USCCB Social Justice - Poisonous From Its Beginnings

I stumbled upon two videos featuring Michael Voris.  Apparently they're from a conference in Louisiana that he gave within this past year.  They both deal with the origins of current "social teaching" by the USCCB.  When I said yesterday that the USCCB's prattling was both deadly and corrosive, I didn't realize how correct I was, for these talks show the insidious beginnings and the sinister players in the development of what is mistakenly called "Catholic social teaching" in the United States today.  In fact, it bears little resemblance to actual magisterial pronouncements but are merely progressive talking points dressed up with "catholic" vocabulary to impress the unsuspecting Catholic in the pew. I post both videos below.

Personal Immorality Causes Political Ignorance

That is a main theme of today's Vortex; it's shown at the 2:00 mark.  Voris is right.  There is a high correlation between those who are in rebellion against God and His moral teachings and those who are utterly clueless about our society at large - that is, outside the realm of sports, entertainment and creature comforts.  They may not be able to tell you who their two Senators are, but they can tell you (with great enthusiasm) which musician is hooking up with which entertainment personality, etc.  The reason for this is simple; spiritual and moral laxity will bring with it mental flabbiness in just about every other aspect of life.  For many, physical flabbiness and laziness also comes with the package.

This spiritual and intellectual malady is sadly found among those who call themselves members of the Tea Party.  In the Tea Party rallies that I've attended, scant lip-service was paid to God.  The rest of the time was devoted to protesting governmental encroachment upon our lives: a rather short-sighted focus.  In the most recent issue of the Defend Life newsletter appears an article (written by Yours Truly) that deals with this issue as it pertains to the Tea Party; I link to it now and suggest that you read it (scroll to page 17) rather than try to rehash it here.

I've even seen this sickness within the Manhattan Declaration.  In that supposedly seminal document that ostensibly treated all the moral failings of this nation, not one peep was uttered about the pandemonium caused by contraception.  In fact, a word search on that document found not one mention of the word "contraception".  That glaring omission had "conflict of interest" screaming all over it.  Either the authors were themselves dallying with contraception or were too cowardly to confront it among their family and friends.  In any event, the authors and many who signed it literally danced around that elephant in the living room.  And of course, Michael Voris interviewed young attendees at the March for Life and found many of them approving of contraception and "gay marriage".

Now the video...

Father Guarnizo On The Situation In Ireland

On the site of Live Action appears an article penned by Father Marcel Guarnizo on the recent legal battles in the Irish Parliament.  In this article he refutes some misguided statements uttered by Austin Ruse.  I invite you to read it for yourselves.

As you read, recall that contraception is the "camel's nose under the tent".  We would not have had the Roe-v-Wade disaster if that had not been preceded by the Griswold-v-Connecticut disaster.  Even now some US pro-life leaders refuse to accept that.  Remember the Manhattan Declaration?  I've delved into its fatal flaw and why I could not sign it myself.  When will we learn??

Yesterday Live Action, Christian Defense Coalition, Students for Life and others rallied outside the Irish Embassy in Washington DC on behalf of our Irish compatriots who are struggling to keep their country abortion-free.  We join our Irish friends in prayer as we pray and work to end the bloodshed in our own country.

Pro-Life Compromises

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris deals with some crucial ways that Catholic pro-lifers tolerate compromise on key tenets of the faith.  I don't agree with every detail of this video, but he echoes many of my concerns about the unfortunate tendency of many Catholics to "look the other way" in dealing with the evil of contraception.  American Life League, Human Life International and some others have been strident in their proclamation, but too many ignore that "elephant in the living room".

One spectacular example of such capitulation was the Manhattan Declaration.  It did a splendid job of treating all the other moral evils (abortion, divorce, homosexuality) - but no where in that exhaustive document was the word "contraception" even mentioned.  To this day I remain aghast at the number of pro-life leaders (some Catholic) who signed it.  I and several others opted not to join in that tacit and erroneous declaration that contraception was a minor matter.

Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Contraception = The Spirit Of Abortion

Lifesite News pubished an article written about the realization of Sarah Nelson that she was partaking in a "spirit of abortion" through her embrace of contraceptives.  I encourage all to read it, for Ms Nelson addresses this issue not only with honesty, but equally commendable clarity.

A few days ago, I was on Jill Stanek's blog and posted that the acceptance of contraception opened the doors to abortion, as they both stem from the hellish anti-life mentality.  It was quite disheartening to read the admission of some that they use contraception - and these are "pro-life" folks.  I think I'll recommend to them Ms. Nelson's article.

Three years ago, some Christian professors (at least one of them Catholic) drew up a document called the Manhattan Declaration.  On the surface, it appears to be a fairly exhaustive treatment of the various social, moral and spiritual ills that threaten to bring about the collapse of western civilization.  I say "fairly" and not "complete" for there is one glaring omission.  In that entire document, the word "contraception" is not to be found.  For that reason, I and several others did not sign it.  To this day, the authors of the Manhattan Declaration have not seen fit to correct that most gross of moral errors.  I understand that these authors are speaking out on the HHS mandates - mandates that focus on contraception.  Is that irony entirely lost on them??

Ladies and gentlemen, let's be clear.  Unless we (and by that I mean pro-life Christians) finally acknowledge that hulking "elephant in the living room" known as contraception, any gain we make in the pro-life area will be, at best, minuscule.  How can God hear our prayers and bless our efforts to end abortion if we ourselves harbor the "spirit of abortion" in our own hearts?  (Hint: read Psalm 66:18).

By the way - Real Catholic TV compiled a page of their resources on the evils of contraception.  Take a look.  There is also, of course, Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

The Live Action Debate Goes On - But Why??

I posted yesterday about the rather strange debate encircling the Live Action stings of Planned Parenthood and whether or not the actors engaged in lying in the sinful sense.  Well, this debate still continues, with ever-so-scholarly criticisms being lobbed at Live Action.  I cannot help but suspect that George Soros and his hench-people are taking great delight as they watch these folks carry on and on.  By the way - my mention of George Soros is one key reason why I look askance upon this "theological debate".  As I mentioned in the last post (and in the comment sections of other blogs), I cannot help but think that the timing of all this theological hullabaloo, with the entrance of George Soros into the Live Action / Planned Parenthood saga, is more than just a coincidence.  Why just now are all these theologians getting all atwitter, when pro-lifers have been doing "stings" now for many years without the theologians uttering nary a peep?

The proceeds of this debate on one blog, as well as the comments therein, really reinforces my suspicions of subtle and nefarious agents in all this debate. 

We Must Fight Contraception - Beginning In The Catholic Pulpits!

Click here if you cannot see embedded video.



He's right.  As long as the Catholic leadership demur from their task to speak out regarding God's plan for sexuality and the horrid evil of contraception, the murder will continue.  That makes them complicit in acts of murder.  There can be no side-stepping of this issue.

Speaking of side-stepping of this issue, how many remember the Manhattan Declaration?  Not too many?  It's probably just as well.  At any rate, in October of 2009, the Manhattan Declaration was considered a "seminal, ground-breaking document".  At that time, emails were flying about willy-nilly, and we "had to sign it or the world would disintegrate immediately"!  Remember all that peer-pressure hub-bub?  This document supposedly treated on all the cultural ills that we are facing today.  It did do a reasonably decent job of treating divorce, abortion, gay lifestyle, etc.  Still, something was missing - not one mention of it!  Given the topic of this blog post, I bet you can guess what this mysterious "something" is!  Yep!  Contraception!!

I couldn't sign the Manhattan Delcaration for the reasons Voris so eloquently states.  It does Irish jigs around the seminal issue of all - contraception.  I made my displeasure known, and repeat that displeasure to warn that to the extent that we are willing to overlook contraception, no matter the reason, to that extent we compromise with the culture of death.  It's time to throw this "polite silence" crap into the toilet where it belongs (and flush!) and speak the plain truth.  Not only does this onus fall on the shoulders of the bishops, but also on the shoulders of those who call themselves "pro-life activists".

The Manhattan Declaration App Flap

The below clip details a bit what Steve Jobs of Apple has done to the Manhattan Declaration app.  Apple has removed the app, stating that it is offensive, while retaining other apps that promote homosexuality, the baby-slaughter known as abortion and other godless causes.  National Organization for Marriage, the organization who put out this video, call this move "censorship".

While I agree that this move on Apple's part was nothing more than politically-correct toadying, I think it inaccurate to call it "censorship".  The latter, by definition, can only be done by legal authorities as they silence speech in public forums.  Of course the First Amendment prohibits such activities by governmental bodies.  In general, it must be borne in mind that the Bill of Rights speaks only to governmental entities to bar them from encroaching upon God-given rights of people.  It does not speak to private entities as they govern activities on their personal properties.  Thus, while I deplore the actions of Apple, I must acknowledge their right to govern usage of their resources.  If I seek to undermine their rights, I in turn undermine the rights of everyone to govern the usage of their property and the activites conducted on the same.

Of course we have free-market recourse. It's called the boycott.  I understand that a revamped application has been submitted.  If Apple doesn't accept it, I suggest a boycott.  Here's the video.  Censorship matter aside, it does a decent job of scolding Apple's cowardice and hypocrisy.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Manhattan Declaration Misses the Point, Per Dr. Charles Rice

Dr. Charles Rice, a professor emeritus of Notre Dame Law School and a renowned pro-life author has penned an article that eloquently states my objections to the Manhattan Declaration.  I urge one and all to read it. 

To recap my own objections (which can be reviewed by typing "Manhattan Declaration" into the search box), this so-called manifesto mentions most of the moral ills of our contemporary culture - except contraception!  This omission is so glaring and obvious that I cannot help but believe that it is deliberate.  The very acquiesence in this matter is nothing other than homage to the culture of death.  I will quote here from Dr. Rice's article: "The failure of MD, in its catalogue of legalized promotions of the “culture of death,” even to mention the entry by government into the business of subsidizing by contraception the rejection of new life, is inexcusable. Once that role of government was conceded, the other evils denounced by MD were predictable. Perhaps the purpose of MD was to put together a coalition of signers that would include proponents of public funding of contraception. If so, MD politicized and trivialized itself."

Some criticisms of my opinions have been:
1) "We've got to start somewhere!"  True, but we should still take care that the "somewhere" is truly a worthy starting point.  Take the analogy of weeding a garden.  What good does it do to simply rip off the stem and flower, but still leave the root?  If the root is left, you know very well that the weeds will be back very quickly.
2) "You're trash-talking a positive step."  All that demonstrates is that we've partaken of the "positive versus negative" kool-aid.  Instead of focusing on "postivie versus negative", we should be concerned with "truth versus falsehood", "accuracy versus inaccuracy".  The "positive versus negative" paradigm has more to do with people's subjective reactions to a given subject matter, rather than with the objective merits of the subject matter at hand.
3) "Look at all the Catholic/Christian/prolife famous people who've glommed onto the MD.  Can they all be wrong?  What famous person backs up your negative (that word again!) position?  Get with the program!"  With Dr. Rice's now-published opinion, I can now say "Voila!"  But - should that really matter?  Ladies and gentlemen, we will all answer to God individually for our actions.  We will not be able to tell Him, "But Mr. Prolife Bigshot said this was the silver bullet!"  We have to stand for ourselves - even if we stand alone.

By the way - aside from hearing of all the folks who've signed the MD (my name being absent!), I haven't heard of much real, tangible fruit from this thing.  Frankly, I don't think we'll hear much of it ever, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

More on Manhattan Declaration

I've done some more digging into the "Manhattan Declaration".  I learned that the three principal draftors were Robert George, Timothy George (I don't know if they're related) and Chuck Colson.  I've no doubt that these are fine, well-intentioned gentlemen.  I believe only Robert George is Catholic.  I also downloaded the declaration into a Word document to do a little looking.

In response to inquiries I made to people who are enthusiastically promoting this effort, all they could, or would, tell me is that "Bishop So-and-so or Mr. Prominent-Prolife-Leader signed it, so it must be ok!"  Some of them even implied that I had sprouted an extra eye ball in the middle of my forehead for daring to question what appears to be a herd-mentality stampede towards who-knows-what.  This highlights one of the big concerns that I have regarding this, well, fad.  How do we, as thinking, rational Christians and Catholics, arrive at our decisions?  If we say that a course of action is the way to go simply because some prominent people are going that route, then we are in effect letting them do our thinking for us.  That sort of abdication of personal responsibility cannot be morally acceptable in my opinion.  Now understand that I'm not questioning the decision per se as much as I'm wondering about the decision-making process. 

I am a Catholic and a pro-life activist, and have long been going out in front of abortuaries to offer witness along with some good friends.  We go out in all kinds of weather.  Occasionally we're mocked, assaulted and even threatened with arrest.  We're no strangers to the rough-and-tumble; we aren't wimps.  I agree with the statements in this declaration that we may have to engage in civil disobedience, as we cannot obey laws that are inherently contradictory to those of God.  I will point out, though, that such statements are to be found in Evangelium Vitae. 

I do find serious fault with this declaration, though.  That fault lies more with what it doesn't say.  It lists many social and moral ills: abortion, divorce, gay lifestyle.  But what is the lynchpin to these sins?   Hint: Humanae Vitae.  As I said, I downloaded it into Word and did word searches.  There was no mention of the words "contraception", "contraceptives", "birth control".  Why this omission?  Please don't tell me that "opposition to contraception is peculiar to Catholics".  That is patently false!  Until as recently as 1930, all Christian denominations understood the intrinsic evil of contraception.  That ended with the 1930 Lambeth Conference.  Even the Washington Post, in an editorial during that time, lamented the resulting societal destruction that the embrace of contraception would bring (back then, there must have been sane people at that helm).  If this document is being touted as some statement of foundational principles, it is seriously wanting.  As far as I'm concerned, the omission of the contraceptive mentality as a precurser to all the other problems is a deal-breaker for me.  I've no bones in saying that those who hold contraception to be a "minor detail" are very short-sighted.

"But all the pro-life leaders say it's ok!" (I can just hear some say).  Do they?  If we insist on playing "who's who" here, shall we look at the whole picture and notice who didn't sign it?  Some names that we all respect are missing.  I don't see Fr Euteneuer of Human Life International.  I don't see Fr Pavone of Priests for Life.  I don't see any of the Scheidlers from Pro-Life Action League.  Nellie Gray's name is absent, as is Judie Brown's and Pat Buchanan's.  Realizing that what I downloaded is a few days old and that they could have signed between now and then, I checked their respective websites and saw no mention whatsoever of this Manhattan Declaration; I interpret that as a sign of them not being on board.  I'd suspect that they were approached for support.  Do we not see support because of the gloss-over of contraception?  That possibility shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

As I said earlier, I certainly believe the drafters have the best of intentions.  However, I would advocate some independent reasoning here.  The Manhattan Declaration is somewhat problematic and is certainly no silver bullet.