Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Vatican Prefect Says Obama's Democrats Becoming 'Party of Death'

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804933.htm

U.S. archbishop at Vatican says Democrats becoming 'party of death'

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- The Democratic Party in the United States "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death,'" said U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Vatican's highest court.

An interview with the former archbishop of St. Louis was published in the Sept. 27 edition of Avvenire, a daily Catholic newspaper sponsored by the Italian bishops' conference.

The newspaper asked the archbishop, the new head of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, for his reaction to reports that his Vatican job was designed to get him away from St. Louis.

"I have too much respect for the pope to believe that in order to move someone away from a diocese he would nominate him to a very sensitive dicastery like this one," said the archbishop, whose office is in charge of ensuring that lower church courts correctly administer justice in accordance with canon law.

Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

"That does not surprise me much," the archbishop said. "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.'"

Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

Pro-life Democrats are "rare, unfortunately," he said.

Archbishop Burke also was asked about being one of a few U.S. bishops to publicly ban Catholic politicians who hold positions contrary to church teaching from receiving Communion.

"Mine was not an isolated position," the archbishop said. "It was shared by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, by Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte (N.C.) and by others."

"But it is true that the bishops' conference has not taken this position, leaving each bishop free to act as he believes best. For my part, I always have maintained that there must be a united position in order to demonstrate the unity of the church in facing this serious question," he said.

"Recently, I have noticed that other bishops are coming to this position," he said, especially after Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have represented church teaching on abortion in a false and tendentious manner."

Archbishop Burke said he is convinced that a 2004 letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the U.S. bishops and canon law say "it is not licit to give holy Communion to one who is publicly and obstinately a sinner. And it is logical that one who publicly and obstinately acts in favor of procured abortion enters into this category."

The newspaper asked Archbishop Burke if he ever wondered why the issue of Communion for Catholic politicians was almost unheard of in Europe, where abortion is legal in most countries.

"I don't know if Catholic politicians in Europe are more coherent, although I would have some doubts," he said.

However, he said, "I am convinced that the church must always be very clear on this point."

END

Will Christianity be a Hate Crime if Same-Sex Marriage Proposition 8 Wins?

Gay Canada is Proposition 8's model of change for the USA.

Fred

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
June 4th, 2008 by Pete Vere

“If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”

The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.

Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.

What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?

Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.

The response from Mark van Dusen, a media consultant and spokesperson for CHRC, shocked me. I have interviewed van Dusen in the past and he has always struck me as an honest person willing to field tough questions on behalf of the commission. If he feels an accusation against the commission is hogwash, he states so plainly. If he feels the CHRC and its personnel are being unfairly tainted, he states so boldly.

Yet van Dusen did not dismiss the question out-of-hand as I thought he would. “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere,” he said, “we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

In other words, individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith’s traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the world’s oldest institutions — a redefinition that even the highly-secularist France rejects.

“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties,” van Dusen continued. The truth of the CHRC considering adherence to Catholicism or Islam a possible hate crime was made real by van Dusen’s implicit admission that the commission could dismiss the complaint against Fr. De Valk. Over six months have passed since the commission first notified Father of the complaint. There has been no hint of the commission dropping the complaint.

Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals.

Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV, Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals and treat them with the dignity due every human person. “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” Father told me during an interview. “Opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.” This is the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to any homosexual act.

Yet the complaint against Father de Valk is just one of several in recent years that has been pursued against Christians by Canada’s human rights commissions. In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage ceremony.

Five years previous, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationary. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to proclaim a gay pride day.

Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding Catholic moral teaching. While the complaint was ultimately withdrawn — not by the commission, but by the individual who originally filed the complaint — Bishop Henry incurred thousands of dollars of legal costs.

Thus Bishop Henry sympathizes with Father de Valk, who the bishop praises as a model of Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity to Christian teaching. “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police,” His Excellency states.

Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.

While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.

Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.

Moreover, Christians in America are not immune from what is happening to their co-religionists across the border. This past April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine Huguenin, a self-employed Christian photographer, to pay a lesbian couple $6,600 for having declined to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. This fine and stress from the legal proceedings come at a time when Huguenin and her husband are expecting their first child.

The New Mexico commission ignored the fact that photography is a form of artistic expression. The state commission ignored the fact that the First Amendment protects individuals from compelled speech — that is, coercion from the state to give artistic expression that violates one’s most deeply held beliefs. The commission’s one-page ruling simply stated that Huguenin had “discriminated against [the lesbian complainant] because of sexual orientation.” As this New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruling shows, Americans are in grave danger of having their religious liberty ripped away from them by Canadian-style human rights commissions.

Pete Vere, JCL, is a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist. He writes from Sault Ste. Marie, a twin city in Northern Ontario and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. He is the co-author of Surprised by Canon Law, volumes one and two.

[http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/]

Rights complaints against Catholic Insight dismissed

Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News,

OTTAWA - The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed an anti-homosexual hate speech complaint against Catholic Insight magazine.

“We are of course very cautious,” said Catholic Insight editor Fr. Alphonse de Valk, CSB, whose small-circulation magazine already faces more than $20,000 in legal bills. “A judicial review is still possible. We’re not out of the woods yet.

“It is chilling to think that a publication can be hauled before a government tribunal simply for reporting to interested citizens developments in these areas of controversy,” said de Valk in a July 4 statement. “This matter underscores once again the necessity of urgent reform of the Canadian human rights system.”

Edmonton-based homosexual activist Rob Wells filed the nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight in early 2007. Catholic Insight is going to see whether it can take legal action to recoup its costs because of “harassing and financially burdening” nature of the complaints. Catholic Insight has maintained it has always adhered to Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

posted by Fred Martinez @ 9:36 PM

1 Comments:
At 11:48 AM, Blazing Cat Fur said...
Catholic Insight faces attack on yet another front. You will also be interested to know Catholic Insight has been put on a Heritage Canada watch list for communicating Church doctrine.

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/08/heritage-canada-letters-to-catholic.html

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Obama Keeps Distorting "Born Alive" Vote

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/19/obama_keeps_distorting_born_alive_vote?page=full&comments=true

September 19, 2008

Obama Keeps Distorting "Born Alive" Vote

by Amanda Carpenter, Townhall.com Columnist


Barack Obama’s campaign has a new advertisement up that accuses John McCain of “lying” about Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill to protect babies who survived abortion.

The only problems are that McCain never leveled the charge and the charge isn’t a lie.

According to the ad, John McCain lied about Obama’s stance on the bill. “John McCain attacks? The sleaziest ads ever, truly vile,” a female narrator says. “Now, votes taking out of context accusing Obama of letting infants die? It’s a despicable lie.”

McCain has never directly hit Obama on BAIPA, but an independent group called BornAliveTruth.org has. BornAliveTruth.org has been organized to educate the public on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Obama’s record opposing it. Last month, pro-lifers unearthed evidence from the Illinois state archives that showed Obama had lied about his record on the bill.

SEE TOWNHALL’S PREVIOUS REPORT ABOUT OBAMA’S LIE.

Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois’ version BAIPA had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said, old records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.

“We have a smoking gun committee report,” said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett told Townhall last month.

Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002, “NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

For those who may doubt partisan records, the Republican committee report is backed by an Associated Press article that documented the 6-4 vote on the amended version of the bill.

“The Senate Health and Human Services Committee rejected a bill that declares any fetus with a beating heart or muscle movement outside the womb as ‘born alive,’” reporter Kristy Hessman’s AP story said. Her article was filed from Springfield, Ill., and dated the same day as the Republican committee report, removing any doubt she was reporting on any other measure. “The measure is in response to a rare abortion procedure in which labor is induced and the fetus sometimes survives, possibly for hours,” Hessman wrote. “The sponsor, Sen. Rick Winkel, R-Champaign, said the bill is modeled after a recent federal policy that defines a ‘born-alive’ infant. But critics said defining when a fetus is ‘alive’ could require doctors to provide care and might expose them to legal action if they don’t, even if there was no way the fetus could survive outside the womb. Winkel’s bill got four ‘yes’ votes and six ‘no’ votes.”

There is also audio available on the Internet of Obama explaining why he did not think the bill should pass. “Essentially, adding an additional doctor who has to be called into an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments designed simply to burden the original decision to induce labor and perform the abortion,” Obama said.

Abortion survivor Gianna Jessen is a member of BornAliveTruth.org. She put a scorching statement up on her website reacting to Obama’s attack on her group. “Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week,” she said. “All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice in public policy almost left me to die and no one should have to go through what I went through.”

Pro-life activist and former nurse Jill Stanek, who testified before Obama in the Illinois State Legislature after she rocked an aborted baby to his death in a soiled utility room, is also active in the group.

She released a statement of her own on the website.

"It is despicable, repulsive and beneath contempt that Barack Obama would attack Gianna Jessen,” Stanek said. “She is a courageous abortion survivor and living miracle who would not be with us today if Obama's policies had been in place when she was born. Mr. Obama continues to mislead the American people on this issue, he voted four times against medical care and protection for babies who survive abortions in the Illinois State Senate, while the U.S. Senate was voting 98-0 to pass an identical bill. Mr. Obama needs to come forward and tell the American people that he understands people like Gianna Jessen, and that he will support and enforce Born Alive Infant protections -- that these are living, breathing human beings who have come into our world and deserve protection in the law and should receive medical care at health care facilities. These babies have the same rights as the rest of us."

Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.

Mexican Actor Rips Obama on Abortion

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/verastegui_rips_obama/2008/09/26/134809.html

Mexican Actor Rips Obama on Abortion

Friday, September 26, 2008 3:41 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size

Mexican film star Eduardo Verastegui has recorded a video message aimed at Hispanic voters that slams Barack Obama’s record on abortion.

Verastegui, best known in the U.S. for his role in the 2006 pro-life movie “Bella,” asserts in the message that most abortion clinics are located in Hispanic neighborhoods and that the Spanish media frequently carry pro-abortion advertising.

“Abortion is not only a lucrative industry, it is also used by people who are racist as a means to eliminate our people, since they consider us to be a threat to democracy in this country,” Verastegui states.

He maintains that abortion is legal “because there are not enough men and women who raise their voice against abortion.

“We need to put an end to abortion and political candidates play a very important role in this matter.”

He points out that Obama supports abortions performed during the last trimester of pregnancy and “wants to finance abortions with the tax dollars you and I pay.”

As a lawmaker, Obama “voted on several occasions against a law to protect babies who survived an abortion and were born alive,” Verastegui says in remarks reported by the Catholic News Agency.

He adds: “Obama is more interested in maintaining the legality of abortion that in the well-being of the babies, children and families of this country. Let us unite and do something to defend life at every stage, from conception to natural death.”


© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Monday, September 22, 2008

"It is Despicable, Repulsive and Beneath Contempt that Barack Obama would Attack" Abortion Survivor

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75788

WND ELECTION 2008

Obama ad goes to war with abortion survivor

Video slams woman for 'despicable lie'

September 20, 2008

By Drew Zahn

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In the increasing flurry of this election season's negative political ads, the Barack Obama campaign produced a TV commercial that not only attacks Republican rival John McCain, but also takes aim at an unusual target: a 31-year-old woman who was born alive after her mother's botched abortion.

Obama's commercial predictably takes shots at the GOP campaign, calling McCain's ads "the sleaziest ever, truly vile." But when the screen shows clips of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen and the ad she made asking Obama to reverse his stance on born alive infant protection legislation, the Obama ad calls Jessen's appeal "a despicable lie."

The attack on Jessen has angered pro-life advocates.

"It is despicable, repulsive and beneath contempt that Barack Obama would attack Gianna Jessen," says Jill Stanek, a pro-life columnist who testified before Congress in support of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, in a statement on Jessen's website. "She is a courageous abortion survivor and living miracle who would not be with us today if Obama's policies had been in place when she was born."

Jessen herself released a statement saying, "Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did."

Jessen was born in a Los Angeles abortion clinic 31 years ago after her birth mother's saline solution abortion failed.

"The abortionist was not on duty the moment I came into this world," Jessen said in a recent Fox News Channel "Hannity & Colmes" interview. "Had he been there, he would have ended my life."

"He wasn't there, so a nurse called an ambulance, had me transferred to a hospital where I was placed in an incubator, weighing two pounds," she said.

Lack of oxygen to Jessen's brain resulted in cerebral palsy, and her doctor said she'd never be able to hold her head up, sit, walk or talk.

She has since, "by the grace of God" according to her testimony, been able to run marathons.

She has also been an eloquent advocate for babies like her – who are born following failed abortions – through her organization, BornAliveTruth.org.

Jessen first drew the Obama campaign's ire for producing an advertisement that points to the senator's record of voting against born alive infant protection laws as an Illinois state legislator.


In the response ad from the Obama campaign, the video shows clips of Jessen's advertisement with a female voice saying, "Now, votes taken out of context accusing Obama of letting infants die. It's a despicable lie."

Obama did, however, vote against Illinois born-alive infant-protection bills four times, as Jessen's ad claims.

Obama has often said, and his own website repeats, that he would have supported the Illinois state law protecting those born-alive infants if it had had a "neutrality" clause like the federal version, which states the law specifically is not intended to impact the status of babies before birth.

As WND reported earlier, however, documentation uncovered by Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee reveals Obama did vote against a version of the Illinois law that was the same as the federal law, contrary to what the candidate has stated.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Ardent Appeal Asking God: Through the Holy Rosary, Save America!

http://americaneedsfatima.blogspot.com/2008/04/2008-public-square-rosary-crusade.html

2008 Public Square Rosary Crusade An Ardent Appeal Asking God: Through the Holy Rosary, Save America!

There are still signs of Catholic militancy in America.
This can be seen in the growth of the pro-life movement
and in the rejection of blasphemous films like The Da
Vinci Code.

However, there is still much work to be done.


Those who seek to remove God and His holy law from
our society fight unceasingly on. Abortion murders innocent unborn babies; the institution of the family is weakened by impure customs and threatened by the
legalization of homosexual “marriage;” the sexual revolution pervades popular culture especially in television, media, movies and the Internet.


However, the worst consequence of this secularist offensive is the rejection of God. In so doing, we disdain
His wise and loving action and we refuse His grace upon
the citizens of our country.


And without His grace, how can we survive?


How can our leaders properly govern our nation?


From where will they get wisdom and strength to solve
the great and complex problems that abound?

Besides the abovementioned moral problems, how can we maintain our treasured national identity, while adopting a just solution for the immigration dilemma?

How can we solve our need to become self-sufficient in energy? How can we resolve our economic problems?

How can we maintain a wise, strong and balanced military strategy?


Holy Rosary Crusade of Reparation


After World War II, Austria was divided between the
United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. The Soviet section was the richest one and
included the capitol city of Vienna. The Viennese were
subject to the all the atrocities of communist occupation.


In 1946, Fr. Petrus Pavlicek, after making a pilgrimage
to Mariazell, Austria’s principle Marian shrine, heard an interior voice that said: “Do as I say and there will be peace.”


To obey this inspiration of Our Lady, Fr. Pevlicek founded the Holy Rosary Crusade of Reparation in 1947.
This Crusade consisted of a call to the faithful of Vienna
to participate in public rosary processions in the streets of
the city. The intention of the rosary was for the end of
communism in their country and the world. At first, the
processions were miniscule, but they gradually grew to
staggering proportions.


In 1955, after eight years of spreading the word about
the Crusade throughout Austria, the rosary processions
would often have half a million participants – about one
tenth of the Austrian population. Finally, through the
help of Our Lady, the Soviet forces inexplicably pulled
out of Austria in October of 1955.


2008 Public Square Rosary Crusade


At Fatima in 1917, Our Lady made it very clear that
the Rosary is the supernatural solution to our earthly
problems. Father Pavlic also saw this as a solution and
promoted a national Rosary Crusade that saved Austria from Communism.


Just like in Austria, the Rosary can save America. In The Secret of the Rosary, Saint Louis de Montfort states:

"Public prayer is far more powerful than private prayer to appease the anger of God and call down His Mercy and Holy Mother Church, guided by the Holy Spirit has always advocated public prayer in times of public tragedy and suffering.”


That’s why TFP-America Needs Fatima is launching
the 2008 Public Square Rosary Crusade.


Our goal is to counter the destructive secular agenda,
asking God to guide every aspect of our society. As human efforts have failed to solve America’s key problems, we ask His immediate help for our nation’s leadership.


He will hear our prayers, especially if we pray the Rosary of His Blessed Mother. Without prayer, and specifically the Rosary, we will not find solutions to our nation’s many problems.


Last year, the TFP and its America Needs Fatima campaign organized over 2,000 Rosary Rallies. In 2008,
we’re planning 3,000 rallies for October 11 – the Saturday closest to October 13 – the day God worked the miracle of the sun at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. America needs a monumental miracle of conversion.

And it can happen!

Please call 866-584-6012 to get involved.

Election Novena 2008

http://www.electionnovena.org/

Election Novena 2008


A 54 Day Rosary Novena


Novena Intention

"For an outcome of the November election which is pleasing to Almighty God, and which best serves the eternal and temporal interests of all of His children."

Please Help Spread the Word !!!
1. Tell everyone you know, especially those without internet access about this prayer campaign and help them in whatever way you can to participate themselves, as well as to enlist the participation of everyone they know.

2. E-mail everyone on every e-mail list you have. Tell them about the novena, and be sure to include the URL of this web site.

3. Inform your bishop about the novena and ask that he support its promotion throughout the diocese.

4. Approach your diocesan superintendent of education and request that the novena be promoted in the Catholic schools.

5. Approach your diocesan newspaper and ask the editor to promote the campaign in any way possible.

6. Approach your Catholic broadcast media outlets and ask them to promote the campaign in every way possible.

7. Ask your pastor to encourage participation.

8. Don't disregard secular media outlets of all kinds. Approach them and ask for their help. Let the Holy Spirit move as He wills within their hearts.

9. If you can think of anything I've missed, please tell me about it in an E-mail to electionnovena@earthlink.net and I'll get it up here.



2008 Election Novena Flyer


All-Night Eucharistic Adoration
commencing on the eve of the election led by the Bishops of every See in the nation in their Cathedrals is a objective worthy of our efforts.

The All-Night Eucharistic Adoration Template just below is in "Microsoft Word" format. You can download and alter it to suit the details of All-night Eucharistic Adoration at your Diocesan Cathedral.

Please approach your Bishop politely and respectfully.
If he is unable to lead for whatever reason, perhaps he would be willing to assign leadership to an Auxiliary or other Clergyman who would represent him.

Please don't assume someone else in your diocese will take care of this. Frequently the number of request made will impact the decision of a Bishop.
God bless Margaret Marino. OCDS for both the idea and the template.

All Night Eucharistic Adoration Template


Please Help Spread the Word !!!
1. Tell everyone you know, especially those without internet access about this prayer campaign and help them in whatever way you can to participate themselves, as well as to enlist the participation of everyone they know.

2. E-mail everyone on every e-mail list you have. Tell them about the novena, and be sure to include the URL of this web site.

3. Inform your bishop about the novena and ask that he support its promotion throughout the diocese.

4. Approach your diocesan superintendent of education and request that the novena be promoted in the Catholic schools.

5. Approach your diocesan newspaper and ask the editor to promote the campaign in any way possible.

6. Approach your Catholic broadcast media outlets and ask them to promote the campaign in every way possible.

7. Ask your pastor to encourage participation.

8. Don't disregard secular media outlets of all kinds. Approach them and ask for their help. Let the Holy Spirit move as He wills within their hearts.

9. If you can think of anything I've missed, please tell me about it in an E-mail to electionnovena@earthlink.net and I'll get it up here.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Palin Destroying Media Pretense of Neutrality

Palin Destroying Media Pretense of Neutrality
Sarah Palin is making history by showing the media is not even trying to pretend they are neutral.

Today, Lou Dobbs said "The national media no longer makes the pretense of being neutral." With this attack on Palin the American people will never trust the media.

Now that the pretense has been exposed Sarah needs our prayers more than ever. The media will attack Palin like a devil being driven out.

I'm praying for Sarah everyday. Please pray for her and her family.

God bless you,

Fred

Monday, September 08, 2008

Pray for Sarah Palin Everday

Sarah Palin is the real thing. A good person who walks the walk. She the best thing to happen to politics in a long time.

The media will try to destroy her. I'm going to pray for her everday. Please pray for Sarah and her family.

Fred

Sunday, September 07, 2008

If Bill Clinton was "Our First Black President,” is Obama Our First Gay Presidential Candidate?

By Fred Martinez

Remember how liberals were saying Bill Clinton was the first black president after a 1998 New Yorker article by Black feminist Toni Morrison who described Clinton as "our first black president. Blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

Might Obama be our first gay presidential candidate? Gayer than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime.

Obama is more gay-supportive than John Kerry. Four years ago, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute Executive Director Matt Foreman said "John Kerry and John Edwards make up the most gay-supportive national ticket in American history," according to a CNSNews.com report.
[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200407%5CPOL20040707d.html]

According to Chris Bull:

"If gay voters wanted a better champion than John Kerry, they'd have to invent him. The three-term senator boasts a near-perfect voting record on gay and AIDS-related causes, a record virtually unrivaled among national politicians. Kerry has gone far beyond allies who vote with the community but risk little in doing so. He has sponsored federal gay rights legislation dating to1985."
[http://www.gay.com/support/click.html$rg/5135,72556,c:/news/roundups/package.html?]sernum=963

But on gay agenda issues Obama makes Kerry look like Sarah Palin.

National Review Rich Lowry said “Obama’s tone noticeably differed from John Kerry’s in 2004. Kerry criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning it. In contrast, Obama patted the California court on the head and said nothing about a proposed referendum in the fall to amend the California constitution to overrule the court. Obama makes Kerry look like a staunch cultural conservative.”
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/23/opinion/main4124256.shtml]

Obama is womanly as Hillary says the liberal US News & World Report:

“ Still, her female supporters who are watching Obama's movement coalesce, solidify, and take over should console themselves that there will be a woman Democrat in the White House either way if the Democrats win the general election. The nominee will either be a woman with double-X chromosomes or one with XY chromosomes who votes more like a woman than most with XX.”
[http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/2/13/if-hillary-loses-do-women-lose.html]

Liberal political scientist Kathleen Dolan said “[Obama’s] being more feminine than [Hillary] can be.
[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/22/the_female_style___modeled_by_a_man/]

Remember when people were claiming that George W. Bush took cocaine. I don’t remember any of them saying they were willing to submit to a polygraph test or filing a suit in Minnesota District Court,alleging threats and intimidation by Bush's staff.

Larry Sinclair is willing to submit to a polygraph test and is filing a suit in Minnesota District Court,alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff.
Sinclair “claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with [Obama].”
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626]

It is a double standard that the media isn’t reporting this when we all know the they would make it front page news if the charges were against Sarah Palin or McCain.

Personally I think Obama is just a metrosexual.

A metrosexual “is a man who seems stereotypically gay except when it comes to sexual orientation,” according to Alexa Hackbarth, “Vanity, Thy Name Is Metrosexual," The Washington Post, November 17, 2003.

Nietzsche - The Root of the Culture War

Nietzsche - The Root of the Culture War

By Richard P. Salbato



The writings of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche gave birth to a Culture War that has effected every part of human society. It is a war between husbands and wives, parents and children, parents and schools, Churches and governments, science and religion, and created the entire mess of the 20th Century. This is the thinking that produced two world wars, created Hitler, created the thinking of Carl Marx, gave birth to Psychiatry, destroyed the American School System, produced the woman's lib movement, produced abortion on demand, made people their own gods, and took the moral law out of governments. It produced an American Movie Industry that would rather sell immorality than make money, an industry that stopped making things like "The Ten Commandments", "Ben Hur", "Shirley Temple", "Pinocchio", "Joan of Ark", etc. that had moral messages and made a great amount of money and started making movies about homosexuals, single moms, fiction, or any deviant behavior that they could think of and they did it even if it did not make money. Modern technology has saved them from bankruptcy by great graphics when in fact there is no story at all, like "Star Wars" or "The Matrix".



Instigated by liberal elites who manipulated—and were manipulated by—the so-called "youth movement" of the 1960s, this cultural decadence has become evident in ways that are now all too familiar. The deterioration of art and music; the popularization of pornography; the collapse of the family and consequent social disintegration; the radicalization of academia, law, and politics; legislation for divorce on demand, abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia; racial politics; and the decline of religion under multiple assaults from feminism and political correctness. The revolution has been both deliberate and successful, and has transformed our society into something no one could have imagined fifty years earlier.



The Catholic Church can be a major opponent of the nihilism of modern liberal culture. Pope John Paul II has been attempting to lead an intellectual and spiritual reinvigoration, but there is resistance within the Church. Modern liberal culture has made inroads with some of the Catholic hierarchy as well as the laity. It remains to be seen whether intellectual orthodoxy can stand firm against the currents of radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. The absence of an orthodox Catholic voice in society was of vital importance in allowing the cultural collapse of the 1960s.





The cultural war is an international phenomenon and the courts have the power of judicial review to strike down statues or accept them. They have taken one side in the culture war — the side of the intellectual elite, those people who think they have a superior attitude in life and that those of us lower down the social ladder should be coerced into accepting their views.



We have been loosing this Culture War for the last 100 years but what makes me want to write about it now is that something happened that makes me think we can now turn this war around and win it. And that is the success of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". What has happened to the people who have seen this movie gives me hope that the 100 year war can be won. But to win this war we must understand it, we must see the enemy in our own distorted thinking, we must see the enemy in the books we read, the movies we see, the teaching at school, in almost everything secular today. Our Lady of Fatima said that Communism would spread its errors throughout the world. Those errors are the first modern atheist thinking born of the writings of Nietzsche.



Life of Friedrich Nietzsche



Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1844. His father died when he was 4 year old. Most of his family were Lutheran ministers. He was raized by his mother, Franziska (1826-1897), his paternal grandmother, Erdmuthe, his father's two sisters, Auguste and Rosalie, and his younger sister, Therese Elisabeth Alexandra (1846-1935) - all women.



Momentous for Nietzsche in 1865 was his accidental discovery of Arthur Schopenhauer's atheistic and turbulent vision of the world, The World as Will and Representation, a work which criticized materialist metaphysical theories from the standpoint of Kant's critique of metaphysics in general. In 1867, he met the composer Richard Wagner. Wagner and Nietzsche shared an enthusiasm for Schopenhauer



Nietzsche's enthusiasm for Schopenhauer, his studies in classical philology, his inspiration from Wagner, his reading of Lange, and his frustration with the contemporary German culture, coalesced in his first book -- The Birth of Tragedy (1872) -- which was published when he was 28. Wagner showered the book with unqualified praise. Nietzsche met Paul Rée, who, while living in close company with Nietzsche, would write On the Origin of Moral Feelings.



In 1876, at age 32, Nietzsche made an unsuccessful marriage proposal to a Dutch piano student in Geneva named Mathilde Trampedach. During this time, His ailing health, which led to migraine headaches, eyesight problems and vomiting, necessitated his resignation from the university in June, 1879.



On a visit to Rome in 1882, Nietzsche, now at age thirty-seven, met Lou Salomé, a twenty-one-year-old Russian woman who was studying philosophy and theology in Zurich. He soon fell in love with her, and offered his hand in marriage. She declined, and the future of Nietzsche's friendship with her and Paul Rée appears to have suffered as a consequence. In the years to follow, Salomé would become an associate of Sigmund Freud, and would write with psychological insight of her association with Nietzsche.



On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life. That Nietzsche had an extraordinarily sensitive nervous constitution and took an assortment of medications is well-documented as a more general fact. After a brief hospitalization in Basel, he spent 1889 in a sanatorium in Jena at the Binswanger Clinic, and in March 1890 his mother took him back home to Naumburg, where he lived under her care for the next seven years. After his mother's death in 1897, his sister Elisabeth -- having previously returned home from Paraguay, where she had been working with her husband Bernhard Förster to establish an Aryan, anti-Semitic German colony called "New Germany" ("Nueva Germania") -- assumed responsibility for Nietzsche's welfare. On August 25, 1900, Nietzsche died in the villa as he approached his 56th year, apparently of pneumonia in combination with a stroke.



The Influence of Nietzsche



Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was notoriously unread and un-influential during his own lifetime, and his works suffered considerable distortion in the hands of his sister Elisabeth, who managed his literary estate and twisted his philosophy into a set of ideas supporting Hitler and Nazism (Hitler had Thus Spoke Zarathustra issued to every soldier in the German army). By far his most often quoted utterance--seldom understood--is "God is dead," which placed his thought beyond the pale for many readers.



But Nietzsche's influence has been much richer and varied than these simple stereotypes suggest. It is not surprising that an author who embraced such contradictions should have influenced thinkers of an extraordinary variety.



Philosophy



The only philosopher to feel his influence while he could be aware of it was the Danish critic and philosopher Georg Brandes (1842-1927), who in the late 1880s developed a philosophy which he called "aristocratic radicalism" inspired by Nietzsche's notion of the "overman." Nietzsche's insistence that the decay of religion (the "death of God") requires that humanity take responsibility for setting its own moral standards inspired existentialists from Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) to Albert Camus (1913-1960).



Nietzsche's relativism has had a powerful influence on two of the most important modern French Deconstructionist philosophers, Jacques Derrida (b. 1930) and Michel Foucault (1926-1984).



Theologians



Oddly enough, he has also been a powerful influence on certain theologians, notably Paul Tillich (1886-1965), who developed an Existentialist, human-centered theology which tried to salvage elements of traditional faith while drawing on rationalism. Thomas Altizer (b.1927) created a sensation (and found himself on the cover of Time) in the 1960s by helping to create the oxymoronically named "death of God theology" together with a number of other theologians who argued for religion without God. Their constant use of Nietzsche's catch phrase is a reminder of their indebtedness to him. Although the direct influence of this school hardly lasted out the decade, other theologians used Nietzsche's thought as well, notably embracing his idea that human values should be based not on denial ("thou shalt not") but on affirmation ("thou shalt"). The Jewish theologian Martin Buber (1878-1965)--also a great influence on Christian theology--translated part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra into Polish. He read Nietzsche's works very early, beginning in 1892. His emphasis on process in theology resembles some of Nietzsche's ideas.



Although he did not draw directly on Nietzsche's work, the notions of "creative evolution" espoused by Henri Bergson (1859-1941) had a powerful influence on the Greek writer Nikos Kazantzakis (1885-1957), who combined his studies under Bergson with his reading of Nietzsche to produce a version of what is known as "process theology" which is most readily studied in the little book The Saviors of God and is also expressed in his most popular novel, Zorba the Greek. According to Kazantzakis, God is the result of whatever the most energetic and heroic people value and create. This is clearly very similar to Nietzsche's ideas about the sources of religion. Nietzsche's notion of heroes as creators is at the heart of Kazantzakis' philosophy.



Psychology



The two grandfathers of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961), both had a deep admiration for Nietzsche and credited him with many insights into the human character.



Alfred Adler (1870-1937) developed an "individual psychology" which argues that each individual strives for what he called "superiority," but is more commonly referred to today as "self-realization" or "self-actualization," and which was profoundly influenced by Nietzsche's notions of striving and self-creation. The entire "human potential movement" and humanistic psychology (Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Rollo May, etc.) owes a great debt to this line of thought. Even pop psychologists of "self-esteem" preach a gospel little different from that of Zarathustra. The ruthless, self-assertive "objectivism" of Ayn Rand (1905-1982) is difficult to imagine without the influence of Nietzsche.



Fiction



Besides Kanzantzakis, many novelists have drawn on Nietzsche. Thomas Mann (1875-1955) wrote repeatedly about him and his characters are often engaged in struggles to define their ideas in a world in which old philosophies are decaying, like Nietzsche, torn between romanticism and rationalism (notably in The Magic Mountain). Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) similarly explored the necessity for the individuals to overcome their social training and traditional ideas to seek their own way (Steppenwolf and The Glass Bead Game). Many other famous writers influenced by Nietzsche include André Malraux (1901-1976), André Gide (1869-1951), and Knut Hamsun (1859-1952).



Poetry



Given the poetic style in which he wrote, it is not surprising that numerous poets have been drawn to Nietzsche, including Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926). He, like many writers influenced by Nietzsche, rejected the kind of traditional Christian dualism which sorts existence into good and evil with the physical and earthly being regarded as a source of evil and goodness identified with pure spirit and the life after death. His celebration of mortal life as a sort of religion is extremely Nietzschean. He was also became lover of Lou Andreas-Salomé, a woman who ten years earlier Nietzsche loved unrequitedly.



Among many others, one can find strong Nietzschean themes in the works of Beat Generation poets such as Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997) and Gary Snyder (b. 1930), who were drawn to the vitalistic, anti-dualistic themes also earlier expressed in the English and American traditions by William Blake and Walt Whitman. Blake, Whitman and Nietzsche form a sort of triumvirate whose influence runs through large swaths of modern literature in their rejection of dualism and embrace of the body as good. Like many other poets, William Butler Yeats (1865-1939) combined an admiration for Blake with interest in Nietzsche.



Drama



George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) expressed his version of Nietzsche's struggle for power in his play Man and Superman, and more than one character in the plays of Eugene O'Neill (1888-1953) is under Nietzsche's spell.



Influential ideas



If there are few names from the second half of the 20th century cited above that you recognize, it is not because Nietzsche's influence has dwindled. Rather it so pervades modern culture that many who have never read him are influenced by his thought indirectly. Consider the following ideas circulating in American culture today, all of them traceable at least in part to Nietzsche, although many of them are much simpler than similar ideas held by him:



· The goal of life should be to find yourself. True maturity means discovering or creating an identity for yourself.



· The highest virtue is to be true to yourself (consider these song titles from a generation ago: "I Gotta Be Me," "I Did It My Way").



· When you fall ill, your body is trying to tell you something; listen to the wisdom of your body.



· People who hate their bodies or are in tension with them need to learn how to accept and integrate their physical selves with their minds instead of seeing them as in tension with each other. The mind and body make up a single whole.



· Athletes, musicians, etc. especially need to become so attuned to their bodies that their skills proceed spontaneously from the knowledge stored in their muscles and are not frustrated by an excess of conscious rational thought. (The influence of Zen Buddhism on this sort of thinking is also very strong.)



· Sexuality is not the opposite of virtue, but a natural gift that needs to be developed and integrated into a healthy, rounded life.



· Many people suffer from impaired self-esteem; they need to work on being proud of themselves.



· Knowledge and strength are greater virtues than humility and submission.



· Overcoming feelings of guilt is an important step to mental health.



· You can't love someone else if you don't love yourself.



· Life is short; experience it as intensely as you can or it is wasted.



· People's values are shaped by the cultures they live in; as society changes we need changed values.



· Challenge yourself; don't live passively.



It is notable that none of these ideas flows from the traditional Judeo-Christian culture which dominated Europe for a thousand years. Many of them have their roots in Romanticism, with Nietzsche merely articulating impulses that others shared; but he is a major transmitter of them to the modern world.



Nietzsche's Writings



The following are Nietzsche's own words on different subjects taken from some of his books. This is the thinking that produced two world wars, created Hitler, created the thinking of Carl Marx, gave birth to Psychiatry, destroyed the American School System, produced the woman's lib movement, produced abortion on demand, made people their own gods, and took the moral law out of governments.



The following are all quotes from Nietzsche's books.



Philosophy



How I understand the philosopher -- as a terrible explosive, endangering everything...



Those who boast so mightily of the scientifically of their metaphysics should receive no answer;



Even today many educated people think that the victory of Christianity over Greek philosophy is a proof of the superior truth of the former - although in this case it was only the coarser and more violent that conquered the more spiritual and delicate. So far as superior truth is concerned, it is enough to observe that the awakening sciences have allied themselves point by point with the philosophy of Epicurus, but point by point rejected Christianity.



If all goes well, the time will come when one will take up the memorabilia of Socrates rather than the Bible as a guide to morals and reason... The pathways of the most various philosophical modes of life lead back to him... Socrates excels the founder of Christianity in being able to be serious cheerfully and in possessing that wisdom full of roguishness that constitutes the finest state of the human soul. And he also possessed the finer intellect.



When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?



Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.



A Jesus Christ was possible only in a Jewish landscape--I mean one over which the gloomy and sublime thunder cloud of the wrathful Yahweh was brooding continually.



All the world still believes in the authorship of the "Holy Spirit" or is at least still affected by this belief: when one opens the Bible one does so for "edification."...


Paul thought up the idea and Calvin rethought it, that for innumerable people damnation has been decreed from eternity, and that this beautiful world plan was instituted to reveal the glory of God: heaven and hell and humanity are thus supposed to exist - to satisfy the vanity of God! What cruel and insatiable vanity must have flared in the soul of the man who thought this up first, or second. Paul has remained Saul after all - the persecutor of God.



Christianity's Nature - If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit --



The Christian church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults and conceptions of the most diverse origin, and that is why it is so capable of proselytizing.



Christianity possesses the hunters instinct for all those who can by one means or another be brought to despair - of which only a portion of mankind is capable. It is constantly on their track, it lies in wait for them.



Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin.



In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.



But in the end one also has to understand that the needs that religion has satisfied and philosophy is now supposed to satisfy are not immutable; they can be weakened and exterminated. Consider, for example, that Christian distress of mind that comes from sighing over ones inner depravity and care for ones salvation - all concepts originating in nothing but errors of reason and deserving, not satisfaction, but obliteration.



Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it shall perish.



After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.



There are no facts, only interpretations.



Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.



Every word is a prejudice.



Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things.



Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.



It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.



Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience - just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins.



What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: Truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.


We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all



What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors.



The reasons for which 'this' world has been characterized as 'apparent' are the very reasons which indicate its reality; any other kind of reality is absolutely indemonstrable.



Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses... But when will we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to "naturalize" humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature? from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.109,



We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error.



Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith... include the following: that there are things, substances, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in itself.



How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic.



In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency--to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgment rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.



Cause and effect, such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it. The suddenness with which many effects stand out misleads us; actually, it is sudden only for us. In this moment of suddenness there are an infinite number of processes which elude us. An intellect that could see cause and effect as a continuum and a flux and not, as we do, in terms of an arbitrary division and dismemberment, would repudiate the concept of cause and effect and deny all conditionality.



To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality" -- what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason -- a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!"


Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?



Morality



Nevertheless. -- however credit and debit balances may stand: at its present state as a specific individual science the awakening of moral observation has become necessary, and mankind can no longer be spared the cruel sight of the moral dissecting table and its knives and forceps... the older philosophy... has, with paltry evasions, always avoided investigation of the origin and history of the moral sensations. With what consequences is now very clearly apparent, since it has been demonstrated in many instances how the errors of the greatest philosophers usually have their point of departure in a false explanation of certain human actions and sensations; ...a false ethics is erected, religion and mythological monsters are then in turn called to buttress it, and the shadow of these dismal spirits in the end falls even across physics and the entire perception of the world.



Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid.



Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men!



What is new, however, is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is depleted, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.



To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?



... hitherto we have been permitted to seek beauty only in the morally good - a fact which sufficiently accounts for our having found so little of it and having had to seek about for imaginary beauties without backbone! - As surely as the wicked enjoy a hundred kinds of happiness of which the virtuous have no inkling, so too they possess a hundred kinds of beauty; and many of them have not yet been discovered.



It is, indeed, a fact that, in the midst of society and sociability every evil inclination has to place itself under such great restraint, don so many masks, lay itself so often on the procrustean bed of virtue, that one could well speak of a martyrdom of the evil man. In solitude all this falls away. He who is evil is at his most evil in solitude: which is where he is at his best - and thus to the eye of him who sees everywhere only a spectacle also at his most beautiful.



Where the poor power of the eye can no longer see the evil impulse as such because it has become too subtle, man posits the realm of goodness; and the feeling that we have now entered the realm of goodness excites all those impulses which had been threatened and limited by the evil impulses, like the feeling of security, of comfort, of benevolence. Hence, the duller the eye, the more extensive the good. Hence the eternal cheerfulness of the common people and of children. Hence the gloominess and grief - akin to a bad conscience - of the great thinkers.



All philosophers have the common failing of starting out from man as he is now and thinking they can reach their goal through an analysis of him. They involuntarily think of 'man' as an aeterna veritas, as something that remains constant in the midst of all flux, as a sure measure of things. Everything the philosopher has declared about man is, however, at bottom no more than a testimony as to the man of a very limited period of time. Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers.



Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal?



Mighty waters draw much stone and rubble along with them; mighty spirits many stupid and bewildered heads.



You will never get the crowd to cry Hosanna until you ride into town on an ass.



The most senile thing ever thought about man is contained in the celebrated saying 'the ego is always hateful'; the most childish is the even more celebrated 'love thy neighbor as thyself'. -- In the former, knowledge of human nature has ceased, in the latter it has not yet even begun.



Out of damp and gloomy days, out of solitude, out of loveless words directed at us, conclusions grow up in us like fungus: one morning they are there, we know not how, and they gaze upon us, morose and gray. Woe to the thinker who is not the gardener but only the soil of the plants that grow in him!



It is not things, but opinions about things that have absolutely no existence, which have so deranged mankind!



Consider the following signs of those states of society which are necessary from time to time and which are designated with the word "corruption." As soon as corruption sets in anywhere superstition becomes rank. and the previous common faith of a people becomes pale and powerless against it. For superstition is second-order free spirit: those who surrender to it choose certain forms and formulas that they find congenial and permit themselves some freedom of choice.



Fourth, when "morals decay" those men emerge whom one calls tyrants: they are the precursors and as it were the precocious harbingers of individuals... In these ages bribery and treason reach their peak, for the love of the newly discovered ego is much more powerful now than the love of the old, used-up "fatherland"... Individuals--being truly in-and-for-themselves-- care, as is well known, more for the moment than do their opposites, the herd men... The times of corruption are those when the apples fall from the tree: I mean the individuals, for they carry the seeds of the future and are the authors of the spiritual colonization and origin of new states and communities. Corruption is merely a nasty word for the autumn of a people.



The greatest danger that always hovered over humanity and still hovers over it is the eruption of madness - which means the eruption of arbitrariness in feeling, seeing and hearing, the enjoyment of the mind's lack of discipline, the joy in human unreason. Not truth and certainty are the opposite of the world of the madman, but the universality and the universal binding force of a faith; in sum, the non-arbitrary character of judgments... Thus the virtuous intellects are needed - oh, let me use the most unambiguous word - what is needed is virtuous stupidity, stolid metronomes for the slow spirit, to make sure that the faithful of the great shared faith stay together and continue their dance... We others are the exception and the danger - and we need eternally to be opposed. - Well, there actually are things to be said in favor of the exception, provided that it never wants to become the rule.



Suppose nothing else were "given" as real except our world of desires and passions, and we could not get down, or up, to any other "reality" besides the reality of our drives--for thinking is merely a relation of these drives to each other: is it not permitted to make the experiment and to ask the question whether this "given" would not be sufficient for also understanding on the basis of this kind of thing the so-called mechanistic (or "material") world?...



In the end not only is it permitted to make this experiment; the conscience of method demands it. Not to assume several kinds of causality until the experiment of making do with a single one has been pushed to its utmost limit (to the point of nonsense, if I may say so)... The question is in the end whether we really recognize the will as efficient, whether we believe in the causality of the will: if we do--and at bottom our faith in this is nothing less than our faith in causality itself--then we have to make the experiment of positing causality of the will hypothetically as the only one. "Will," of course, can affect only "will"--and not "matter" (not "nerves," for example). In short, one has to risk the hypothesis whether will does not affect will wherever "effects" are recognized--and whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will.

Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will--namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it... then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as--will to power. The world viewed from inside... it would be "will to power" and nothing else.



In order to sustain the theory of a mechanistic world, therefore, we always have to stipulate to what extent we are employing two fictions: the concept of motion (taken from our sense language) and the concept of the atom (=unity, deriving from our psychical "experience"): the mechanistic theory presupposes a sense prejudice and a psychological prejudice...



The mechanistic world is imagined only as sight and touch imagine a world (as "moved") --so as to be calculable-- thus causal unities are invented, "things" (atoms) whose effect remains constant (--transference of the false concept of subject to the concept of the atom)...


If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power is not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos --the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge--



My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power.



[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life. Never yield to remorse, but at once tell yourself: remorse would simply mean adding to the first act of stupidity a second. from Nietzsche's The Wanderer and his Shadow,s. 323



My philosophy brings the triumphant idea of which all other modes of thought will ultimately perish. It is the great cultivating idea: the races that cannot bear it stand condemned; those who find it the greatest benefit are chosen to rule.



I want to teach the idea that gives many the right to erase themselves - the great cultivating idea..



Everything becomes and recurs eternally - escape is impossible! - Supposing we could judge value, what follows? The idea of recurrence as a selective principle, in the service of strength (and barbarism!!)...



To endure the idea of the recurrence one needs: freedom from morality; new means against the fact of pain ( pain conceived as a tool, as the father of pleasure...); the enjoyment of all kinds of uncertainty, experimentalism, as a counterweight to this extreme fatalism; abolition of the concept of necessity; abolition of the "will"; abolition of "knowledge-in-itself."



Greatest elevation of the consciousness of strength in man, as he creates the overman. from The Will to Power,



"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?


All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment...


Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.


Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth...


What is the greatest experience you can have? It is the hour of the great contempt. The hour when your happiness, too, arouses your disgust, and even your reason and your virtue.


The hour when you say, 'What matters my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness ought to justify existence itself.'


The hour when you say, 'What matters my reason? Does it crave knowledge as the lion his food? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'


The hour when you say, 'What matters my virtue? As yet it has not made me rage. How weary I am of my good and my evil! All that is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'



"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.


Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.


Democratic institutions are quarantine arrangements to combat that ancient pestilence, lust for tyranny: as such they are very useful and very boring



Marriages contracted from love (so-called love-matches) have error for their father and need for their mother.

We are Never to Condemn Anyone to Hell

Satan says: “Never Judge!”

By Richard Salbato

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own…" Matthew 7:1-3

This is the most quoted passage for people who believe we should all be nice and kind to all people’s opinions, beliefs, politics and life styles. Of course, Satan is a master of Scripture and used true Scripture to tempt Christ in the desert. This is because Satan likes to take things out of context to corrupt the meaning of it. When you take the entire bible in its simplicity, you will see what Christ really means in the passage above.

In Matthew 7 we see how we are not to judge. We are never to condemn anyone to Hell. Not even the Church ever pronounces anyone in Hell. We are also never to use a double-standard, judging one person by one set of standards and another, even ourselves, with different standards. This is hypocrisy. Taking the speck out of our brother’s eye is not condemned in itself. Hypocritical judgment is what Jesus condemns. We must judge ourselves in the same way we judge the actions of everyone.

The idea we are not to judge at all is a lie. We cannot judge a person’s state of soul or his motives, that is true. We are not to judge out of hypocrisy – a double standard. We are, however, to make proper judgments (borne out of love) to admonish a sinner in order to encourage him to repentance. That is the goal, to save the sinner’s soul, to lead him to repentance. How can we change what we do not judge.

We are to make judgments of behavior, attitudes, and ideas in order to protect our loved-ones and ourselves from danger. People who practice dangerous and sinful behaviors, or have dangerous attitudes and ideas, we are to avoid. We cannot avoid them until and unless a judgment has been made that such people are of the type the Bible tells us to avoid.

The idea we are not to judge is a doctrine of demons.

Satan would love us to avoid making judgments. If he can convince us of this, sin can abound without criticism, and we could continue in our sin without accountability. Then the philosophies of Satan can contaminate all of us with impunity unchecked and unchallenged.

St. Paul instructs us to judge:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead,… preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For a time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.—2 Timothy 4:2-4

Who are these teachers Saint Paul is referring to, who turn people away from truth? Today, we find them in the philosophies of Humanism and Modernism, and infiltrated into the Catholic Churches.

In the modern world starting with the French Revolution, which preached liberty from faith and morals, even marriage, Modernism has the demonic philosophy that all ideas have equal value and no one should be challenged for holding a view that is contrary to human logic and reasoning.

When between 1910 and 1920 the Catholic Monarchies fell to secularism, even the bishops and priests started to cave into this idea of freedom of conscience even from the teachings of the Church on faith and morals. The one most responsible for introducing this false philosophy into the Church was the Catholic theologian, Jacques Maritain. This was about the same time as the rise of secularism and the republics in Europe, around 1920.

Maritain’s “Integral Humanism” was so eminently acceptable to prelates anxious to appease Caesar that it could not fail to be accepted.

Maritain explains that integral humanism “...is a universal fraternity of men of good will belonging to different religions or none (including even those who reject the idea of the Creator). It is within this fraternity that the Church should exercise a leavening influence without imposing itself and without demanding that it be recognized as the one true Church. The cement of this fraternity is the virtue of doing good, and understanding grounded in respect for human dignity.’

This idea of universal fraternity was neither original nor new, because as stated above, it was already advanced by the philosophers of the Revolutionaries of 1789. It is also the fraternity beloved of freemasonry and even of the Marxists.

Maritain said:

“Within this “universal fraternity”, the Church must be neither intransigent nor authoritarian. She must know how to make religion acceptable. And so that the truths of faith and morality may be acceptable, Christianity must be practical rather than dogmatic.’

Pope Pius XI fought against this humanism, whereas Pope Paul VI was an admirer of Jacques Maritain. It is from this admiration and influence that Paul VI leaned over backwards to see things in the anti-Christian world’s perspective and unhesitatingly accepted the terms of reference upon which Jacobins, Freemasons, Marxists - the enemies of the Church – had hitherto been insisting. He maintained the faith of Peter but made no preeminent place for Peter’s faith over other opinions.

As a result, Vatican II held to the faith of Peter, but the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” corrupted truth and morals into just the opinion of each and every individual.

Never Condone Error

Error is never on the same level of dignity with Truth. But if we are not confronted in our error, how can we be motivated to move toward Truth? If we do not challenge error, we condone and tolerate it. What we condone and tolerate, we cannot change. We are especially to judge the teaching of teachers, publishers and leaders because if we don’t, then we allow sin and Satan to exploit the weak and ignorant and vulnerable with his lies.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (No 1868): "… we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: by (among several actions on our part) not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so."

In other words, we become a part of the sin that we cooperate with even in our silence. We cannot "disclose" a sin without first assessing (yet another word for judging) that the sin is in fact there in the first place.

Who am I to judge? Well, I know I judge correctly only if my judgment is the echo of the Church. In other matters, I must rely on an educated logical mind because some things are self evident, like the very existence of a God.

In matters of faith and morals, we must submit our opinion to the Church because Christ gave the Church the authority to guard His Truth. The Church is the "pillar and bulwark [foundation] of truth" as St. Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 3:15.

One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to "Admonish the sinner." How can we admonish the sinner, if we do not first judge it to be a sin? We are not judging the person, but we are judging his actions to be sinful – not his motives, but his actions.

Truth cannot be compromised—even if it makes enemies of our relatives. Some people will not accept the truth and will hate those who preach it. Truth demands judgment. If we see sin or error, we must call it for what it is.

Be Nice

If all is equal there can be no value distinctions, only different but equal assertions that have equal validity. Insisting that we all be nice to each other does this. This "niceness," of course, is a mask for obfuscating the truth.

The word, "nice", in this context means a civility that demands "agreeable" demeanor even at the compromise of truth. It is better to be agreeable than it is to tell the truth. And with this value of agreeableness, error goes unchallenged and truth obfuscated.

Jesus is seen as a 60’s flower-child type person who is a mild mannered milquetoast, gentle as a lamb, always agreeable and never harsh. This image of Jesus is a demonic lie. It is a delusion. It is a delusion because the Scriptural evidence does not support this image as the "exclusive" way in which Jesus conducted himself, yet despite the clear record of Scripture, people insist upon the milquetoast image.

Not So Nice Scripture

Jesus never compromised truth for niceness and cordiality: Matthew 3, 7, 10,12, and 23 use words like division, swine, cast off, brood of vipers, hypocrite, etc.

In addition, His apostles preaching His teaching instructs us to not associate with those calling themselves Christian but living a life of sin (1 Corinthians 5). Scripture also tells us to avoid certain people who pretend to be religion but who deny its power (2 Timothy 3), to shun heretics and divisive people (Titus 3), and even to hand unrepentant sinners over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5).

All these things require judgments to be made. When confronted with the situation that warrants it, the teachings of Jesus fly in the face of niceness. The teachings of Christ step on toes.

Christ calls us to truth, even when it hurts.

To know that we are to judge and how we are to judge, we must look to other passages. In Titus 3:9-11 we read: "perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned." We don’t condemn him, he condemns himself, but we do judge him to be divisive beyond tolerance because we tried to admonish him (judge his behavior and warn him of his sin) twice but he would not repent.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Do not associate with people calling themselves Christians who are "guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one."

Then Paul verse 12 "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."

St. Paul also tells us in 2 Timothy 3:1-9 that we are to avoid people who are "holding to a form of religion but denying the power of it" (e.g., liberals who strip our Church of its sacramental power). Others we are to avoid include those who are "Lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…". How do we avoid them if we do not judge their actions to be sinful.

And finally, St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 that some people must be excommunicated—completely removed from fellowship and handed over to Satan. Paul specifically says, "I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing… you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Objective and fundamental truths are either true or they are not; they cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. Thus we must rely not upon our own understanding, but upon God who understands all: “Do not rely on your own insight [understanding]. Be not wise in your own eye." —Proverbs 3:5-7 “[God]; he does not regard any who are wise in their own conceit.—Job 37:24; 38:1-5a, 17-18; 38:33; 39:26

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith —1 Timothy 6:20-21

St. Paul declares:

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. … But we will not boast beyond limit, but will keep to the limits God has apportioned us…" 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, 13a

St. Paul teaches us:

For there are many insubordinate men, empty talker and deceivers…they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach... therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.—Titus 1:13

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead,… preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For a time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.—2 Timothy 4:2-4 “

Catholic, Evangelical Voters Reject Barack Obama Over His Abortion-Infanticide Votes

Catholic, Evangelical Voters Reject Barack Obama Over His Abortion-Infanticide Votes

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- New polling data shows if Catholic voters knew Barack Obama voted against a measure to offer medical protection for unborn children they would be more likely to vote against him.

The same poll also showed Catholics who are active churchgoers are more likely to oppose abortion and support pro-life candidates.

The survey found that, if pro-life groups continue to drive home the point that Obama voted against a bill in the Illinois legislature to protect infants, they could make a dent in his support between now and the elections.

The poll, conducted by the National Scientific Survey Center asked both Catholic and Evangelical voters if a presidential candidate voted against a law to protect babies “born alive and unharmed” after an abortion, would they still support the candidate.

The survey found 62 percent of churchgoing (or active) Catholics would be less likely to vote for such a candidate and 53 percent of non-churchgoing (secular) Catholics would as well. Another 69 percent of Evangelicals said they would be less likely as well.

While both active and secular Catholics generally agreed on the infanticide votes Obama cast, they have starker differences on other abortion-related issue.

On those questions, the poll confirmed what other surveys have already shown -- that active Catholics and Evangelical voters are strongly pro-life and want to support pro-life candidates only.

Asked if they would vote for a presidential candidate with a different abortion view than their own, 48 percent of Evangelicals and 42 percent of active Catholics said no while only 33 percent of secular Catholics did.

Asked whether someone can be a faithful Catholic or Christian if they hold a pro-abortion position, just 39 percent of Evangelicals and 40 percent of active Catholics said yes while 50 percent of secular Catholics agreed