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.

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.

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.

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".

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 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.

Without A Return To Catholic Tradition, Abortion Will Continue

Amidst all the discussion and controversy regarding the SSPX and the Traditional Latin Mass in general, one pro-life individual asked why there was so much focus on the difference between the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass when babies are dying.  He wondered aloud how much did the Mass form makes.  I don't remember where I saw that question or who posed it.  I would have to answer him or her that the form of Mass makes all the difference in the world, and it's way past the time that each and every Catholic pro-life person admits that truth.

Consider the Ten Commandments and in what order God gave them to Moses.  The prohibition against murder, including abortion is the Fifth Commandment.  Yet too many pro-life people carry on as though it's the First Commandment.

The First Commandment is this: "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no strange gods before me."  (from the Douay-Rheims version, Exodus 20).  That one is to be at the forefront of our hearts and minds.  In the New Testament, Matthew 22: 33-40, we read "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?  Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.  This is the greatest and the first commandment.  And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."  Again, note the order - God first, then our fellow man.

In practice, often pro-lifers invert that order, be that inversion ever so inadvertent.  Such was my own mindset for far too many years. 

Many of us adopted such mindsets to facilitate working with non-Catholic pro-life people.  What we failed to consider was exactly what lay at the root of people being non-Catholic, and how those origins were directly responsible for the horrors of abortion and other sins against life.

The Protestant Revolt was a large part of that.  Consider that when Martin Luther led his revolt, a prominent defender of the Faith against Luther's heresies was none other than King Henry VIII of England.  Not too long thereafter, Henry allegedly worried about not producing a male heir to his throne.  His wife at the time was Catherine of Aragon, daughter of the Spanish king Ferdinand and Queen Isabella (who sponsored Columbus' voyage that discovered the American continents)..  Henry petitioned the pope at that time to annul his marriage, but was refused.  At that point, Henry formally broke from Rome and established the Anglican church, with him as head.

So now we have about 20,000 protestant variations or denominations (at last count), but only One True Church.  It was the Anglicans that legitimized divorce.  They struck again at their 1930 Lambeth Conference, legitimizing contraception.  Abortion was legalized in many countries earlier than the Roe v Wade ruling.  With the first "woman bishop" and then first "gay bishop", the Anglicans showed themselves to be less-than-stellar leaders.  Eventually all the major protestant denominations allowed for baby-slaughter in their doctrinal statements, with varying degrees of permissiveness.

The Catholic Church remains the one Church that opposes all abortion.  However, during Vatican II, the popes and bishops allowed her vitality to be compromised by the mutilation of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.  She has always held that the Mass is the sacrifice by which Our Lord offers Himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.  That definition, by the way, is taken verbatim from Question 357 of the Baltimore Catechism.  The proceeds of the Vatican II pastoral council greatly mutated that understanding of the Mass, trying to turn it into some celebration of this, that and the other.  A primary force behind that Mass was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.  There is well-founded belief that Bugnini was a Freemason.

I have written quite a bit about the stupefying of Holy Mass and invite you to read those posts.   In particular, please pay close attention to this one.  At the top, you'll see that two saints, both priests, are quoted as saying that civilization itself would collapse if it were not for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Both of them offered the Latin Mass.

This brings me to a point that I believe Catholic pro-lie people need to accept.  We will NOT defeat abortion and other sins against life and family until we return to Tradition as it has always stood, not the bastardized mess that has come out of Vatican II.  Yes, I know that many changes in the Mass were not mandated by V2, but they wouldn't have happened without that jaded council.  No, I speak not only of Holy Mass, but all the Sacraments, for not one was unscathed by Vatican II.

I know this may make some of my friends uncomfortable, as they have sons who are Novus Ordo priests.  To them I say, "understand that owing to your pro-life activism, your sons already have targets on their backs.  Don't believe me?  You know how to contact me, and I will let you know what priests recently got canceled in the Archdiocese of Washington alone."  But you may well know them.

Let me also speak of another ancillary truth regarding ecumenism as found in the pro-life movement.  Many of us have worked with Protestants and others of non-Christian faiths and atheists.  No doubt these individuals are very good people and are often more zealous for life and family than are many Catholics today.  However, they still remain influenced by faulty doctrines and philosophies.  We therefore can work with them, but never under them.  We can take pointers from them regarding tactical matters, but never spiritual matters. 

A "case in point" is the Manhattan Declaration that was published in 2009.   It was the rage of all the pro-life social media pages, both Catholic and non-Catholic.  It was authored by both Catholic and non-Catholic thinkers.  We were all being urged to jump on the bandwagon for now this "new" unity would galvanize us to victory over abortion.  Many leaders glommed onto it immediately.

Others looked askance, and with good reason.

I was one of the latter.  I read the document, and at first glance, it did appear to be a comprehensive analysis of the spiritual, moral, and social ills of today.  But it didn't survive a second glance, for often, what is not said is just as important as what is said.

What was not said was that the acceptance of contraception ensconced in civil and religious thinking became the proverbial snowball on the hill that gathered both mass and momentum as it careened downward.  Indeed, I pulled it into Word and did a word search on "contraception" and found nary a peep.  That omission rendered the whole thing fatally flawed, for while it decried the sin of abortion, it erroneously condoned another, and probably more deadly, mortal sin - the use of contraceptives. That fad didn't last too long.  I believe it collapsed under the weight of its own deceit.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the silence regarding contraception came about because of the non-Catholics who helped draft the Manhattan Declaration.  The Catholics allowed the Declaration to be published because they allowed their Catholic knowledge of the sin of contraception to be compromised for the sake of a specious consensus.

As far as worship goes, it's no secret that one key motive of the Vatican II authors of the Mass changes was to make Mass more appealing to Protestants.  But that happened by obfuscating the sacrificial nature of Holy Mass.  It was turned into some kind of communal meal instead of the sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross.  Our Lord left instructions for how He is to be worshiped, and He left them through His Catholic Church.  After the Council of Trent (a dogmatic council as opposed to a pastoral council like Vatican II), Pope Saint Pius V issued Quo Primum (an Apostolic Constitution) that codified the Latin Mass and stated that no one was permitted to change it, under pain of divine wrath. I believe that we are experiencing that divine wrath today.

Again, I emphasize that I don't judge Protestant pro-life people.  Many of them are more solicitous for the babies than are the average Catholic in the pews.  That very zeal has led quite a few of them to convert to the One True Church.  Through their activism, they realized the shortcomings of the faith in which they were raised.  However, we too must keep those shortcomings in mind as we work alongside, never under them.  Keep them in prayer and never compromise the Truth.

Manhattan Declaration - Caveat Emptor!

I'm getting all kinds of emails, gushing over this website http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/.   When I go to it, though, I can see no signs of its origins.

Warning flags are flying all over the place regarding this website. I did a "whois" search on it, as I am always leery of these highfalooting-sounding things that seem to bear no names nor signs of ownership. It is registered to a fellow named Reuel Sample of Knoxville TN. I found his personal web page http://rsample.com/about/ He is now director of something called Fellowship of Ailbe in "the Celtic Christian" tradition. Here's that website http://myparuchia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2675&Itemid=214 It does bill itself as a parallel to Roman Catholicism.

So those who've signed this so-called "Declaration" have just given over their information to a very questionable contact data base. As far as I'm concerned, this is a rotten apple.

Remember when, right after the Obama election, we had "petitions" popping up out of the woodwork, claiming that if you didn't sign their particular petition, we'd go to hell in a handbasket? At that time, I could count on receiving at least 4 of them every week. They were only attempts to collect contact information for databases. Now think - just what tangible, essential good will this "manhattan" thing bring us that nothing else can? Folks, I don't care who signs it; their prominence or their fame is irrelevant to the merit of the manhattan thing. If anyone can show me where they've done due-dilligence research (as I have) and can show me tangible proof that this thing is worth all the hoopla it's getting, I'm game to listen. Until then, I'd advise folks to start taking a more skeptical look at these things and not to glom onto any old thing out of fear and desperation.

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. 

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.

Why The Pro-Life Movement Is Not Making Significant Strides

I too have shared this concern, and a key cause for the sluggishness of progress can be laid at the embrace - by pro-life people - of contraception.  Witness the debacle of the Manhattan Declaration.  I refused to sign it for it danced all around the key issue of contraception.  Let's face it.  Before Roe v Wade there was Griswold v Connecticut and the 1930 Lambeth Conference.  We failed, and still fail, to heed the words of Humanae Vitae.  Only when we cease compromise on contraception will the Culture of Life have any chance to take hold and grow.

It is interesting to note how many Protestants came to the Roman Catholic faith because of their involvement in pro-life work.  No doubt they worked through the issues and recognized that the Roman Catholic Church was the only one with a relatively strong stance against contraceptives.  Pro-life leaders who converted to Catholicism include: Lila Rose, Randall Terry, Norma McCorvy, Bryan Kemper, the late Bernard Nathanson.  I'm sure there are others.

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.

Reference To God Being Stripped From Gettysburg Address

In this World Net Daily article, we read how Robert George (one of the Manhattan Declaration authors) attended a conference where a packet of historical documents was distributed.  He noticed right away the omission from the Gettysburg Address. 

I agree.  There is no doubt that they know what they are doing.  Let's shine the light on these misdeeds.  And remember in November!

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...

Catholic Media Stands Up to Knox, the Messiah's Anti-Catholic Lackey

Harry Knox, who serves (using the word loosely) on Obama's faith-based advisory council, has shown himself to be quite the anti-Catholic bigot.  Here I must make clear that he rails against Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals, especially in terms of the life issues; I'm sure that with Mr. Knox, "Catholics" such as Pelosi and Biden are acceptable.

 

When the Pope rightly stated that condoms would only exacerbate the AIDS situation, Knox, in his official capacity, opined that he was "hurting people in the name of Jesus".  Now can you just imagine the uproar if Knox had slandered a Moslem or Jew in that manner?  But hey, we're living in the NEW AGE!

 

The Saint Michael Society has started a petition to ask Obama to demand Knox's resignation, stating quite rightly that no bigot has any place in a Presidential administration.  On Hannity's America a few nights ago, Brent Bozell of Media Research Center and Tom Peters of American Papist commented on this matter.  Watch the video below.

 

In this discourse, Peters states quite correctly that "the last acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism".  He's quite right.  Now pardon my french here, but in this so-called "new age", we Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium are the Niggers of the New Age!  Others who might be so classified are others who hold pro-life and conservative values.

These next two statements of mine will probably not endear me to too many people, but say them I will.

1. I have made no secret of my displeasure regarding the Manhattan Declaration and the way it completely tap-dances around the matter of contraception.  Clearly there were those who, during the drafting of this thing, were actively militating against any mention of contraception.  In this isolated matter, could their attitudes have been that much different than those of Knox?
2. This "office of faith-based initiative", or whatever it's named, was the brainchild of President George W. Bush.  It was meant to bring faith-based charities together and to give them federal aid.  I immediately saw that there was no constitutional basis for it and made my opposition to it known quite loudly.  Some of my pro-life friends disagreed, saying that Bush had a good idea to help out Christian charities.  I again reiterated that the US Constitution did not permit such governmental meddling.  I also pointed out that under a relatively benign president (such as Bush) there might appear to be no problem, but an infrastructure was being established that had potential for grreat harm, should someone more malevolent assume the Presidental helm.  Well, guess what?  Those chickens have come home to roost.  I agree that Knox should leave that office.  But then the office should be permanently abolished because there is no constitutional basis for it.