Thursday, December 4, 2008
I reckon congratulations are in order, my prayers are with you despite your actions against mankind!
President-elect Barack Obama
Washington DC, Nov 23, 2008 / 07:48 pm (CNA).- Citing what they call America’s “promise of equality,” the Obama administration plans to push for homosexual rights by including protections of sexual orientation, “gender identity” and “gender expression” as civil rights. His office proposes expanding hate crimes statues and the adoption rights of homosexuals while supporting full civil unions for “LGBT couples” to give them “legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”
The proposals are announced under the Civil Rights section of their agenda presented at Change.gov, the web site of the Obama campaign’s self-described “Office of the President-elect.”
A section titled “Support for the LGBT Community” outlines the agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered activists and quotes remarks Obama made on June 1, 2007.
“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do,” Obama said, referring to riots which followed a police raid on a New York City gay bar.
“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
According to the web site, President-elect Obama and vice-president-elect Joe Biden will support expand crimes legislation such as the Matthew Shepard Act. They also back the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which they claim will “prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”
“While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy,” the web site states, referring to similar legislation sponsored by Obama in the Illinois state legislature.
Regarding civil unions and same-sex marriage, the site says “Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”
Advocating the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the agenda plans to “enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”
The site also references Obama’s Senate vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which, in the site’s words, “would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.”
On the subject of adoption rights, the Change.gov web site states: “Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.”
The Obama agenda further advocates the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy barring open homosexuals from serving in the military.
Its AIDS prevention policies also pledge to enact a “comprehensive” national strategy including contraceptive sex education and “combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception.”
To Richard of California: 1 Timothy 3:15: if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. Who is your authority? Is it yourself or do you trust in some wise person's teachings or do you trust in the Church and her teachings as Jesus instructed us to do? We all have an authority but only one authority is authentic. The one authentic authority is God Himself and He gave his Authority to Peter our first Pope. Mathew 16: 18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." So what does the Church and the Magisterium have to say about homosexuality? Love the sinner, but hate the sin. To love the sinner we must let the sinner know the he is sinning so they can repent. John the Baptist taught loudly, "Repent". You take some beautiful verses and make statements that lack the content discussed in this article. I nor any Christian could disagree with the verses you quoted from James&Mathew. These verses do not deal with the specific problem of sin. You are confusing love for hatred. It is love for the Church to shepherd her flock from sin. Jesus gave more warnings of of Hell and is not tolerant to sin. Rev 20:12
Published by: MelAkron, OH 01/12/2008 11:15 PM EST
Kathryn, you are right, it IS your business BUT, that said, it's a Christian's business if they speak out against homosexuality ot abortion. Yes, we should govern our own behavior, but part of that freedom of which you speak is the freedom to disagree, no matter which side you're own. It's just as "out there" to expect everyone to agree with YOUR standpoint. really.
Published by: MelodyAkron, OH 01/12/2008 11:11 PM EST
Homosexuality: I don't agree with it, but I know that God is their judge. The only issue I have with them right now is what the commenter Al said: We can't let the gay agenda dictate what can and cannot be said from a pulpit against teh lifestyle. The Bible IS NOT hate literature, it is truth! The gay community is in danger of doing to Christians who disagree with their standpoint what they say is being done to them. Discriminating against them. Nobody's first amendment right should be in jeopardy no matter how they feel. Abortion: I don't agree with abortion, but I feel outlawing Roe v. Wade would create a culture where once again, ppl will be having illegal and dangerous abortions. Only God can change hearts that aren't turned toward Him.
Published by: AlThe Villages, Fl 01/12/2008 05:41 PM EST
This agenda will lead to the same kind of nonsense that happens in Canada. All religous will be subject to government punishment if they cite Church Teachings on homosexuality and all of the people's first amendment rights will be denied in cases of subjects associated with homosexuals. Human rights have been coopted by the gay activist movement which obviously is not satisfied with domestic partnerships(equal rights) but want more - that will translate into christian persecution. The Christian view that homosexual behavior is sinful and not to be condoned will, if articulated, be against the law.
Published by: RonnieBrooklyn, NY, USA 28/11/2008 04:22 PM EST
Kathryn...Sure, everyone exercises their "choice" but ever hear of "your rights end where mine begins"? Can you imagine if during WWII people felt like you? Why bother saving the Jews because it's the Nazi's choice. Who are we to interfer? Or how about the abolitionists? Were they shoving their beliefs down another's throat? And what about Martin Luther King? How dare he force his beliefs on us? And now abortion. How dare we try to stop the killing of innocent children in the womb? No one has the right to kill. But we still do have the right to freedom of religion and speech. This is still a free country... Yes, what you do in your bedroom is your choice. But every action has a consequence. Bad choices lead to bad consequences and visa versa. So therefore you reap what you sow......
Published by: ElaineBonney Lake 28/11/2008 02:17 PM EST
Remember that Obama would not have been elected without the votes of so-called Catholics. In fact the culture of death has expanded and become more acceptable mainly due to the so-called Catholic lawmakers in all levels of government.
Published by: richardcalifornia 27/11/2008 04:56 AM EST
here are some specific verses from the BIBLE, some of which some of you seem to have dismissed or conveniently forgotten to allow your perpetuation of hate in the name of God. James 3:9-10 9-With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10-*Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.* Matthew 5:43-48 43-"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44-But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45-that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46-If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47-And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48-Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 22:36-40 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 Jesus said to him," 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the first and great commandment. 39 *"And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."* (the Jesus i believe in taught love as the most important law, and compassion and acceptance as the path to perfection.)
Published by: richardcalifornia 27/11/2008 04:26 AM EST
also, can someone please show me, definitively, where it says in the bible that marriage is between one man and one woman? because from what i remember, jacob, gideon, solomon and many others all had many wives and were never chastised by God for that specific reason. this would then seem to indicate that marriage has NOT always been between ONE man and ONE woman.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Fargo, North Dakota, Nov 4, 2008 / 06:10 am (CNA).- At a Mass marking the completion of the 40 Days for Life campaign in Fargo, North Dakota, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila reminded his congregation that no Catholic can vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil and that all Catholics “will be judged by how we vote.”
“Judgment is real, just as heaven and hell are real,” Bishop Aquila explained during his homily in Fargo yesterday. “When the soul separates from the body and comes before God, we will be judged on how we lived. It’s important to understand the reality of that judgment.”
According to a press release from the diocese, Bishop Aquila urged the congregation to reflect upon the four last things and how they apply to the 40 Days for Life campaign. The 40 Days for Life North Dakota effort of prayer, fasting and peaceful, prayerful witness outside the state’s only abortion facility began Sept. 24, in conjunction with similar campaigns in more than 170 cities across the nation.
During the 40 days, hundreds of volunteers, prayed in one-hour shifts, 24-hours-a-day, on the sidewalk outside the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, a clinic which averages 20 abortions each week.
Bishop Aquila also touched on the Church’s teaching on intrinsic evils and their relevance in Tuesday’s election during his homily.
“An intrinsic evil is anything that is always and at every time wrong – that can never be seen as a ‘good’.” He noted the intrinsic evils of abortion, contraception, premarital sex, same-sex acts and the taking of innocent human life during war.
“All of those are intrinsic evils, and no society, and no person if he is Catholic, can ever support an intrinsic evil nor can he or she ever vote for someone who supports intrinsic evil. It is important to understand that, and to understand that truth especially in the upcoming election. Because, yes, all of us will be judged by how we vote. And, yes, there are many Catholics with erroneous consciences who have made prudential judgments that are wrong and have consistently made prudential judgments that are wrong. Either they do not fully understand the teaching of the Church or they choose to ignore that teaching and they choose an evil, and an intrinsic evil.”
“For any society to be just, it must reflect the order of God,” the prelate continued. “There are fundamental rights that no one can violate and those are the inalienable rights that our forefathers recognized so clearly -- and note the order -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The bishop was careful to note that American Catholics must be concerned about other issues impacting the country such as the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration and other issues, however, he emphasized that “we must recognize that first must come the fundamental right to life…the respect for human life from the moment of conception to natural death.”
Bishop Aquila concluded his homily by encouraging the members of his diocese to persist in the fight for life. “It is important for us to never give up the battle that is taking place within our country. Even as we close these 40 days, I encourage each of you to continue to stand for the gift of life. I encourage you to continue to pray and fast in your own homes. I encourage you to pray in front of the abortion clinic, to pray for the conversion of all those who support a so-called right to abortion, because, by doing that, they are risking hell. When one looks at the Gospel, and looks at the teaching of Jesus, that is what they are risking.”
An audio recording of the homily is posted at: http://www.fargodiocese.org/Bishop/Homilies/40DaysforLifeHomily11-2-08.mp3
WAKE UP SOULS, WAKE UP YOUR SOUL NOW! Story taken from Catholic News Agency, use link above to go there.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
New York, Oct 28, 2008 / 09:37 am (CNA).- In a strongly worded article published next to a moving photo of an unborn baby in the womb, Cardinal Edward Egan, Archbishop of New York, compared tolerating abortions to the reasoning used by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to commit mass murders.
The cardinal begins his column for the latest edition of the archdiocesan newspaper “Catholic New York” by explaining that “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?” Cardinal Egan asks.
“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.”
The Archbishop of New York continues by asking: “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.”
After describing a recent video depicting the humanity of babies in their mothers’ wombs, the Archbishop of New York says that “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.”
Cardinal Egan continues: “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.”
“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,” he adds.
“Do me a favor,” Cardinal Egan writes, “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.”
Read Cardinal Egan’s full column: http://www.archny.org/news-events/columns-and-blogs/cardinals-monthly-column/index.cfm?i=9314
Houston, TX USA 29/10/2008 12:25 PM EST
The number of dead in the war can't compare to 4500 babies killed by abortion per DAY in this country! The vote for president is a vote for a supreme court nominee...you bet it is. Don't fool yourself...abortion, by pure numbers, is a far greater evil than anything you have mentioned.
Illinois 29/10/2008 12:11 PM EST
Karachi Pakistan 29/10/2008 12:59 AM EST
tampa/FL 28/10/2008 07:04 PM EST
Corpus Christi, TX, USA 28/10/2008 05:12 PM EST
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Scranton, PA, Oct 22, 2008 / 01:00 pm (CNA).- 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.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama / Sen. John McCain
Washington DC, Sep 13, 2008 / 05:43 am (CNA).- Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have addressed issues of both general interest and of special concern to Catholics in two separate e-mail interviews with the magazine U.S. Catholic. The interviews, published in the October 2008 edition of U.S. Catholic, show the candidates’ stands on pro-life issues, health care, the environment, immigration, war, and the place of the United States in the world.
The interview began with questions about the pro-life issues of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and the death penalty.
McCain said he is proud of what he called his “25-year pro-life record in Congress.” Professing support for the reversal of the Supreme Court pro-abortion decision Roe v. Wade, he added that its reversal is “only one step” towards ending abortion.
“Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion—the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby,” McCain wrote.
Obama claimed that “no one is pro-abortion,” but said he “strongly” supports a “woman’s right to choose.” Saying “people of good faith will disagree on this issue,” he expressed commitment to reducing the numbers of abortions by addressing the “underlying factors” he believes drive women to abortion. To reduce abortions, he advocated programs of “comprehensive health- and age-appropriate sex education,” but also increasing pre- and post-natal care, parental counseling, and support for adoption.
Regarding stem cells, Obama said he was sorry that President Bush “has fought this potentially life-saving research,” apparently referring to Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research funding. He professed his belief that such research should be conducted with “the highest ethical standards,” explaining that he had co-sponsored U.S. Senate legislation requiring that donors provide written consent and that such research use only embryos “that would otherwise be discarded.”
The Illinois senator also told U.S. Catholic that he supported research into the viability of adult stem cells and cord blood.
McCain said stem cell research offers “tremendous hope,” adding “The compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease, however, cannot erode moral and ethical principles.” He did not mention his own support for funding embryonic stem cell research.
McCain did voice his support for capital punishment for “heinous crimes” when circumstances warrant it. Obama said he had worked to ensure that capital punishment is administered “fairly and justly,” saying he believes there are crimes “so heinous” that they deserve the death penalty.
Regarding poverty, McCain pledged to prioritize the eradication of poverty through programs like domestic oil drilling and higher fuel economy standards to lower the cost of gas. He said he would “overhaul” unemployment insurance to gear it towards worker retraining, while he also endorsed strengthening community colleges and technical training.
Obama said his work as a community organizer helped him witness the hardship of struggling Americans. Endorsing tax credits for those in need, he also pledged to create a universal mortgage credit and a fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
On environmental topics, Obama pledged to make the U.S. a global leader on climate change by creating a Global Energy Forum and rejoining post-Kyoto treaty negotiations. McCain called climate change the “single greatest environmental challenge of our time,” endorsing the Lexington Project to increase “dependable” energy resources and to clean up the environment.
Turning to health care, McCain told U.S. Catholic that health care plans should be made more “portable and affordable” through “generous” tax credits, “direct refundable” credits worth $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.
Obama similarly said health care should be portable and affordable, saying his own health care plan would reduce costs by $2,500 for families. Saying no one would be turned away because of pre-existing conditions, he claimed that his plan includes “reasonable” premiums, “comprehensive” benefits, and “simplified” enrollment and paperwork.
On immigration, Obama said undocumented workers should be “brought out of the shadows” by creating a “pathway” to legitimate citizenship.
“They should pay a fine, pay taxes, and learn English,” he said, adding that he supports secure borders, a streamlined citizenship process for legal immigrants, and an improved legal visa system.
McCain lamented the failure of recent immigration reform legislation, saying Americans needed more reassurance about border security before they could support immigration reform. Calling for “practical, fair, and necessary immigration policy,” he endorsed the creation of a system to check a worker’s identity using a “limited set of secure documents that contain biometric data and are electronically verifiable.”
War and Terrorism
Regarding the war in Iraq and terrorism issues, Obama said the U.S. should use the withdrawal of troops to strategically “increase pressure on the Iraqi political leaders to come to a political agreement.” Saying war is a decision that must not be made lightly, he said the U.S. should use its “military, economic, diplomatic, and informational power” to advance its security.
According to Sen. McCain, defeating “radical Islamist extremists” is “the transcendent national security challenge of our time.” He similarly said he would use all “instruments of national power” to defend the U.S.
Were there to be a second terrorist attack on U.S. soil, McCain said he “would not rest until the perpetrators were captured or killed,” pledging that the planners of such attacks would be “rapidly targeted.”
“There would be no sanctuaries and no mercy,” he added, saying the U.S. should ensure there are no “safe havens” for terrorists.
McCain professed great optimism about the historical position of the United States, saying “We have a chance in our lifetime to raise the world to a new standard of existence.”
He added that the U.S. cannot “lead by virtue of its power alone,” saying Americans must demonstrate the “virtues of freedom and democracy,” defend the “the rules of international civilized society,” and create new international organizations to advance peace and freedom.
Obama told U.S. Catholic that global political or economic progress should not be made a “zero-sum enterprise,” saying he supported significant increases in global anti-poverty efforts and trade deals that include “binding labor and environmental provisions.”
Published by: EileenLargo, Fl., USA 15/09/2008 03:56 PM EST
As soon as abortion is abolished, normal living will return. I am not willing to chance four more years of abortion on demand.The consequences are all around us.
Rate this comment: Excellent Very Good Good Regular Bad
Published by: wm robinsstratford nj usa 14/09/2008 04:26 PM EST
This fails to mention that Obama favors paying for abortions for ANY reason with our tax money. Some health plan! Same sex marriage is also conveniently avoided.
Rate this comment: Excellent Very Good Good Regular Bad
Published by: JamesTampa/FL/USA 14/09/2008 10:42 AM EST
Obama is disqualified due to his anti-Christian stances on abortion, embryonic stem cells and marriage. He is very deluded to think that homosexuals are able to be married. He claims to believe marriage is only for one man and one woman but his actions prove quite to the contrary. Catholics with well formed and informed consciences can not vote for Barrack Obama. The homosexual vote is very pro-Obama for a reason, wake up Catholics!!!
Rate this comment: Excellent Very Good Good Regular Bad
Published by: Teresa LawrenceSan Antonio, Texas 13/09/2008 10:41 PM EST
Thank you for publishing this interview, it gives me greater respect for both candidates. God guide our country in our decisiones. My deepest feeling is that whatever promotes life and the integrity of family structure, needs to be our first consideration, because without that firm and secure foundation, no plans for good can really take root. -Thank you again for this article. -
Rate this comment: Excellent Very Good Good Regular Bad
Published by: Jeff JohnsonCollegeville, Mn 13/09/2008 04:47 PM EST
While McCain's stance on embryonic stem cell research is lamentable, Obama's pro-life claims in this interview are utter lies, inspired by the father of lies Christ speaks of in our Holy Gospel. He thought he was addressing his "Catholic problem" by enlisting Biden, but this is the answer to the perpetuation of the slaughter of young innocents. We must pray Obama's prideful will to power is thwarted, and that Mr. McCain will emerge as 100% pro-life.
Rate this comment: Excellent Very Good Good Regular Bad
Published by: antranAtlanta GA USA 13/09/2008 07:37 AM EST
It has been a long time since Catholics were divided at election times. Things have changed, and the 2008 election will prove that once more Amarica honors its traditional values, regarging human life and family in particular. God bless the American bishops who have this time told eloquently the Catholic politicians to act according to the teaching they have received.
Rate this comment: Excellent Very Good Good Regular Bad
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Orthodox Jewish-Catholic Statement on Marriage“Created in the Divine Image”
Many communities within the United States are now engaged in a new conversation on the meaning of the word “marriage”, questioning whether it should describe a union only between a man and a woman. As leaders of our respective faiths, we, as Orthodox Rabbis, communal leaders and representatives of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, wish to affirm our shared commitment to the ordinance of God, the Almighty One, who created man and woman in the divine image (Gen. 1:26-27), so that they might share as male and female, as helpmates and equals (Gen. 2:21-24), in the procreation of children (Gen. 1:28) and the building up of society.
We now confront a demand that same sex unions be classified as marriage. Advocates of this position argue that to do otherwise is to engage in a form of discrimination against homosexuals. We recognize that all persons share equally in the dignity of human nature and are entitled to have that human dignity protected, but this does not justify the creation of a new definition for a term whose traditional meaning is of critical importance to the furtherance of a fundamental societal interest.
God’s design for the continuance of human life, as seen in the natural order, as well as in the Bible (Gen. 1-3), clearly revolves around the union of male and female, first as husband and wife, and then as parents. A unique goal of marriage, which is reproduction and the raising of families, exists apart from that of same sex unions, which cannot equally participate in this essential function. While others may claim the right to establish private relationships between persons of the same gender that simulate marriage, the legal classification of such relationships as marriage dilutes the special standing of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the future of every society depends upon its ability to reproduce itself according to this natural order and to have its young people reared in a stable environment, it is the duty of the state to protect the traditional place of marriage and the family for the good of society.
While others have the freedom to disagree with us, we hope that even those outside of our common religious traditions will recognize that we speak from the truth of human nature itself which is consistent with both reason and the moral life. We also call upon our local faith communities to consider carefully the long held traditions of Jews and Christians on the nature of marriage as built upon the commitment of a man and a woman desirous of establishing a family for contributing to the common good of humanity.
Rabbi Fabian SchonfeldRabbi of Young Israel Synagogue, Kew Gardens Hills, New York.Bishop William MurphyBishop of Rockville Centreand members of the Consultation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America
The press release below was issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
DATE: September 9, 2008
FROM: Mar Muñoz-Visoso
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS RESPOND TO SENATOR BIDEN’S STATEMENTS REGARDING CHURCH TEACHING ON ABORTION
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman, U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:
Recently we had a duty to clarify the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against abortion, to correct misrepresentations of that teaching by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “Meet the Press” (see www.usccb.org/prolife/whatsnew.shtml). On September 7, again on “Meet the Press,” Senator Joseph Biden made some statements about that teaching that also deserve a response.
Senator Biden did not claim that Catholic teaching allows or has ever allowed abortion. He said rightly that human life begins “at the moment of conception,” and that Catholics and others who recognize this should not be required by others to pay for abortions with their taxes.
However, the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, one which cannot be “imposed” on others, does not reflect Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.
The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.
The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will. The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.
While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.
# # # # #
# # # # #
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Link to Youtube
Let us expose more of the facts about Obama and his radical friends and agenda.
HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA! CLICK HERE
The Ayers Connection
William Charles Ayers and Barack Obama have been friends for decades.
There is clear evidence that their lives and dealings have been intertwined for many years.
We have reason to believe that Obama and Ayers were friends way back in 1986.
They even served together in 1995 on the Annenberg Challenge, overseeing the distribution of about $50 million to area schools.
That same year, Ayers hosted Obama in his own home and donated to his campaign.
What does the association between Ayers and Obama say about Obama’s political views and perspective?
Ayers was an anti-American, traitorous radical who will stop at nothing to push his hateful communist agenda.
In the 1960s and 70s, he was a leader in the notorious underground terrorist group, the “Weathermen.”
The Weathermen declared war on the United States government and they bombed over 30 establishments (leading to multiple fatalities, including police officers).
Obama's friend Bill Ayers
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their carsand apartments. Bring the revolution home,kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”William Ayers
Ayers is unapologetic about his terrorist activities.
Incredibly, on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted by The New York Times as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.”
How could a man like Obama associate with such a dangerous radical? And even defend him?
And now Obama, Ayers friend, could be sitting in the White House next year — unless we tell the American people the unvarnished truth about them!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
San Francisco, Sep 5, 2008 / 07:10 pm (CNA).- The Archbishop of San Francisco George H. Niederauer has issued a response to remarks made by U.S. House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi regarding her recent comments on abortion and Catholic teaching. Commenting that her rejection of the immorality of abortion has produced “widespread consternation,” the archbishop said it is his duty to consider whether Rep. Pelosi should receive Holy Communion. He then invited the Democratic leader to converse with him about Catholic faith and morals.
Writing in the September 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper, Archbishop Niederauer stated that Rep. Pelosi’s remarks were in “serious conflict” with Church teaching. He said it was his responsibility to “teach clearly what Christ in his Church teaches about faith and morals, and to oppose erroneous, misleading and confusing positions when they are advanced.”
Citing other bishops’ comments on Rep. Pelosi’s two televised interviews and a statement released through her office, he said it was his “particular duty” to address them.
On an August 24 interview on Meet the Press, Rep. Pelosi referenced her dissent from Church teaching, saying, “So there's some areas where we're in agreement and some areas where we're not, and one being a woman's right to choose, and the other being stem cell research.”
Calling Rep. Pelosi a “gifted, dedicated and accomplished public servant,” the archbishop noted both her statements about “her love for her faith and the Catholic Church” and her support for some legislation that is in line with the social teaching of the Church.
“However,” Archbishop Niederauer said, “her recent remarks are opposed to Church teaching.”
The archbishop cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which calls direct abortion “grossly contrary to the moral law,” adding that the early Christian writings called the Didache also commands: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”
He then referenced Rep. Pelosi’s August 26 statement which said “While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe [sic] to that view.”
Criticizing her remark, the archbishop said it “suggests that morality can be decided by poll, by numbers. If ninety percent of Catholics subscribe to the view that human life begins at conception, does that makes Church teaching truer than if only seventy percent or fifty percent agree?” he asked.
He then emphasized the Catholic teachings on the authority of the Church, citing the Second Vatican Council. “As Catholics, we believe what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals, for to hear the voice of the Church on those matters is to hear the voice of Christ himself,” he said.
Archbishop Niederauer reported that many Catholics have written him messages in which they had “expressed their dismay and concern about the speaker’s remarks” and had asked whether it was necessary to deny Holy Communion to some Catholic figures in public life because of their open support of abortion.
Noting that Catholics ought to receive Holy Communion worthily, he said that self-examination should help us realize whether we have committed a serious sin and should seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
The U.S. bishops’ 2006 document “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper,” he remarked, advises “we should be cautious when making judgments about whether or not someone else should receive Holy Communion." The document adds that Catholics who “knowingly and obstinately” reject defined doctrines of the Church or Church teaching on moral issues should refrain from that Sacrament.
“To give selective assent to the teachings of the Church deprives us of her life-giving message, but also seriously endangers our communion with her," the 2006 document says.
The archbishop cited the writings of his predecessor who is now Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada. In 2004 Cardinal Levada wrote that each individual bishop must decide whether to deny someone Holy Communion.
“From that statement I conclude that it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco,” Archbishop Niederauer wrote.
“I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum,” he continued, “but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters.
“It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace.”
Friday, September 5, 2008
In other words, Mr. Obama and his wife were active participants in a radical left wing group which has a problem with the ideaology of the majority of voting Americans, aka, heterosexuals. You'll never hear this information in the mainstream media. Ask yourself, do you really want to see a man with such views shaping the laws and future of our country for the next four years? A really scary thought is that if Barack Obama becomes president, he could potentially appoint 3 supreme court justices. They are in office FOR LIFE.
Many Americans don't realize that Obama is the MOST liberal voting member of the senate. Biden is third. Don't believe us, look it up for yourselves...please.
Here's the article...
Monday, September 1, 2008
By Steve Holland
ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old unmarried daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.
Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, according to aides of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, the aides said.
The Palins, in a statement released by the McCain campaign, said Bristol "came to us with news that we as parents knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned" and that their daughter "has our unconditional love and support."
Read full article:
Sunday, August 31, 2008
How to Vote Catholic
A Brief Guide for Voters
« prev : next »
Catholics are obliged to participate in politics by voting.
Legislators are elected to serve and protect the common good, human dignity, and rights of human persons.
Voters should have a clear understanding of the principles of Catholic moral and social teaching.
The life issues are dominant in the hierarchy of issues for the Catholic voter.
Prudential judgment is the application of principle to concrete situations.
Catholic principles apply to all political issues but in many cases do not lead prudentially to one acceptable Catholic position.
The bishops' teachings on faith and morals are binding; their prudential judgments on policy guide us but do not bind us.
The Christian Faith cannot be restricted to oneself and one's family, making it impossible to "love one's neighbor."
The principle of subsidiarity teaches that Catholics should first address social problems at the local level before asking the government to intervene.
Politics and government need the public witness of what faith teaches about the common good, human rights, and human dignity.
Abortion is the dominant political issue.
Being pro-abortion disqualifies a candidate from a Catholic vote.
Catholics can justly support politicians who advocate incremental means toward eliminating abortion.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
The ban against euthanasia and assisted suicide admits of no exception.
Removing extraordinary means of supporting life is allowable as a prudential judgment.
The growing acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide rests on the misguided assumption that pain detracts from the value of life.
Since science serves human ends, not its own, scientific research must always respect the moral law.
Science must respect the inherent dignity of the human person.
Unused and unwanted embryos must be treated with the respect afforded to other human beings.
Ending human life cannot be justified in the name of therapeutic (i.e., medical) benefits to other persons.
Population policy must not include abortion and sterilization as methods of slowing population growth.
The use of contraception in population policy undermines marriage and ignores the moral issues of promiscuity and disease.
Catholic institutions should not be required to support contraception or abortion through mandated insurance coverage.
The right to abortion should not be allowed to enter international law under the rubric of women's "reproductive health" or fears of overpopulation.
The Death Penalty
The Church teaches that the death penalty is acceptable in principle but should be avoided in practice.
The responsibility of elected officials is to ensure that penal systems and sentencing policies do in fact protect society from known aggressors.
The practical elimination of the death penalty is based upon the strength of the penal system and the commensurateness of the sentencing procedures.
States have the right to engage in war in self-defense but should first exhaust all peaceful solutions.
Just war is waged within defined moral boundaries in regard to its targets, goals, and outcomes.
Political leadership must have both the inclination toward peace and the capacity for decisive action if war is just and necessary.
Defense and Terrorism
Nations have a duty to protect their citizens from legitimate threats.
Nations should build their capacity for defense in light of just-war theory.
Terrorism—the injury and murder of innocent civilians—is never justified.
Defending a nation combines the military, international diplomacy, and a compassionate foreign policy.
Judges should be evaluated according to their judicial records and commitment to the limited judicial role, not attacked for their privately held religious views.
Those who would nominate and confirm judicial activists disenfranchise the faithful Catholic voter.
Catholic leaders have a duty to respect their constituents and their Church's commitment to natural law tradition when considering judicial appointees.
Marriage and the Family
Marriage was instituted prior to the state and should be recognized by the state as something inviolate and necessary to the common good.
Prudential judgments about law and public policy should always seek to strengthen marriage and families.
So-called same-sex marriages cannot be recognized by the Catholic Church, and civil unions are likely to undermine marriage and damage its foundational role in society.
Parents—not the state—have the right to educate their children.
Catholic parents have the right to have their children educated in a curriculum consonant with Catholic values.
Governments should provide financial support to families for the education they desire for their children.
Work is a matter of human dignity and is necessary to the common good.
Government should create the conditions that support business and industry development.
Corporate responsibility is critical in helping to maintain economic success.
Taxes should be fairly based upon one's ability to pay.
Tax policy should not penalize marriage or the raising of children.
Corporate taxes should not threaten the capacity to create and sustain jobs.
The preferential option for the poor requires that authorities first provide assistance to the poor and oppressed.
The poor must have access to the education and job training necessary to compete in today's job market.
Strong families that remain intact keep their members from falling into poverty.
Health-care needs should be met by a combination of personal and corporate insurance, philanthropy, and government programs.
Catholic health-care organizations must be free to perform their work with clear consciences.
Abstinence and fidelity should be the foundation of sexually transmitted disease—education and prevention.
Religious expression is a human right that should be recognized by the state.
States that enforce secularism in social services and education are violating religious liberty.
Political debate naturally involves religious concepts since law and public policy directly affect the common good.
A nation should seek to accommodate the immigrant who, for just reasons, seeks greater access to the basic goods of life.
Political leaders and citizens should recognize the reality of human interdependence that crosses all borders and all national identities.
The immigrant is a person who deserves the same protection of law and social benefits afforded to citizens.
From creation, human beings are given special responsibility as stewards of the earth.
As part of its duty to the common good, the government should prevent unnecessary harm to natural resources.
Government should also use creative and technological skill, in concert with global cooperation, to reverse existing environmental damage.
Interestingly, the article highlights the stark difference between Obama's beliefs about abortion and Palin's recent decision to give birth to her down syndrome infant son, against her doctors recommendations. She was quoted on the Laura Ingram radio program as saying that she saw "perfection" the first time she looked into his eyes.
Now that's a leader who truly understands the dignity of the human person. Read below and see what you think...
Conservative leaders react to McCain’s VP choice of pro-life Gov. Sarah Palin
Dayton, Aug 29, 2008 / 12:55 pm (CNA).- Sen. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin won praise from many commentators within the ambit of the Republican Party, but especially among pro-lifers. Praising Palin as “strongly pro-life,” speakers remarked that Palin’s decision to carry her Down’s syndrome child to term was an especially sharp contrast with Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to legislation that would protect infants who survive abortions.
Sen. McCain announced the choice of Palin at a rally in Dayton, Ohio on Friday. McCain introduced her as someone "who can best help me shake up Washington and make it start working again for the people who are counting on us."
Palin was born in Idaho on February 11, 1964. According to a biography on Alaska’s official web site, Palin moved to Alaska with her family later that year. Her husband, Todd, is a production operator for BP and a champion snow machine racer. They have five children, with Palin recently having given birth to a son with Down’s syndrome in April.
She has also served as city councilman and mayor of Wasilla, a south-central Alaska town with a population of reportedly more than 6,000 people, and served as chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission, which regulates the state’s oil and gas resources.
Speaking in a phone press conference, several expert panelists with Republican sympathies praised the pick.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, lauded the decision.
"Sarah Palin is the whole package. There couldn't be a better vice-presidential pick," said Dannenfelser. "Women voters are electrified,” she continued, describing Palin as a “reform-minded woman” who is “truly in sync with the way real women think.” She will “give all Americans, born and unborn, the authentic leadership they deserve," she said.
Father Frank Pavone, President of Priests for Life, called Palin “strongly pro-life.”
Asked how the selection will be received by pro-life Catholics in particular, Father Pavone added, “It will no doubt be received very well.”
He noted that the pro-life community already was somewhat familiar with Palin because she recently gave birth to a baby with Down’s syndrome.
Father Pavone suggested Palin will bring more into play the “pro-life increment.” He explained that for the one-third or more of the electorate who consider the abortion issue in their votes, there is a two to one margin in favor of pro-life candidates.
Jill Stanek, a conservative journalist and blogger, asked the panel to contrast Palin’s decision to deliver her Down’s syndrome baby with Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to legislation that would protect infants who survive abortion.
Father Pavone replied, “the contrast between those two facts about the candidates is going to come out… we’re going to make sure that it comes out, it’s a very striking contrast.”
Dannenfelser quoted Palin’s own comments when she discovered her unborn baby had Down’s syndrome: “We feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift.”
Dannenfelser remarked: “Contrast that with Sen. Obama’s approach to leaving born-alive babies left sitting there for dead, and also making the comment, if his daughter got pregnant, he would not ‘punish her with a baby.’
“It’s ‘punishment’ versus ‘privilege,’ that’s the contrast,” Dannenfelser asserted.
CNA asked the panel whether the Palin pick was a tacit acknowledgment of McCain’s weakness among pro-lifers.
Dannenfelser said that she believed people think McCain has genuine pro-life convictions, but suggested that anyone skeptical should see the Palin choice as a “perfect complement,” not as the filling of a weakness.
Father Pavone agreed, adding that the selection of Palin eliminates any concern about a possible pro-choice vice-presidential nominee.
“I think this will help us know he really does embrace this issue in political practice as well as in his voting record,” he stated.
Ken Blackwell, Vice-Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s platform committee, added his own comments.
He remarked that, as someone who guided the platform committee to the “most significant pro-life platform in the Republican Party’s history,” he thought John McCain’s “full embrace of the platform” is shown in the ticket. “This team does not reflect one iota of weakness. It is the strongest pro-life team with a pro-life platform in the history of the Republican Party.”
When CNA asked how McCain could be described as such a strong supporter of the platform in light of his endorsement of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Blackwell noted that McCain’s campaign has worked with the platform committee on the relevant language. Blackwell said he thought that McCain, if he recognizes that there have been breakthroughs in research that do not involve the destruction of embryos, “that [recognition] will make this argument… a non-starter.”
Leaders of other interest groups in the GOP also praised McCain’s vice-presidential pick.
Sandra Froman, former National Rifle Association (NRA) president and current board member, called Palin, an NRA member, an “outstanding pick” who would “energize the gun rights community.”
“How can you go wrong with a moose burger-eating, fishing governor?” she asked in a delighted tone.
Grover Norquist, a prominent fiscal conservative who is president of Americans for Tax Reform, praised Palin as a “reformer” who improved government transparency by putting government financial records online.
Several panelists suggested that the pick would also appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters disaffected by an Obama candidacy and the prospect of a victorious Obama’s control of the Democratic Party. They also thought the choice courts “Reagan Democrats” who voted against Obama in the primaries.
Panelists argued that the choice of Palin, Alaska’s governor for only two years, would not eliminate Republican charges that Obama is inexperienced.
“When you compare her experience to Barack Obama’s experience, her executive experience, her experience as mayor, her experience as assistant governor, her experience as a reformer, her experience as an environmental activist,” Blackwell argued, “she is more prepared, more experienced to be president than the top of their ticket.”
Elsewhere, social conservatives were enthusiastic about the Palin choice.
“What a remarkable pick,” Austin Ruse of C-FAM told CNA in a statement. “Social conservatives are dancing in the streets. This is smart and dare I say sexy pick. My wife Cathy and I are gushing.”