaput). So I’m trying to find out about his life *before* Obama, and this is one of the things that came up.

"Pro-life" "devout Catholic" Douglas Kmiec in 2005 :Contraception bans are "unenforceable"

Douglas Kmiec appeared on the 10/24/2005 Fox News Special Report and said the following of Griswold v. Connecticut:

The court could have taken a very judicially restrained posture and simply said that this is one of those statutes that is arbitrary, and unenforceable, and beyond the scope of the law.

So, a law banning artificial contraception, which violates Natural Law, is “arbitrary”?
When the Catholic Church teaches that contraception *must* be outlawed, and any laws allowing contraceptoin are invalid because the negate the Natural Law, Kmiec dismisses these laws as “unenforceable”?

This is the guy who says he hasn’t betrayed his faith by supporting Obama (and Obama’s pro-contraception policies)?

Also, they *are* enforceable. Just as, when abortion is illegal, you arrest the abortionists, when contraception is illegal, you arrest the pharmacists and physicians. It doesn’t mean you go into people’s bedrooms and find out what they’re doing.

A fantastic refutation of Kmiec by a Protestant conservative