The Partial Birth Abortion Ban That Isn't November 10

By now we have all read and heard about the US Congress' passing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, finally signed into law by a US president, which was quickly sent to legal limbo by several stays gratis from life-appointed federal judges in various districts. And by now this is routine as we are suffering under the tyranny of the federal judiciary unchecked by a non-existent responsible Congress, which has the power under the US Constitution to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but doesn't, so now we have the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that isn't. It never was: despite all the impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Congress worded the Ban to include "the life of the mother" exception.

The leading protagonists declared over and over that they had been more clever than the state of Nebraska which had passed a similar ban which was derailed by the Court also. Our Congress decided to add an exception to save the life of the mother. The minute they did that I knew their efforts were doomed along with the little babies who are butchered in this manner. It is especially ironic because one of the main protagonists in our by now ritual life saga is Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, a physician, and he knows that the Partial Birth form of late-term abortion is never needed to save the life of a mother. Abortionists and the AMA are on record as admitting this. They had to because the "procedure" as the abortionists refer to their method of murder, is a breach delivery, which in of itself endangers the mother, not just the baby. If the mother was truly in danger of death, and this is extremely rare today, a Caesarian is done which is much quicker and actually safer. Of course this results in a full birth as all of the baby is extracted from the womb. Since this would be inconvenient to say the least for those wanting a dead child, the fiction of "saving the life of the mother" has been concocted and Bill Frist has bought into it at least to the extent that he wanted to defer to the Court so as to maintain what he considers the integrity of the Ban.

But once you admit an exception, one that says a mother has a right to kill her own child to save hers, rather than the usual duty of a mother to die to save the life of her child-----until recent history, part of the definition of a mother, any mother in the real sense of the word-----than it seems arbitrary not to include other exceptions, such as "health".   And so forth since "health" means anything any court says it means. Judy Brown of the American Life League has had it right all along: no compromise, not ever! This is the only way to win in the end, not the slow death by attrition we have had for 30 years and counting. Weakness is always exploited by the enemy, even that which is well intended as in the case of the above Congress. It is a hard lesson to learn and until we do, we will keep having bans that "ain't". We can say we are pro-life, but until we refuse any and all compromise, period, we aren't really pro-life and we will keep having more of what we deserve, bans and pro-life bills that aren't.

The Trojan Horse Factor November 18, 2003

The NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER ran an article on the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly of the O'REILLY FACTOR [the "No-Spin Zone"]. It has been almost three years since we first exposed the Trojan Horse of FNC in general and the O'Reilly Factor specifically. We thought we were alone out here, so it is welcome news that a Catholic weekly has joined in on the spin of the "No Spin" guy.

O'Reilly repeatedly refers to himself as a Catholic and that he attends Mass. But as the NCR reported, he also says "I am an independent thinker", which the NCR rightly recognizes as code for "I am a cafeteria Catholic".

Some examples of O'Reilly's brand of Catholicism and the slant from FNC from past columns in small, indented print:

All of this is quite insidious despite O'Reilly's candor about being a cafeteria Catholic even though he sticks to the code phrase of "independent thinker", a type of spin in of itself, because FNC has been successful in its "Fair and Balanced" campaign, as if all points of view are of equal moral weight, that is, need be given consideration. Yet, even O'Reilly once admitted very briefly that some points of view are so evil that they do not merit consideration or "equal time." But that was the last time I ever heard it. The "Fair and Balanced" system imposes itself on all matters of the Catholic Church, Bill O'Reilly being but one of its arbiters. Sean Hannity of FNC's HANNITY AND COLMES is another, albeit neither so strident, nor so obvious. There is irony here. The "Factor" has many conservatives convinced he is conservative, that is more so than liberal, although providing the Trojan Horse of "balance" is possibly the most liberal of all strategies, as the ancient Greeks found out. The Catholic Hannity claims he is very conservative, but to be conservative without holding to tradition, especially Catholic Tradition, is anything but, if one says he is a Catholic. Hannity is for contraception and some exceptions for abortion. You get the idea.

All of this is insidious as I said because many conservative Catholics are fooled by the foxy stratagem. But even more is it insidious for our two protagonists because their immortal souls are in danger. High ratings from Nielson won't be there at the judgment seat. And to think they make a good portion of their living from FOX, owned by the Australian pornographer, Rupert Murdoch. As their souls became dimmed through the advocacy of error and dissent, their prudent judgment fails. A good example is the recent rise of the so-called "conservative" openly lesbian activist and author, Tammy Bruce, a favorite on FNC. She even had Hannity taking the bait: positioning herself as conservative on gun control and some taxation [but not abortion itself], and alas, conservatives who should know better, do not see the Trojan Horse once more in their midst. Being openly lesbian without shame is anything but conservative, it is anti-tradition, anti-normal and I do not care what Bruce's stand on taxation is, or anything else. All I have to know is that she holds that deviancy that is "not in your face" is normal. Everything else she proposes is suspect by definition, no matter how sincere she may appear to be. Satan can use the sincere and those who affect to be even more cleverly.

Pornographic news shots that last more than 30 seconds and repeatedly within a segment and "balance" to sodomites did not just appear from out of nowhere:

The beauty of this approach is that MTV and such channels get to do the ostensible dirty work while FNC and the other news networks can discuss the MTV filth to their hearts content, claiming the moral high ground while dumping the sewage straight into our living rooms. Nice work if you can get it.

If there was ever any doubt whose side O'Reilly [and by extension FNC] is on, if you still think he is "looking out for you" as he claims, well after the 18th of November, 2003, be assured that, as he said: "I don't care about 'gay marriage', I don't think it is a harm to society . . ." that this is the real Bill O'Reilly. Pray for his immortal soul. 

Stay bookmarked for further updates.

Leading Indicators of the Blind Leading the Blind January 26, 2004

Modern life in America is fraught with social perils and mishaps of all kinds, but one of the worst, the growing plague of irrationality, has now reached an all-time high, so much so, that only those without eyes cannot see and those without ears cannot hear: The blind leading the blind, those who have cut out their own eyes and cut off their own ears, not to avoid sin and error but to perpetrate them in "good conscience".

A few recent examples [in the order I learned of them] ought to suffice to demonstrate that we live in an age so devoid of reason and common sense that there is a possibility that truth itself could easily be banned, at least in public discourse and from the pulpits.

The Media Frenzy Over Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" February 18, 2004

She kept repeating, "But he's a traditionalist." The young woman is a FOX News entertainment reporter; the occasion for her rant was an interview with FOX's Bill O'Reilly, who has business dealings with Mel Gibson and who has been a defender of the actor-producer-director in his endeavor to bring a faithful account of the Passion of Our Lord to the big screen.

O'Reilly pressed her to provide evidence that Gibson "merited" the opprobrium heaped upon him for the past six months by all the politically correct, or should I say "religiously correct", commentators; all the reporter could come up with was that the "Scriptures are anti-Semitic"; "but he's a traditionalist"; and "he built his own church on his own property." Imagine this last perfidy! Using one's own property to add a chapel for the Traditional Roman Mass! How un-American, how anti-Semitic! O'Reilly did his best to curtail her spin on Gibson's "sin", but she would not budge from her bunker, her hatred of Traditional Catholicism and the New Testament: a liberal's virtual reality, and needless to say, cliché-ridden.

As she was spinning out of control in the "No Spin Zone", several truths and/or consequences overlooked -----or perhaps deliberately rejected by the media elite-----came to mind:

Christians have been reading the Gospels wherein the Passion of Christ is detailed for centuries. If Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic for merely being faithful to the Word of God, the Word, being the Son of God, having taken on the nature of man, born a Jew, and if the Scriptures are anti-Semitic in of themselves, it would logically follow then:

1. Jesus, of Jewish lineage was anti-Semitic. Since hatred of Jews because they are Jews is a mortal sin, God has sinned. This is such blasphemy I can scarcely write these words! If the movie should be condemned and consigned to oblivion, then what about the Bible? If it is such a source of anti-Semitism, why has she not called for a ban on the Bible and a condemnation of all Christians who accept it as the infallible Word of God? Of course, she did not seem to mind the blasphemous movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ", her rationale being that it was fiction as O'Reilly mentioned. What irks her is truth. Being a "first amendment"  supporter she cannot publicly call for such a ban, so Gibson's movie serves as a surrogate object for her wrath.

Practicing Christians are not anti-Semitic, because they know it is a serious sin and an insult to Christ and His holy Mother. And they read the Bible regularly. In fact the new wave of anti-Semitism is from certain quarters in the Moslem world and by the new-left who are atheists or agnostics by and large. The reporter either has not thought through her views or she is so enraged by her blind prejudice that she is unable to reason at the most elementary level.

Now, when we Christians read the Passion of Christ narrative we are foremost aware that it is our own sins that drove the spikes into our Savior's hands and feet, that whipped His flesh to pulp, that crowned Him with searing thorns. And we know the instruments that represented us at Calvary were the Roman soldiers, forerunners of today's Italians. Nobody is suggesting that the Scriptures are anti-Italian or that Christians who are not of Italian blood hate those who are. Why not, if the mere reading of a Gospel passage produces such hatred? The FOX reporter can't have it both ways. Well, okay, she can, because she is a media person and the media always has it both ways while indicting the rest of us for hypocrisy from time to time.

2. Mel Gibson's Mary is played by a devout Jew who has no trouble starring in the movie. I know that if I were an actress and was offered a part in a film that depicted the Catholic Church or Catholics unfairly there would not be enough of anything to induce me to accept the role. I presume the young woman who plays Our Blessed Mother is of the same predisposition.

3. One of the movie critics who saw the film, and who is a practicing Jew of some note saw nothing in the movie that was anti-Semitic, and surely he should know. He offered the following commentary: "I do not have to believe in the New Testament, but I should not expect Christians to not do so." Precisely. What Jew would permit a Christian to find anti-Catholic writings in the Old Testament? To ask the question is to answer it. 

I read about another Jewish critic who admited that he "hates Christ". I wonder if a lot of the ballyhoo is motivated by a tacit discomfort with a movie faithful to the truth and Our Savior. While I can understand Jewish concerns about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and its parallels with Nazi Germany, I am alarmed that the very same Jewish commentators fail to recognize the rise of anti-Christendom closer to home, say, right here at home and in Canada.  Hitler had long abandoned his Catholic upbringing, such as it was, before he devised the penal laws against the Jews and then the "final solution." The main opposition to his evil plans was the Catholic Church and real historians know it.

When almost everyone and everything is declared "anti-Semitic" the real thing is devalued. Ironically, more people are going to see the film because of the hysteria. Hysteria is not too strong a word for the seething rage that hovers just below the more polite surface of public speech. Even bigots observe the amenities. But once in a while the truth slips out. On another matter I was listening to a prominent Jewish lawyer take the "Christian right" to task for the "hatred" he said was a hallmark of our beliefs, one of which he mentioned was being "pro-life." He called pro-life Christians "haters".  He also said that they "were dangerous" to freedom. Then in the very next breath he said "I hate ---------", dropping another well known name, someone I won't mention in case she was not watching: no need to cause her any unnecessary pain. Meanwhile the host, so proud of his "tolerance" said nothing to disabuse him of his rancor or to challenge him in any way. If a Christian had said that about Jews you can just bet the host would have screamed bloody murder, tolerance or no tolerance. So here we have it, folks, someone who really and truly hates an entire group, accusing the same group of the sin he himself admitted on the airwaves, albeit unintended. I used to think about the possible motive for all the anti-hate rhetoric; now I think that maybe it is motivated by a special brand of hate: anti-Christian.

Soon, the tyrants among us will be speaking of leveling fines against us; if that won't shut us up, stronger sanctions will be at least considered. Please, do not say it can't happen here. It happened in Nazi Germany in a nice, civilized country of art and culture and a strong judiciary. America is not nearly so nice as it once was and the judiciary is stronger still. As in Nazi Germany, the penal laws against Christian speech will be all legal, gratis the judiciary branch. Meanwhile we have a lot to offer up this Lenten season for our sins as individual persons; God cannot be too pleased with what He sees in America: perversion celebrated and now given the name of "marriage" at whim by any mayor with the lack of shame to try.  And as one judge said, "something ought to be done, but he should not be arrested." Later he laughed about the whole affair. He is a judge of national reputation. I can never consider him  a source of truth from now on. And he is a Catholic, too. This, even though that mayor broke the laws of the state of California. The last I checked you could get arrested for law-breaking. Well, that was then. And to think that we will look back a decade from now and say, "Those were the good ole days."


During a newscast this week, a commercial for a Gibson movie came on. I did not watch it because most of his movies are so unnecessarily violent I do not watch them. But Gibson makes popular films and I know there is a long list. I have known only a few bigots in my lifetime but the number is enough to be certain that when a racist has the kind of animus these few people exhibited, it shows in ways unexpected and quite often. For years Gibson has been a favorite. Now, if he were all these awful things he is being accused of, just once, would not his prejudice have been in evidence, just a tiny bit, peeking out for us to observe? Again, to ask is to provide the answer.

As I changed to another news channel another critic was frothing at the mouth about "The Passion." He was listing several points of bigotry and or strangeness about Gibson's father and by definition imputing the same views to the son. When the hostess, to her credit, interjected that it was unfair to indict the son for the father's "offenses", the critic ignored reason and in so many words said outright that it was fair to blame the son for the father. Now this is truly hate, the new hate that is becoming the face of the elite in America. I presume this man is the only person without a family because I do not know of anyone who does not have a family member that is less than of sterling character or mind. We all have one somewhere. So by his rationale, we are all guilty of enormous crimes of the mind and or the heart.

Jesus, "the Man" April 12, 2004

It seems that the success of the Passion of Christ has inspired the media culture to get in on the "action" and produce programs or sell as much Jesus as possible. Barnes and Noble for once had an almost worth-while table set up on the Passion and books on Christ, much more so than in past years. I said almost because as we have now come to expect with regularity, non-Traditional Catholic books were there as well as some even more questionable. Many channels had their own documentaries all on Christ------Who was He or Who is He, depending on the channel's point of view. Some were quite good, even though not told from the Catholic understanding or theology. Given how awful Christianity is usually portrayed, this was a step in the right direction, with one glaring error, repeatedly on each broadcast: Jesus, the man, as if to say He is a human person as well as God.

Now the Creed is quite clear, He became Man, not a man, meaning took on human nature while not being a human person; otherwise the Creed would say a Man, not Man without the pronoun, a. Perhaps the imprecision of our modern age is responsible for our media experts no longer convey ideas clearly, changing adverbs to prepositions, nouns to verbs, and declining to define what it meant by the words, freedom, rights, and so forth. Or perhaps these experts who seem well intended actually mean what they conveyed, without saying so explicitly, that Christ is both human and Divine in His Person. I hear Catholics, including priests, say the same sort of thing all the time; one priest said "human person" when referring to Christ. So now is the perfect time to once more, succinctly and with certitude restate Catholic revealed teaching on the Personhood of Christ, taken from the Farrell book on the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Because there is only one Person in Christ, and because that Person exists and acts in two natures, one human, one Divine, it follows that all the actions of both natures can be and must be attributed to the same one Person. It is the person, not the nature, which is the responsible agent. Hence, we can say of Christ that He created the world; that He performed miracles by His own power; that He is immortal and Eternal; and on the other hand, that He ate, drank, slept, suffered, died, rose again and ascended into Heaven.

Surely this is a profound mystery. We cannot hope to understand it until we see it clearly in the vision of God. We cannot positively understand how it is possible for God to assume to Himself a human nature. We even find difficulty in seeking to understand how the human nature of Christ can exist without a human personality. But this is a mystery revealed to us by God Himself. With the humility of faith, we submit our own minds to the infinite wisdom and truth of God. because God has revealed this sublime truth to us, we know that it is possible for the Son of God to assume to Himself a human nature without a human personality, because God has said so, we know that this staggering possibility is an actual fact, a consoling fact. For, if God has so loved men that he sent His only-begotten Son into the world as Man, then surely God's love can raise man up to the unfathomable happiness of the vision of God.

Catholic "Cool" May 13, 2004

She, an "up-to-date Catholic" said, in a peeved tone, "Why can't those Traditional Catholics just get with the times!" It wasn't even a question, but a declaration of mandate.

He, a Traditional Catholic, responded with a challenge, "Do you believe in abortion?"

"Oh, no! That would be wrong!"

"Why don't you get with the times?"

A pause crept over her face as she was stunned by her inconsistency, discovered and duly noted by the kind of Catholic she disdained.

"Well," she replied, "Why can't they just follow Vatican II?"

"They are following the Pope of Vatican II, John Paul II, who has requested that the bishops be generous with the Traditional rite, some bishops are and some are not."

She had no ready comeback to this one.

The above interchange is a true one, and it took place in the Maine diocesan Chancery in Portland, May 11. The occasion was a governmental meeting that was held in a room rented from the diocese. The Maine diocese rents out one of its large rooms for such events, if you can believe it! The Traditionalist who was attending the meeting had an opportunity to speak with the woman at the desk in the foyer. He noticed with dismay and disappointment that there was no Crucifix and no other holy image on display. Perhaps better to serve the non-Catholics who use the facilities?

The woman's attitude is part of the syndrome which I call Catholic "Cool" or what interior designers call "shabby chic". It's an imitation of the real thing. The very sort of Catholic who promotes being up-to-date is the very same Catholic who would rush toward "tradition", that is her own peculiar definition of it, in order to avoid keeping up with the times, if doing so meant embracing Traditionalism like all Catholics used to just a generation ago. If the Traditional Roman rite was once more the predominant rite of the Church, Ms. Modern would suddenly lose her savor for being "cool". She would profess a love of Tradition and urge Catholics to hearken back to the good ole days of the Novus Ordo. In other words, she gets to decide when she wants to keep up with current trends, but the rest of us aren't allowed to, unless she personally approves. She's "cool" and we troglodytes aren't. That is, this how she may perceive things to be. She has no actual idea of cool at all.

I know of some priests of her religious leanings, far too many. They seem to exist in order to be "cool", to appeal to the younger crowd, while attempting to cajole the older set into silence, if not outright acceptance. Their preferred stratagem is mockery, from the pulpit, of course. Just before they tell an untoward joke that has no place in a Catholic heart or home, not to mention the Sanctuary, they usually "share" a little anecdote about some uncool, unnamed [usually, that is] parishioners who are portrayed as prudes, meaning they have reverence for rectitude and modesty. Thus, after he gets around to telling the joke [always of a sexual nature] so as to appear cool and with the times, you can always count on some nervous laughter from those who ought to know better. They dare not object, after all they might be next on the hit list, exposed from the pulpit for the evil, evil sins of prudery and "intolerance".

These modernists just do not get it. They are so far behind the times. Don't they know it is unhip to be "cool"? That the more they try to be with it, the sillier they seem. That the younger crowd is not impressed at all, but since Father leaves them to their own predilections uninformed of the dangers to their souls, he serves as an useful idiot. There is more than one way to have a clown Mass. Sometimes the cool priest serves as the buffoon without his even knowing it, no matter how decorous he may say Mass otherwise, which rarely occurs because if he is lax about modesty he is sure to be lax in other matters that depend on modesty. Such is the sorrowful lesson of their seminary training, avoiding Tradition as much as possible. Of course, it probably does not occur to them that if change is the essence of cool, then their ideas will eventually go out of date, too, which is precisely what is beginning to happen.

In fact, it is so uncool to appear cool that the more one tries the hotter it gets because one is that much closer to Hell. The only really cool Catholics are the humble kind, given to Traditional devotions, keeping the faith whole and entire, confessing their sins regularly, hoping and praying that they are never cool. One day, if they persevere, they will be welcomed before the Beatific Vision, with the happiness that wipes away every tear and brings solace to the once fevered brow of the soul that fought the good fight and finished the race. Is that ever cool!

  Unintended Blasphemy! June 23, 2004

This column originally started off as a book review of David Limbaugh's "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians".

What I am about to convey to you the reader is not intended as a slap at the author, who is reporting the bad news about the status of Christians in America, because I have no knowledge that he endorses the unintended blasphemy apparently held by some Christians as "American history".

Before I proceed, I do want to inform you that not only has Limbaugh provided us with an invaluable resource that is fully documented, but he has done yeoman's work in the process and done it as a true patriot. In fact, the climate hostile to Christ Himself is more extensive than even I, an avid Catholic media-watcher and researcher, realized, so much so that I broke down and wept as I read, and more than once.  While Christians as persons and Christian beliefs are outlawed, banned or otherwise demeaned, pagan religions and Islam are given preferential treatment and special protection.

Even the artwork is a stroke of genius: each section of the book, [as on the cover] has a divider page of a [female] lioness crouching, so poignant that no more need be said.

Ironically, or perhaps so expected it ought not qualify for irony, I had difficulty acquiring an affordable copy [without added postage], which served to underscore all that the author documents for us: One of the book dealers where I have purchased a number of books did not carry Mr. Limbaugh's book, although Hillary Clinton's book among other liberal apologists, was available and by the ton as were many conservative works by authors writing on subjects not centered on Christianity. [Living on a retirement income precludes my purchasing books at regular book-sellers, at least for now.] Mr. Limbaugh's book was conspicuously absent. I tried for weeks, and the book line-up never changed.

So I ventured on down to the local, taxpayer-supported library to see if a copy could be located, being one of those highly taxed citizens, who ought to at least receive some recompense for modern American socialism [there is no longer anything remotely suggesting smaller government and unsweeping court decisions]. The librarian informed me that space was at a premium so they had to limit the books they carried. Now, this was to laugh as they say, only it was just plain woeful. Logic would dictate that if space is critical, it would be even more important to allocate the books in a more "balanced" manner. But liberal librarians are not given to logic it seems.

She said that the library was expecting one current "conservative" book in. I noted rows of liberal books, and I do mean row upon row in a small town library cramped for shelves. When I offered to donate all of Ann Coulter's books along with others, every one in mint condition, she responded that while "they" welcomed donations, any books accepted must qualify by being favorably reviewed in the New York Times' "Review of Books". Reviewed, mind you, not if it was a best seller even on the New York Times list. In other words, liberally approved "conservative books", which is apparently how the lone "conservative" work made it past our lioness censor: it was by a non-conservative who likes to appeal to neo-conservatives, thus a Trojan horse. I will read that book when it is available so I will be aware of the influences the unsuspecting, well-meaning Catholic may be subject to in the political realm. Meanwhile, I did not know whether to burst out in laughter at her supposed cleverness or to mourn the blatant forced subsidy for our detriment overseen by so-called "all-inclusive, tolerant" liberals. If the local library serves Maine patrons, why does a review from New York have veto power? Cannot Mainers decide for themselves what they want to read and with their own tax monies?

 I got the book reserved through inter-library loan, which happened to come from the library in Rumford, Maine, where the folks there must be a little more tolerant and a lot smarter. You counter, but Christians and conservatism are not precisely equivalent. Oh, but mostly they overlap, and the climate of intolerance mandated by our politically correct culture jihad is growing but only in the direction against Christians who are also politically conservative or traditionalist. And this brings us back to the purpose of this column.

The book is a page-turner, hard to put down, but before I finished the first section  I was exhausted from the outrage which drained me, and by then I thought I detected an unintentionally revealed problem underlying the all-out assault on Christ and Americans who worship Him as their God and Savior and follow His Commandments: and that was some of the Christians themselves who repeatedly offered as part of their defense of Christian values in the public sphere, that much of their Christian expressions were less religious, and more of a patriotic-historic nature. Now, no matter how one slices this admission, one can only conclude it is blasphemy and that it actually concedes one of the prevailing secularist points of view: we Christians are pushovers because we are so enthralled with Americanism. Make no mistake about it, I have more respect for the humanist-secularist who wants to delete all trace of Christ from the culture than I do for the kind of Christian who can utter such an awful rationale. At least the secularist knows that the phrase "under God" means precisely that, and that it is not a mere patriotic solidifying ideal.

As our King, our Savior-God, Christ must reign, period, first, foremost and always.  By placing Him second, as the above rationale actually does, the person so believing and speaking is committing a grave offense against God, although I realize that he is unaware of the offense or directly intends such. When we are willing to sacrifice God's rightful place in our public life and as Limbaugh demonstrates, chapter after chapter,  Christianity is a public belief system by definition, and not meant to be closeted away, we not only dishonor God we reveal our Achilles heel to the enemy who just pushes on ahead, impeded very little by any lingering Court protections------Christians occasionally win a few, for now.

One of the more frequent examples the author provided was the flagrant disregard of any Court protections in the government schools, the methods to get around such First Amendment guarantees and the outright lies and deception employed, which further harasses the Christian and demoralizes him. A teacher told one of his Christian students who had secured remedy for a past discrimination, that he did not have to pay attention to his parents in this matter and the teacher then offered personal assistance in circumventing the parents. Even when the Courts have mandated parental notification on programs deemed offensive to the beliefs of the parents, school administrative officials have ignored the Court and refused to provide the parental notification. One such official told the Christian student that his beliefs "were stupid" etc. He felt justified in violating his Constitutional rights. And why not, if we persist in telling the world that the Pledge of Allegiance does not actually mean what it says it means. Liberal activists are lacking in reason all too many times, but they are not fools. Shame on us for trying to fool them, or at least fooling ourselves. With this kind of attitude, who needs enemies?

The pre-eminent exemplar of this Americanist thinking under the cover of a traditionalist, non-secularist veneer is FOX news Channel's Bill O'Reilly who repeatedly informs his audience that the "Christian philosophy",  not theology, is the background for American political ideals. He has gone so far as to imply that Christ's place is only as a philosopher, and not as "the Deity" as he likes to refer to our Triune, very personal God, so much more than the impersonal "the Deity". Well this is blasphemous, if you really think about it. I am sure that Mr. O'Reilly means no such affront, that he really believes he believes this spin. But blasphemy it is, ontologically speaking. Then he and the above referred to Christians bewail the onslaught of secularism versus what O'Reilly calls "traditionalism". How else could it be? How can Our Lord honor us in our endeavors to secure His honor in our country when we dishonor Him by giving Him at best, second best reference. The Bible speaks in theological terms; the Commandments are theological, not philosophical; the Law of supernatural Charity is a theological, and very personal undertaking because it requires the gift of Faith, the gift of supernatural grace and always, personal prayer. No mere philosophy, no matter how lofty can save us, only Christ can, and this is a theological, ontological fact. Philosophy as a basis for beginning the study of theology is important, that is Thomastic philosophy, but it is not the queen of the sciences, theology is. I would not go to the gallows for any philosophy, but I would for a theological certainty, and I bet you are like me. That theological certainty is that Christ is more than a philosopher, He is my God, my Savior, my sovereign King. To acknowledge but a smidgen less is to commit blasphemy, a sin against the Holy Ghost.

Not only do I seek the right of a Catholic to express Catholicism in every aspect of my life, I seek that the Catholic Church as required by the ordained will of God be given pride of place, in the public sphere, and that my country has an absolute duty, as I do as a Catholic and a citizen, in its public undertakings to not only not hinder Catholic practice and beliefs, it must, it absolutely must render honor to Jesus Christ, King of all nations, to God the Father Who sent Him, and to God the Holy Ghost Who is the love between Them and to no other "deity", whether it be the gods of humanism, materialism, atheism, or Freemasonry. There is only one God, the Blessed Trinity. Enough of our rights as free men, time to speak of the rights of Almighty God, from Whom all rights proceed. Unless the sacred order is upheld all lesser rights are in jeopardy. And I seek this with my whole soul, my whole mind, my whole strength, by evangelizing for the Reign of Christ through the conversion of all non-Catholics, and this King of kings in every heart, in every home, in every state, in every land . . . He must Reign! We are a nation under God or we are an ungrateful affront to Heaven itself and an ignominious example to our neighbors!

The Kerry Deception July 5, 2004

All the media are reporting that Presidential candidate, the Democrat, John Kerry, has said that he is "personally opposed to abortion, that life begins at conception . . . but I can't legislate my beliefs, etc."  This is news? Almost every "Catholic" politician says this every election cycle. Now I do not know if Kerry truly believes that life begins at conception or not. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt. His position that he "can't legislate his beliefs" is however, without any defense:

Every legislator "legislates his morality" [or beliefs], by definition. This is why he enters politics: to promote his vision of the public good, rightly or wrongly. Another name for this kind of vision is morality or a belief system, again by definition. A fellow Democrat of Kerry's, a political contender with a big name in Maine several years ago, and a self-identified Catholic who attends weekly Mass pulled the same verbal chicanery while campaigning outside a local supermarket. He had known my family from years before when my parents raised funds for Democratic candidates, long before Roe v. Wade. He assumed he had me "sewn up" as a supporter when he enthusiastically greeted my husband and me.

Immediately, my question to him was about his position on abortion.

He replied, "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I can't legislate morality."

I shot back, "Oh, but that cannot possibly be true."

"Of course it is, I have no right to impose my Catholic beliefs."

"All legislative efforts are fundamentally about someone's morality. If not yours, then whose?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, let's look at some of your other positions. Where do you stand on the B2-bomber, for instance?"

"You know I am opposed to it."


"Because it's morally wrong."

"But I thought you just told me you could not impose your morality onto the rest of us?"

"Ah, yuh, ah . . . ."

Then the hopeful campaigner began to change the subject faster than the proverbial blink of an eye. But I pressed him further. This intellectually duplicitous ruse was not going to wash with me, besides he had just insulted me by presuming I would be dumb enough to not have a response.

A few years prior another fellow Democrat and a friend of his had also run for office, and was a Catholic. He ran as a pro-lifer. At least that was what the public assumed based on campaign speeches, etc. So I mentioned his political success as a pro-life Catholic.

Our errant candidate replied:

"Oh, didn't you know, he wasn't, isn't really pro-life, but he had to say that; he used language to deceive the public; we political insiders know the code words. We all knew the score."

And there we have it. That breezy, "affable", candidate outside the supermarket, who lost the election by the way, saw nothing wrong with lying to get elected if necessary. By the time he was on the scene as a candidate lying was less expedient because by then the abortion mentality and the "culture of death" had begun to destroy the family and there were fewer and fewer people who seemed to care enough about the life ethic. Of course he was still lying, only he did not recognize it. He had just lied to me that he was unwilling to legislate his morality, yet admitted he was all for it on issues that "really mattered" to him.

Now, let's look at the Kerry position, to examine if it is logically sound:

Let us, substitute slavery for abortion and say it is 1860 and Kerry is hoping to be President-elect Kerry. Do you actually think that he would issue a fatuous statement such as this:

"I am personally opposed to slavery, I believe that all human beings are created by God and are equal in their humanity, but I can't legislate my Catholic beliefs."

Of course not, he would not have dared, even though at the time slavery was a constitutionally protected "right". Back then Catholics were threatened with excommunication if they supported slavery. The American bishops issued a policy statement to that effect. And most Catholics were anti-slavery, policy statement or no policy statement. That was a time when almost all Bishops, were, well, shepherds of souls, not PR meisters and Catholics knew why they were Catholic and were willing to risk social censure to remain uncompromisingly Catholic.

And we could just as well substitute any number of important social issues to choose from, but we do not have to, because Kerry himself has provided us with one in a recent campaign ad: the war in Iraq. His position is that Bush misled the people. Now misleading the public is a matter of deception, that is, it is inherently immoral, no matter the motive. Kerry wants to be the vehicle for change, that is, not deceiving the public, which is a moral position. Does anyone honestly think that if the U.S. Congress was about to pass sweeping legislation that made lying the law of the land, having fallen prey to the "culture of deception", that Kerry would go on record that he "cannot legislate morality"? Why would he when he just took a stand against lying viz. a viz. President Bush? I mean, is not lying in one form or another, still lying? Kerry is on record as standing for honesty and the truth. And this is to his credit. Well, let us hold him to it.

We the voters, want a complete list of all Catholic moral issues he would not impose on society, while holding them to be the only ethic worth believing in [by definition, or else why hold them].

You know, and I know, that is, based on political experience over the years, we too, have learned the "code words", that what Kerry actually means is, "I can legislate my morality on anything I really care about, just not on abortion because fundamentally I am sympathetic even though I would never get one. Oh, and please overlook that I am a man and can't get one for myself anyway."

Or in other words, Mr. Kerry what is your moral vision as President?

The right to life is the most fundamental right of all. Without it all other rights are meaningless and even redundant, if one is dead by infanticide, outside or inside the womb. If any morality should be important enough for Kerry to impose it, ought not the right to life for the absolutely innocent be it?

If Kerry truly thinks that saying "I am personally opposed, but . . ." is good enough to pass muster with Catholic voters [and the Bishops], the largest voting block, then he is not only attempting to deceive us, he has already deceived himself.