Once Again Cardinal George And The USCCB Do Their Best Judas Imitation In Supporting Obama's Death Care Bill‏ - Some Things Never Change Regarding The History Of The Very Problematic Cardinal George Since Being Problematic Is A Mandatory Requirement To Be USCCB President




For some sorry history on Cardinal George and the USCCB, see the following links. The day that the USCCB is disbanded there will be rejoicing by orthodox Catholics throughout the country akin to that of the Hebrews when they left the bondage of Egypt! - Gary L. Morella

USCCB Enabling An Antichrist To Destroy America From Within As Pathological Liar In The White House Wants Baby Killing As Health Care After All – The Case Of The Missing Moral Authority - Some Headlines That Make You Shake Your Head And Marvel At New Levels Of Insanity Reached – Climate Of Hate As More Threats From Sodomites - Dark Secrets Of AARP Finally Exposed To Light – Cap And Trade Bill Is Fatally Flawed - To Quote Another Lone Jihadist,“It’s In The Koran”


A Prime Example Of Why The USCCB Is A Mill Stone Around The Necks Of Catholics In More Than Name Only





Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:45:35 -0500
From: lsn@lifesitenewsemail.com
Subject: LifeSiteNews.com - Wednesday November 11, 2009

Dear Readers,

We should all be grateful for the passage of the Stupak health care amendment.
However, as Stephen Mosher and a growing list of other leaders strongly warn, the Stupak Amendment has by no means eliminated all the grave dangers that are still in the bill. They warn that the battle is far from over and it would be a serious long term error to now give the bill a stamp of approval. Exceptional leadership is required at this time.

Steve Jalsevac




* Cardinal George Signals Support for Amended Health Bill, Elicits Pro-Life Criticism
* PRI's Stephen Mosher Expresses Serious Concern Over Amended Health Care Bill


Cardinal George Signals Support for Amended Health Bill, Elicits Pro-Life Criticism

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., Novmeber 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) appeared to express satisfaction with the House's amended health care bill,
one pro-life group has responded saying that the bishops' response ignores the other dangers the bill still presents to pro-life values.

The USCCB has taken center stage in the national health care debate this week after its pro-life position greatly impacted the late stages of the House health care bill's journey.  Over the weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination to pass the measure prompted her to seek the bishops' stamp of approval, in order to sway pro-life Democrats to accept the authenticity of the Stupak pro-life amendment.

Pelosi was reportedly not the only proactive member in the exchange.  A Politico report claims that,
while some GOP lawmakers considered voting "present" on the Stupak amendment to kill the bill, Cardinal George contacted House Minority Leader John Boehner to ensure no such foul play on that vote.

Following the passage of the amended bill, Cardinal George on November 9 issued a statement on behalf of the USCCB hailing the passage of legislation "to provide adequate and affordable health care to all.  The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long advocated that adequate health care be made available to everyone."

He called the Stupak amendment's success "an essential step" that "honored President Obama's commitment to the Congress and the nation that health care reform would not become a vehicle for expanding abortion funding or mandates."

"The Conference will remain vigilant and involved throughout this entire process to assure that these essential provisions are maintained and included in the final legislation," he said.

While noting that the bishops "do not claim or present ourselves as experts on health care policy" and "are not prepared to assess every provision of legislation as complex as this proposal," said George, "health care legislation ... is about human beings and hence has serious moral dimensions."

Because of the role Catholic Church-sponsored health care plays in picking up "the pieces of our failing system," he said, "we believe our nation's health care system needs reform which protects human life and dignity and serves the poor and vulnerable as a moral imperative and an urgent national priority." 

The cardinal noted that the bishops "remain deeply concerned" over the health care debate as it affects "the beginning and end of life" as well as conscience rights.

Prior to the bill's passage, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' pro-life office, told the Washington Post that if the Stupak amendment passed,
"we become enthusiastic advocates for moving forward with  health care reform."

The American Life League, however, took issue with the USCCB's approach to the bill.

While the Stupak amendment removed the threat of federal abortion funding, the group noted that the bill remains a serious concern to pro-life and social conservatives.  Leaders have pointed out concerns including: a rationing of health care; a lack of broad conscience protections; an insurance purchase mandate under threat of fine or imprisonment; and a loophole whereby assisted suicide could be encouraged.

"As the health care debate moves into the Senate, the pro-life movement must repudiate the half measures currently being touted as victory in some pro-life circles," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "Far too many vulnerable human beings' lives hang in the balance, not to mention the credibility and integrity of the entire pro-life effort."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Pro-Life Amendment Seen as Historic Victory Overshadowed by Dangers of Health Bill Passage 

Sunday November 8, 2009


Pro-Life Amendment Seen as Historic Victory Overshadowed by Dangers of Health Bill Passage

Warnings that Democrats plan to scrap pro-life Stupak amendment language in Senate


By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Celebration over the dramatic victory of a pro-life amendment in the House health care bill late Saturday night was quickly dimmed by the passage of the bill, which not only presents a plethora of other dangers, but also could lose even the hard-won pro-life language in later proceedings.

At approximately 10:20 p.m. EST Saturday night, the U.S. House voted 240-194 to approve an amendment to H.R. 3962 that maintains long-standing federal policy on abortion by banning government-appropriated funds from covering elective abortions.  Then, just before 11 p.m., House lawmakers voted 220-215 to pass the massive health care overhaul.  One Republican voted for the bill.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the passage of the pro-life amendment "a huge pro-life victory" and congratulated the bipartisan effort against the bill's abortion coverage.  "We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion," he said.

"Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation," said Perkins, who pointed out the bill's massive governmental power grab and open door to health care rationing, among other issues.

National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson agreed that the victory was not total.  "Today's bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation," he said. 

"But we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion, and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Pro-abort leaders across America flew into a rage as the pro-life Stupak amendment, unexpectedly approved for consideration Friday night, went on to gain an easy victory Saturday.  Many pointed fingers at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), whose input several lawmakers relied on to discern solidly pro-life amendments for the bill.

"It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States," said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in a statement late Saturday.

Yet various sources confirm that Pelosi's last-minute turnaround was not a true abandonment of her abortion allies, but a temporary concession to keep the struggling bill alive - with hopes that a subsequent bicameral version would scrap the pro-life language.  There is a larger pro-abortion majority in the Senate, making it unlikely a similar pro-life scenario would play out on the Senate floor.

Some Democrat lawmakers have already vowed to pursue such a reversal.

"I feel certain [the Stupak amendment] will come out of the bill before it comes back from committee," pro-abortion California Democrat Lynn Woolsey told The Hill. "I will insist that it come out."

Ultimately pro-life leaders appeared to agree that the amendment, though important in its own right, put hardly a dent in an otherwise massively dangerous bill.

Noted FRC's Perkins: "The Speaker's bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives."

American Life League president Judie Brown had harsh words for the USCCB's cooperative attitude toward the legislation.  While aggressively promoting the long-standing ban on federal abortion funding, the Conference has largely not questioned other dangerous aspects of President Obama's overhaul - a position Brown says risks making the bishops "political pawns in advancing a culture of death that treats human life as disposable."

"[The health bill's] instrumentalist approach to abortion will serve to enshrine in law grave injustices condemned unequivocally by the Catholic Church," she said.  "Among these are rationed health care, In vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, human experimentation, euthanasia and birth control.

"Faithful Catholics have a responsibility to vigorously oppose abortion in healthcare, not negotiate the status quo."

List of Pro-Life Leader Reactions to Health Bill Outcome: Caution Outweighs Celebration 

Pro-Life Leaders React to Health Bill Outcome: Caution Outweighs Celebration




Updated Nov. 11

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Amid praise for the pro-life Stupak amendment's momentous victory in the health care bill Saturday night, a two-pronged fear clearly emerged in the reaction of U.S. pro-life leaders: 1) the immense threats to pro-life values the health bill presents even without federal abortion funding, and, 2) the likelihood that the pro-life amendment itself will vanish in a later version of the bill.

Here is a collection of quotations from key pro-life leaders to give a taste of the pro-life reaction to the Saturday night drama on Capitol Hill:

- Family Research Council president Tony Perkins:  "This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. ... Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation.

"The Speaker's bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Speaker Pelosi is using the guise of health care reform to push her version of social engineering onto American taxpayers."

- Population Research President Stephen M. Mosher: A Stupak Amendment is clearly not enough. It includes no conscience protection, and does nothing to prohibit hastening death.  Other shortcomings abound. The House bill, for instance, permanently funds pornographic sex education for all students.  It sets up an Institute of Medicine to study and make recommendations about Medicare, which may be the Trojan Horse to introduce rationing into the health care system. No matter how many amendments are passed, I do not believe that this legislative monstrosity serves the interests of unborn babies, or the elderly, or the rest of us. I, for one, do not want any part of Obamacare.

- Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright:  "This monstrous bill will ration and deny health care, pay for coercive 'end of life planning.' create multiple bureaucracies that will control Americans' health care, penalize Americans for not buying a product, fine Americans if a government agent decides their health care plan is not 'government approved,' and may force Americans to buy government mandated insurance that funds objectionable procedures.  Although an amendment passed to bar federal funding of abortion, Democrat leaders refused to guarantee that it will be in the final bill. The vote on the amendment may have been a ruse to gain pro-life Democrats vote for the bill." 

- American Life League President Judie Brown: "As the health care debate moves into the Senate, the pro-life movement must repudiate the half measures currently being touted as victory in some pro-life circles...Far too many vulnerable human beings' lives hang in the balance, not to mention the credibility and integrity of the entire pro-life effort."

"[The health bill's] instrumentalist approach to abortion will serve to enshrine in law grave injustices condemned unequivocally by the Catholic Church," she said.  "Among these are rationed health care, In vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, human experimentation, euthanasia and birth control."

View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

PRI's Stephen Mosher Expresses Serious Concern Over Amended Health Care Bill
"A Stupak Amendment is clearly not enough" and he does "not want any part of Obamacare"

Commentary by Steven W. Mosher

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, November 11, 2009 (pop.org) - By twisting the arms of freshman Democrats nearly out of their sockets, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at the end of the day, managed to eke out passage of HR 3962, her health care reform bill. But her five-vote victory was so narrow that some pundits are now opining that the Senate version of the bill is dead. Don’t count on it.

With the President, Pelosi and Reid all pushing for some kind of health care legislation, the struggle against Obamacare is far from over.

The Left is furious at San Fran Nan for allowing a vote on the Stupak Amendment, which passed by a wide margin with bipartisan support. Its wide margin of passage makes Planned Parenthood and other abortion supporters even more determined to hold the line in the U.S. Senate, where they have the support of the majority of Democrat Senators and the two Republican Senators from Maine. They will seek to keep abortion in the Senate bill, then win in conference, and then count on Pelosi to deliver a party-line vote—this time without amendments allowed—in the House. As I say, the battle to keep abortion out of the bill is not over. Complacency could cost the lives of many babies. 

For the moment, however, the pro-life movement can justly take pride in its political strength. Politicians are nothing if not realists, and they have just been treated to the spectacle of both Pelosi and the President caving in to pro-life pressure from within their own party.

Notwithstanding their strident support of federally funded abortions, and despite the anger that their action generated among a large part of the Democrat base, they backed down.

I have no doubt that they will be back, quietly inserting abortion funding in conference and then counting on party loyalty to carry the day, but this will take time.

In the meantime, we must continue to oppose any health care reform that violates the rights of health care workers to freedom of conscience, or which denies the elderly the level of medical care they are accustomed to receiving, with the ultimate aim of reducing their number. (Think “Do not resuscitate.”)  Nor should we agree to give permanent federal status, funding, and protection to Planned Parenthood, as the current bill does. Our goal must be to defund the abortion machine entirely.  

I believe that the AARP has alienated much of its membership by backing this bill, given that it is today’s seniors who will sacrifice their quality of care to pay for this health care extravaganza.

One may say the same about the American Medical Association, the majority of whose independent entrepreneurs do not want to be turned into government drones, forced to deny needed treatment to their patients by faceless bureaucrats. Both of these organizations will undoubtedly see their membership rolls shrink in the future.

As for the American public in general, there is growing skepticism about many aspects of this legislation. Needed reforms such as setting limits on court awards and increasing insurance competition and portability are given short shrift in the legislation. At the same time, its 2,000 pages create dozens of new bureaucracies to decide what kinds of treatments are available and to whom. Even those who are not pro-life have serious doubts about this legislation on such grounds, polls show.  

Pro-lifers must decide now if making modest improvements to Obamacare will produce a bill they can live with.
I, for one, am not sure how many amendments would be necessary to clean up the bill so that its provisions no longer threaten unborn babies and infirm elderly. A Stupak Amendment is clearly not enough. It includes no conscience protection, and does nothing to prohibit hastening death.  Other shortcomings abound. The House bill, for instance, permanently funds pornographic sex education for all students.  It sets up an Institute of Medicine to study and make recommendations about Medicare, which may be the Trojan Horse to introduce rationing into the health care system.

When the Senate finally passes a bill, both it and the House bill will be sent to a conference committee. The conference committee will consist of both Senators and Congressmen and will be chosen by the leadership of both parties in the House and Senate.  The committee’s job will be to forge the two bills into one, called the reconciled bill.

Here’s where things get dicey (again).
The conference committee, which will be dominated by Pelosi and Reid appointees, will have an enormous amount of discretion. It could report out legislation that bears little resemblance to that previously passed by the two houses. The reconciled bill could contain abortion coverage, for example, even if neither the House nor the Senate bill contained this provision. Or it could have a “public option” inserted, or stronger penalties for employers who do not have insurance for their employees. One insider with decades of experience in Washington puts it bluntly: “Anything can happen in a conference committee!”

The reconciled bill will then go to the House and the Senate to be voted on.  This time, no amendments will be allowed. Congressmen must vote yea or nay. You can imagine the kinds of pressure that will be put on the Democrat majority to vote the party line.

This final vote will probably not occur until Christmas, a time when many Americans will be focused on faith and family.

I do not intend to sit out the debate in the Senate, or be distracted from our goal of protecting the sanctity of life. We will continue to urge amendments to improve the bill.

At the same time, I can tell you candidly that, no matter how many amendments are passed, I do not believe that this legislative monstrosity serves the interests of unborn babies, or the elderly, or the rest of us.

I, for one, do not want any part of Obamacare.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of Population Research Institute.

View Story on LifeSiteNews.com



Some things never change regarding the  history of the very problematic Cardinal George. You have to be problematic to be a USCCB president. That's THE biggest requirement!‏



It's Time for our Lukewarm Bishops to Take the GATE (Galatians Anathermometer Theological Exam)







Giving the GATE to Cardinal Francis E. George, OMI!

The smudges of anathema are everywhere. How do you rationalize your errors, your Eminence?

Editor's Note: The smudges are everywhere. There are so many fingerprints that have tampered with the Truths of Catholic Doctrine, that the title for this feature was right there at our fingertips - "Fingerprints of Anathema?" Just as FOX News' slogan is "we report, you decide," so also we have left the question mark for you to decide if the person proclaiming what was said is anathema or just another wayward Modernist avoiding necessities, being politically correct, and altering the Sacred Deposit of the Faith to placate man and to avoid accountability to their appointment as successors of the Apostles. Wait. That would be anathema according to the Apostle Paul's infallible statement in Galatians 1: 7-10 wherein he states:

"I wonder that you are so soon removed, from him who called you to the grace of Christ, to another gospel: which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so I say now again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I did yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."


    And so today, on behalf of Authentic Roman Catholics everywhere, I, your locum tenens examiner Michael Cain, editor of The Daily Catholic, ask His Eminence Cardinal Francis E. George to kindly step forward to take the Galatians Anathermometer Theological Exam (GATE). By your statements we shall see if you are truly a servant of Christ. If not, what steps will you take to right yourself for your sake and the sake of your flocks, your Eminence? I know you have a busy schedule what with all your ecumenical activities, but there are some important matters the people need to hear from your own words. Prepare for the GATE. Now place your fingers on the anathematic defibrillator and we shall commence.
   First of all, we will be passing the floor to the very capable hands of Gary Morella and Barbara Kralis who published your comments in Catholic Citizens of Ilinois including your brief statment on April 16th:

"At a public gathering, I was asked about imposing ecclesiastical penalties on pro-choice politicians and others who take public stands that are in opposition to Catholic teaching. My response was, "No, not yet."


In taking this step to impose public sanctions on politicians, it would be better for bishops to act together, if possible. This issue, therefore, is being studied by a group of bishops.


    Now your Eminence, if this isn't the ol' razzle-dazzle which 'Chicago' is famous for, I don't know what is. It is also called 'flim-flam.' As Mrs. Kralis pointed out to you in respectfully writing, "with all due respect to the group of bishops 'studying' how to respond to this issue, CCI requests that they consider the following items clearly articulated in Canon Law." [editor's emphasis]. She then listed the four specific canonical laws pertaining to this very subject the bishops are supposed to study. In other words, are you saying they don't know Canon Law? Quite surprising considering their academic backgrounds wouldn't you say? Here are the four Canon Laws we list in ascending order:

·                  Canon Law 912: All baptized Catholics, who are not forbidden by law, must be admitted to Holy Communion.

·                  Canon Law 915: (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) "Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

·                  Canon Law 1329: Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

·                  Canon Law 1398: Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.


   Now, your Eminence, it seems quite clear as you told a Mr. Jeff Berkowitz on his TV show in that "public gathering" you refer to, that you have said "We don't give edicts. Again, we are governed by the code of Canon Law." Then why are you not heeding what you are governed by? You further stated,in Berkowitz' direct questions about if you would deny communion to pro-abort Catholic politicians the following while hemming and hawing in that old shell game you and your modernist bishops have become famous for:

Well, not at this point, no. It would be very interesting to toss it out and say what do you think? I have done that at the [inaudible] Council; I have done that at the archdiocesen pastoral council, which is 60 lay people; I have done that at the archdiocesen Women's committee, which is about 20 lay women. You know before bishop moves, he better listen a lot, he better consult, particularly on something, which is political, because political issues of their nature divide. And, the bishop has to be a source of unity. So, I am not going to do this tomorrow or the next day, but we have this Committee that I am talking about, which is examining all of the options, this is one of the reasons why, at least in the Catholic Church, we don't let politicians take pulpits- because politics divide and the Church is supposed to be about uniting people, as long as the parameters of the faith and the moral code are respected. The problem is compounded because the Pope in the document you mentioned has said, look, legislators and politicians have to respect the law as it is, but then if the laws seem unjust, for example they permit killing of infants in the womb- then you have to work toward changing them. But, while they are in force, they are enforced, including by Catholic politicians. The difficulty is in working toward.


The great scandal to my mind of the Democratic Party is that there is no Pro-Life Caucus, none whatsoever. A party that historically has been concerned about the weakest among us, why most Catholics were in fact Democrats historically-doesn't permit any freedom of speech around this question of abortion. So in that particular situation there is something of a scandal. One can say, as I have, that the Democratic Party has lost its soul. One could also argue that the Republican Party never had a soul. [Lots of audience laughter]. It is called equal opportunity. [more audience laughter]. But, there is something seriously wrong with a country that has watched over 40 million infants be killed over the last 30 some years, and it should be a matter of some concern. The fact that it can't be a concern, that it simply has to be put aside and never discussed publicly again even by the oldest of our political parties is a matter of concern I think politically. It is also a matter of concern morally for the people who espouse that and it is precisely as their pastors and their concern for them that bishops speak. I think at this point the integrity of my office doesn't demand that I do what you ask. If in fact, it did, and I couldn't- I would resign, if the Pope lets me. So, this is matter of the utmost concern-but I don't have a clear answer to your question at this time.


   Before any further ado or bafflegab from you, I will now respectfully hand the floor over to Mr. Morella who has much wisdom and documentation to offer. His testimony will be in blue:
This discouraging interview with Chicago's Cardinal George shows what happens when politics trumps Catholic teaching necessary for salvation. His political bias in favor of the "democratic party" is betrayed by his flippant comment "One can say, as I have, that the Democratic Party has lost its soul. One could also argue that the Republican Party never had a soul," which clearly implies that the former is the "lesser of two evils." The lesser of two evils is STILL evil. Cardinal George unwittingly let the "cat out of the bag" with this comment showing the affinity for which many in the clergy still have for a democratic party whose leadership has long since sent itself to hell expedited by the work of prominent pseudo-Catholics. At least there are some in the Republican leadership who still fear the Lord enough to not want to mock Him in recognition of the truth that without life there are NO other issues! This is not to imply that much work needs to be done on the other side of the aisle. However problems must be recognized as such before they can be addressed. And no one in the Catholic Church seems to consider it a problem anymore that the world is not listening to Catholicism as a moral compass. But then again why should the world when Rome fiddles while the Church is burning?
   We have news for you, Cardinal George. If bishops like yourself gave some evidence of being Catholic by telling this country that a Catholic moral voice is mandatory in order to filter out the secular confusion of the devil, we would not be staring at a "soulless" nation regardless of party affiliation! If bishops like yourself uncompromisingly preached the "culture-of-ETERNAL-life" with emphasis on man's supernatural end given the REAL existence of hell instead of "peace and social justice issues" ad nauseam, which have nothing to do with a "Kingdom NOT of this world," the efforts of those God-fearing people in the political arena would be made clearer to the public as to the necessity of God's Law taking precedence over man's for our physical survival leading ultimately to our eternal spiritual survival in accord with the Natural Law, knowable from reason, showing the Truth of the Divine Law.
   George's "clarification of recent remarks" are disgraceful and antithetical to a traditional Catholic witness to the Church that Christ founded upon the Rock that is Peter. They are foreign to the Catholicity of the pre-Conciliar (Vatican II) popes to include a canonized Saint, and the dogmatic teaching of the councils rooted in Sacred Scripture making up the infallible Magisterium of the Church on Faith and morals. You do not see Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII encouraging "collegiality run amok", one of the rotten fruits of Vatican II, when it comes down to the "last things"- death, judgment, Heaven and hell. And it ALWAYS, repeat, ALWAYS, comes down to the "last things." At least that used to be the case when the institutional Church was recognizable as Catholic. Sadly, with the increasing apostasy in the clergy, as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima, that is no longer true. The REAL Catholic Church now exists in the catacombs where priests preach Christ crucified for salvation's sake instead of the "sacrament of self esteem" instituted by the devil, the ONLY sacrament in the modern church where sin no longer exists, as preached by a congenial clergy that hypocritically professes to "heal the enlightened modern Church" from those awful traditional dogmas that are no longer necessary since the world must be accommodated instead of contradicted.
   Cardinal George's "political" Church where bishops are afraid to give evidence that they are Catholic in favor of a "democratic approval rating" is the church of the lukewarm of Laodocia, the worst of the seven churches, which God vomited out of His mouth in the Book of the Apocalypse (cf. Apoc. 3: 16).
   How can it be said that pseudo-Catholic politicians like John Kerry & Co. do not incur excommunication under Canon law 1329 when they are the principal enablers of baby killing by their blatant support of the agenda of the devil in being advocates for the totality of the "culture-of-eternal-death" to include contraception, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia? They most certainly do. You do not have to be handling the forceps that crush babys' skulls when you are the political instrument for making such barbaric acts "legal", which is blasphemy to the Catholic Faith. The sorry fact that our bishops do not own up to this fact is evidence that they are NOT CATHOLIC! [Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.]
   Kerry could not even bring himself to vote for a recent bill that would have made it illegal to kill an innocent in the womb if the mother WANTED the baby. The bill made it perfectly OK to kill the baby if the mother DID NOT WANT IT, as its promoters went to pains to tell the professional baby killing lobby that it would have no effect on the Roe v. Wade decision in order to garner the approval of the disciples of the devil. Kerry was so moved by this attempt at appeasement to the radical left that he made a special effort to vote AGAINST this bill so that his core support in NOW and NARAL would not be endangered, support that applauded every filthy non-Catholic vote he made to kill babies in what should be their safest place of refuge - their mothers' wombs to particularly include his heinous shameless support of partial birth infanticide.
   Bottom line - this bill was so flawed that baby killing was a function of the mother's choice. If we HAD Catholic bishops witnessing to the Faith instead of being embarrassed by it this country would never have descended to the moral abyss in which it now finds itself where such flawed bills are deemed major victories. Sed contra, it would be under the influence of Catholic Truth for its salvation, which was God's command in the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew.
   Moreover, how can bishops like George ignore Canon Law 915? [Canon Law 915 (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.]
   How can it be said that Kerry & Co. are not "obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin?" The tortured explanations otherwise will not suffice as they are illogical.
   Would the saints, which we are all called to be, have shirked from correcting Catholic "wrong", begging to ask permission to do so from others before doing what is "right" for the sake of the immortal souls of all concerned? The mere suggestion is ridiculous; it is not Catholic, but rather a disgrace to the Faith and making a mockery of the blood of the martyrs.
   THE crisis in the Catholic Church is due to the fact that we have SPINELESS bishops, whose skulls, in the words of the great Eastern father, Saint John Chrysostom, "pave the road to hell!" They have blasphemously in the name of Catholicism encouraged dissent from all aspects of Magisterial teaching, which spawned a sodomite subculture in the priesthood. Misery loves company as the current crop of bishops, by their reluctance to formally excommunicate individuals like Kerry, who have repeatedly caused public scandal to the Faith, show that they could care less whether or not those entrusted to their care are at extreme risk of going to hell. God help us all!
   Catholics today have to educate themselves in the Faith more than ever because they are receiving a steady diet of lies spewing forth from the post-Conciliar Church in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II", which is not the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost but something diabolic. Catholics should immediately recognize these lies when they see things that the Church has traditionally believed since its founding, one of the tests of an infallible Magisterial teaching, that are defined away as no longer relevant, e.g., conversion is not necessary to the Faith which repudiates the ultimate Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary and the blood of the martyrs witnessing to the necessity of the Catholic Church for man's salvation, the Jews can still wait for the Messiah, and the Words of Consecration necessary for transubstantiation to occur at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, which is the centerpiece of Catholicism, i.e., that which uniquely defines it, which was the INTENTION of Our Lord in HIS VERY WORDS at the Last Supper, are profanely referred to as nothing more than "a medieval theology of magic words" which can be replaced with the Mass still being valid! THESE ARE ABOMINABLE LIES! THEY ARE NOT THE STATEMENTS OF CATHOLICS! Denzinger's The Source of Catholic Dogma is an excellent reference in this regard.
   Catholics must never forget that the individual doing the redefining exists. His creed is "non-serviam" to his Creator in open defiance of Jesus Christ, the God-Man being his superior, and his smoke has entered the last bastion of Truth for the world, the Church itself. We must pray for the Church that, with the help of Jesus Christ, through the intercession of His Blessed Mother Mary, His Foster Father, Saint Joseph, and all of the Archangels, Angels, and Saints, the Church Triumphant in Heaven, in union with the Church Suffering in Purgatory who will see the Beatific Vision of the Blessed Trinity in all of its radiant glory, the Church Militant on Earth will find the courage through the sanctifying Grace of the Sacraments, in particular the Sacrament of Confirmation whereby young Catholics become soldiers of Christ, and frequent reception of the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, to uncompromisingly witness to the Faith as part of the Mystical Body of Christ for man's eternal salvation.
   I would say that is pretty definitive, your Eminence. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence you still say: "No, not yet." I ask again, what are you waiting for? The more you wait, the more souls are lost and the more the enemy gains hold. Do you not realize the grave consequences of that and what you will have to account for at your final judgment? To refresh your memory to what Gary pointed out earlier, it all comes down to the "Last Four Things": Death, Heaven, Purgatory and hell. Yes, your Eminence, there is a hell! This has clearly been confirmed by Sacred Scripture and by Pope Leo XIII who composed lengthy but necessary Prayer to St. Michael which is available in full at www.refugeofsinners.com. Do you think, your Eminence, that it is time to finally stand up and honor your vows as a faithful shepherd of your flock? I know for a fact you were taught well and given the solid pre-Vatican II foundations by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. My question is: what happened to you? Have you been so consumed by power and prestige and man's plaudits that you have forgotten your goal and your humble beginnings? Have you been so blinded by the schmoozing with politicians and men of the world that you have lost sight of the narrow path? Is this what has happened to your fellow bishops as well who shy away from their responsibilities before God? It seems all we get is your double-speak, skimble-skamble delaying tactics and more of "No, not yet!"
   With your constant shuffling and procrastination, the anathematic defibrillator is waffling all over the place. Therefore, we have seen enough. You may lift your fingers for you have convicted yourself of anathema, Cardinal Francis George. You are no servant of Christ for you seek to persuade men, not God.
    I pray you will go forth, along with your fellow cohort bishops, and learn from this exam or, as we already have told your peer Archbishop Sean O'Malley that when it comes to your Final Exam before the Eternal Judge your actions and inactions will flunk you forever. Go now and study Canon Law if you must take more time. We would recommend Mrs. Kralis' excellent article Primer on Canon 915 and also review our Herod's Heroes and realize you are only enabling satan and his minions. It is time to say with Saint Paul his words in Galatians 1: 6, "I wonder that you are so soon removed, from him who called you to the grace of Christ, to another gospel: which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Do you realize you are doing that, your Eminence? It is time then that you do the right thing, or else get out of the way and let a good and holy bishop take care of the people of Chicago. After so many years of bad shepherds, they need a good shepherd to remind them of what is truly Catholic. Like St. Ambrose stood up to the Roman Emperor in upholding right, so also we will stand up against you and all other bishops who conceal the Catholic Truths and Traditions of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith from the faithful.

Michael Cain, editor, The Daily Catholic


Fingerprints of Anathema?
April 22, 2004
Volume 15, no. 113
Never forget that the USCCB was made in Bernardin's image! See the following link! - Gary L. Morella

The Legacy of Cardinal Bernardin’s Common Ground Seamless Garment, Which is a Rag




The Legacy of Cardinal Bernardin’s Common Ground Seamless Garment, Which is a Rag!




If Canon 915 and "A common excommunication is automatically incurred by receiving or participating in an abortion" are true, what's so hard for the US Bishops to understand?

11/15/2003 2:43:00 PM
By An essay by Barb Kralis

Tuesday, November 11, 2003, the USCCB attempted to consider which Catholic politicians who dissent from Magisterial teachings should be denied the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Catholic World News reported ' Some bishops didn't want to limit the issues to abortion, but also wanted to include "the use of the death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority for the poor, and welcome for immigrants" among the criteria for judging the politicians.' What was surprising to many of us watching from the pews was the resurrection of the late Cd. Joseph Bernardin's social 'seamless garment' theory that seemingly will haunt us until the end of time.

Do these above mentioned social issues constitute mortal sin and grounds for excommunication in the same way that Abortion/Euthanasia do? Are these other human issues to be classed in the same category as infallible teachings in faith and morals? Or, are our U.S. Bishops creating a diversion against Canon Law 915?

Joseph Cardinal Bernardin was general secretary of the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) from 1968 to 1972 and its president from 1974 to 1977. His famous initiative for a 'seamless garment' or 'consistent ethic of life' was introduced at a lecture at Fordham University in New York and was to have important ramifications for the development of a Catholic bioethic in America.

For over two decades, Bernardin's flawed quality of life theory has provided 'cover' for countless pro abort politicians to falsely claim they're pro life (Cuomoism) and has enabled Catholic University academics to support abortion. Still today, Bernardin's theory lures perhaps tens of thousands of Catholics at each election to support and vote for the pro abortion candidates of their choice. Bernardin is still in control of the direction of the 'American Church.'

The 'Single Issue' of Abortion/Euthanasia is being diluted once again by the politically correct U.S. Bishops with other human sustenance issues; i.e., housing, global warming, war, capital punishment (holy criminy, they forgot to include gun control) as if they were somehow equal.
In fact, none of the other issues could exist without the right to life issue of Abortion/Euthanasia. All other issues affirm this one single issue.

The Abortion/ Euthanasia issue is most unique; it involves the killing of the innocent. The USCCB are sure to hide that fact in their PC assessment of who should be denied sacrilegious Holy Communion. Forgetting Canon Law, which requires them to enforce restrictions against reception of the Eucharist, the U.S. Bishops are going to show us laity that we can't tell them how to conduct their affairs.

The true Catholic position on Abortion/Euthanasia admonishes us to hold it to a heroic degree. This one, single issue is decisive and defining and nothing is more important than the preserving the life of the innocent. Anyone, be it a politician, an abortion mill worker, a murderous doctor or nurse, who formally promotes or provides legislation or medical service for Abortion/Euthanasia must be denied Holy Communion. This issue must first be clearly defined by the U.S. Bishops. No other issues carry the same burden as Abortion/Euthanasia.

So, will we once again see tree hugging Bernardin Legacy followers beating a dead horse, animating 'seamless garment' propaganda, while erroneously teaching that "Everyone has a right to receive Communion. We cannot judge; only Jesus can judge their worthiness?"
That surely would put the kabash on our God given duty to make rational judgments against good and evil, right and wrong. And, it would undermine and deeply compromises those courageous hard working Catholics politicians who truly are 'pro life.'

It's not hard to decide who receives Holy Communion, so why muddy the waters with countless confusing issues. Catholics who are obstinate manifest (public) sinners (and not just politicians), 'who persist in grave sins are not to be admitted to reception of the Eucharist.' (Canon 915). Furthermore, "A common excommunication is automatically incurred by receiving or participating in an abortion" (c. 1398) Finis.


Barbara Kralis is a Catholic writer for various Catholic publications. She and her husband, Mitch, co-direct the Jesus Through Mary Foundation in Howe, Tx. Barbara is also a member of Catholic Media Coalition, an association of Catholic lay writers and editors (www.catholicmediacoalition.org). Barbara can be reached at: AveMaria@earthlink.net.


An addendum by Gary L. Morella

Cardinal Bernardin was not a Catholic, as evidenced by his common ground initiative, which I would argue was primarily responsible for putting pro-life issues on the backburner in favor of his "seamless garment", which proved to be a rag!  It was due in no small part to Bernardin that we have pseudo-Catholics like Cuomo, Leahy, Kennedy, ad nauseam, who have no problems supporting the entirety of the culture-of-death in the name of Catholicism!   Bernardin was indefensible in regard to his bastardization of the Faith to the extreme of giving orders for a publicly identified sodomite choir to sing at his funeral.


You do not have other issues such as peace and social justice without life, but that did not stop Bernardin from placing all of these in the same category as life via his seamless garment.   To be pro-life means to be pro-ETERNAL-life, with the supernatural taking precedence over the natural, something that many have forgotten in the Church today.


You can support capital punishment as a Catholic, which has always been the consistent Catholic teaching.  Jesus Christ Himself did not condemn capital punishment on the cross in his comments to the Good Thief when He had the opportunity to do so.   Rather, Christ, unlike many in the modernist Church, realized that it is the supernatural, which should by our priority, not the natural.  To equate capital punishment with abortion is nonsensical.  The former deals with morally justified punishment of the guilty; the latter deals with the immoral murdering of the innocent!  You would think that Catholics would at least get that right.


We must not be satisfied with just "choosing a good to limit an evil."  Catholics are called to be more than that.  If we are satisfied, we will never overturn Roe V. Wade.  The disciples of the devil are not inclined to be so limiting.  They are an "all or nothing" group.  Why should Catholics be anything less?  The problem that I have is that I see people who are willing to say, "This is all that we can do," which is not true.  Why should we apologize for being Catholic?  Why should believers be embarrassed in fear of allowing themselves to be marginalized by politicos?  Why should we be reticent to say to the disciples of the devil, "We have had quite enough of your tripe, and we do not have to stand for the barbarity of a world that you would force upon our children and grandchildren?  Why should we have to let the devil dictate our future? WE DO NOT!  And unless we start to take the bull by the horns and stop using the language of the secularists to defeat them, which is ultimately futile in not showing the relationship between Faith and reason, as the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas did in regards to his "preambles to the Faith", which are knowable through reason with Faith enabling reason, and reason, in turn, reinforcing Faith, we are going to lose the culture wars.   The God Who gave us Faith also gave us reason.  The two cannot contradict each other.  If they did, God would be a liar, which is impossible since He is All-Everything, to include being All-Good.  The last I heard Catholics are supposed to believe in this All-Good God.  Moreover, they are not required to apologize to anyone for doing so. Nor are they required to be quiet about holding to such a belief. 


I do not have any problems with limiting evil; I am just uncomfortable with living with a degree of it to do it, which I find increasingly hypocritical as a Catholic.   Where I have difficulties is in believing that this is ALL THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, which is the mindset of many of those who see no difficulties with forgetting that the ultimate goal is to eradicate evil.  That is CATHOLIC teaching, not limiting it.  Read Sacred Scripture about which roads are easier traversed for the sake of our eternal salvation.  The Church teaching on the life of the mother, for example, is that everything should be done to save BOTH the lives of the Mother and her child, since both are equal in the eyes of God.  If the death of the child results from such an attempt, then that is not an immoral act.  We are getting into a minefield by spending too much time dwelling on what is less evil than others as Catholics.  That moves us away from Catholic teaching, not closer to it. 


I repeat, "Is the other side interested in limiting belief in the Almighty and His laws?"  No, they want to eradicate it.  Why should we have any less of a mindset in fighting the battles in the culture wars as Catholics?  We should be setting the example.  It ought to be clear to us by now, given the hysterical reaction of the devil and his minions to President Bush's PBA ban signing (it is a sad day for America when the elimination of infanticide has to be debated in the halls of Congress), and the Terri Schiavo case, that we are getting nowhere by being "nice" to the devil, i.e., compromising our beliefs by putting politics ahead of what we know to be the Perfect Truth that is a Someone, not a something. 


How can a Catholic in effect legitimize Mortal Sin by making concessions to the secularists?  A baby is just as dead regardless of whether it happens one second after conception or one second prior to birth.  Catholics are supposed to consistently remind the world of that irrefutable fact!  What the heck is going on here?  Those who do not are supposed to be our leaders?  They are doing nothing more than adding to the confusion of an already confused Church on practically every moral issue.  Maybe if some of our bishops had the guts to preach Catholicism on all of the hot button issues going to the root cause of the culture war, the contraceptive mentality of the age, we would not be in the mess that we find ourselves. 


Catholic moral theology has always been that "the end does not justify the means. You do not do an evil for a greater good.  Is still allowing the killing of infants for whatever tortured reasons that the secularists come up with in terms of a "limiting" philosophy a real good?  I would argue that by not preaching Catholicism and witnessing to Jesus Christ via the Church that He founded upon the Rock that is Peter, we are doing an "evil" that is condemned in that aforementioned Catholic moral theology axiom.  So what do we have?  We are doing an evil for what is not even close to being a "good".  We fail on all counts because we have become political, not Catholic. 


All things being equal, one must give evidence of being a Catholic first and foremost by standing up for the hard teachings of the Church in the culture war, else this war risks being lost.  And if we continue to lose sight of the fact that using the language of the secularists takes us away from Catholicism, not toward it, we are putting ourselves in grave danger of a final end that may be far different than what we anticipate by our actions, which man justifies, not God. 


I cannot believe, that if the Catholic Church would have spoken out with ONE CLEAR CATHOLIC VOICE on all of the hard teachings when they became public issues from: 1) the Anglican Lambeth Conference of the '30s, which legitimized contraception after centuries of Christian teaching to the contrary, thus encouraging all forms of sexual promiscuity for which we are reaping the results today in terms of skyrocketing STD rates among our youth, the disintegration of marriage and the family with the two genders of Genesis no longer sufficing courtesy of three more from the devil, (homosexuals, bisexuals, and something called transgendereds), and the promotion of homosexuality as a civil right in an affirmative action sense,  to 2) Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which made the killing of babies legal, and man a god unto himself respectively with the ability to define the laws of his own moral universe in total ignorance of the inevitable collision with his neighbor's  in the absence of universal moral absolutes,  to 3) Lawrence v. Texas, which made self destructive aberrant unnatural behavior, contrary to any sense of promoting the common good, NO BIG THING, that these heinous evils would have been given a secular life, no questions asked. 


Interestingly enough, all of the aforementioned hard teachings are reinforced by reason, not just Faith, which begs the question, "Why should they be considered 'hard teachings' in that they follow directly by applying common sense, which is THE characteristic of the Natural Law given to us by a Loving God for the sake of our natural finite well-being leading ultimately to our supernatural eternal well-being?" 


In simplistic terms the Natural Law can be defined as "doing good, and avoiding evil."  This "natural" good is what is classically understood from the time of Aristotle's Politics as defining a good regime, the tendency toward which MUST be the primary consideration of a respected state for the welfare of its citizenry.  This is a law knowable through reason exclusive of any connotations of revelation, as even cannibals know that "it is not good to be eaten." 

Formerly, the Natural Law is an ethics that recognizes: 1) all things have a nature, essence or purpose a principle which is relatively uncontroversial; 2) that nature in question is good; all things have an internal principle that makes them tend towards what is good; 3) it is good for things to act in accord with their nature.


For animals reproduction is a necessary good for survival, which makes references to homosexuality for animals an aberration.   More to the point, what benefits society when rational humans are sarcastically compared to animals?  Is this lowest common denominator approach THE standard by which the human race is now to be measured? 

How is promoting the common good achieved by killing innocents in the womb, which never considers the “good” of what once we ALL were, and promoting sodomy as a civil right in an affirmative action sense, which makes no sense, given the well documented adverse consequences for doing so per the Center for Disease Control HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports which have consistently shown that the main reservoir for AIDS in America is in the homosexual community?  What is good about confusing an orifice intended solely for waste with one for reproduction?

Of course, the problem is that the Catholic Church gives the world the impression that it does not really believe in what it professes to by continuously compromising what is uncompromisable.  Why, for example, cannot Catholics let the world know that the PBA ban is the very least that can be done to destroy the evil that is killing infants, in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers' wombs?  Why cannot Catholics, especially Catholic politicians, admit that "Yes, we fully intend to stamp out this evil ASAP, along with every other evil that is against God's Natural Law."  Why do Catholics have to be hesitant in that regard? 
Moreover, how can they be considered Catholic if they do not let the world know about the grave evil involved in ignoring the Natural Law, the consequences of which appear daily in the world press? 


Again, limiting evil must be done.  But we must never forget that this "limiting" is not an end unto itself.  And if something does not sound right, it usually is not.  Catholics have to start asking themselves, "Does it sound right to allow evil to limit it?"  If that is the case, how can there ever be a legitimate attempt to eradicate evil if for every step forward along those lines, steps backward are required?  This "limiting" thing is a two-edged sword, as you rapidly come to the realization that you are dealing with essentially what is an infinite regress in that "limiting" is all that is achievable when that is the only goal.  And even if one argues that man cannot completely eradicate evil as a result of the concupiscence due to Original Sin, does that mean that Catholics cannot set the example for man, following traditional Church teaching, to at least make the attempt via the example of the saints?  Does that mean that Catholics cannot take it upon themselves to educate purported pro-life candidates to this Truth, spelled with a capital "T" in order to "limit" our need for "limiting arguments? And this education most certainly must include formal excommunication in the case of heretical pro-culture-of-death Catholics for the sake of the souls of all concerned, not the least of which are their own.  That is showing true love and compassion by telling the Truth Who is Christ, not de facto promoting the lies of the devil by doing NOTHING!


What I see in this country is the result of Catholics embarrassed to be Catholic, clergy and laity alike.  What I see is a failure to take that aforementioned "bull by the horns" and tell the world, especially in America, "As Catholics, we do not have to stand still for the secularists' insane promotion of evil at all costs to particularly include our immortal souls." And as Catholics we have a right to speak out in accord with the complete teaching of our Faith in that regard.  We do not have to compromise our Faith at the door in ANY walk of life.  And if the secularists do not understand that, e.g., the ACLU and their radical left facilitators, especially in our institutions of "lower learning" where amorally mindless Clintonian automatons are turned out every four to five years, then that is THEIR problem, NOT ours!  We have the complete history of the Church on moral issues on our side in this matter, as the Church has been consistently right from its founding on the consequences of ignoring the Natural Law of God, which is a participation in His Divine Eternal Law.  


It is ONLY by giving a complete Catholic witness to the Faith that true, not false, ecumenism occurs with conversions ala Malcolm Muggeridge's resulting.  Recall that it was the Church teaching against contraception that cinched it for Mr. Muggeridge.  Catholicism is called to stand in contradiction to the world.  Today, too many pseudo-Catholics ignore this charge in favor of accommodating the world's errors by making Catholicism not only indistinguishable from every other religion in a indifferent syncretistic sense to mollify the masses as a narcotic, the evidence for this being a Mass that is becoming increasingly unrecognizable as Catholic (lex credendi, lex orandi, "what we believe is shown by how we pray" with "drums in the deep" replacing the music of the Angels, Gregorian Chant, for but one example as the Mass continues to devolve from Holy Sacrifice to entertainment),  but also even paganism in many instances, as evidenced by the recent reports of the desecration of the Fatima Shrine in Portugal by allowing the worship of false gods.


With the help of God, through the intercession of Mary, Saint Joseph, and all of the Archangels, Angels and Saints, which is the Church Triumphant in Heaven, in unity with the Church Suffering in Purgatory, we, the Church Militant on Earth, as a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, must make an unequivocal Catholic witness to the Faith for the sake of our eternal salvation.  If we do this, we will be practicing authentic ecumenism in fulfilling what Christ asked us to do in the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew by converting the world to the one, true Faith, which He founded upon the Rock that is Peter, and his successors as Vicars of Christ on Earth. 


Gary L. Morella




The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil!




The lesser of two evils is still evil! – Gary L. Morella


The enclosed article from The Wanderer cautions against "dangerous theologizing about Cardinal Ratzinger’s Statement" on Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles. Then it proceeds to do just that by giving legitimacy to the "lesser of two evils argument" in a proportional sense, which is not Catholic.  To further confuse the issue, The Wanderer then says that such a proportion doesn’t exist when it comes to abortion, which is what we’re told that Cardinal Ratzinger intended all along in the Note Bene of his referenced statement.  Which begs the obvious question, “Why was such a needless confusing NB included in Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement in the first place, which had the effect of undermining completely everything that he said previously?  What I don’t understand is why are Catholics supposed to suffer through such tortured logic when the Truth is self-evident from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (3:8), which is a primary tenet of Catholic moral theology, i.e., “The end doesn’t justify the means; you cannot do an evil for a greater good.”

Per the Douay-Rheims, which says here that "And not suffer (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good:  whose damnation is just."  How clearer can it get?  What is being said here is that those who hold to the "lesser of two evils", their damnation IS JUST!  Are Catholics supposed to somehow decide that there is such a thing as a “best candidate” running unapologetically on a culture-of-ETERNAL-death platform?  The mere suggestion is ludicrous from a Catholic standpoint! Does peace and social justice trump Mortal Sin?  Is the “natural” a higher priority than the “supernatural?”

What could be a bigger evil than voting for someone who facilitates the murder of innocents in their mothers’ wombs?  The suggestion that somehow the aforementioned proportional “lesser of two evils arguments” exists in the Catholic world, which the Wanderer implied, has opened up a Pandora’s box, which the non-Catholic world, ignorant of Catholic moral theology, is gleefully using.  To be fair to The Wanderer, I have seen the same arguments from pro-lifers quoting Evangelium Vitae who otherwise are very orthodox in the Faith.

The same day that Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement was released, before the ink was dry, the dissenters and their secular allies jumped on the NB as their loophole for allowing Catholics to vote for a heretical apostate like John Kerry.  Cardinal Ratzinger further confused the issue by subsequently coming out with a statement that his directive that priests MUST NOT give Holy Communion to obstinate sinners, which was clearly included in his statement, was in complete harmony with the benign Milquetoast approach of the American Church led by Cardinal McCarrick, a Church that obstinately refuses to obey Canon Law by being obedient to what the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith CLEARLY said on this issue.  Which begs another question.  “How can the USCCB be in harmony with the Church when it blatantly ignores a Church moral directive?” 

A standard question posed to small groups of unsuspecting Catholic students to get them to have doubts about their Faith is "What do you do when you are in a lifeboat that will only hold ten people, and there are more than ten people who need to get into it?"  The premise is to get these students to realize that allowing for the killing of some so that the majority might live, i.e., the end justifies the means, is acceptable, thus compromising their Faith.  THE correct answer is that you do everything in your power to save all by taking turns getting in and out of the boat.  THE same correct answer is applicable in making every attempt to save the life of the baby and the mother, if one or both are in danger; since there is no moral way to chose which life is worth more.  This puts to rest the specious claims of health of the mother, which allows for murder of the baby.  How does someone consistently answer otherwise who has bought into the lie of the "lesser of two evils?"  Once you start doing that, you compromise yourself for eternity.  

We are losing sight of why we were created.  It is to know, love, and SERVE God, the latter primarily achieved by obeying His laws.  And doing the "lesser of two evils" has NEVER been God's law.  How could it, given the previous reference from Romans

You would think things like that would start to bother those involved in taking two steps back for every step forward because they are working incrementally, i.e., arithmetically to use a mathematics analog, while the devil wants it all now, working exponentially.

It is one thing to tolerate evil by living in an America where God's laws are mocked.  It is something else to contribute to it by not working to eradicate it as best as one can.  And voting for the lesser of two evils is not eradicating evil; rather, it is contributing to it because the lesser of two evils is still evil.  Do we see the other side even TOLERATING the slightest opposition to evil?  No way!  They want to jail all those who do.  They are not working incrementally.  How long did it take before sodomy became the law of the land when the pro-sodomites were given carte blanche by an apathetic populace to demand support for aberrant lifestyles as normal under force of law?  A Paulist “priest” who gave the benediction at the coronation of Kerry as leader of the “party of the devil” at the party’s convention in Boston told the country that it should embrace individuals as neighbors, “regardless of their sexual orientation,” with no distinction whatsoever that we are called by God NOT to embrace sin. To truly love a sinner does not mean confirming him in his vice, which this priest did not make clear.  Moreover, this priest erroneously gave the impression that a homosexual orientation exists in a innate, final, immutable sense, which is a well-known lie.  Of course, this was not clear, because he did not even define what “sexual orientations” he was referring to, i.e., did he also mean that we should embrace as neighbors those inclined to necrophilia, sadism, masochism, and bestiality?  Relatively speaking, this "moral sea change" happened at the speed of light, sadly with the help of clergy like this priest.    

My question is, what keeps those of us trying to combat evil from being just as zealous as the disciples of the devil? 

Catholic moral theology has always clearly taught that you can NEVER do an evil for a greater good.  What could be a greater evil than voting for someone who officially promotes the killing of innocents in the womb regardless of what other positions are held by this individual?  Without life there are NO OTHER ISSUES, PERIOD, because natural life is the only means to ETERNAL life for man in obedience to the Law of God, in recognition that natural life begins at conception, which is why Cardinal Ratzinger blew it BIG TIME with his NB.   If the other candidates are worse than this, i.e., holding to positions that are pro-abortion plus others contrary to the moral teachings of Holy Mother Church, that does not give Catholics an option to vote for someone who is ONLY a pro-aborter, which is defacto, what Ratzinger could be easily interpreted as saying, which is exactly what the disciples of the culture-of-ETERNAL-death quickly told the world with no thought to studying Catholic moral theology. 

It is sad that such an inclusion was deemed necessary because it is NOT Catholic! The Catholic Church does NOT permit voting for those who are pro-baby killing under ANY circumstances.  How could it and call itself Catholic in the aforementioned realization that man is procreating to populate Heaven in accord with the intent of the Creator?  For that matter, when you got down to the nitty gritty, the Catholic Church does NOT permit supporting those who are counter to the teaching Magisterium on faith and morals to include especially pro-sexual promiscuity via contraception, abortion, pro-sodomy, and euthanasia.   How could it when eternity hangs in the balance?  The Catholic position is to educate the faithful so that those running for office will see the truths of the faith in a natural law context as a participation in the eternal law leading ultimately to a final salvific end intended by the Sacrifice of our Savior for man's redemption.  In particular, this means that Catholic politicians do NOT check their faith at the door and remain Catholic, unlike the lie of John Kennedy forced upon him to gain power at the risk of his immortal soul. 

The "lesser of two evils" argument has never been Catholic.  What is Catholic is to educate the world that "evil deserves no vote." And that can only happen when Catholics are taught that they are to uncompromisingly witness to the world for the sake of its conversion to the faith, which is what Jesus taught in the Gospel of Matthew, the last part of which was crystal clear on this issue unlike Cardinal Ratzinger's NB, and his subsequent harmonious reconciliation of what can not be reconciled with the USCCB. 

The "lesser of two evils" is still evil.  Catholics are not called to promote evil via any proportional situational ethics argument, regardless of who is making them. Certainly, Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church upon the Rock that is Peter did NOT. 

Where in Sacred Scripture, and in the Sacred Tradition of the Church prior to Vatican II did Catholicism EVER teach the "lesser of two evils" argument?  What Catholicism HAS consistently taught, a basic tenet of Catholic moral theology, is that you can NEVER do an evil for a greater good. 

Again, the devil does NOT work incrementally.  He wants it all now, and his disciples are getting that for him because they are focused to that end.  We got vice generating revenue (gambling) in Pennsylvania, courtesy of the new Democratic governor, in less than two years, which can hardly be described as working “incrementally”

The more we accept the "lesser of two evils," the higher and higher becomes the dose of the so-called "lesser" evil over time. The Protestants are more right on this than many Catholics.  They know our Faith better than we do on this issue. 

“I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby… Some would ask, ‘Shouldn't we vote for the lesser of two evils when the choice is between pro-abortion candidates?’ I believe not. To compromise on so fundamental an issue gives [pro-life politicians/parties] no incentive to defend the pro-life position”. (Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family March, 1995)

“…would you vote for a candidate who would support the killing of 5-year-old boys and girls whose parents no longer wanted them? Would it matter whether or not you agreed with that politician on economic matters or other issues? Would you get under a ‘big tent’ with a party that had this one teeny weeny flaw which they might call ‘pro-choice on child eradication’ within its platform? I pray not.” (Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family)

Abortion “is such a fundamental wrong, that when it comes to voting, a candidate's stance on the issues is irrelevant if he or she favours abortion,” since “the voter participates in promoting the agenda of the candidate in an intentional action.” “You shall not murder … Therefore … a Christian cannot debate the pros and cons of abortion any more than he can debate the pros and cons of rape or stealing or adultery.“ (Rev. Dr. James I. Lamb, Executive Director of Lutherans for Life, from a pamphlet written prior to the 2000 U.S. Election)

Again, the more and more we enable the so-called lesser of two evils, the higher the dosage of the so-called "lesser" evil becomes over time.

You start compromising in a situational ethics sense making proportional arguments; you are compromising with the faith.  Where does it stop?  Easy answer; it doesn't. 

Do we want to explain that to God at judgment?  I sure don't.  I don't want to have to tell Him that I didn't try as hard as I could to stop people from lying about "lesser of two evil" arguments being good.  Is believing that rot, regardless of who is saying it, worth your soul when you know that Jesus NEVER taught such a lie?  What He did teach is that the gateway to Heaven is narrow, unlike the one to hell which widens with every compromise of the Faith. 

The Word of God through St. Paul echo here, "Evil may not be done that good may come of it." (Cf. Rm 3:8)

What does the Catholic tradition have to say?

The choice of an action as the lesser of two evils is illicit, if it is a question of two moral evils, that is, actions in themselves violations of the moral law. The reason is evident. One evil does not become right or licit simply because a greater evil could be chosen. (ed. Cardinal Roberti, Dictionary of Moral Theology (London 1962), p. 705.) 

Where is there a "lesser of two evils argument" in Casti Connubii below in regard to  the killing of innocents in the womb?

63. But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

64. As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:"[50] The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. ... Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

65. All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: "Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife."

66. What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

67. Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.

Which brings us to a basic question.  If the Church traditionally teaches that "evil is not to be done so that good may come of it," How can Catholics continue to rationalize a situational proportional ethics argument to the contrary when it comes to politics?   Are not politicians obliged to obey the Laws of God?  Are they somehow exempt?  We EXEMPT them every time we let them get away with moral murder by taking a pro-baby killing position with impunity. 

From where I sit, the "lesser of two evils" argument has done nothing but make the two major political parties increasingly indistinguishable on the only issues that matter, those of eternal life and death of the Republic. 

Catholics are supposed to chose eternal life if they are Catholic in more than name only!

The bottom line is very basic.  How is the Church's influence ever going to be put to good use if its message is continuously reduced to "do the lesser of two evils?"  How can Catholics be blind to that fact?  Those who promote such positions as Catholic would force the Church to abdicate its primary responsibility to be the moral beacon of the world - the last bastion of Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something.  What kind of credibility does a moral beacon have if it cannot uncompromisingly point to Perfect Truth on all issues of the culture-of-ETERNAL-life in recognition of a supernatural priority?

The Church is suffering from an inability to do what God called it to do by those who are destroying it from within.  For example, how can the Church be seen in the eyes of the world to have the moral authority it claims as the world's advisor when it cannot bring itself to admitting that its allowance of unchecked dissent from Magisterial teaching spawned moral aberrations such as a  sodomite priesthood - aberrations which must be exorcised if the Church is to regain that moral authority given to it by God, an authority that it has squandered? 

You cannot be Catholic and vote for someone who is pro-choice FOR ANY REASON, PERIOD! What you CAN DO is work toward getting society to realize that there need to be individuals who understand that God's laws come before man, that you do not check your faith at the door upon entering public life, but rather witness to it following the example of our Savior by picking up our crosses.  In particular, by getting society to realize that if there are not politicos who want to recognize this truth, then those individuals who are making the effort to do so are entitled to our unreserved support as Catholics to educate them so that they can provide a bona fide alternative to the politics of expediency and power. 

In the traditional Christian view, the state derives its authority from God (although the people may from time to time decide who exercises that authority) and the state is subject to the law of God including the natural law. In the Enlightenment view, the state derives its authority horizontally, from the people. It is the people, rather than the law of God, which defines in what way, if any, the power of the state will be limited. And, if the people give rights, the people can take them away.

Whereas Aristotle, Aquinas, and others affirmed that man is social by nature, Enlightenment thinkers postulated a mythical “state of nature” populated by autonomous individuals who were not social but “sociable.” Those individuals formed the state according to the social contract. The purpose, according to Hobbes, was to achieve security; according to Locke, it was for the protection of rights; for Rousseau, it was to implement the “general will.” The origin of the state was therefore not in nature and the divine plan but in the social contract, with rights coming not from God but from man and ultimately the state.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the 18th century,” wrote Hannah Arendt, “was a turning point in history. It meant nothing more nor less than that from then on Man, and not God’s command or the customs of history, should be the source of Law. [See Rice, 50 Questions On The Natural Law, What It Is And Why We Need It, pg 37]

Maritain underscores the effect of Christianity in positively influencing the body politic.  It is to be emphasized that we are talking about “Rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s” by seeing the importance of “Rendering to God what is God’s.”  The latter insures the proper function of the former by default given any concept of working toward a societal common good which is a stepping stone leading toward a heavenly one.  It supposedly occurs automatically.  All one has to do is recognize the truth of the natural law, knowable through reason exclusive of any connotations of revelation.  The problem, of course, is that the disciples of The Endarkenment are working full time to wipe Christianity off the face of the earth, thereby making any suggestions of Christian influence on the secular order moot.  The difficulty with Maritain’s philosophy is that he essentially held that democratic principles could be a function of a secular creed independent of the direct influence of the Church.  Alas, such is not the case, per the considerable evidence occurring in the daily news worldwide.  This is the mindset of the Vatican II Church, in particular, its declaration on religious liberty, were the error of other religions is de facto indifferently equated with the One True Church in ignorance of the fact that error has no rights. 

Thaddeus Kozinski in “Jacques Maritain’s ‘Democratic Faith’ Sound Catholic Philosophy?” raises some flags as to the expectation of religiously neutral state to seek the common good.

Alasdair MacIntyre, a noted critic of Maritain, sums up the main problem with the attempt to build a practical consensus in abstraction from philosophical theory:  

“What Maritain wished to affirm was a modern version of Aquinas’ thesis that every human being has within him or herself a natural knowledge of divine law and hence of what every human being owes to every other human being.  The plain prephilosophical person is always a person of sufficient moral capacities.  But what Maritain failed to reckon with adequately was the fact that in many cultures and notably in that of modernity plain persons are misled into giving moral expression to those capacities through assent to false philosophical theories.” 

According to MacIntyre, Maritain’s democratic charter does not sufficiently account for the fact that, while men may assent to practical goods without conscious deference to abstract philosophical theories, they nevertheless possess philosophical commitments that influence and condition the nature and interpretation of that assent, thereby determining the style of behavior that flows from that assent. 

The possibility of the sort of consensus Maritain envisioned, one requiring angelic dispositions without the public worship of the King of Angels, was extremely improbable in his day – and impossible in our now thoroughly de-Christianized culture of death. 

For MacIntyre, then, the post-World War II consensus on the goods constituting the democratic charter was not really a consensus at all, even though the consenters evinced a common lexicon of “human rights” and “democratic values,” for it was built on sand, on entirely disparate understandings of that lexicon in virtue of their disparate traditions of rationality: Thomist, Humean, Kantian, Rousseauian, Nietzschean, Deweyan, and so on. 

The problem with the attempt to ground politics on nothing but a practical, secular consensus is the tendency for that consensus to undermine the priority, both in public and then in private life, of supernatural or spiritual reality, and even to invert the proper subordination of the mundane to the spiritual.

It is not possible, without a heroic amount of grace and vigilance, to hold both the “theologically neutral” theological premise of the democratic charter and the theologically charged premises of a Christian political theology.   

If we judge the question in light of the near collapse of the Catholic Church in America after more than forty years of religiously neutral politics, it would suggest that the democratic charter, insofar as its basic principles (and not its Christian spirit, which Maritain would have retained at all costs) have now become enshrined in America, has indeed served to injure Catholicism and the overall social good.

The democratic faith cannot defeat the spirit of the world, the flesh and the Devil.  Under the democratic faith, the murder of unborn babies has become a secular sacrament, homosexuality a New Age spiritual counsel, and the prayer “they shall be created, and thou shall renew the face of the earth,” co-opted in a new Pentecost of human cloning.  [Kozinski, The Latin Mass – A Journal of Catholic Culture, Vol. 13, No. 1, Winter 2004, pp 10-16]

When Jesus returns, will He find faith?  Only if His disciples start acting like prophets instead of “sheeple” by witnessing to it for the common good of the secular order, in particular for the conversion of the world in recognition of its needed guidance by the Church founded upon the Rock who is Peter.  No apologies are necessary for exhorting conversion to the Faith of One Who is Perfect Truth, per Jesus’s charge to His disciples in the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew. 

It would help if Rome would replace those bishops who have consistently given no evidence that they are Catholic by men who are.  You do things like that if you genuinely care about the souls of the Faithful, in particular, increasing the population of the Faithful per God's direct command. 

And what we do is educate the world as Catholics so that people can approach that 100% position instead of settling for considerably less.  We MAKE them see that Truth for the sake of their eternal salvation.  That's what Catholics do.




Dangerous Theologizing About

Cardinal Ratzinger’s Statement


  Catholic News Service’s John Thavis, reporting on what is called a memorandum from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger about the effect of support for abortion on Catholics’ receiving Communion, goes from that topic to tell readers in his second paragraph:

  "At the same time, he said it is not necessarily sinful for Catholics to vote for politicians who support abortion, as long as they are voting for that candidate for other reasons."

There is a theoretical idea of truth in this but not one that justifies its casualness of tone and bareness of explanation that make it misleading. As it stands, it suggests that a Catholic may in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate for any reason other than that he is supportive of abortion. As it is, that statement would give carte blanche to any Catholic to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this November simply because he is a fellow Democrat, or because he favors taxing the rich, or because as a youth he campaigned against our helping defend South Vietnam, or because he picked a vice-presidential running mate who has a ready and quick smile.

It is not until five paragraphs later that Thavis gives Cardinal Ratzinger’s reasoning that radically changes any idea that simply having some reason for voting for Kerry other than his pro-abortion actions can be morally justified.

Here is the qualifying part of the cardinal’s statement that makes all the difference in understanding when one may morally apply "the lesser of two evils" theory:

  "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation [in evil], which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons" (emphasis added).

Then Thavis treads dangerously into theologizing about that:

  "In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate’s positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful" (emphasis added).

It isn’t, however, a matter just of "thinking," as one thinks he might be able to get a job or win a contest, or thinks it would be better if the nation had a different president than the present one. Nor is it a matter of thinking that reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate are weightier than those not to do so. Any application of conscience to the question of whether or not one may morally act must use informed and correctly used thought, that is, thought employing all means of learning facts, including any ruling by authority. It isn’t a question of counting up reasons, or weighing them on some personal scale of values.

The final decision will be personal, and in that sense subjective; but the process of reaching that decision must be as free from subjectivity as possible. It must be objective, and weighed against judgments other than one’s own — judgments with authority to counsel or even command.

Mere personal thought alone will not serve to allow the agent (doer) to excuse his act as allowable, when in fact there are serious reasons to consider it not such. Prudence demands such self-examination.

Now, consideration in the case of Cardinal Ratzinger’s conclusion that there is a requirement of proportionality for material cooperation with the evil of abortion to be morally permissible means that no Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Nothing, for example, that the pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate has promised to do, nothing morally neutral or even good outlined in the Democratic platform can come close in proportion to the evil endorsement of the Roe v. Wade permission for women to slay their unborn.

A million deaths or more a year of humans living in the womb, the killing of many of those in the full term of development, in fact at the moment of birth, is not only hard, but virtually impossible to balance with good. The death toll from abortion outdoes all U.S. wars, even taken together.

Abortion rivals the horrible Black Death of Medieval times that in some areas halved whole populations. Indeed, abortion can well be called the modern Black Death, both because of its numbers but also because, as then, few are willing to take the risk of fighting it. Then the danger was fear of infection, so that corpses then went untouched. The fear about opposing abortion today is a cowardly retreat in the name of a false ideology of privacy regarding pregnancy, or equality for women not to have to bear children since men do not, or simply the myth that children are not human till birth, so that they are merely irrational animal life in the womb.

Most pre-Vatican II educated Catholics know the moral issues here, and recognize that to give even material cooperation with such an evil requires an adequate reason, or in technical terms must be done in the cause of a good that is greater than the evil result. They have the common sense to know that though the simple act of voting is morally neutral it can have immoral consequences.

It was elected presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices who made abortion legal. The just-nominated Democratic presidential candidate has promised to appoint only pro-Roe v. Wade justices; the Democratic platform pledges defense of Roe v. Wade’s "right to choose" — choose what? Why, slaying the unborn. The Democratic candidate voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Find some good in voting for a candidate and a party with that record that can come close to out-balancing that horror!

It would take some sort of pro-life accomplishment verging on the miraculous to do so, and the Democratic Party has nothing in mind that would be marvelous in that regard, much less miraculous. We are left then with only one rational and logical conclusion — it is sinful, and seriously so, for any Catholic knowingly to vote for any pro-abortion candidate to major office, that is to any office where the officeholder can be defending, advancing, promoting, keeping legal the "right to choose." There is also no moral excuse for a woman to exercise that supposed "right."

Why, then, are not our bishops making that clear? Some bishops have spoken well and forcefully about it. My own Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap., of Denver, has said:

  "Election and voting booths are not ‘faith-free’ zones. . . . If we’re sincere about our faith, ‘conscience’ can never be used as an excuse for dismissing what the Church teaches."

He also said:

  "The kindest explanation for this sort of behavior [Catholic pro-abortion lawmakers receiving Communion] is that a lot of Catholic candidates don’t know their faith."

All that has been written by bishops, either individually or collectively, apparently has had no effect. Sociologist Fr. Andrew Greeley estimates that candidate Al Gore would have increased his vote total from Catholics had he been pro-life rather than pro-abortion by only six-tenths of 1%, and even that assumes the loss of those few votes was a protest of his being pro-abortion.

This may be the reason that few if any American Catholic politicians intend to convert from their pro-abortion cooperation in response to the statements from the U.S. hierarchy.

 The Associated Press’ Rachel Zoll on July 23 reported:

  "In Associated Press interviews with more than 75 such [Catholic] politicians, none said that they are abstaining from the sacrament [of Communion] over the issue, and many said they believe that voting for legalized abortion does not jeopardize their standing with the church."

Obviously, the U.S. bishops have not yet done anything to make them think differently. The situation with Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) may be typical. He told the AP reporter that he would abstain from Communion at the request of his bishop "but his prelate has not asked him to do so." New Jersey’s governor said he would not seek Communion "in public after warnings from two local bishops."

Zoll informs readers: "The remainder of those interviewed said they would not change how they worshiped — with many saying they resent any attempt to link the sacrament to politics." One, Cong. James Langevin (D., R.I.), called the Church "merely a guest in [his] relationship with God." How less Catholic and more Protestant can anyone’s understanding be!

Positive Catholic action must meet this crisis of virtual apostasy, a disloyalty without shame that is going unmet by adequate episcopal response. Since the bishops are effectively unresponsive, it devolves on the laity, either organized or personally (or in fact both), to enter the scene boldly and militantly. That does not mean abrasively or confrontationally, as I shall explain. But obviously the irenicism and the gentleness of some bishops in this regard have failed miserably. Either Catholicism is going to be devalued considerably by these disloyalists, or God will inspire those willing to act to do so. That inspiration will be made known to Catholic loyalists by love for the Church that is being so insulted and demeaned by the attitude of politicians and many Catholic voters alike.

It is a scandal that there are many prominent secular organizations propagandizing everyone, including Catholics, to accept, vote for, and otherwise promote abortion, while only a few small groups of defenders of the faith and its doctrine on the sacredness of all life are active in response. This must change.

The Knights of Columbus would be an ideal organization to step up and become a missioner to those many who, as Archbishop Chaput puts it, "are discovering that they’ve become non-Catholics who happen to go to Mass."

It better be, and the Knights’ love for the Church should lead them to make it become that moment, or else the moment could be lost forever.

A number of pro-life proposals to help restore Catholic unity are expected to be made to the Knights, who it happens are meeting in the Dallas Hyatt Regency August 3-5, even as this column is being released. We should hope and pray that pro-life resolutions and other pro-life representations reportedly planned for Dallas will prompt positive and unrelenting action.

I make here now a proposal that might be considered. As I said it need not and should not be polemical or condemnatory. It would be a rescue mission — a saving of both truth and souls that have grown cold to it. This would amount to the formation of a nationwide Committee of Loyalty to Church and Human Life. The committee would seek access to every parish to meet and speak with every Catholic willing to listen. That would begin a Catholic-to-Catholic dialogue, in which the loyalists would try to communicate the betrayal involved in widespread rejection of the right to life at every stage of development.

This activity could be done under the sponsorship of the Knights of Columbus, which already has membership in most if not all Catholic parishes. The members of the committee taking part in this missionary apostolate would of course, have to be informed about the true Catholic position, and most of all love the Church and her doctrine without reservation. The Knights of Columbus has the facilities to make sure those requirements are present. Some parishes, of course, will refuse cooperation. If the local bishop will not step in to correct that, the Knights could sponsor highly advertised local community meetings of Catholics where the truth would be presented.

One thing the loyalists should include in their agenda is to unmask a possible source of today’s rejection of the sin of cooperating with the evil of abortion. I’m referring to the "fundamental option" spread by theologians of recent decades. That excused everyone for any acts once called sinful on the heretical proposition no single act can be sinful. This noxious theory taught that all was good and moral as long as rejection of God was not a final and irrevocable result. Thus anyone who could say of any act, ". . . But I still love God," was morally well off.

Not much is heard of this any more, but the damage has been done. I’m sure that concept lives on in the liberal establishment that took over U.S. Catholic education soon after Vatican II. There is certainly an echo in pro-abortion politicians and their voting constituency of the "fundamental option," when they insist their conscience is in good shape even when disregarding what the Church teaches, and consider her merely a guest who should be silent in the individual’s relationship with God.

Knights of Columbus or whoever take up this challenge should include in its agenda a determined media campaign to make known what is planned, the resources to be used, and the determination to begin and finish the job that loyalty to the faith demands. Catholic politicians might change their minds if it is brought to public attention that there are many Catholics who know enough to consider them disloyal to the point of apostasy, and who will reject them as not worthy of the support of Catholics who still remain loyal.

If loyalists are not as great in numbers as they should be, they can make up for that in zeal and determination. Missioners have always had to do so — and make no mistake, this is missionary work.











Homosexuality and the Clergy

Tradition In Action


US Bishops Wanted Delay on Vatican
Document on Homosexuality


Gary L. Morella


A02FrancisBarbozaSmall1.jpg - 29445 Bytes

Some rather shocking news was recently printed, although not many Catholics seemed to notice it amid all the outrageous news that bombards us every day. This is it. According to the press, American Bishops asked the Vatican to delay publishing the recent document on homosexuality in the seminaries – "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders" – because they considered it too strong against homosexual seminarians.

"We asked them not to publish it, but to delay it – to wait – otherwise it would color the visitations," said Cardinal George. (Chicago Sun-Times online, January 16, 2006).

He said the Bishops were concerned that the document would be released during the official visits of U.S. Bishops to seminaries, and that this could ignite the sensitivities of homosexual activists. George explained: "We said, 'If you do this, it will be taken as a commentary on the visitations and we'll get into this whole business that the gay community is so sensitive to of, 'You're blaming us for the pedophilia.'"

I do not understand Cardinal George and the U.S. Bishops concern with the “sensitivities of the gay community" given that there is nothing acceptable in being inclined to sodomitic acts. What does "sensitivities of the gay community" have to do with uncompromisingly telling the truth for salvation's sake? When did Christ ever show concern for the de facto approval of inclinations to mortal sin? When did Christ ever refer to such inclinations as anything other than what they have always been, are, and always will be, temptations, that if not fought off, ultimately put souls at risk of eternal perdition?

Furthermore, the Church should not be reticent to admit that there is a well-documented proven direct correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia when the total cases of pedophilia are looked at. A commonly skewed statistic is that there are more cases of pedophilia in the heterosexual population than in the homosexual. This comes as no surprise since homosexuals make up only about 2% of the population. There is an inordinate occurrence of pedophilia in the homosexual population relative to the heterosexual. In fact, in a special 1990 double issue of the Journal of Homosexuality, it is proudly trumpeted that “parents should welcome the loving pedophile into their homes,” and where “adult-child sex” is referred to euphemistically as nothing more than “intergenerational intimacy.”

A02s_FRANCISGEORGE.jpg - 32656 Bytes

Cardinal George admits that the Bishops
asked for a delay


The following evidence showing the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is current research from NARTH, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, in an article entitled The Problem of Pedophilia.

Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. But this is a misleading statement. In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations (1). And this does not take into account the cases of homosexual child abuse which are unreported. NARTH's Executive Director Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about one-third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse before the age of consent, but only two of those cases had been reported.

While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (2). Further, since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (3), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (4).


1. Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
2. K. Freund et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
3. Freund and Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles," 3443.
4. Schmidt, Thomas (1995), Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.


In fact, the study on sexual abuse commissioned by the U.S. Bishops after the scandals broke in 2002, confirmed that homosexuality indeed was a major part of the problem. The John Jay study noted that 80% of the sexual abuse in the priesthood involved adolescent males rather than young boys, pointing to the core problem being one of homosexuality, not strictly pedophilia (LifeSiteNews.com, January 19, 2006)

Minors, i.e., children, legally, are those ages 17 and under according to positive law. The suggestion that pedophilia applies only to the youngest children is incorrect in that pedophilia as defined in Webster’s is “sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object;” its definition of “children” includes all those ages 17 and under. Also, pederasty in Webster’s is “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” There is no reference to the age of the boy in this definition, which clearly implies that the line between pedophilia and pederasty is very fine indeed, if existing at all.

The U.S. Bishops and certain others in the Catholic Church must stop using the language of the Devil in characterizing homosexuality as "gay,” and referring to an orientation to homosexuality as if it were innate and final, which is also a proven lie. It is not correct to talk of individuals as being homosexual or oriented to homosexuality in this context. Rather, the Church should unequivocally be talking about heterosexuals with homosexual inclinations that can be overcome.

To consider that homosexuality is native to man, and not a moral vice, is to offend God. Indeed, the Omniscient All-Good God could not have created a half-man/half-woman type of person, clashing with His very rules of nature, thereby immediately putting such an individual on the fast track to hell! It would be contradictory. Now then, in God there is no possible contradiction. Therefore, the sexes are defined and the homosexuals or androgynous persons are moral degenerate persons who revolted against the order created by God. This rebellion is an effect of Original Sin.

So, if the Bishops or anyone else insist on qualifying homosexuals as merely gay, which is defined as happy, joyful and playful, they are acting against the designs of God and favoring the plans of the Devil.

There is nothing "gay" about acts that are so filthy that they cannot be accurately described without causing feelings of extreme revulsion. We are talking about behavior that is physically, psychologically, socially, and most especially, spiritually ruinous! It must be recognized as such for the sake of the souls of all concerned.

Yet worse is for the Bishops to be afraid to raise strong opposition to the sin of homosexuality. It insinuates that they want to keep those who wrongly consider themselves defined by inclinations to gravely sinful acts inside the seminaries, against the allegedly strong measure the Vatican would take.

The “strong measure” did not come. What came was a tactical approval of those inclined to homosexual acts in the seminaries. Almost everyone in the Church is concerned more about not hurting the feelings of this group instead of witnessing to the Truth Who is Christ. So what kind of clergy will this leave us to serve the Church in the future? Clearly, the answer is a clergy that sees nothing wrong with a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, i.e., a clergy that has long since lost the faith!






Judas USCCB Supports Comrade Obama's Destruction Of America From Within By Unconscionably Supporting Pelosi's Insane Energy Bill Built On Lies


The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing "the largest tax increase in American history."




There is not a more worthless organization purporting to be Catholic on the face of this planet than the USCCB who have more than proved that they, and not a few of their priests, are members of the party of the devil, i.e., the Democrats, before they're Catholic!  


How dare the USCCB back such destructive bills based on lies, and, in the process, give the most anti-Catholic president in America’s history, Comrade Obama, a man who shamelessly supports the ENTIRETY of a culture-of-ETERNAL-death that is CONDEMNED by Holy Mother Church’s invariant teaching on faith and morals, i.e., dogma, more of a stranglehold on his goal of becoming dictator of the USSA!   


See the following links.


Google’s Obama-Led Solar-Energy Hype Defies Reality - EPA's Own Research Expert 'Shut Up' On Climate Change - What The Liberal Media Aren't Telling You About Obama's Healthcare Plans - IG Fired To Avoid Embarrassing Obamas - Staged Questions For Obama Alarm Beat Reporters



The Senate Is Now America's Last Hope Thanks To Turncoat Republicans In The House And A Communist Party Masquerading as Democrats That Wants To Destroy America From Within



Sadly, we can only expect more of the same in regard to Obama's 'death care' and 'amnesty for illegals' demands, to heck with rational arguments to the contrary, from this sorry group who should have been disbanded when their radical leftists tendencies first reared their ugly heads decades ago for the sake of the natural and supernatural welfare of our country! 


See the following links.


Who Do the USCCB Bishops Think That They Are Kidding?



If the USCCB Was Catholic, An Antichrist Would NOT Have Been Elected 



As a Roman Catholic I Find the USCCB's New Found 'Urgent' Concern With FOCA To Be Hypocritical



Just What Did The USCCB Think Would Happen With The Election Of The Godless Obama?




Howard Hubbard, who is quoted in the news report below, is one of the most notorious dissenters from Catholic moral teaching in this sorry group.  Little wonder that Comrade Obama's destruction of America from within is being applauded by Catholics in name only, clergy and laity alike, who should have been long since excommunicated for their grave public scandal that they've continuously caused to what's left of the faithful! 



If the USCCB gave any evidence of being a Catholic organization it would be at the forefront of telling Americans that Comrade Obama's 'Yes, we can' to the destruction of the heart and soul of America from within MUST be answered, in no uncertain terms, by 'NO WE WON'T!!!! 


But alas, that is not the case, as we're talking about an organization that looks upon communism as a virtue.  How else can one explain their enthusiastic support for the Waxman-Markey bill that preposterously makes claims to address climate change that only God can do in face of the mountain of overwhelming evidence, which the lunatic left via their facilitators at PRAVDA USA suppresses, that there is NO SUCH THING as man-made global warming and/or climate change to the ridiculous extremes held by the Gore green goblin environmental NAZI crowd  -  Gary L. Morella



"Climiate Change" Bishops: US Hierarchy Shows Support for Legislation Requiring Massive Tax Hike


Catholic World News (CWN)
Feature Stories

US Catholic hierarchy shows support for legislation requiring massive tax hike Jun. 26, 2009 (CWNews.com) -


The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing "the largest tax increase in American history."


The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposes a complicated series of schemes known as "cap and trade," ultimately imposing taxes on the carbon-dioxide emissions that are cited as a major factor in global warming. Even before the 1,200-page legislation was made available to Congress, the members of the House of Representatives received a letter from two leading representatives of the American Church, giving their strong endorsement for the bill.


Bishop Howard Hubbard, who chairs the US bishops' committee on international justice and peace; and Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services, welcomed the introduction of the Waxman-Markey bill. They criticized the legislation only because, in their view, it did not include adequate funding to protect the poor-- in the US and abroad-- from the bill's economic impact. Bishop Hubbard and Hackett argued that "the funding resources committed to international adaptation fall fundamentally short of what is needed." Their letter also suggested measures to protect churches and non-profit agencies from the adverse economic effects.


By pointing to the ways in which the legislation could harm the economic interests of the poor and the non-profit sector, Bishop Hubbard and Ken Hackett demonstrated that they were aware of the bill's economic costs. But their letter to Congressmen betrayed no concern at all about how the bill would affect ordinary American families above the poverty level.


The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the legislation, concluded that the Waxman-Markey bill would entail new costs of $770 a year for the average American family. A separate analysis by the Heritage Foundation suggested that this figure was grossly understated, and the actual costs would be closer to $3,000 per year for a typical family of four-- rising steadily up to $4,600 by the year 2035. The Heritage analysis added that the bill would increase gasoline prices by 58%, home heating oil by 56%, and electric rates by 90%. The total drag on the economy would likely result in a loss of over 1 million jobs, Heritage concluded. In spite of this enormous cost, the Foundation argued, the Waxman-Markey bill would produce only a miniscule effect on the process of climate change, producing a drop in world temperatures of "only hundredths of a degree Celsius" in the next 40 years.










The Criminal Scam Called Global Warming
David Deming has all the facts.


Global Warming Is a Fraud

by David Deming
by David Deming




As the years pass and data accumulate, it is becoming evident that global warming is a fraud. Climate change is natural and ongoing, but the Earth has not warmed significantly over the last thirty years. Nor has there been a single negative effect of any type that can be unambiguously attributed to global warming.
As I write, satellite data show that the mean global temperature is the same that it was in 1979. The extent of global sea ice is also unchanged from 1979. Since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen more than a hundred meters. But for the last three years, there has been no rise in sea level. If the polar ice sheets are melting, why isn't sea level rising? Global warming is supposed to increase the severity and frequency of tropical storms. But hurricane and typhoon activity is at a record low.
Every year in the US, more than forty thousand people are killed in traffic accidents. But not one single person has ever been killed by global warming. The number of species that have gone extinct from global warming is exactly zero. Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets are stable. The polar bear population is increasing. There has been no increase in infectious disease that can be attributed to climate change. We are not currently experiencing more floods, droughts, or forest fires.
In short, there is no evidence of any type to support the idea that we are entering an era when significant climate change is occurring and will cause the deterioration of either the natural environment or the human standard of living.
Why do people think the planet is warming? One reason is that the temperature data from weather stations appear to be hopelessly contaminated by urban heat effects. A survey of the 1221 temperature stations in the US by meteorologist Anthony Watts and his colleagues is now more than 80 percent complete. The magnitude of putative global warming over the last 150 years is about 0.7 °C. But only 9 percent of meteorological stations in the US are likely to have temperature errors lower than 1 °C. More than two-thirds of temperature sensors used to estimate global warming are located near artificial heating sources such as air conditioning vents, asphalt paving, or buildings. These sources are likely to introduce artifacts greater than 2 °C into the temperature record.
Another cause of global warming hysteria is the infiltration of science by ideological zealots who place politics above truth. Earlier this month, the Obama administration issued a report that concluded global warming would have a number of deleterious effects on the US. In 1995, one of the lead authors of this report told me that we had to alter the historical temperature record by "getting rid" of the Medieval Warm Period.
The Obama report refers to – six times – the work of a climate scientist named Stephen H. Schneider. In 1989, Schneider told Discover magazine that "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Schneider concluded "each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Schneider's position is not unusual. In 2007, Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in Britain, told the Guardian newspaper that "scientists and politicians must trade truth for influence."
While releasing a politicized report that prostitutes science to politics, the Obama administration simultaneously suppressed an internal EPA report that concluded there were "glaring inconsistencies" between the scientific data and the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions were changing the climate.
If we had an appreciation for history, we would not be fooled so easily. It has all happened before, albeit on a smaller scale in an age where people had more common sense. On May 19, 1912, the Washington Post posed these questions: "Is the climate of the world changing? Is it becoming warmer in the polar regions?" On November 2, 1922, the Associated Press reported that "the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot." On February 25, 1923, the New York Times concluded that "the Arctic appears to be warming up." On December 21, 1930, the Times noted that "Alpine glaciers are in full retreat." A few months later the New York Times concluded that there was "a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard of warmth" in Greenland. About the only thing that has changed at the Times since 1930 is that no one working there today is literate enough to use the word "hitherto."
After the warm weather of the 1930s gave way to a cooling trend beginning in 1940, the media began speculating on the imminent arrival of a new Ice Age. We have now come full circle, mired in a hopeless cycle of reincarnated ignorance. H. L. Mencken understood this process when he explained "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

June 29, 2009

David Deming [send him mail] is a geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.


World consensus on climate bill

Posted: June 29, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 













Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'...


Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'


By Molly K. Hooper

Posted: 06/27/09 09:22 PM [ET]

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday.

When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."


Using his privilege as leader to speak for an unlimited time on the House floor, Boehner spent an hour reading from the 1200-plus page bill that was amended 20 hours before the lower chamber voted 219-212 to approve it.

Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it.

Even though Sen. Majorty Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds the bill's fate in his hands, House Republicans intend to hammer Speaker Pelosi's signature climate-change measure over recess.

And GOP Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) said "we have only just begun to fight” as he left the Capitol Friday night.

Pence encouraged GOP rank-and-file lawmakers to hold energy summits in their districts over the Independence Day recess. In the recess packets sent home with members, he even included directions on how to organize energy summits.

The goal of holding an energy forum is to “educate your constituents about the Democrats’ national energy tax legislation and let them know what 'all of the above' solution you support.”


"All of the above” solution is a reference to the Republicans' plan that would increase the use of and exploration for domestic energy supplies.

Further, officials with the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time.

One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.

"A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law," Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Congressman: Cap-and-trade 'grab-bag' of giveaways
'What this package is going to do is cost the American consumer'



What a gas
What's your reaction to passage of cap-and-trade in the House?





What's your reaction to passage of cap-and-trade in the House?


What's your reaction to passage of cap-and-trade in the House? (1309 votes)

The Republicans who voted for it should be targeted for replacement in the 2010 primaries

40% (519)

Let's see ... a job-killing bill in the middle of a recession - what am I missing here?

23% (296)

Our "servants" appear to be intent on ruling over us

17% (218)

You can be sure the political elites will never have their lifestyles curbed by the restrictions they're imposing on us

10% (131)

What a rip-off -- Congress owes Bernie Madoff an apology and Obama owes him a pardon

4% (56)

This bill will do nothing to stop or reverse the amount of "greenhouse gases" spewing into the world's atmosphere

3% (35)

This is good news for China and India

2% (20)


1% (16)

Fortunately, the Senate will never pass this

1% (11)

It will be costly in the short run but best for all in the long run

0% (3)

America has committed itself to costly projects before -- the space race, the Manhattan Project -- and has always benefited

0% (2)

It's a great step forward in our effort to save the Earth

0% (1)

This will help create a new, sustainable economy

0% (1)