Bolded parts by this writer for emphasis only. I have seen the DVD's he speaks of ON the National Geographic channel, and I have to tell you that they are exactly what he says that they are.
From Cardinal Egan:
In the Holiness of Truth - October 23, 2008
The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks.
Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.
Have you any doubt that it is a human being?
If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.
But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them.
Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," defining "person," defining "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a "human being" is and what the implications of someone's wishing to kill it are. The word "incarceration" comes to mind.
However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs.
One is entitled "In the Womb" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled "In the Womb—Multiples" and in color and motion shows the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what "living" means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than living and innocent human beings, something, for example, such as "mere clusters of tissues," you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.
Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that the subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.
It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame
(1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken,
(2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally,
(3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such,
(4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and
(5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."
One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Case" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.
Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.
Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
Friday, October 24, 2008
Bolded parts by this writer for emphasis only. I have seen the DVD's he speaks of ON the National Geographic channel, and I have to tell you that they are exactly what he says that they are.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."
Read the rest of this article here..............
view article in original form
Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam
Listen to this interview with one of the co-authors.
Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
The following is condensed and adapted from an address Charles J. Chaput delivered at an ENDOW (''Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women'') dinner, October 17.
Before I begin, I need to say what a friend of mine calls my ''Litany to the IRS.'' Here it is. I'm not here to tell you how to vote. I don't want to do that, I won't do that, and I don't use code language - so you don't need to spend any time looking for secret political endorsements.
I plan to speak candidly, but I can only do that if you remember that I'm here as an author and private citizen. I'm not speaking for the Holy See, or the American bishops, or any other bishop, or even officially for the Archdiocese of Denver. So the things I say are my personal views, nothing more. I think they're pretty solidly grounded in Catholic teaching and the heart of the Church, but it's your task as Catholics and citizens to listen, evaluate and then act as you judge best.
As adults, each of us needs to form a strong Catholic conscience. Then we need to follow that conscience when we vote. And then we need to take responsibility for the consequences of the vote we cast. Nobody can do that for us. That's why really knowing and living our Catholic faith is so important. It's the only reliable guide we have for acting in the public square as disciples of Jesus Christ.
Render Unto Caesar
So let's talk for a few minutes about my recent book Render Unto Caesar. When people ask me about the book, the questions usually fall into three categories. Why did I write it? What does the book say? And what does the book mean for each of us as individual Catholics?
Read the rest here.
Bishop Martino shows up unannounced at election forum in his Diocese
defends Church's stance on abortion
.- An election forum at a Pennsylvania parish that took place last Sunday was organized to allow Catholics the opportunity to defend their support for McCain and Obama. However, the forum took a surprising turn when an unexpected guest showed up to guide his flock, the Bishop of Scranton, Joseph F. Martino.
The forum, which took place at St. John's Catholic Church in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, was underway when the bishop arrived. Four panel members were sharing their perspectives on the presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, some pledging to vote for the Republican, others for the Democrat.
One of the panelists, Sister Margaret Gannon of Marywood University cited statements from "Faithful Citizenship" a document on voting released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. She noted that "a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. "
After Sr. Gannon spoke, the bishop took the floor. Bill Genello, a spokesman for the Diocese of Scranton told the Wayne Independent that when Bishop Martino arrived, his intention was to listen "to the presenters and how they might discuss Catholic teaching."
However, he continued, "Certain groups and individuals have used their own erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops' statement on Faithful Citizenship, to justify their political positions and to contradict the Church's actual teaching on the centrality of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research."
When the bishop heard the speakers using the bishops' statement to justify their choice for president, he reminded the audience that those "groups and individuals who make statements about Catholic teaching do not speak with the same authority or authenticity as their bishop."
The prelate then clarified his authority as bishop and the Church's teachings on abortion as an election issue.
"No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese," said Martino according to the Wayne Independent. "The USCCB doesn't speak for me."
"The only relevant document ... is my letter," he continued, "There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."
The letter he referred to was a pastoral letter to his entire diocese that was published in the first week of October. In his message, Bishop Martino states that a candidate's abortion stance is a major voting issue that supersedes all others due to its grave moral consequences.
He wrote: "To begin, laws that protect abortion constitute injustice of the worst kind. They rest on several false claims including that there is no certainty regarding when life begins, that there is no certainty about when a fetus becomes a person, and that some human beings may be killed to advance the interests or convenience of others."
"Another argument goes like this: 'As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant 'life' issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.' This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. ... National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price."
He also touched on just war. "Even the Church's just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases."
"No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people," he said, noting that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. "This is madness people."
When the prelate concluded his speech, most audience members gave him a standing ovation, while others were upset that the leader of the diocese made an appearance. Bishop Martino left the event shortly after making his remarks.
Organizers of the event had mixed emotions regarding the bishop's appearance.
Father Martin Boylan, pastor of St. John's said that they "were very careful not to endorse anyone," and that the forum was meant to be "a political slash editorial forum about the presidential election."
He also explained that the state church guidelines were "carefully followed" for the event.
Bishop Hermann: ‘I thought you should know’
Bishop Hermann: 'I thought you should know'
Save our children!
by Bishop Robert Hermann, Archdiocesan Administrator
Save our children! More than anything else, this election is about saving our children or killing our children. This life issue is the overriding issue facing each of us in this coming election. All other issues, including the economy, have to take second place to the issue of life.
Save our children! Many people in Germany supported Hitler for economic reasons even though, as his programs advanced, he put to death millions of Jewish people. He ended up wrecking the economy together with the country of Germany.
How are we different if we vote for proabortion candidates for office? How can we help change our political and legal situation to protect innocent children and support a culture of life?
Save our children! When I speak to some socalled good Catholics, I am shocked that they are quite ready to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under almost any circumstance. I find this hard to understand. We have heard the word "abortion" so often that perhaps we no longer associate procured abortion with the killing of children, yet that is what it is. The term itself can be misleading. The dictionary tells us that it comes from a Latin word that means "to disappear or to miscarry." Sometimes abortions simply happen because of natural causes. That is why this word abortion, for many people, apparently does not really connote the destruction of children. When a human agent induces an abortion, that human agent is taking the life of one of our children.
Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that take the life of innocent children, when there is an alternative? If there were two candidates who supported abortion, but not equally, we would have the obligation to mitigate the evil by voting for the less-permissive candidate.
Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that justify the killing of a child that survived a botched abortion? How can such a so-called good Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist?
In Chapter 10 of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he states: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ... You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons."
Save our children! Have some of our so-called good Catholics become so hardened against the Gospel of Life that they believe that other issues outweigh the Gospel of Life? Have some of our so-called good Catholics put politics ahead of the Fifth Commandment, in which God states: "Thou shalt not kill"? Do some of our so-called good Catholics, who may go to Mass every Sunday and receive the Holy Eucharist, really believe that voting for a pro-abortion candidate, when there is a clear alternative and therefore no justifiable reason for so doing, is really not voting to have children killed? This election is all about saving our children!
Save our children! I have no doubt that there may be some so-called good Catholics who are reading this column and who may be really angry about now. I ask the question "Why would such a person be angry?" If we do good deeds, then our conscience is at peace. If we do evil deeds, then our conscience bothers us. It is my hope that this column will lead some of our so-called good Catholics to study the Catholic Catechism.
Save our children! Some of our so-called good Catholics may have hardened their hearts against the real understanding of induced abortions, that they can no longer see that this involves the destruction of our children. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts!"
Save our children! Supporting induced abortions is not the greatest sin in the world. A greater sin is the refusal to repent of such a serious crime or the denial that this involves the killing of innocent children.
Save our children! I have used this terminology again and again penetrate the defenses of anyone who in the past may have put personal, economic or political interests above the issue of saving our children. The right to life is our most fundamental right, and to defend this right on behalf of the most vulnerable is a great privilege and is worth giving one's life for. Policemen and firemen always risk their lives to save human life. Why should we not risk our own reputation to save our children?
Save our children!You can see by now that I do not believe that this column by itself will change hearts. The issue of abortion involves serious sin, and to overcome serious patterns of sin requires grace. If you are still with me, may I suggest that you join me and many others in praying the daily Rosary from now until election day for the sake of life. Why not pray the family Rosary every night between now and the general election. The Rosary brought down the Iron Curtain. It can also help us turn around the culture of death to a culture of life.
Save our so-called good Catholics who ignore Catholic moral principles when applied to our political life. Pray the family Rosary daily. Pray the family Rosary for our so-called good Catholics who could use your love and your charity. Pray for our so-called good Catholics who ignore serious Catholic moral teachings and still receive Holy Communion. Love them by praying the family Rosary for them. Don't debate with them. Intercede for them. Praying for them is more fun than fighting with them.
Save our children and save our so-called good Catholics who have abandoned Church teachings in favor of personal gain. Pray the Rosary. Pray it every day. Get the whole family to pray the Rosary daily. Prayer is more powerful than contentious arguments. Spread the word to other families. In praying the Rosary, children's votes count as much as adult votes. Sometimes they pray with purer hearts than we do. If you are disgusted with the TV news, then turn it off and turn on the prayer Internet. What we hear in prayer leaves us in peace. When we pray for our country and for our fellow citizens, we are filled with peace. St. Paul tells us that our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers and the spirits of darkness.
Prayer is our protection. Let it also be a protection for our country. If you want to make Satan angry, pray the Rosary for the sake of Life. Pray that as a nation we will choose leaders that will say 'no' to the culture of death and say 'yes' to the culture of life. Save our children! Pray the Rosary!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thoughts of a Regular Guy: Catholic And Democrat?
WOW, I could NOT have said it better! Paul has stated it very well!
Sarah Palin Pays Special Attention to Special Needs Families
HT to Paul of Thoughts of a Regular Guy
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Consequences of Wrong Judicial Choices
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA!
Date: Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Can you two put these on your blogspots?
McCain Defends Joe the Plumber & Palin calling for ...
Everytime I heard yesterday about the media 'going after' Joe the Plumber (and the liberal blogs), I have sat here in 'shock' thinking... this is America? Where one's Freedom of Speech is endangered simply for asking a question of a political candidate? Where you are torn apart and 'exposed' simply because you ASKED a QUESTION?
The POINT of this is not his question, but the answer that was given TO that question by the Candidate. "Spread the wealth" is NOT 'good for America'. That answer... NOT the question nor the questioner ... is the very thing that we NEED TO HEAR before voting.
What form of gov't do we want, anyway? I want the type that was given to us by the Founding Fathers of this Nation.
Sr Rosalind Moss
New Postulants, awaiting the new Archbishop before her new Order can proceed. Sr Rosalind is second from left.
HT to Rome of the West