UNITED STATES - The great American worldview test — the 2012 election

---

by Albert Mohler

Thu Sep 06 3:45 AM EST

American presidential elections are the world’s most public display of the democratic process. The global media follow the American elections with a fervor that is easily understood — what happens in an American presidential election matters all over the world. Our presidential campaigns are political pageants and electoral dynamos. But, as any honest thoughtful observer will understand, our elections are also great worldview exercises. We reveal our worldview by our vote.

This is particularly true of the 2012 election. The presidential nominees of the two major parties represent two very different worldviews and visions. President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have adopted policy positions that place them in direct conflict, and the platforms of their respective parties reveal two radically different renderings of reality.

Years ago, Governor George Wallace of Alabama remarked with disdain that there is not “a dime’s worth of difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans. In a sense, he was at least partly right. A look back at the platforms of the two parties in the 1950s and 1960s reveals little division over many of the issues that now frame our national debate. Some of today’s issues were simply missing, of course, given the fact that they were not even part of the national conversation. But on issues of the economy, foreign policy, the function of government, and a host of other issues, the parties held positions that were far closer than is the case today. Divisive issues such as the war in Vietnam would be addressed with different policy proposals, but the platforms of the two parties reflected a shared moral and political framework — a truth that would shock many Americans today.

All that changed with the social and political divisions that came with the 1968 and 1972 elections, when the Democratic Party experienced its great transformation concerning a host of social issues. The 1980 election saw the Republicans experience their own transformation, with social issues such as abortion rising to major attention in the party platform.

Fast forward to 2012, and the distance between the two parties is breathtaking. The nation’s political polarization is clearly evident in the radical distinctions between the Republican and Democratic platforms. But this polarization is not merely political. It is fundamentally moral and ideological. These two platforms present two contradictory understandings of realities as basic as human life, liberty, and the institution of marriage.

Though the two parties have taken opposing positions on many of these issues for years, the radical nature of this current polarization is new.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

The parties differ about matters such as health care and the environment, the power of public employee unions, Medicare, and foreign policy. But those differences, real and consequential, pale in contrast with the positions taken by the parties concerning the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

In 2012, the Democratic Party becomes the first major political party in the United States to call for the legalization of same-sex marriage. “We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples,” states the platform. This follows President Obama’s announcement earlier this year that his “evolving” position on same-sex marriage now reached the point that he would openly call for same-sex couples to be given the legal right to marry.

The velocity of the Democratic Party’s shift concerning same-sex marriage was on full display on the stage of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when former President Bill Clinton nominated President Obama for re-election. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law after a massive bi-partisan majority in Congress approved the legislation. That act established that the United States government would recognize only the union of a man and a woman as marriage, and that no state would be required to recognize a same-sex union performed in any other state.

Just 16 years later, the Democratic president who signed that act into law nominated a Democratic president who is working for its repeal. President Obama has ordered his Attorney General not to defend DOMA in the Federal courts. He and his party now openly call for what that federal statute — still bearing the full force of law — prohibits.

The Republican platform stated: “We affirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Thus, the Republican platform calls for nothing less than a Constitutional amendment to prevent what the Democratic platform demands the law to affirm. That Constitutional amendment, Republicans argue, is made necessary by the very fact that the Democratic President will not defend DOMA.

On the issue of abortion, the Republican platform states, “we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” The Democratic platform states: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The worldview clash could hardly be more dramatic. The Republicans frame the issue in terms of the unborn child’s “fundamental individual right to life.” The Democrats frame the issue as “a woman’s right to make decisions” — including the explicit right to decide to kill the baby in her womb. These are two contradictory moral claims.

One party claims that no abortions should be legal and the other claims that all abortions should be legal. Each party is driven by their own moral logic. The Republicans are driven by the belief that, at every point of development, every individual human being is sacred and has a fundamental right to life. The Democrats are driven by the belief that the woman’s unfettered right to choose an abortion is paramount, and that a woman can demand an abortion at any time for any reason — or for no reason. As their language states, “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” The most revealing words there are “any” and “all.”

Both parties hold these positions because they are, in truth, the inevitable consequences of basic worldview assumptions. These assumptions include belief that marriage is essential to human flourishing and cannot be redefined without bringing on human disaster, contrasted with the belief that the liberation of humanity from oppression and prejudice requires the redefinition of marriage. In the background are contradictory assumptions about human sexuality, sexual morality, moral authority, individual autonomy, and the ends to which human beings are to aim their lives.

The assumptions framing the abortion positions of the two parties include the belief that every human life is sacred and to be protected at every point of development contrasted with the belief that a human life takes on greater worth and right to live as the development continues, but is tentative at least until the moment of live birth. The belief that the baby is itself the most urgent moral unit is contrasted with the belief that the woman and her right to control her own reproductive destiny is paramount. Behind these beliefs stand convictions and assumptions about human dignity, the worth of human life, the responsibility of the society to every human life, the purpose and end of human reproduction, and nothing less than the meaning of both life and death.

We are not looking at minor matters of political difference. We are staring into the abyss of comprehensive moral conflict. Christian voters can escape neither the consequences of their vote, nor the fact that our most basic convictions will be revealed in the voting booth come November. Christians cannot face these questions without the knowledge that God is the Giver of life, who made every human life in his image. We cannot consider this election without the knowledge that our Creator has given us the covenant of marriage as the union of one man and one woman as the demonstration of his glory and the promise of human flourishing.

Americans will elect a president in November, but our vote will reveal far more than our political preference. The 2012 election is a worldview exercise of unprecedented contrasts — an unavoidable test of our most basic convictions. The electoral map will reveal more than an election winner. It will reveal who Americans really are and what we really believe.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.

Reprinted with permission from AlbertMohler.com.

Copyright © 2012 LifeSiteNews.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

United States: Romney pledges to protect ‘sanctity of life,’ marriage in GOP acceptance speech

Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:12 EST

by John Jalsevac

TAMPA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivered his acceptance speech at the GOP convention Thursday night, laying out his vision for a Romney presidency.

“Mr. Chairman, delegates. I accept your nomination for president of the United States of America,” Romney said. “I do so with humility, deeply moved by the trust you have placed in me. It is a great honor. It is an even greater responsibility.”

In a speech focusing mainly on the country’s economic quandary and his own life history, Romney inserted a reference to social issues, pledging to protect life and marriage if made president.

“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage.”

In a reference to the HHS mandate, he said, “And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

Romney also touted his wife’s role as the mother of five boys, saying that even as he was working building his business, “I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine.”

Earlier this year, a Democratic advisor provoked a media firestorm after criticizing Ann Romney’s decision to be a stay-at-home. Hilary Rosen told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Mrs. Romney, “has actually never worked a day in her life,” echoing a similar charge Teresa Heinz Kerry made against Laura Bush in 2004.

Mrs. Romney rose to her own defense, tweeting, “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

In last night’s speech Romney also renewed his pledge to repeal and replace Obama’s health care reform law, conventionally known as “ObamaCare,” a law that has been heavily criticized by pro-life leaders for funding abortion.

United States - Survey reveals increasing hostility towards religion

 

By Michelle Bauman

Washington D.C., Aug 20, 2012 / 05:31 pm (CNA).- A report examining court cases from recent years has found that hostility towards religion has grown to unprecedented levels in the United States.

The newly-updated Survey of Religious Hostility in America serves as “a testament to the radical shift in our culture’s worldview” on religion, said Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute, and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.

On Aug. 20, Shackelford and Perkins announced the release of the updated analysis, describing “more than 600 recent examples of religious hostility” in the U.S., most occurring in the last decade.

The survey arose out of Shackelford’s 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate on the rise in religious hostility in the U.S. Some members of the Senate claimed that the examples given were “simply isolated incidents.” In response, the report was developed, documenting the “very real problem” that the issue poses.

The updated survey reveals that eight years later, “hostility against religious liberty has reached an all-time high,” said Perkins and Shackelford.

The report observed a “new front” of attacks against churches and religious ministries in recent years.

Five years ago, it said, it would have been “unthinkable” for the federal government to claim that it could “tell churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis it can hire and fire.”

Yet this was the argument made by the U.S. Department of Justice in the recent Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case, in which the federal government fought against the “ministerial exception” that allows churches to select their leaders without government interference, it said.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Justice Department and defended ministerial exception in January.

The survey also documented an “explosion” within the last decade of “cases involving local governments discriminating against churches, particularly in the local governments’ use of zoning laws and granting of permits.”

In one case, a Texas law required all seminaries to receive “state approval of their curriculum, board members, and professors.”

Furthermore, the report documented increasing attacks on religious freedom in the public sphere, pushing “the boundaries of religious hostility” to new limits.

In one instance, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs banned funerals at national cemeteries from including religious content, even if the grieving family wanted the ceremony to include references to God.

In addition, multiple challenges have been brought against veterans’ memorials containing crosses and displays of the Ten Commandments at state courthouses and capitols.

The survey observed the shift in attitude towards these monuments, pointing out that even a decade ago, veterans’ memorials in the shape of a cross “were widely accepted as fitting symbols of the sacrifices made by so many for this country.”

It also noted several cases challenging prayer to open legislative assemblies, despite the fact that Congress has opened with prayer since the nation’s beginning.

One case showed how senior citizens at an elderly center in Balch Springs, Texas, were told that they could not pray over their meals because “religion is banned in public buildings.” City officials told the senior citizens that praying over government-funded food violated the “separation of church and state” and might result in the meals being taken away from them.

The report also noted the “alarming frequency” of attacks on religious liberty within schools. These cases, which often involve school officials preventing parents, teachers or students from speaking about their faith, are frequently the result of “misinformation” and threats of lawsuits from “secularist organizations,” it said.

In one case, a federal judge threatened a high school valedictorian with “incarceration” if she did not remove references to Jesus from her graduation speech. In another, a student was asked “what Easter meant to her” and told that she could not say “Jesus.”

Another instance documented a public school district in Greenville, Texas, which told a woman that she could only have an assistant principal position if she took her children out of a private Christian school.

The survey also found multiple instances of schools banning Christmas cards and gifts with religious content.

Although these cases indicate a significant increase in religious hostility in the U.S., the report’s authors said, those who stand up for religious freedom “are winning” in court.

“As dark as this survey is, there is much light,” they noted.

United States - Hispanic Catholics could play 'definitive' role in election

WASHINGTON D.C., August 25 (CNA) .- Political changes in recent years could mean that Catholics play an important role in the upcoming presidential election, but in a new way, say political analysts.

Dr. John Kenneth White, a political scientist at The Catholic University of America, explained that Hispanics – many of whom are Catholic – could be a “definitive group” in deciding the 2012 presidential election.

The 2012 election is unique, he told CNA on Aug. 23, noting that not only are both contenders for Vice President Catholic, but that neither candidate from either major U.S. party is a white Protestant.

The unprecedented situation has led to an unexpected amount of attention on Catholics, he said.

However, he explained, “it’s very hard to talk about the Catholic vote in generic terms” because the vote of Catholics is “incredibly diversified.”

White observed that in 1960s, Catholic self-identification was high and the faithful largely voted as a single bloc.

In recent elections, however, the Catholic vote has looked more like the national vote, he said.

Catholic identity has decreased, he added, and it is “not necessarily the first identity people bring with them into the ballot box.”

Rather, Catholics tend to think of themselves by their race, gender and other distinguishing factors, he said. The voting habits of the faithful can therefore be better analyzed by carving out groups based on factors such as Mass attendance and ethnicity.

A blog post issued by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate agreed with this observation, adding that membership in a union, unemployment and military service also factor into the way that Catholics cast their ballots.

An Aug. 3 blog post on the research center’s website noted that while Catholics have made up approximately 25 percent of the total electorate in recent elections, they make up about 19 percent of the total voting age population in the 16 states that remain the most competitive this year.

Catholics account for “the largest share of the voting age population” in the competitive states of New Mexico, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and they could also be a significant “swing vote” in Florida, Nevada and Ohio, it said.

While polls indicate that Catholics are split in their candidate preference, it is difficult to make predictions about the election so far out, especially since both national conventions and the candidates’ debates could still be key in swaying voters, the blog post noted.

However, it suggested, “the votes of those without a religious affiliation may be more decisive to the election outcome” than those of Catholics.

Nevertheless, White believes that both national campaigns are actively trying to court the Catholic electorate.

“They both see the Catholic vote as being important,” he said.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney recently announced that Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York would be offering the final benediction at the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30.

The announcement drew national attention, particularly since Cardinal Dolan – who leads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops – has been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which requires employers to offer health insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and early abortion-inducing drugs.

White believes that the controversial mandate, which has drawn strong criticism from Church leaders, will have an impact on the vote of Catholics, “especially among frequent Church attendees.”

But the Obama campaign is “absolutely” trying to reach out to Catholics as well, in an effort that “takes on many different forms,” White added, explaining that a big part of this is the campaign’s outreach to Hispanic voters, which tend to overlap with Catholics.

And as a “leading minority” in many areas, Hispanics could be “a decisive number” in some swing states, he said.

White thinks the Hispanic vote will be “absolutely critical” in determining the outcome of the election.

“At the end of the day, that vote seems to be a lot more unified,” he said.

United States - Knights of Columbus head to speak on Latino Catholic voting

 

MIAMI, FLA., August 24 (CNA) .- Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, will address a national Catholic Latino group at a Miami church this evening on how Hispanic Catholics can transform American politics for the better.

Anderson will say that Catholics “should work to ensure that future generations of immigrants find a country that supports their values and not one that asks them to surrender their religious values at the border as the price of their admission.”

Is not multiculturalism but its opposite to force immigrants to “surrender values at the border,” he will state.

His speech to the annual conference of the Catholic Association of Latino Leaders will take place the evening of Friday Aug. 24 at 7 p.m. at the Family Center of St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church. The event will gather together more than 100 Hispanic business and civic leaders.

Anderson will speak about the importance of immigration reform and provide advice for judging how to vote in the upcoming election. Politicians’ support for immigration reform, in his view, is not enough to justify a vote for them if they also advocate policies at odds with core Catholic beliefs.

He will advise Hispanic Catholics to consider many issues in voting and to draw a line against voting for a politician who supports policies opposed to core Catholic beliefs. These policies include support for abortion or limits on religious freedom.

The Knights of Columbus is a 1.8 million member Catholic fraternal charity. Since its founding 130 years ago in New Haven, Conn., it has established councils across the world, including in Mexico and Cuba.

The organization co-sponsored with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles the Aug. 5 Guadalupe Celebration in Los Angeles, which gathered together tens of thousands of Catholics to honor Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Anderson has coauthored a bestselling book on the patron saint of the Americas, “Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love.”

Argentinean bishops call for civil code changes to protect the family

 

BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA, August 24 (CNA/EWTN News) .- The Bishops' Conference of Argentina has called on congress to modify a proposed revision of the country's civil code to prevent harm to the family and protect the life of the unborn.

Argentina needs a society “in which stable bonds are fostered and priority is given to the protection of children and the most defenseless,” the bishops said in an Aug. 23 statement.

“We need to recognize and grant legal protection to all human life from the moment of conception, and we need to remember that not everything that is scientifically possible is ethically acceptable.”

The new civil code being debated in the Argentinean Congress would allow abortion, euthanasia and fast-track divorce. Under the new code, unborn babies before a certain stage would not be considered persons, the freezing of embryos for commercial purposes or scientific research would be allowed, and surrogate motherhood would be legitimized, the bishops said.

The emotional bonds of marriage would also be weakened and devalued, they argued.

Every legislative reform has an impact on the culture and daily life of a nation, the bishops noted, warning that the proposed new code embraces a model of the family that is individualistic.

The code is also opposed to gospel and fundamental social values, they added, “such as stability, commitment to others, the sincere gift of self, fidelity, respect for one’s life and those of others, the duties of parents and the rights of children.”

Archbishop Jose Maria Arancedo, president of the Bishops' Conference of Argentina, is slated to participate in an upcoming joint congressional committee debate on the civil code.

Pope urges laity to share Gospel with a world in darkness

 

VATICAN CITY, August 24 (CNA/EWTN News) .- Pope Benedict XVI told a group of lay people this week that the world needs their courageous and credible testimony to bring the hope of the Gospel to all areas of society.

In a message sent to the International Forum of Catholic Action in Iasi, Romania, the Pope reflected on the laity's responsibility to the Church and society, reported Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano.

“Co-responsibility demands a change in mentality, in particularly, about the role of the laity in the Church, who are considered not as ‘collaborators’ with the clergy, but as persons truly ‘co-responsible’ for being and acting of the Church,” he said.

The world needs a “a mature and committed laity,” which “can make its own specific contribution to the ecclesial mission with respect for the ministries and tasks that each one has in the life of the Church and always in cordial communion with the bishops.”

The laity's role is of fundamental importance, especially “in this phase of history,” the Pope stressed, to be interpreted “in the light of the Church’s social Magisterium.”

Lay men and women should also aim to “grow, with the whole Church,” he noted, “in the co-responsibility of offering humanity a future of hope and with the courage to formulate demanding proposals.”

Recalling the “long and fruitful history” of Catholic laity as “courageous witnesses of Christ,” the Pope invited the participants in the Forum to renew their commitment “to walking on the way of holiness, keeping up an intense life of prayer, encouraging and respecting personal ways of faith.”

Pope Benedict: insincerity is "the mark of the devil'

 

VATICAN CITY, August 26 (CNA/EWTN News) .- Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that a lack of sincerity in life is “the mark of the devil” as witnessed in the decision of Judas Iscariot to continue following Jesus Christ even after he had ceased to believe in him.

“The problem is that Judas did not go away, and his most serious fault was falsehood, which is the mark of the devil. This is why Jesus said to the Twelve: ‘One of you is a devil’,” said the Pope in his midday Angelus address to pilgrims at Castel Gandolfo Aug. 26.

The pontiff said that Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary to help them to believe in Jesus as St. Peter did and “to be always sincere with him and with all people.”

The Pope continued his recent weeks’ reflections upon Jesus’s “Bread of Life” discourse as delivered in the synagogue of Capernaum.

After Christ declared himself to be “the living bread which came down from heaven” many of those who had followed him, records St. John in his Gospel, “drew back and no longer went about with him.”

Asked by Jesus if they too will leave, St. Peter replied on behalf of the Twelve “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

The one exception, said Pope Benedict, was Judas Iscariot who “could have left, as many of the disciples did; indeed, he would have left if he were honest.” Instead, he chose to remain with Jesus. Not because of faith or love, said the Pope, but out of a secret desire to take vengeance on his master.

“Because Judas felt betrayed by Jesus, and decided that he in turn would betray him. Judas was a Zealot, and wanted a triumphant Messiah, who would lead a revolt against the Romans.” Jesus, however, “had disappointed those expectations.”

The Pope, turning to the 11 apostles who did believe, reminded pilgrims of “a beautiful commentary” of St. Augustine in which the Church Father observed how St. Peter “believed and understood.”

“He does not say we have understood and believed, but we believed and understood. We have believed in order to be able to understand,” wrote St. Augustine in his Commentary on the Gospel of John.

After reciting the Angelus, the Pope expressed some special words of welcome to the new class of seminarians at Rome’s Pontifical North American College.

“Dear seminarians, use your time in Rome to conform yourselves more completely to Christ. Indeed, may all of us remain faithful to the Lord, even when our faith in his teachings is tested. May God bless you all!”

 

Pope: Even among the 12 Apostles there was one who did not believe, Judas

VATICAN 08/26/2012 14:02

In today's Angelus, Benedict XVI talks about Judas, the traitor who stayed in the Church even though he did not believe. He felt betrayed by Jesus because he expected a "winning Messiah." By contrast, Peter "believed in and knew" that Jesus was "the Holy One of God."

Castel Gandolfo (AsiaNews) - "Jesus knew that among the 12 Apostles one did not believe, Judas," said Benedict XVI. In speaking about Judas, his unbelief, his desire to betray, his devilish nature, the pontiff used a tone not usually associated with homiletics. Compared this to Saint Peter who, in response to Jesus' question "Do you also want to leave?", answered, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God" (John, 6:67-69)."

In meeting pilgrims before the Angelus prayer in the courtyard of Castel Gandolfo, the pope spoke about today's Gospel, Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time. He brought to a conclusion his discussion of the 'bread of life', referring to time when the disciples refused Jesus' offer of eating his body and blood and "returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him" (John, 6:66).

"Judas could have left as many disciples did," the pontiff explained. "Indeed, he should have left had he been honest. Instead, he stayed with Jesus, not out faith, nor out of love, but with the secret desire of taking revenge against the Master. Why? Because Judas felt betrayed by Jesus, and decided in turn to betray him. Judas was a Zealot; he wanted a winning Messiah, one who would lead a revolt against the Romans. However, Jesus did not live up these expectations. The problem is that Judas did not leave, and his fault is that of falsehood, which is the mark of the devil. For this reason, Jesus told the Twelve: "Yet is not one of you a devil?" (John, 6:70).

Benedict XVI has often dealt with the issues of evil, betrayal and "filth" within the Church. He did it a few months before his election as pope, in the Via Crucis writings of 2005. Today, his remarks might even rekindle the Vatileaks rumours about plots and conspiracies that came to light a few weeks ago; yet it is clear that some people within the Church "do not believe".

For sure, the pontiff also presented a positive model of disciple, Saint Peter. "As many disciples were leaving," the Pontiff noted, "Jesus turned towards the Apostles and said, 'Do you also want to leave?' (John, 6:67). As he did in other situations, Peter answered him on behalf of the Twelve, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God' (John 6:68-69).

"In a beautiful commentary about this passage, Saint Augustine wrote: "See how Peter, by the gift of God and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, understood Him. How other than because he believed? 'You have the words of eternal life.' For You have eternal life in the ministration of Your body and blood. 'And we have believed and have known.' Not have known and believed, but 'believed and known.' For we believed in order to know; for if we wanted to know first, and then to believe, we should not be able either to know or to believe. What have we believed and known? 'That You are Christ, the Son of God;' that is, that You are that very eternal life, and that You give in Your flesh and blood only that which You are' (Tractate on John, 27:9)."

In concluding before the Angelus prayer, the pope said, "Let us pray to the Virgin Mary to help us believe in Jesus, like Saint Peter, and always be sincere with Him and others."

Jesus and His Catholic Church need us!

We are ALL Catholics … except that some time in the past some Catholics decided to leave the Church in protest. The Lord gives us the so-called “Freedom of Choice”.

Yes, the Church has had (and it may always have) imperfect people in it; and because of that fact some people inside and outside the Church argued that the Church has failed to fulfill its duties.

Wrong! Some Popes, priests, religious men and women, and lay Catholics – may have failed, but NOT the Church.

The Catholic Church is lead by Christ Jesus.

Just a often forgotten fact: look at the role the Church has played in the development of the best traditions and values of Western Civilization!

Would it have been possible without it? Would had it possible without HIM?

Would it have been possible if we ALL Catholics throughout the centuries until today have been unobservant of our Faith?

Did we Catholics look through our duties with blank unseeing eyes though the centuries?

Did St. Augustine, St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas and so many known and unknown Saints of the past and the present remained negligent of their Faith or indifferent to the call of our Lord?

Without doubt the answer is a loud NO!


Now, about human imperfections I ask the following question: If we were perfect would have been necessary our Lord’s first coming to redeem us from our human failures, our sins?

Certainly the answer would have been another loud NO!

Saint Paul in the letter to the… tells us “ “

A priest said to me years ago: “Nate, ask the Lord to make you a Saint;” my first reaction was: “me, a Saint?” Wouldn’t you react the same way?

What that priest was saying to me was that Jesus Christ came to show us The Way to Sainthood! The teaching of our Lord tells us that perfection can only be reached through Sainthood … and that we must humbly beg Him to help us to become one of them!

Catholics arise! Jesus and His Church need us; our Church needs saints!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S WORST ENEMIES

"Somewhere back in the 1930s, during the Spanish Civil War, and facing other issues in Germany and Italy, Pius XI asked this very question: 'Who are the Church’s most dangerous enemies?'  His answer was as follows:

'The Church’s worst persecutors have been her own unfaithful bishops, priests, and religious. Opposition from outside is terrible; it gives us many martyrs. But the Church’s worst enemy is her own traitors.'

Why is this, we wonder? The mission of the Church ad extra has much to do with the witness to the truth by Christians themselves, especially those in high places, both clergy and laity.

In an analogous manner, John Paul II remarked to European bishops in 1982 that 'the crises of European man and of Europe are crises and temptations of Christianity and of the Church in Europe.' We are wont to think that the drama of the world takes place outside of the redemptive plan of God. It doesn’t.

As quoted By James V. Schall, S. J. in The Church's Worst Enemies

SPAIN - The Church denounces abortions in local hospitals

---

Spanish bishop denounces abortions occurring in local hospitals

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Fri Jul 13 5:53 PM EST

July 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The Diocese of Terrassa, a city in the Catalonia region of Spain, has issued a statement recognizing that abortions and vasectomies are occurring in two hospitals where diocesan representatives are members of the board of directors.

While Bishop Saiz Meneses “has repeatedly and publicly manifested his revulsion and condemnation of these practices and the legislation that permits them,” the diocese will continue to participate in the administration of the hospitals, according to the statement.

The diocese says that the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has affirmed its policy in a communication with the diocese issued last year.

According to the statement, “the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 2011, transmitted to the Bishop a ruling that indicated that if the clerics [on the board of directors] have spoken with clarity and have voted with coherence in the meetings of the respective boards, it does not seem that there could be a cooperation in a morally illicit evil.”

“The ruling also indicated that the possible scandal or confusion in the eyes of public opinion due to [the clerics’] presence on the boards can be avoided if they make public their opinion against these practices and also their effort against them,” stated the diocese.

The diocese assures readers that “the Bishop reiterates his condemnation of these practices against Catholic morality and awaits a definitive decision and a positive resolution to the efforts it continues to make with the administrations [of the hospitals]. Meanwhile, it seems convenient to not abandon the boards of said hospitals at this time.”

In the five weeks that have passed since the diocese issued the statement, there has been no indication that the practices have ceased.

One local priest who is leading protests against the pro-abortion practices at several hospitals in the Catalonia region, says he is dissatisfied with the diocese’s approach to the issue.

“The communiqué of the Diocese of Tarrasa…makes it clear that the Bishop is making the Holy See and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith responsible for his decision to remain on the board of directors of the General Hospital of Granollers, although they are doing abortions there, dispensing abortion pills and sterilizing,” lamented Fr. Custodio Ballester.

Since 2010, various sources in the Spanish media have reported the practice of abortion and sterilization, distribution of contraceptives, and other practices at Catholic hospitals in Catalonia that violate Catholic moral teachings on human life and sexuality. Although Barcelona’s Cardinal Archbishop Lluis Martínez Sístach has said that a pro-life policy has been established at local hospitals, reports continue to appear in the media indicating that the abortions have not ceased.

Copyright © 2012 LifeSiteNews.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

UNITED STATES - Planned Parenthood targets African-American

Planned Parenthood targets African-American music festival: black pro-life leaders furious

by Jean McCarthy

Thu Jul 12 12:29 PM EST

July 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Black pro-life leaders are condemning Planned Parenthood’s sponsorship of the African-American 2012 Essence Music Festival, pointing to the abortion organization’s history of involvement in eugenics and targeting minorities.

 

“The 3500 black deaths linked to the Klan pale in comparison to Planned Parenthood’s 15 million plus Black deaths,” said Dr. Day Gardner, the president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, in response to Planned Parenthood’s sponsorship of the music festival. “Both the KKK and Planned Parenthood share the same ‘end game.’”

“Planned Parenthood is using the 2012 Essence Music Festival to portray themselves as an organization that cares about Black women,” said Walter Hoye II, of the National Black Pro-life Coalition. “This satanic stronghold and sadistic sanctuary is the only strategy Planned Parenthood has left to retreat to, in order to maintain their illegitimate air of credibility in the public square.”

According to official U.S. data, black Americans account for approximately 36.9 percent (2007) of the total U.S. abortion numbers, despite accounting for only 12.9 percent (in 2009) of the total U.S. population.

Numerous pro-life campaigns in the past several years have drawn attention to this disparity in the abortion rate, with many singling out Planned Parenthood, the country’s number one abortion provider, for allegedly targeting blacks.

The annual New Orleans music fest lasted four days, from July 5-8, and showcased African-American culture and talent. Planned Parenthood, in addition to sponsoring the event, had a booth where they provided birth control counseling and information. They also screened the film “A Vital Service: African American Stories of Reproductive Health Care.”

“They consider killing our children ‘a vital service’ and even created a film to sell gullible Blacks on the idea that we need to kill our children if we are to have successful and/or fulfilling lives,” Dr. Gardner said.

The twenty-minute film shows clips of black men and women praising Planned Parenthood’s services. Mary, a post-abortive woman in the film, says, “Additional children would have definitely put a strain on my family, my marriage, my children…Three children is a good number. I only have so much lap space, I only have so much arm space, I only have so much time in the day.” Of her consultation with Planned Parenthood she says, “There were some tears.” But, she concludes, “It’s tough, but we have to be brave.”

The movie also shows a clip of Courtney, a Planned Parenthood client, saying, “You can say ‘abstinence’ all day, but it clearly isn’t working.”

Dr. Gardner criticized the film for having “failed to mention the link between breast cancer and abortion,” adding, “abortion is the number one killer of African Americans—killing more Black people than, cancer, strokes, heart disease, violent crime and all other deaths combined!”

Rev. Tim McDonald spoke in the film about the “forces that are trying to destroy” Planned Parenthood, referring to a billboard of a baby with a caption that read, “Black Children Are an Endangered Species.”

“We are not a species,” he said in the form of a rebuttal. “We are God’s children, created in God’s image.”

“It’s sad that so many so called black ‘celebrities’ will sell out our race, our culture and our pro-life heritage in order to obtain or prolong their 15 minutes of fame—even if it means trampling on the tiny bodies of dead black babies,” Dr. Gardner said.

“Many Blacks who are blinded by bling are oblivious to the fact that Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger affiliated herself with the Ku Klux Klan and had ties to Hitler’s regime.”

Dr. Gardner concluded with a suggestion to the music fest, “Next year, why not ask the KKK to sponsor your music festival?”

The Concept of Just War

By Natalio A. Yaria

Historical Context
The concept of the Just War was born of a bleak and seemingly intractable paradox: war seen as an ethically perverse phenomenon and, at the same time, to be accepted precisely to avoid greater evils. In that regard, it is a theory that originated from within Christianity: a substantially pacifist religion, but at the same time, exposed for centuries to the task of protecting the West from dangerous threats.

Theoretical framework

In these historical experiences developed functional elements resulting in a Legal Model based on a set of steps and rules of conduct that define a) the conditions under which the war can be an act morally acceptable; b) the rules should be used to lead a military conflict; and c) the steps that must be used to end the hostilities. This model of thought originates with the reflections of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Francisco de Vitoria. Augustine considered necessary defense State although they are morally imperfect, as an alternative to the case, who knew well by having lived at the time of the barbaric invasions on the Roman Empire. The participation in these wars was something the author justified only in case of aggression from a foreign force with acts that would constitute a breach of the peace.

Medieval Christian contributions on the Just War theory evolves into a secular theoretical version after 1648. The Just War theory comes to our days in the form of three stages, and rules of conduct that define under what conditions the war can be morally acceptable act: The Just ad bellum or right to engage in a war is concerned on the behavior of the participants in the conflict.  The Jus in Bello has been created 150 years ago and is in constant evolution. The 1949 Geneva Conventions are its core. The "right in the war" which is aimed, in time of war, at alleviating the conditions of wounded combatants, prisoners, civilians and their property. Carries itself hope, contradictory nature preserve what remains of universal morality in a state of affairs which is situated outside of moral norms.

Jus post bellum or right after the war concerns the terminal stage and peace agreements which must observe a standard of fairness to all the parties involved. At this stage to distinguish between possible reconstruction of the existing conditions before the start of a conflagration, and permanent construction of peace, which includes the right of the war as well as establishing conditions for sustainable peace ethics is establishing long-term conditions economic, cultural, political, legal, educational and media necessary for democratic, just and peaceful resolution of conflicts when they are emerging on the horizon.

VATICAN CITY - JOHN PAUL II

Polish historian reveals John Paul II was spied on by the priests closest to him

Lasota's book "Karol Wojtyla spiato" (Spying on Karol Wojtyla) is available in Italian and can be purchased exclusively online

Andrea Tornielli
 

vatican city 05/29/2012

The extent to which the communist secret police controlled Karol Wojtyla’s actions was incredible…” Marek Lasota who was born in 1960 and has a degree in Polish philosophy, with a specialism in history, lives among mounds of letters accumulated by the communist regime and kept in the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), where he is head of the Krakow section. After years of patient research, he has gathered a number of reports and dossiers on Wojtyla. Lasota’s “Karol Wojtyla spiato” (Spying on Karol Wojtyla), published by Intercienze, comes out in Italian in just a few days. The book is a collection of the regime’s secret documents on the pope who passed away in 2005.In an interview with Italian newspaper La Stampa the scholar also revealed the names of some collaborationist priests whom he mentions in the book. 

 “During the communist era, authorities saw all priests as enemies of the people and the party – Lasota explains – and they were placed under surveillance by the political police, the “Bezpieca”. Wojtyla had been under surveillance since 1946. This intensified in 1958 when he became Auxiliary Bishop of Krakow. As an archbishop in the ‘60s, he was considered a dangerous political opponent. This is why he was ferociously monitored in everything he did.”  

One of the documents presented in the book is particularly striking. It contains 98 questions which spies who kept an eye on the future pope had to answer: attention was paid to every minute detail of his daily life. From the time at which he got up in the morning to his morning activities and the order in which these took place; from how frequently he shaved to the “cosmetics” he used.

 

There were questions about his habits in the office, which documents he took home with him, whether he took the keys to his desk with him, what he talked about at lunch, whether he “liked playing bridge or other card games, or chess” and with whom he played, whether he smoked or whether he liked alcoholic drinks (“how much does he drink and how often”). The secret police even wanted to know “who supplied his underwear,” who “washed his underwear, socks etc.,” whether “he possessed a medicine cabinet and what medication it contained.”

The worrying extent of the spying was revealed as the historian delved deeper into the “Bezpieka” archives: “It is estimated – he stated – that about ten per cent of the Polish clergy had collaborated with the communists in some form of other. Wojtyla was surrounded by a number of priests who collaborated with the secret police, passing on information about him.” Some of these priests got closer to Wojtyla in moments of weakness, because they were involved in some alcohol, money or sex related affair.

 “Wojtyla – Lasota reveals – was being spied on by priests Wladyslaw Kulczycki, Mieczyslaw Satora, Boleslaw Sadus, Chris Michalowski, Zygmunt Siudmak and Joseph Szczotkowski. Fr. Sadus, who passed away in 1990, worked as a parish priest in Krakow and collaborated under the code name “Brodecki”. Fr. Szczotkowski, who operated under the code name “Rose” and died in 2000, had been a canonical priest in Krakow Cathedral and had worked in the city’s curia. But it was not just priests who supplied information to the secret police: many of the people closest to him ended up collaborating with the “Bezpieka”. 

The spying on Wojtyla continued until after 16 October 1978, when the Cardinal of Krakow was surprisingly elected Pope. “A report dated 30 November 1984 contains the code names of eleven secret collaborators:  Sylwester, Turysta, Sowa, Wolski, Pawlik, Łucjan, Janowski, Robert, Gross, Seneka and Filozof.” “Tourist – Lasota explained during his interview with La Stampa newspaper – was Fr. Antoni Siuda’s code name; Seneka worked for Catholic weekly Tygodnik Powszechny. But there were also some westerners who presented themselves as spies of the regime also became involved: this form of “enrollment under foreign colours” emerged in some reports on the Polish Dominican priest Konrad Hejmo. 

Out of the sea of documents, reports and dossiers on Wojtyla, he came out completely clean. He could not be blackmailed, manipulated or influenced. The communist police’s check-up newspaper therefore confirmed that cardinals made the right choice during the 1978 conclave.

*  Karol Wojtyla spiato (Spying on Karol Wojtyla) by historian Marek Lasota, (Interscienze editions, pp. 288, €23,40), which reveals the spying activities carried out against John Paul II during the rule of the Polish communist regime, is not available in bookstores but can be purchased online at: http://www.karolwojtylaspiato.it/

---

New archbishop of Denver: There’s ‘tremendous joy when you know you’ve saved an unborn child’

by Ben Johnson

Tue May 29 5:42 PM EST

DENVER, COLORADO, May 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The archbishop-designate of Denver, the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, has heartened the pro-life community with his long history of pro-life activism. 

Pope Benedict XVI selected the 61-year-old native Californian, who lived in Colorado for 25 years, as Denver’s fifth archbishop. He will follow Archbishop Charles Chaput, who will lead the archdiocese of Philadelphia.   

After serving as founding rector of St. John Vianney Seminary, he moved to Fargo, North Dakota, for 11 years, just over ten of those as its bishop. He briefly oversaw the diocese of Sioux Falls in 2005.

Upon learning of his elevation, he told the Catholic News Agency society must “get back to the basic dignity of the human person.” 

The next shepherd of the 1.5-million member archdiocese has strongly supported the 40 Days for Life campaign, encouraging all priests to spend an hour in front of an abortion facility. In 2007, he said, “As your bishop, I ask you to sign up for an hour of prayerful vigil, as well. Tell your parishioners when that hour will be and challenge them to meet or exceed your example.” 

He taught by his actions, leading a Eucharistic procession to Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo and holding a prayer service in front of the abortion facility in 2009.

Reflecting on that history after his selection, Bishop Aquila said, “there’s always the tremendous joy when you know you’ve saved an unborn child.”

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

His words and actions have drawn a bright line separating Roman Catholic doctrine from participation in the inherent evil of abortion.

Last Ash Wednesday, he and fellow North Dakota bishop Paul Zipfel instructed the faithful not to give their Lenten alms to “support or endorse individuals and organizations that provide, promote, or advocate for abortion, contraception, reproductive rights/‘family planning,’ or embryonic stem cell research” – including the March of Dimes and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.

 

However, he has been perhaps most outspoken in the need to enforce Church discipline against Catholic lawmakers who support abortion.

Bishop Aquila proposed a simple solution for politicians who support abortion and refuse to hear the voice of the Church: “Expel him.” Allowing such people to receive the Eucharist would only “leave them in their sins and confuse the faithful,” he said.
 
In 2004, when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he personally opposed abortion but voted to keep it legal, Bp. Aquila gave a Sunday homily on the topic, saying, “Catholics who separate their faith life from their professional and social activities are putting the salvation of their souls in jeopardy. They risk the possibility of Hell.”

Four years later he said, “Some believe that it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and be pro-choice. This is impossible. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.”

The Obama administration has presented fresh difficulties for the Roman Catholic hierarchy. 

The bishop opposed the president’s signature accomplishment, national health care reform, or any system that includes “provisions for actions which deny the dignity of human life, especially abortion, euthanasia, whether passive or active, and embryonic stem cell research.”

He forcefully rejected the notion that the reform had to be handled at the federal level. “There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good,” he said. “Rather, according to the classic principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought, many different communities within society share this responsibility.”

When Notre Dame invited President Obama to give its 2009 commencement address, he wrote to the university’s president, “‘you are not on the side of God, but of men’ (Mt 16:23).”

The bishop has defended marriage as strongly as he has innocent life. “The Church has been clear that marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” he has said, “and we need to continue to speak clearly to society on the truth, dignity, and meaning of marriage.”  

Treading into such contentious but non-negotiable issues, Bishop Aquila has embraced Caritas in Veritate, speaking the truth in love.  During the keynote address to the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest in Philadelphia last year, he said, “Correction can be difficult and painful, as parents know, yet as a shepherd I am willing to suffer the rejection and anger of another when I speak the truth for the good of the person and the Bride of Christ. To correct and/or to punish someone who has gravely sinned against real love is an act of servant love and is found in the truth!” 

In its media coverage, the Associated Press referred to His Grace as “Monsignor Samuel Aquila.”

 

The archbishop-designate said his other priorities include priestly formation and youth and women’s ministries.

REILLY: Georgetown: ‘Fertile ground’ for anti-Catholicism

Honoring pro-abortion Sebelius is a betrayal of church’s mission

By Patrick J. Reilly

The Washington Times

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

• 
  
  
  Illustration: Georgetown University by Linas Garsys for The Washington Times

Story Topics

• Religion_Belief
• Education
• Kathleen Sebelius
• Georgetown University
• Roman Catholic Church

Georgetown University seems to be in serious danger of losing what makes it truly special: its historical commitment to a quality Catholic education. The university’s stately spires, topped with crosses and standing high above the nation’s capital, are a permanent reminder of the fervent Catholic faith and vision of Archbishop John Carroll and his fellow Jesuit missionaries who founded Georgetown the same year the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

But today those crosses stand in stark contrast to the rapid secularization of America’s oldest Catholic university and the unprecedented threats from the White House, just blocks away, to the religious freedom of America’s largest religious denomination.

Both problems, the secularist oppression of the Obama administration and the secularization of Georgetown, will be on display this Friday when the university presents Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as the speaker for its Public Policy Institute diploma ceremony.

In 2008, the former governor of Kansas was asked by her bishop to stop receiving Communion because of her “30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion.” Now at HHS, Mrs. Sebelius is the chief architect of a health insurance mandate that would force Catholic colleges and universities, in violation of Catholic teaching, to provide coverage for sterilization and contraception to both students and employees.

Instead of standing by the Catholic bishops and fighting this clear violation of religious liberty, Georgetown has been on the sidelines - until now. Honoring Mrs. Sebelius is a public betrayal of the Catholic Church and all religious people in America.

In many ways, Georgetown’s choice is even more offensive than Notre Dame’s commencement honors to President Obama in 2008. At the time, the president was still making promises to respect the consciences of faithful Catholics. But Mrs. Sebelius has helped him break those promises, which probably is why more than 26,000 have signed the petition at GeorgetownScandal.com calling on Georgetown to rescind the invitation.

Of course, Georgetown’s betrayal of its Catholic roots didn’t begin with the Sebelius flap. Many campus speakers in recent years have offended Catholics, including pornographer Larry Flynt, who warned students, “The Church has had its hand on our crotch for 2,000 years.” Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student-turned-contraception-activist, earned a prominent lecture on campus instead of correction for her opposition to the bishops.

Many Georgetown professors have opposed Catholic moral teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage and physician-assisted suicide. Madeleine K. Albright and Donna Brazile are perhaps the best-recognized. The Rev. Robert Drinan, a longtime law professor who is still celebrated at the law school after his death in 2007, infamously served in Congress while supporting abortion rights. Judith Feder is a next-generation “pro-choice” politician even while serving as a professor and former dean of the graduate program that will host Mrs. Sebelius on commencement day.

To be sure, some magnificent professors, such as the Rev. James V. Schall, a Jesuit priest, remain on the faculty. Even so, one of Father Schall’s accomplished peers in the government department, Patrick J. Deneen, recently announced his escape with a devastating public critique. Georgetown, he wrote, “increasingly and inevitably remakes itself in the image of its secular peers, ones that have no internal standard of what a university is for other than the aspiration of prestige for the sake of prestige, its ranking rather than its commitment to truth.”

Outside the classroom, Catholic students also find much to regret: condoms distributed in the university’s “Red Square,” the ironically labeled campus free-speech zone; annual performances of “TheVaginaMonologues”; Georgetown’s well-funded LGBTQ (lesbian gay bisexual transgender questioning) Resource Center; groups like H*yas for Choice and Law Students for Reproductive Justice opposing the church on abortion and contraception, and much more.

Last year, Georgetown’s Jesuits released a video intended to celebrate their work on campus, but in the process, they helped explain their diminishing relevance. “Our job as educators and as priests is not to bring God to people, or even to bring people to God,” said the Rev. Ryan Maher, associate dean and director of Catholic studies. “God’s already there and the people are already there. Our job, our way, of living out our educational vocation is to ask the right questions, and to help young people ask those questions.”

By shying away from answers about God and truth, Georgetown seems almost ashamed of its mission as a “Catholic and Jesuit” university. Contrary to claims that this makes Georgetown a “true” university, it threatens the end of once-prestigious Jesuit education. The wavering fidelity of Georgetown and most large Catholic universities leaves too many students unaware or uncertain of their purpose in life beyond the accumulation of knowledge and career preparation.

Secularization cannot replace faith; it only leaves a void to be filled. Georgetown’s students are under intense pressure in today’s culture to veer away from Catholic morality.

In this context, perhaps Catholics should not be so shocked by recent reports that al Qaeda once thought Catholics to be “fertile ground” for conversion to Islam. There’s no denying the shaky ground upon which many young Catholics stand today. The failure of some Catholic schools and colleges to embrace the Catholic faith with honesty and confidence indeed prepares “fertile ground” for ideologies like the secularism and relativism championed by Kathleen Sebelius.

Patrick J. Reilly is president of the Cardinal Newman Society.

Short Statements on Faith

Faith is a mystery. Reason alone cannot explain why those who haven’t seen Him, they believe in Him.

Faith is infused in us by the Holy Spirit; that means the Lord touches those who He wants to follow Him. 

The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father only through His Son, Jesus Christ. 

Faith is reinforced by prayers; but prayers and deeds must go hand by hand.