Gun Control Is Dissent From Church Teaching

In the March/April 2013 issue of the Defend Life newsletter an article of mine appears on page 17 (note: below the jump break I'll reproduce the unedited article for therein are some links to referential material.)  The main thrust of the article is to outline why I strongly believe that the underlying philosophy behind the current push for "gun control" is actually anti-life.  Despite what the "seamless-garment" groupies incessantly chant, the movement to restrict access to the tools of self defense constitutes significant dissent from Catholic Church teaching.

I won't rehash my article; you can read it for yourselves.  I'll also put below the jump break a montage of clips where progressive (aka Democratic) politicians make no bones about their ambitions to make a mockery of our Second Amendment rights.

The Shooting In Sutherland Springs TX And The Liberals' Blood Guilt

At least two dozen people, many children, were slaughtered by a madman as they attended their church services in Sutherland Springs, TX.  We pray for the repose of their souls and peace for their families and friends.  This isn't the first such shooting and regrettably it won't be the last.

Even more regrettable is the immediate politicizing of this tragedy by the left.  Their rants must be answered, lest we allow them once again to seize control of national conversations and debate.  Immediately the yap and yammer sounded anew for more gun control, vilifying the National Rifle Association and the GOP in the process.  I suspect now that more details have come to light, the left might soon have to shut their mouths in embarrassment.  Or maybe they won't, arrogant lemmings that many of them are.

The now-dead assailant, Devin Patrick Kelley, was in the Air Force, but was court-martialed for assaulting his baby step-son, fracturing his skull.  He also harrassed numerous ex-girlfriends.  The Air Force gave him a "dishonorable discharge". Obviously already-existing gun laws should have prevented him from obtaining firearms.  However, the Air Force did not communicate the convictions to the NICS database.  So now it must be asked that if the federal government (and the military is part and parcel of that) is so negligent about this facet of the law, why, oh why, would we think additional laws will help?

But the godless left continue to chant their talking points.  Chelsea Handler (whoever she is) didn't wait one hour after the reports broke to blame Republicans for the shooting.  In her warped view, a Republican decided to shoot up a church whose congregation most likely leaned Republican.  The evidence on that page seems to indicate that the shooter had leftward leanings; he was atheist.  Showing that they share Kelley's atheistic world view, Democrats displayed their atheistic depravity for all to see; one Democrat legislator walked out when a moment of silence for the victims was called.

Of course now there's kvelling for more gun control.  Some even opine that the National Rifle Association has some blood-guilt for the massacre.  BUT - the facts contradict this implausible theory.  I think we can thank the internet for announcing these facts, because the lamebrain-mainstream media would not have done so on their own.

The Texas Rangers gave a press conference regarding the sequence of events.  According to them, Kelley's rampage was cut short when a neighbor grabbed his own AR rifle and shot Kelley.  He then fled and the man took up the chase.  This is why the Second Amendment exists.  Sunday's death toll might have been much higher if an armed citizen had not been able to intervene.  But there are more details.

The citizen's name is Stephen Willeford and (liberals, please be seated and have smelling salts ready) he is a former NRA instructor and Christian to boot!  OK!  So an atheistic leftist, dishonorably discharged from the military shoots up a Christian church and is stopped by an armed Christian man.  Perhaps this is why Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton poo-poos the idea of more gun control and instead advocates for more armed law-abiding citizens.

Now I bet some of my readers are wondering what this has to do with Catholicism and being faithful to the Teachings of Christ.  Simply this.  I've no doubt that some leftist bishops are going to sniff about the "need" to confiscate weapons.  Should they do so, they'll be engaging in blatant deception, just as their democrat "sugar daddies" and "puppet masters" are doing.  Yesterday Ted Cruz revealed how Democrats filibustered legislation that he authored, legislation that would have prevented Kelley, an already-convicted felon, from buying guns.  That fact will be conveniently ignored as they seek to hinder our rights to self-defense - the same rights that allowed Stephen Willeford to stop Devin Patrick Kelley.  To the extent that they've already succeeded in some localities, it is they who have blood on their hands - and that includes the gun-control freaks who are to be found among the nation's bishops.

Here are two different takes on whether or not church attendees should be armed.  See here and here.  Under no circumstances should churches forbid legal carrying in their buildings.  In doing so, they are leaving their congregations vulnerable.

Woe To You That Call Evil Good, And Good Evil

That passage from Isaiah 5:20 is a strong admonition to left-leaning Catholics who have joined the progressive clarion call to fight all kinds of what they consider to be "social injustices" that may not be unjust at all.  The measure of what is good or evil, just or unjust is to be found in the Church's teaching traditions of the past two centuries, as opposed to popular fads that are spewing forth from dissident Catholic quarters.

Let's look at immigration, since these left-wing quarters, from the top down (that means you, USCCB) are having hissy fits about President Trump's ongoing efforts to expel foreign invaders.  The left-wing, clergy included, refuse to acknowledge that our concerns lie not with those who immigrate in conformity with our applicable laws, but with those who flout our laws and sneak inside the US.  They are, by definition, criminals.  They are breaking US law that does comply with Catholic moral theology.  In obfuscating that important distinction, they commit serious sins against the Eighth Commandment.  I've written a bit on this topic over the years; here's a collection of it.  So in this case, what's being called "evil" is the responsible regulating of immigration and what's being called "good" is the direct disobedience of immigration laws and being accessories to these crimes.

Let's move to another darling cause of the progressives - gun control.  The left is all gung-ho on this bugaboo, not addressing the fact that criminals, by definition, disobey laws.   The only ones impacted would be law-abiding citizens who desire to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their families.  Whenever a shooting happens, immediately the left starts kveling about the need for firearm restriction - never the apprehension of criminals.  Would that impinge too greatly on the Democratic voting base?  Look at England.  They've essentially outlawed guns, so what happens? Knife attacks arise - surprise!  The "geniuses" governing England are now into (wait for it!) knife-control!  Same thing in Red China!

Again, I've written a bit about that.  See here.  Please note that the top post explains why I believe that the USCCB's stance on gun control runs counter to Catholic moral theology.  Once upon a time I believed that this was an area in which good people could disagree.  I no longer hold onto that delusion.  The right to adequate self defense is a moral good that no one may call evil, on pain of sin.  A former pro-life leader, Rob Schenck, has glommed onto the erroneous push for arms banning, and in the process has allowed his thinking on basic pro-life issues to become corrupted.  I'll have more to say on that later.

Let's move on to the death penalty or capital punishment.  If gun control is an attack on the good of self-defense, the push to eliminate the death penalty is an attack on the good of civil government protecting its citizens from violent criminals.  Again, the USCCB and their dutiful puppets are lock-step with their Soros-esque sugar-daddies in their shielding of criminals from the death penalty.  Again, I've written much on that and won't rehash everything, but will elaborate on one major point.  In the past, all the popes have upheld the legitimacy and the good of capital punishment.  The most recent catechism from Pope John Paul II does the same.  However, last year Pope Francis annnounced his intention to rewrite the catechism to say that the death penalty is inadmissable.  I said it then, I'll say it now; THIS IS HERESY.   Of course the USCCB intends to happily comply in promulgating this heresy.  So now the good of capital punishment has been called evil, and this error has reached the proportions of full-blown heresy.

The USCCB, their obedient state-wide counterparts and the rest of their lapdogs are fully engaged in calling good "evil", and evil "good".  They have jettisoned all authentic moral bearing for the favors of money, power, and worldly prestige.  In so doing they have allowed their own thinking to become clouded, as have those who unthinkingly swallow the progressive bile simply because it comes from men wearing miters.

However, there have been pro-life leaders who, themselves succumbing to the siren calls of emotion-based leftwing sentiments, have allowed their pro-life beliefs to become weak and uncertain.  In other words, by assuming progressive positions on immigration, gun control, etc, they have assumed progressive positions in pro-life matters as well.  I have already mentioned Rob Schenck a few paragraphs back.  He now supports the legalized murder of children.  Another former pro-life leader, John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, became so enamored of progressivism that he cast his vote for the rabidly pro-abortion Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Both of these men clearly called evil "good".

Ladies and gentlemen, liberalism is harmful to the soul and can impede eternal salvation.

More Banalizing Of Lent In The Archdiocese Of Washington - This Time Over Guns

In today's bulletin from St. John Neumann in Gaithersburg, MD, page 4 bottom-left, we see an advertisement for a "Lenten Gun Violence Prevention program".  It's supposed to be held at St. Francis of Assisi church on Thursday April 3rd.  Oddly enough, I do not see it on St Francis' online bulletin (as of this afternoon).

This has all the hallmarks of being a push for gun control under sanctimonious trappings.  Let's visit "Heeding God's Call" website, shall we?   Here we have their "litany of commitment".  After a bunch of yammer that purportedly mourns the victims of violence and sympathizes with their families, we get into the meat of the thing.
Leader: Now is the time to end the senseless killing of our boys and our girls, our men and
our women.
People: Now is the time.
Leader: Now is the time to cease the profligate sale of assault weapons and all multiple
firing guns, weapons meant only for murder

Where, oh where, do we read in this lovely litany about appropriate punishments for those who engage in violence, regardless of tools used?  How about, "Now is the time to sentence violent criminals to life with hard labor and without parole and perks?"  Did I just overlook that part?

On page 6 of this document, this "covenant of commitment", they lament the culture they lament the "unrestricted proliferation of guns in our communities".  Under what rocks have they been hiding for the past few decades?  Gun control and regulations have burgeoned, making onerous the purchase of firearms for good citizens.  Moving on down, they lament the eight children killed every day (supposedly) by guns.  Nary a peep is said about the thirty-four hundred children murdered by abortion daily.  There is a key cause of other manners of violence.  That has led to a coarsening of morality, a devaluation of life in the minds of too many.

Lisa Delity of Heeding God's Call will be one of those leading the event at St. Francis of Assisi.   In 1994 she lost a brother, Michael Miller (FBI agent) to a murderer wielding a gun.  The write-up for Mr. Miller is found on the FBI page.  It states that the man who murdered him and other law enforcement officers, Bennie Lee Lawson, was already a suspect in a triple murder.  Why was he not behind bars?  Might that lack of detainment have been part of the problem?  So he got a gun.  Here's a news flash for bleeding hearts everywhere.  Criminals break laws - even (surprise!) gun control laws!  Lawson himself died during that 1994 shootout.

Delity, in 2008, issued a statement lamenting gun violence - and capital punishment.  I'm sure the irony escapes her.  At any rate, Lawson is not going to be able to murder any more people.  It already sounds like he had six to his charge - and no "gun registration" would have stopped that.

Rabbi Sue Levi Ewell is on Heeding's Coordinating Committee.  She's also an unabashed lesbian.  Then there's Rabbi Linda Holtzman (part of Heeding's Executive Committee), who is/was a member of something called Rabbis for Obama.  These two gals certainly aren't "heeding God's call" when it comes to His Laws on marriage, sexuality and life.  Their moral credibility is zilch.  And they help lead a group that pontificates about guns?  These "rabbis" are two reasons why "Heeding God's Call" will not be taken seriously by faithful Catholics.

Then there's Bishop Kermit Newkirk.  One of his other hats is that of leader of Philadelphians Organized to Witness, Empower and Rebuild (POWER).  That bunch is a branch of the Alinskyian PICO network.  We knew we'd find at least one of these "community-organizing" types lurking around.  Another "Heeding" director, Bishop Dwayne Royster, is also with POWER.

They also have a penchant for having "prayer vigils" outside of gun shops.  That's like having "prayer vigils" outside of car dealerships to curb deaths by reckless driving.  Such tactics do nothing to address the real issue - the violent criminals who use guns and any other weapon to wreck violence.  They insist on dancing around that "elephant in the living room" called the revolving prison door.  By the way - I wonder how many of them have "prayer vigils" outside of abortion mills, where real murder occurs?  Don't worry!  I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Any organizations that allows lesbians, obamaphiles and Alinskyian devotees into its leadership ranks has nothing to contribute to any Catholic's faith and morals.  When Catholic "social justice" groups give them an audience, they lend credibility to the groups' dissidents and deviants.  That is unacceptable.

More Progressive Hacks Trying To Dilute The Meaning Of Being Pro-Life

First, let's deal with Mark Shea (the patheos blogger) and the issue of gun control.  From what I understand, he seems to think that all pro-life people must support gun locks, "smart technology", etc to claim the moniker "pro-life".  This article from American Catholic links to Shea's patheos article about it.   Because the patheos bloggers are paid based on the number of hits their blogs get, I refuse to post to the patheos article directly.  I will, however, link to his Facebook posting.

Here he posts a Catholic News Service article that makes the ridiculous claim that the Catholic Church's position on individual gun ownership is that it should be banned.  The basis for that conclusion couldn't be too much more flimsy than it is.  The basis is a parenthetical remark in a footnote of the document entitled "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice".  Reminder - the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has no inherent teaching authority at canon law.  Certainly no one need take to heart some obscure little footnote in a document.

Now I'll quote from a less-obscure document - called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Obviously this does bear the weight of the teaching Magisterium.  I'll be quoting actual paragraphs as opposed to little footnotes: paragraphs 2263-2265 to be precise.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. 
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The right to self-defense by individuals is a necessary corollary to their inherent right to life.  For just as much as an individual has the right to obtain food, shelter, etc to maintain his/her life and that of his/her family's, he/she has the right and even solemn duty to protect him/herself and family from unjust aggression.  It stands to reason that this God-given right to self -defense also includes the right to have the means necessary to address threats as they present themselves in this 21st century.  Keeping paragraph 2265 in mind, please reread the American Catholic link and consider the predicament in which that young mother found herself.  Had she not had ready access to a gun, unencumbered by a "gun lock" or politically-correct clap-trap, she and her baby might well have been murder victims.

Now I may be just speculating, but I think I understand (in part) the motives of the USCCB for jumping on the progressive gun-control bandwagon.  Many programs of the USCCB, including CRS, are heavily funded by various governmental agencies.  They want to keep those funds flowing.  As far as Shea goes, who knows?  Knowing, however, that he (and other patheos bloggers) get paid based on their numbers of hits, I will not link directly to him.

But enough of gun control.  According to Bishop John Wester of the Diocese of Salt Lake (UT), no one can be called "pro-life" who opposes Medicaid expansion.  Of course, who would be funding this Medicaid expansion?  Find the nearest mirror and stare into it; there's your answer.

No one who calls themselves Catholic will deny their responsibility to come to the assistance of the needy.  The question is how best to do it; on that good people can disagree.  That is a matter of prudential judgment.  In other words, one can call themselves "pro-life" if they don't agree with the USCCB-like clamoring for more governmental encroachment.  Regarding abortion and other intrinsic evils such as contraception, no one can make allowances for them.  Certainly no one can be pro-life who accepts the usage of contraceptives and the such.

I and others must continue to call on the carpet those who attempt to use the term "pro-life" to sell their progressive positions.

USCCB Misses The Mark On Sandy Hook Shootings

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops today issued a statement (of sorts) on the Sandy Hook shootings and what they think are the answers.  Well, I don't know if the bishops themselves penned it (although they affixed their names to it) because it has the smell of progressive agendas all over it.

First (after receiving "talking points" from the puppet masters) they launch into gun control.  They opine the intent to protect one's loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible.  Let me illustrate the lack of logic by applying it to another filial duty, to wit:  the intent to feed one's loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, food is too easily accessible.  The right to self-defense is a necessary component to the right to life itself - but that right is denied when one is deprived of the means to exercising that right.

A number of sensible articles have been written about the Second Amendment.  I would suggest that the USCCB puppet masters read them, but I suspect they full well know the truth and are doing their utmost to keep the truth from the Catholic in the pews.  Here's one on the gun-control culture.  Here's another that addresses the real fundamental cause of violence (and not just violence involving guns): America's Problem Is a Contempt for Life.

The USCCB piece ends with 5 suggestions that they claim will address violence.  Notice that 4 out of 5 have to do with gun control - that is, confiscation of guns from everybody including the law-abiding.  I've no doubt that the USCCB puppet-masters have been given their talking points from the Democrat money-bags and are obediently doing their bidding, couching their progressivism in a faux-katholyc veneer.

Most telling, of course, is the lack of mention of the complete disrespect of life and morality as discussed by Mr. Bannister's article.  Yes the USCCB made some perfunctory remarks about violence in entertainment, but that's it.  There was no reference to Mother Teresa's wise words linking abortion and general societal violence.  For that matter, there was no mention at all of the most brutal murders of 3000 tiny babies every day.  Those murders, of course, bring in buckets of money to Democrat coffers and they're accomplished with surgical weapons that cannot be utilized against any tyrannical thug that may crash down your door.

Yet another reason why I pray that the Vatican abolishes the USCCB.

More To Las Vegas Massacre Than Meets The Eye

As I said in the previous post, the liberal screeching for more "gun-control" is in full swing.  One individual on facebook opined that "no, we don't need a thorough investigation" (his exact words), that we simply needed to restrict/ban guns.  I checked his wall and the meme #Istandwithplannedparenthood is right there.  He's pro-baby-murder, making a sham of any moral credibility that he was trying to claim.

I replied that we do, and others are, too.  There are many strange things about the circumstances surrounding Paddock and the shooting itself.  I won't rehash the points all these articles bring to light.  Here are thoughts of Allen West, former army officer and presidential candidate.  Other questions are stated here, here, here.

I link now to an article by George Neumayr regarding the intellectual vacuity of the "gun-control" argument.  I too think that gun-control is just one step of the progressive goal to strip people of their identities as moral, free Christians and to transform us into docile minions of the "benevolent" nanny-state tyranny.  Other steps include:

• The weakening of our moral strength by attempts to seduce into sexual licentiousness and perversions
• The persecution of Christians who don't bend to the gay mafia
• The attempts to water down pro-life and pro-family efforts with "seamless garbage" tripe
• The use of "common core" to dumb down our children so that they can't read or reason in linear and logical manners
• This list is by no means all-inclusive.

They see the Las Vegas massacre as a most opportune excuse to cram through their agenda.  Will we allow them to do so?  We must continue to pray, to speak out, to ask probing questions.

Curbing Violence - It's The Morality, Stupid USCCB!

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Media Relations Director for the USCCB, has an opinion piece that has been published by today's Washington Post.  Right there you can guess that Sister spouts left-wing talking points that have been given to her for that is the only way her byline would appear in the Washington Post.  Were she speaking of actual Church teaching the Post would never publish that piece.  So what is the topic of the USCCB bloviation of the day?  If you read my post about Cardinal McCarrick's latest cause-celebre, you know what it is - "gun control", that is, the confiscation of self-defense tools from decent people.

A careful read of the first paragraph illustrates the smoke and mirrors with which the progressives endeavor to blind and confuse us.  They want to instill in our minds that inanimate objects are the cause of so much violence and misery in society.  She uses forceps, needles and guns in her flawed analogy.  Of course they can be used for great evil.  They can also be used for great good.  It all depends on the individual doing the "using".  Isn't that the same for any tool?  She (and all progressives) attempt to relieve criminals of any responsibility for their actions.

Further down in the article she writes, "it is clear that assault weapons stand out dramatically as a threat to innocent life".  What is clear is that Sister is simply following the progressive script that I suspect has been given to her by her USCCB handlers, for that statement is sheer, utter nonsense.  Weapons, being inanimate objects, pose a threat to nobody.  They can be used by criminal elements or by those who defend themselves and others against those same aggressors.

If the USCCB is truly serious about ending violence, they'll do well to examine how our culture came to be so violent.  Fifty years ago, such wasn't the case - and at that time there was not nearly the plethora of "gun-control" laws on the books as there is today.  So what's the cause?  Well, to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, "it's the morality, stupid"!  And before all the little scolds and nay-sayers harp on my use of the word "stupid", I'll make plain that I value accuracy over diplomacy.  Indeed, the stupidity is deliberate and I can even say that there are more accurate terms and "stupid" may be the more "diplomatic".

Again, if the USCCB wants to end violence, they'll address the root causes of disobedience to God's laws with regard to sexual morality and family life.  They will insist that the clergy preach on the evils of contraception, abortion, euthanasia and the gay lifestyle forcefully and often.  They will direct the clergy to implement Canon 915 with regards to flagrant pro-abortion Catholics who dare to profane the Body and Blood of Christ - meaning that Cardinals Dolan and Wuerl need to clean up their acts.  Cardinal Dolan's Palm Sunday actions were an unmitigated disastrous scandal, serving only to embolden those who foment the evils that directly contribute to societal violence.  And of course the USCCB must give both the CCHD and CRS an immediate and unceremonious heave-ho and stop diverting Catholic dollars to anti-life and anti-God organizations.

Barring miracles, does anyone think any of what I just said will happen?  Neither do I.  The USCCB, with this Post article, has once again demonstrated why it cannot be taken seriously and why it really should be abolished in its entirety.

The Other School Assault This Past Friday

While I was listening to news updates about the Newtown situation, I would hear every now and then some mention of a similar incident in China on the same day - but not much else.  So I googled it.

There was indeed an attack in the Henan province of China, according to BBC News.  A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and 1 elderly woman.  Two of the kids were wounded seriously.  The attacker was overpowered by security guards.  The guards were apparently there due to previous attacks that did claim the lives of 20 children.

Fortunately in Henan there were no fatalities yesterday and that's why no one saw fit to delve more closely in that manner.  However, I believe there's an additional reason why the lamebrain-mainstream media chose to ignore those attacks.  The Chinese assailant did not use any guns in his vicious crimes.  Nor were guns used in the previous Chinese situations that did prove fatal to some children.  And yes, apparently China has "large knife registration", but that didn't stop what happened Friday.

Fifty years ago, the US didn't have nearly the number of gun control laws on the books as it does now.  Yet we never heard of such occurrences.  Of course at that time we knew better than to allow our babies to be murdered in their own mothers' wombs.  Abortion happened, but not nearly at the rate that it happens now and society condemned - not condoned - it.

Already we hear kvetching and ballyhooing for more "gun control", as if that really addresses the root of the problem.  The usual whiners and howlers include:

• NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg - (the guy who banned 16-oz sodas from NYC)
• NY Gov Andrew Cuomo
• Piers Morgan
• NY Rep Jerrold Nadler (Hey!  At least he's being honest!)

And lest you think that these libs are leading by example, think again.  Barbara Boxer and Chuck Shumer have concealed-carry permits.  Why don't they think that we citizens, we the Great Unwashed, have the right to self defense?

All the above-named progressives have something else in common - they promote abortion: that is, the murder of babies.  So of course they won't function on the actual criminal, but merely the criminal's choice of tools.  If they subjected the criminal to scrutiny, they must also subject to the same scrutiny those who assist the criminal in his/her murders.  Could it be that they unconsciously realize that they themselves are complicit in murder?

In my post yesterday, I related the remarks made by Mother Teresa during the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast.  During the lighting of the Vatican Christmas tree, the Holy Father repeated her thoughts when he warned that abortion and "gay marriage" are real threats to peace.  Unless we, as a nation, wake up and repent, these acts of violence will increase.

Great Minds Think Alike, Don't They??

Several weeks ago, the Messiah Most Miserable, Barack Obama, stated his intentions to shift focus to "immigration and gun control" according to the left-wing shill-mouthpiece known as the Washington Post.  So what's the big deal about that, one might wonder?  These are just typical progressive talking points.  True enough - but who is echoing him?

Why, it's none other than Cardinal McCarrick, Washington's archbishop emeritus!  He has stated that the Church will push for "immigration and gun control".   He says of the nation's bishops that once a bill for immigration is introduced, "you'll see how active they'll (bishops) be."  I'm sure that both he and Obama hope the bishops will be more "active" than they've been with adherence to Canon 915.  Come to think of it, maybe some bishops have been "too active" in the wrong direction, but I digress!

Isn't it just the most amazing coincidence that both these men are touting the same thing?  What a miracle!  It's almost like one is taking cues from the other - and we can guess the direction of the talking-point flow now, can't we?

By the way - in the same interview, Cardinal McCarrick had some interesting things to say about Pope Francis.  He believes the Pope will show more emphasis on "global climate change" (another progressive cause-celebre) because he took the name of Francis who (and I quote the cardinal) "is associated with the adoration of nature".  I hope for the cardinal's sake that this was a misquote for only God is to be adored - no one or nothing else.  Otherwise we might have to wonder if this was a Freudian slip on the part of His Eminence.

In all seriousness, no faithful Catholic need feel him/herself obliged to follow the lead on any prelate regarding matters of prudential judgment.  In fact, given the murky influences emanating from the USCCB, one should take their proclamations with copious grains of salt.

The USCCB's Corrosive And Deadly "Social Justice" Teachings With Their Poster Boy John Sweeney

Yesterday John Zmirak published an article called "The Myth Of Catholic Social Teaching".  I commend it to your reading.  He basically states that the Magisterium speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals.  Some issues such as abortion and contraception involve the direct commission of mortal sin.  Those are intrinsic evils; no amount of debate is permissible.  We do not commit murder - period.

There is also the matter of care for the poor.  That is a charge laid upon us.  However, good people can disagree as to the best methods to implement such care.  Sometimes it's clear that those in high places of the Church are exercising faulty logic in their approaches to matters such as alleviating poverty, etc.  In those circumstances, we are not obliged to give obedience to those directives as they do not carry magisterial weight.  Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said so himself when he attempted to have a letter delivered to a US bishops' meeting.  It said - in part - "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

It is becoming all too clear that the USCCB advocates progressive positions on matters such as illegal immigration, self-defense rights, and even the atrocities being committed by Muslims in the Middle East.  I blogged on the muslim matter last week, chiding the USCCB for urging more useless "dialogue" with thugs.  I've no doubt that the USCCB dismisses my words.  Sadly, they probably also dismiss the words of Archbishop Emil Nona, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul.  He and four other Mosul bishops have been driven from their dioceses, along with countless thousands of their flocks.  He warns that what we see there could well be a harbinger of things to come in the western world - that means us, folks!  I will quote the archbishops's own words: "Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.  You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values.  If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has issued his own, very similar warning.

I think there are two things Archbishop Nona is trying to say.  First, the US bishops must stop their simpering and groveling pleas for "dialogue".  They are an abysmal waste of time at best and at worst, they serve to distract us when we should be preparing for real action to protect our families and our very culture.

Second, we must stop "welcoming them in our homes".  That means we must stop the floods of immigrants that pour across our borders.  Make no mistake about it; the bulk of illegals are young men, not helpless little waifs.  How many of these young men are muslim terrorists?  We don't know because there is no effective screening of those who cross the Rio Grande.  But again, we hear the USCCB telling us to "welcome the stranger".  Never mind that these "strangers" may well be murderers awaiting their orders from their muslim commanders.  By the way - there are reports that ISIS groups are in Mexico, planning an attack on the US with car bombs and the such.  USCCB, shall we "welcome those strangers"?

A gentleman named John Snyder posted an article on Crossmap a few days ago, taking the USCCB to task for their stance on gun control, given the threats of terrorism that are looming in the United States.  I quote one salient statement:  "USCCB should terminate its disgraceful support for the criminalization of private handgun possession. Such criminalization would eliminate the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals, including terrorists.  Catholic clergy should abandon pacifism and see reality for what it is. People need guns for protection. As Christ Our Lord proclaimed, 'The man without a sword must sell his cloak and buy one,' according to Luke 22:36"  Hear!  Hear!

So why, oh why, does the USCCB insist on parroting the Obamanista's talking points on illegal immigration, muslims and gun control?  In a word, follow the money, for the USCCB certainly does.  I wrote an article for Defend Life recently (look on page 7 of this link), detailing the obvious links between the USCCB shilling for porous borders and allowance of everyone crossing the Rio Grande.  The money trail was so blatant; they aren't even trying to hide it.

There you have it.  One consequence of the USCCB's wrong-headed stances on these issues will most likely be an increase of murders, if not outright terrorism - both because they favor unfettered admission through our borders AND the removal of our ability to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

"But that's merely conjecture!" some might say.  Fair enough, but it's reasonable to believe this to be a very solid probability.  AND we have evidence of current corrosion of faith and morals by USCCB-esque social teaching.  That evidence comes from the mouth of the corrosion victim himself - John Sweeney!

John Sweeney
Thank USCCB social teaching for this!

Sweeney was recently honored by the AFL-CIO for his union work.  The erstwhile head of both the AFL-CIO and SEIU, at that award function, credited "Catholic social teaching" for giving him the impetus for his work.  I've detailed a lot of his work here and here.  The second link details the two occasions in which I led pickets of Sweeney public events.  I know I gave you a lot to read, so I'll close with a picture showing the beneficial impact of "USCCB social teaching" on John Sweeney.

Recall what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said - there are areas regarding prudential judgment in which we can disagree with Church leaders.  Many times, particularly with the USCCB, we must oppose them outright.

Jesuit Kiss-Up To Islam In Wake Of Orlando Massacre Follows Progressive Script

In the Jesuit progressive rag known as "America", we read an article - on the heels of the Orlando shootings - entitled "Shall We Fast In Ramadan?".  Of course it's written by a Jesuit.  In a saner time, the majority of Catholics would have responded to that question along the lines of "HELL, NO!!"  Leaving aside (for the moment) the tenets of Islam that call for butchery, rape of women, jihad, etc, we as Catholics cannot affirm in the slightest one single act of idol worship.  And yes, "allah" is a false idol, if not an actual demon.

Yesterday Attorney General Loretta Lynch let loose with the preposterous claim that the motive of Omar Mateen "may never be known".  She preferred to use this massacre to shill for "gun control".   She also announced that when transcripts of Mateen's conversations are released, they will be scrubbed of any references to his Islamic mindsets.   Got that?  She claims that Mateen's reasons "may never be known" while at the same time obfuscating all evidence that make his jihadic motivations obvious to any but the most self-deluded progressive (such as the writers and staff of America).

This isn't the first time she's done damage-control for Muslims.  Last December she hinted that the Justice Department could investigate speech "hostile towards Muslims".  After that went viral on the internet, she had to do some damage-control for herself and attempted to back-pedal.

It really is disappointing to watch Catholic publications fall lock-step behind the most godless administration in the history of the United States of America.  Sadly it's not surprising.

What The Maryland Catholic Conference Calls "Success"

Today I received a cheery little email from the Maryland Catholic Conference celebrating the end of the "successful"  (???) 2013 General Assembly.  They reproduced it on their web page and I now link to it for your reading (dis)pleasure.

So what does the MCC consider to be hallmarks of "success"?  Here's the list:

• Death penalty repeal - for hardened criminals, that is.  Innocent babies are still fair game.
• Textbook funding - the "thirty pieces of silver" for which they literally sell their souls
• Drivers' licenses for immigrants - undocumented immigrants, that is.  In other words, criminals
• Gun violence - in other words, they lent their voices so they could shill for Obama's gun grab

Some of you might recall the post I produced a few days ago illustrating why I believe "gun control" actually runs counter to Magisterial teaching.  I believe the push for death penalty repeal also constitutes departure from Church teaching.  I will have a post on that shortly.

But the MCC acknowledges that not all was peaches and cream during this session.

• Abortion statistics keeping and ban after 20 weeks - failed
• A bill to require information on adoption for expectant mothers failed.

These last two items aren't minor disappointments, in my opinion.  The lack of action on these (plus what the MCC calls "successes") rendered this Annapolis session to be an abominable failure.  Unless there are changes of faces in 2014, we can expect more legislative slop.  Will we also have to expect that the MCC will drool enthusiastically over that?

Frustrated White Male Privilege

"What is that?", you might ask.  Well, I bring you "glad tidings of joy", for you need wallow in your ignorance no longer.  According to the (dubiously) learned Hugo Schwyzer, "frustrated white male privilege" is a root cause of the Sandy Hook and other mass shootings.  "And just who in blue blazes is Hugo Schwyzer?" might be your next question.  Why, he's a professor at Pasadena City College who teaches history AND (wait for it!) gender studies!  You see, he thinks all white males are taught that "the world is supposed to be your oyster".

Only a left-wing professor (probably tenured) could dream up that crap; of course the "gender studies" is a contributing factor to that intellectual malfeasance.  Additional manifestations of Schwyzer's proclivities, according to the National Review article, are profanity-laden and pro-gun-control tweets he let out in the wake of the Newtown shootings.  In other words, he won't control his potty-mouth but wants to grab our guns.

I'm sure there will be other "enlightened" theories.  I suppose there'd be no room to ascribing responsibility for Lanza's actions to Lanza himself?

Today's Orlando Massacre - Ignoring The Obvious

By now most people heard about today's shooting at a gay nightclub called the Pulse in Orlando Florida.  Fifty people were killed and another fifty or so wounded.  Local police killed the gunman, Omar Mateen, an American citizen born to Afghan parents.  The FBI is investigating this as an act of domestic terrorism and stated that Mateen bragged about his ties to Islamic organizations.  The Islamic State is claiming responsibility for the shootings.

Clash Daily investigated Mateen's voting patterns and discovered that he was a registered Democrat.  I mention this only to showcase the foolishness of some ACLU lawyers who are immediately laying blame for this massacre on the GOP and the "Christian right".  They accuse the latter of creating an "anti-queer climate" while conveniently ignoring the Koran's call for the execution of homosexuals.

Other progressives are making similarly politically correct noises in complete disregard of the Islamic terrorists who are bragging about their commission of this slaughter.  Joy Reid of MSNBC is carping on gun control as she opines that the core issue is "how easy it is to get a gun".  Earth to Joy!  Earth to Joy!  Might it be ever so possible that the Islamic State armed Mateen?  There are indications that indeed a terrorist organization did direct the massacre.

Of course the Messiah Most Miserable got in on the act.  In his own shilling against guns, he asked "if that's the kind of country we want to be".  Well, if we don't want to be that "kind of country", we need to acknowledge the Islamic cancer for what it is - something that progressives are loathe to do.  It's high time that the United States wakes up to this jihadic plague.  How long will we ignore the obvious?  For all their heinous faults, the jihadists are more honest than many in US leadership about the impetus behind these acts of terrorism.

We must also address this matter from another angle.  As mentioned earlier, the attack took place at a gay hangout.  It's therefore all too reasonable to surmise that many were engaging in mortal sins.  Let us pray that at least some of those found the grace of perfect contrition before they died so that they could at least attain eternal salvation.  Sodomy is one of the "sins that cries to heaven for vengeance".  Of course the murders cannot be condoned, but did we see some of that vengeance today?

Father Pfleger Joins The "Disarm Citizens" Chorus

I'm beginning to smell a bit of a coordinated effort here on the part of the progessive element in the Church to exploint the Arizona shootings.  First, the USCCB through their media arm is calling for the disarmament of the citizenry.  Now Father Michael Pfleger, Obama confidant, has added his shrill voice to the clamor, according to this Chicago Tribune article.  Now I'm not sure what the blue lights have to do with the price of fish here (yes, the "fish" comment is a bit of an acknowledgement to the future mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel), but I'm sure we'll be advised presently.

Some might recall Father Pfleger as being very much against guns - so much so that he actually threatened to "snuff out" the owner of Chuck's Gun Shop in Chicago and legislators who vote against gun control laws.  Listen to Father Pfleger's less-than-peaceful screed for yourselves.   (Click here if you can't see embedded video)



By the bye - don't you find this language to be somewhat incendiary?  All this rhetoric - I'll call it "hate speech" - about "snuffing out" and "blowing away" cannot be considered civilized by any standards.  That goes double for a Roman Catholic priest.  So now that Fr Pfleger has chimed in, will we hear rebukes of him, as we did regarding Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and others?

So who amongst the "catholyc" left will be the next to join the clarion call for the disarmament of US citizens?  Who will be the next mouthpiece of the Messiah Most Miserable and his Mindless Minions to call for our shedding of our defenses?

Waaah! Waaah!

Oh drat those Republican meanies in the Senate!  They didn't let Obama have his way with the gun control votes yesterday.  Oh wait!  My bad!  The Senate is controlled by the Dems!  Ooops!  They let down their Dear Leader!  Aw, shucky-darn!

Go to CNSNews to see more details - and the video of the Messiah Most Miserable's temper tantrum. It's a pity he can't trouble himself half as much about the Boston situation or the hundreds of babies butchered by Kermit Gosnell.

Pardon my cynicism, but could his angst be because he wanted these bills to fail in the House, so that he could blame the GOP "gun-and-religion clingers" for the 2014 elections?  Curses!  Foiled again!

Catholic Charities Hosts Democrat Dog And Pony Show At St Jude's In Rockville MD

In 2018 all levels of Maryland public officials are up for elections: from the governor down to the local registrar of wills.  That of course means all the county councils and county executives are up.  This past Thursday evening on May 3rd, I attended a debate of candidates for the Montgomery County Executive position held at St. Jude's in Rockville.

I must remind one and all that Montgomery County Maryland is a liberal loony bin.  The lunacy was on display tonight in all its macabre glory.  First the debate was co-hosted by both Catholic Charities and the Justice and Advocacy Council.  I knew that when I got the notice and realized it was a harbinger of things to come.

The moderator of this debate was none other than Msgr John Enzler, who has been known to cozy up to pro-aborts and even to donate to their political campaigns.  There were seven candidates who were debating.  Six of them were Democrats; Robin Ficker was the lone Republican.  Three of those Democrats are current members of the County Council; they are George Leventhal, Roger Berliner, and Mark Elrich.  They were also on the council in early 2010 when the council passed its measure to hog-tie pro-life pregnancy centers in the County.  If you go back to my archives from that time, you can see video that I took of the hearings in Rockville.  Leventhal was particularly contemptuous of the pro-life people who testified against the bill.  It did pass, but went down in flames in court.  Mind you, all three of the current county executive candidates voted for it, although it was obviously unconstitutional.  You'll see later on how they hold the US Constitution in cheap regard.

The first part of the debate focused on "immigration": that is, when the Democrats weren't busy bashing President Trump.  Each of the Democrats loudly proclaimed that if they were elected, they would protect the border-crashers and that they'd direct the County police not to cooperate with ICE in any attempt to enforce immigration laws.  Let that sink in.  The President of the United States is constitutionally charged with ensuring national security; part and parcel of that task is the securing of the nation's borders.  We all listened to Democrats vowing to undermine the President as he carries out his constitutional responsibilities.  Whoever is elected to the executive position in November will take his or her own oath of office.  That oath includes the upholding of the Constitution.  But in loudly proclaiming that they would undermine the president, they just admitted that they would disregard their own oaths of office.  Moreover, in stating that they'd direct the county police to take a hostile stance towards ICE, they'd be directing those same officers to disregard their own oaths that they swore as police officers.  Isn't that, well, special??

Now of course Enzler was just beaming with joy upon hearing such talk.  Recall that Catholic Charities, along with other branches of the US church hierarchy, receive billions in federal dollars to "resettle immigrants".  Since that amount is predicated on headcounts "served", we can see how they'd be anxious to keep them crashing our national borders.

They moved beyond the Trump-bashing and shilling for border-crashers onto other favorite progressive topics.  As I said, there was one lone Republican - Robin Ficker.  When the candidates were asked about bringing jobs to Montgomery County, Ficker said he would brook no tax increases on his watch.  The others clearly didn't like that and used their time slots to take umbrage at that suggestion.  They also lauded the hike in the minimum wage.  Clearly we saw a shining example of how progressives simply aren't in touch with the real world.  Hikes in minimum wages - hikes in taxes - universal health care - these are all arbitrary costs that make Montgomery County unfriendly to employers - especially to those that are small businesses.  Anyone with a scintilla of common sense knows that, but liberals are devoid of even that.

Education was a hot button topic too.  The favored solution for the Democrats seemed to be expanding pre-k programs.  That's right.  They actually want to take the three-year-olds and start the brain-washing early.  Perhaps if schools concentrated on the basics instead of allowing and even mandating that the students "walk out" for some gun-control parade, the students might actually learn some useful skills.  Perhaps if little children weren't suspended because they pointed their fingers and made gun sounds, they might feel safe enough to learn.

Not every topic was covered.  They didn't touch their draconian attempt to gag crisis pregnancy centers by a long shot.  There was also no provision for the audience to ask questions.  Oh, we could write them down on cards and submit them, but they were screened.  Be certain that Catholic Charities would never allow their sugar-daddy puppet-masters to be embarrassed.

Below is a recording of the debate - unedited so that you can hear the socialistic prattle in all its ugliness.  Forgive the comments from me and my companions; I trust they don't muffle the nonsense from the stage.

The Uvalde Massacre - More To This Than Meets The Eye

A conservative podcaster, Erick Erickson, put out a video that asks a lot of questions: questions that I've seen elsewhere regarding the Robb School situation.

So here is the chronology of the situation, as far as I can tell.  First, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos lived with his mother who was, probably still is, a drug addict.  There is absolutely no mention of his father, or any other man who might have been a father-figure to him.  Right there we have a breeding ground for disaster.

He was frequently bullied in school for his economic status and had only a few temporary friendships.  He acted out, causing him to have scuffles with the police.  That is to say that the police were quite familiar with him.   After his relationship with his mother further deteriorated, he lived with his grandmother.

His behavior, which he posted on social media, became increasingly dark, with him dressing all in black and voicing an interest in guns.  His financial status was still poor, with his job at Wendy's helping only a little.

Then, somehow, he managed to get a hold of two AR-15 rifles and ammunition, all costing about $5,000.00.  How did that happen?  First, why would he not have immediately failed background checks, owing to previous scuffles with the law?  Second, how could this impoverished kid afford it?  I'd ask who gave him the money, but again he would have failed the necessary screening.  Did someone give him the firearms?  If so, why?

On May 24 Tuesday, he shot his grandmother (who survived), then drove towards the school.  Somehow his truck wound up in a ditch.  He got out of the truck and went towards the school, firing his gun at various people along the way.  He walked into an unattended entrance, a door propped open, and eventually barricaded himself into a classroom and there shot and murdered the majority of his victims.  Here's a million-dollar question: did that open door lead to a classroom?  Is it the same classroom in which Ramos barricaded himself with his victims?

Meanwhile, local police arrived on the scene.  They stood outside the school and did absolutely nothing.  Parents were screaming at the police to do something.  Several of the parents received police ire for their protest.  Now who gave the police orders to essentially stand down and do absolutely nothing while Ramos proceeded to slaughter children?  They could hear the gunfire, and still they sucked thumb and bullied parents.  After an hour or so, it was a lone Border Control agent who finally took Ramos out.  Tucker Carlson asks many of the questions that were posed by Erickson above. 

Carlson appears to believe that these police were incompetent and were trying to save face.  I am not at all certain that it was mere incompetence, especially when one considers the almost magical ease with which a money-strapped kid obtained very expensive firearms.  Who gave Ramos those firearms?  Is there any connection between that and the order to the police to stand down?  Why was the school's main entrance unattended?  Why were no school police officers present?  Why was that door on the west side propped open?  Remember - this is a school that locked down quite a few times that year owing to human trafficking chases (being on a border town) so it's not like they didn't know safety practices.

Earning the most outrage was the behavior of the Uvalde police department.  At one point, they did enter the building, but then exited.  They then waited outside for an hour, while they could hear Ramos firing his gun.  Parents pleaded with them to go in, to no avail.  Some parents tried to take action, only to be put in handcuffs, pepper-sprayed, tackled to the ground.  One mother was arrested but was released.  She broke away from the cops, darted into the building and removed her children.  One off-duty Border Patrol agent, whose wife and daughter were in the school, received a text from his wife while at his barber's.  He borrowed the barber's shotgun, hurried to the school and evacuated his family and others from the building.

We are approaching an election cycle.  Certain Democrats would very much appreciate a crisis like this to take the public's eyes away from the utter mess that Biden et al are making of the country.  Saul Alinsky, in his book "Rules for Radicals", said "never let a crisis go to waste".  The Democrats are excellent students of Alinsky, and they would chomp at the bit to exploit such a crisis like Uvalde, perhaps even to the point of contriving one.

Each oddity about this situation, by itself, might raise an eyebrow and not much more.  But when so many oddities are apparent, their combination is much too coincidental:

• That a cash-strapped kid obtained two rifles, ammunition, body armor, etc
• That no school police officer was present that day
• That a door was propped open for Ramos's entry
• The strange stand-down behavior by local police
• The refusal to allow parents near the school

The whole thing stinks not of cowardice and incompetence, but of outright corruption.  The Texas Department of Safety is investigating the incident, but Uvalde Police and the school district are not cooperating. Why the stonewalling?

Meanwhile the typical progressive screeching for more gun confiscation sounded far and abroad.   I suppose they ignored some other news, like how a West Virginia woman shot down a maniac who was shooting into a crowd.  Also this weekend, an Ohio homeowner who was dragged outside of his home was rescued by his neighbor who shot the assailant dead.  Of course there is the aforementioned Border Control agent who borrowed his barber's shotgun and used that in his rescue mission.

The citizens of Uvalde include parents of children who lost their lives last week at Robb Elementary.  Some of those children might have been spared had the police actually done their jobs.  They need not wait until Texas has completed its investigation.  They need only wait till their local election day, when they can jettison the negligent city officials out of their offices, as well as those calling for the suspension of their Second Amendment rights.

Illegal Immigrants And AmChurch

Today's Vortex raises some questions that should be broached to our prelates. I'd like to see emphasized the question of why the USCCB puppets are so quick to take up the Washington oligarchy's talking points on these matters (gun control is another in which the bishops are allowing themselves to be the Minions Most Mindless of the White House).