NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE: THE WAYWARD WEIGH IN - Victory Or DEFEAT?‏ - Some Disturbing Observations On Rome That Are Getting Increasingly Hard To Ignore Given That The Institutional Church Of Late Is De Facto Encouraging The Communist Takeover Of America By Radical Marxist Socialists Under Comrade Obama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2839
 
NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE: THE WAYWARD WEIGH IN
Posted: Wednesday November 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm EST by Judie Brown

 

The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years now.  Having said that, the problem with what is currently being said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism.

For starters, on Saturday, November 7, NRLC sent a letter to each member of Congress in which the following statement was made: 
 

“As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

 

While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare bill, one finds the following:
 
 
This should make it obvious to anyone with a heart for the principles upon which the pro-life movement was founded to see right through the smoke and mirrors that NRLC is now using to deflect criticism from its political misjudgment.

To make matters worse, as if they could get worse, Lifenews.com published an article entitled “Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amendment.” Its simply unbelievable observations, pitting Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona’s strategy against that of the Stupak supporters, defy logic. Steven Ertelt describes what Shadegg attempted to do to ensure the abominable Pelosicare bill’s failure and then defends the Stupak strategy, claiming that with or without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have passed. Interesting how he defends the NRLC strategy as the only real game in town.

But the most troubling comments come toward the end of the article, where we find these Ertelt insights: 
 

The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty. I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other.

But attacking pro-life groups, lawmakers or people for supporting one strategy or the other is not productive. We have so many battles ahead that a divided pro-life movement only leads to losing the battles on abortion funding and stopping this pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia health care bill.

Even with Stupak added, every pro-life group admits that rationing and conscience issues remain and that the bill still has concerns or the pro-life movement. No pro-life group -- and even the bishops despite some mis-reporting in the mainstream media -- are supporting the House bill as approved.

Let’s cease the attacks on one another. This is only a strategic debate between people who wholeheartedly want to see abortion end immediately if not sooner and not a matter of one side or the other abandoning pro-life principles. We all want to get the ball in the end zone and some of us want to pass and some to run the ball.

There are too many unborn children and elderly and disabled at risk in the health care bill to let this one inning (excuse the mixed sports metaphors) define where we go as a pro-life community. There is an entire game to be played and adopting Stupak has riled and motivated the pro-abortion forces. Divided, they win, but united we can stop abortion funding and defeat this pro-abortion, pro-rationing bill.

 

Ertelt’s description of the pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is an “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.”

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so upset it even forgot to mention that if this bill passes, with or without the Stupak language, Planned Parenthood’s already-huge government subsidies will increase dramatically. Gee whiz! How could it have been so absentminded?

I hope my point has been made. Regardless of who is riled, who is playing politics with babies’ lives or who is running for cover as they try to make lemonade out of the lemons they’ve tossed at principle, nobody should be pleased at the prospect of government-run health care. In case we have forgotten, dear friends at NRLC, this is the very government that thirsts for the blood of the innocent in unimaginable quantities!

Obama supporters’ “health care reform” bills, regardless of their title or bill number, are so fatally flawed that wise pro-life strategists would have withheld any 11th-hour efforts, including the back-room meeting orchestrated by the USCCB and NRLC that led to the Stupak fiasco. The concerns that Ertelt now mentions about rationing and conscience protections were a concern before Stupak and still are. And, of course (though curiously absent from his analysis), increased funding for PP, abortive birth control and the like, which have been included in every version of this “health care reform” effort and are equally disquieting. All of these provisions should have been sufficient for pro-life activists of every stripe to simply walk away, continue to preach the full pro-life message and let the bill go down in flames.

Instead, we have this silly argument about how we all have to go along, now that the Stupak language is in the bill, and do our best, tra la, tra la, tra la la la.

Well, sorry, but I don’t buy it! When people fail to be honest in their interpretations of pro-life philosophy before a major political effort, what will they do afterward? Now we know. They will spin a tale, whether valid or not, about uniting forces and pressing on.

Agreed. Now that the water is over the dam and the damage is done, we all must do one simple thing! We must demand that the following be included in any health care reform proposal:
 
Respect for human personhood, respect for human personhood and respect for human personhood.
 
If this single principle were the cornerstone of reasonable health care reform—a reform based on justice for all—there would be no anti-life provisions in at all. As of this writing and regardless of which bill we read, none measure up to this standard, and thus all should be opposed.

But this is probably why American Life League does not get invited to those closed-door, 11th-hour meetings wherein some individuals negotiate away principle in order to rush out celebrating a fictitious success.
Frankly, we at American Life League get on our knees and thank God that we are not invited to such events, as we would prefer to serve the best interest of the human person—who deserves equal protection under the law at all stages of life—rather than serve the special interests of Democrats and/or Republicans who are convinced that playing games with human lives is acceptable practice.

NRLC has exposed its agenda. While it’s surely no surprise, it is also deplorable. The good news is that this is not the final act in the “health care reform” drama.

So … now that the wayward have weighed in, the rest of us better get busy focusing on human personhood.

Judie Brown

 

 

 

 

 

Some Disturbing Observations On Rome That Are Getting Increasingly Hard To Ignore Given That The Institutional Church Of Late Is De Facto Encouraging The Communist Takeover Of America By Radical Marxist Socialists Under Comrade Obama

 

 

Have you noticed that the apologies for the litany of incredible statements coming from Rome on the part of the Vatican II crowd are getting more tortured since it's becoming increasingly hard to deny the obvious? - Gary L. Morella

 

 

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/114bev10-29-2009.htm

 

NEWS:  October 29, 2009

Tradition In Action

 

Bird’s Eye View of the News

Atila Sinke Guimarães

 

AN ENCYCLICAL TO FOSTER THE REVOLUTION  -  Even though it is late, I arrive to analyze Caritas in veritate. It is an encyclical that was first announced to be a criticism of Capitalism. Then, with the crisis of the Western economy that triggered in September 2008, the Pope prudently waited to see what direction events would take. Finally, the document was released in early July with a corrected target. This time it was said to be “about the financial crisis,” not directly against Capitalism. Actually, it is an effort to foster the Universal Republic, whether you call it the one world order, globalization, integral human development (n. 17) or the new humanistic synthesis (n. 21).

An omnipotent international authority

Benedict XVI’s views
on this topic constitute the nucleus of his encyclical. He says:

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need … for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and give poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.

Benedict XVI at the UN


Benedict XVI is holding up the failing banner of the UN

To manage the global economy … to bring about integral disarmament, food security and peace, to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration, for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority

Such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice and respect for rights. Obviously, it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties (n. 67 – from the official English text by the Vatican)


If this is not a papal pledge for the Universal Republic dreamed of by the Secret Forces, then words have lost their meaning.

So, not satisfied with promoting a Pan-religion by means of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, Benedict XVI comes to succor the UN in order to foster the establishment of the Universal Republic. Since it is general knowledge that this organization “doesn’t have teeth” to lead its members and to enforce its own decisions, the Pope enters the picture to help it achieve this revolutionary goal.

But this is not all. He envisages for the UN a broader role, whereby, as implied, it would have its own powerful international armed forces, a juridical system with a proper penal code to compel nations to obey its decisions regarding politics, economy, social issues and the environment.

To pursue socialist goals

One of the great advantages of globalization, according to Benedict XVI, is that it facilitates the “distribution of wealth” in order to avoid “inequality” as well as to thwart the present day system based on private property, reputedly bad. These goals are expressed in the following excerpt:

Economic crisis


The economic crisis presented a timely pretext to promote an old socialist agenda

The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase of poverty and inequality …

For a long time it was thought that poor peoples should remain at a fixed stage of development, and should be content to receive assistance from the philanthropy of developed peoples. Paul VI strongly opposed this mentality in Populorum progressio. Today the material resources available for rescuing these peoples from poverty are potentially greater than before, but they have ended up largely in the hands of people from developed countries, who have benefited more from the liberalization that has occurred in the mobility of capital and labor. The world-wide diffusion of forms of prosperity should not therefore be held by projects that are self-centered, protectionist or at the service of private interests (n. 42).


It is not superfluous to remind my reader that until Vatican II the Church always taught that the poor should be the object of charity and receive alms with humility. John XXIII (Mater et Magistra) and Paul VI (Populorum progressio), however, combated this traditional perspective stressing that the poor should not receive any help as an act of charity. Rather, they would have the civil “right” to receive help, and, therefore, the rich would have a “duty” to give it.

St. Elizabeth of Hungary


The poor should be helped through acts of charity, not by demands based on human rights

In this transition from assistance by mercy, to assistance obligated by law lies the essential difference between Catholic doctrine and Socialism. In the text above, Pope Ratzinger promotes the same socialist thesis supported by his conciliar predecessors and opposes the traditional teaching on charity, which he pejoratively calls philanthropy.

Also at variance with the traditional social doctrine of the Church is his attack on “self-centered forms of prosperity at the service of private interests.” It is an indirect, but strong, attack against private propriety.

Interesting to notice, additionally, is Benedict’s assault against “inequality,” presented as an evil per se. However, the harmonic inequality of classes inside a society was continually defended by the Church, as well as the inequality of wealth among nations. Inequality is a powerful means for man to know, love and serve God, there is nothing wrong with it per se. It may be wrong per accidens, accidentally, when badly used.

In earlier paragraphs, the Pope had already attacked inequality in general, without specifying that only bad inequalities shoud be avoided:

·                  The world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. … The scandal of glaring inequalities continues (n. 22).

·                  Through the systemic increase of social inequality, both within a single country and between the populations of different countries … not only does social cohesion suffer … but so does the economy, through the progressive erosion of ‘social capital’ (n. 32)

·                   

When explaining what integral development is, Benedict proposes an ideal not much different from that of Socialism and Communism. It is presented in typical progressivist language:

The theme of development can be identified with the inclusion-in-relation of all individuals and peoples within the one community of human family, built in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice and peace. … God desires to incorporate us into this reality of communion as well (n. 54).

From the constitution of the USSR, we know that self-management is the ultimate goal of Communism (1). In Caritas in veritate Benedict XVI seems to concur with that same aim. Indeed, he defends that business management should be undertaken by everyone involved in any way with the enterprise:

self-management


Self-management leads to the exhaustion of the sources of production and, therefore, to poverty

Business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various elements of production, the community of reference (n. 40).

Self-management should also be applied on the international level. Indeed, this goal seems to underlie the following paragraphs:

·                  Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. He understood the term to indicate the goal of rescuing peoples, first and foremost from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy. From the economic point of view this meant their active participation, on equal terms, in the international economic process … (n. 21).

·                  Government and international bodies can then lose sight of the objectivity and ‘inviolability’ of rights. … Such way of thinking and acting compromises the authority of international bodies, especially in the eyes of those countries most in need of development. Indeed, the latter demand that the international community take up the duty of helping them to be ‘artisans of their own destiny’, that is, to take up duties of their own. The sharing of reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights (n. 43).

·                   

Feeding class struggle

It is interesting to verify that the global-socialist perspective of Caritas in veritate does not prevent it from promoting class struggle inside each country.

Liberation Theology is based upon the simplistic, sophistic preaching that all land on earth belongs to God. Since God does not want poverty, then the poor people have the right to take the land from proprietors and use it for their own good. This sophism that ignores the right of property - confirmed by God in the 7th and 10th Commandments – accords with the same slogan of Socialism and Communism, which demands that the land be equally distributed among all.

bv114_SemTerra.jpg - 35658 Bytes


Led by Catholic priests, the Landless Movement invades rural proprieties in Brazil "to distribute the wealth"...

In this encyclical Benedict hands another banner to Liberation Theology or other progressivist movements to continue their promotion of class struggle. He not only endorses the efforts of agrarian reform to give the land to the one who works it, but he establishes a new human right: “the right to water.” All men in a country and all the peoples on earth would have an equal right to water… He goes even further: He determines that a “new conscience” must be established in the minds of all men to accept these rights. Here are his words:

The elimination of world hunger has also, in the global era, become a requirement for safeguarding the peace and stability of the planet. Hunger is not so much dependent on lack of material things as on shortage of social resources, the most of which are institutional. What is missing, in other words, is a network of economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to sufficient food and water for nutritional needs, and also capable of addressing the primary needs and necessities ensuing from genuine food crises, whether due to natural causes or political irresponsibility, nationally and internationally. …

At the same time the question of equitable agrarian reform in developing countries should not be ignored. The right to food, like the right to water, has an important place within the pursuit of other rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life. It is, therefore, necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination (n. 27).


What kind of social revolution can the right of water ignite? This is a question left to each one’s imagination. Two issues would be involved inside a country: First, there is the problem of the drinkable water. If your land has a creek and your neighbor’s does not, he can declare himself “poor” and invade your property to have access to that water. Second, there is the problem of the advantages that water can give its owner. If you build a mill on your creek or a generator to produce energy, you may well face a lawsuit from your neighbor, who imagines that he also has the right to these benefits coming from the water, based on Benedict XVI’s social teachings.

How this “right to water” would apply to countries is also open to speculation. Would the Sahara countries of North Africa have the “right” to cross the Mediterranean Sea and enter south Italy, France or Spain to have access to places where water is abundant?

All religions must unite to foster globalization

With such plans and goals in sight, Benedict XVI exhorts all the religions of the world and men of good will to unite in order to uphold a global government that is not tyrannical. He says:

For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor from strict necessity, but from God’s plan. This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator’s watchful eye. …

By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare State. … Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development.Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if is to yield effective results in practice (n. 57).


It is hardly necessary to note that Benedict once again subverts perennial Catholic teaching when he pretends that God’s plan for mankind is this announced Universal Republic, indifferent to which religion – if any – one professes.

In these paragraphs, one can also glimpse the final goal of ecumenism: a Pan-religion fabricated to support this dreamed-of unity of mankind.

These are some comments I offer to my readers on the Encyclical Caritas in veritate. To avoid presenting generalizations made in the air, I had to reproduce the necessary quotes, making this column longer than usual.

I believe we are facing a new move: The Pope is taking on the role of the principal leader of the Revolution, just at a time when the Revolution is giving signs that it is losing its breath.
 

Note 1: “The supreme objective of the Soviet State is the construction of a classless communist society in which a socialist communist self-management will be able to develop.” Constitución – La Ley Fundamental de La Unión de las Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas, October 7, 1977, Moscow: Editorial Progreso, 1980, p 5.

 

 

 

The REAL Catholic Church is in the Modern Catacombs as the Institutional Church is in Apostasy

 

 

The REAL Catholic Church Exists In Traditional Enclaves Which Are The Modern Catacombs As The Institutional Church Is In Apostasy - Examining The Mystery Of God’s Church