The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?

Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that's the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I'm simply pro-child. I don't believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason--when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I've heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I'm screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don't like them, don't listen. But don't attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this--you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don't have to face the gruesome reality of your "choice"). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They're all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn't work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don't and you aren't. When you are out of line with the Church because you don't understand something or don't know something, that's fine--as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will--yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don't get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm--life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968--in the wake of the advent of "The Pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution--Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical "Humanae Vitae".

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is "New Questions" Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, "Interpreting the Moral Law" Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd's Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on "Meet the Press":

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

To answer the simple question "When does life begin?" Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don't ask the Doctors of the Church to "make that definition." One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: "And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, " p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
-Pope John Paul II; "Evangelium Vitae," paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says "that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time." Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all--to do so would force her to change her position. And no "ardent, practicing Catholic" has ever been, or ever will be, "pro-choice" on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi's Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

"I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart," he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself," the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it's stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It's a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker's Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn't lax enough--they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, "freedom" to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don't understand the Church will not change her stance on these items--ever. No matter the currently in vogue "revolution", the Church will not change for expediency. She can't change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn't strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this--artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior--the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No--because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of "women's choice" espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:



I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for "women's rights".

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called "religious" as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it's because those who believe in this kind of "enlightenment" are truly dangerous--and yes, evil. This isn't about a woman's choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy--I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4646: It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Qatada that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up among them (his Companions) to deliver his sermon in which he told them that Jihad in the way of Allah and belief in Allah (with all His Attributes) are the most meritorious of acts. A man stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, do you think that if I am killed in the way of Allah, my sins will be blotted out from me? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, in case you are killed in the way of Allah and you were patient and sincere and you always fought facing the enemy, never turming your back upon him. Then he added: What have you said (now)? (Wishing to have further assurance from him for his satisfaction), he asked (again): Do you think if I am killed in the way of Allah, all my sins will be obliterated from me? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, it you were patient and sincere and always fought facing the enemy and never turning your back upon him, (all your lapses would be forgiven) except debt. Gabriel has told me this.
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

Jihad

I quote from Islam's canon of Sharia, adding links to the Qur'an citations. I also added links to the ahadith quoted so that you can verify them as well. Reliance of the Traveler is Islam's legal handbook, sanctioned by Al-Azhar. You can verify that at Wikipedia.

I have added emphasis & hyperlinks; I have not otherwise altered the quotes. The quotes you are about to read are Islamic law, based on Moe's recitation & sunnah. If there is any doubt in your mind, visit The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 - 386/996) A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh .

Do not blindly take my word for this. Click the links I have provided and verify what I have written. Reliance is one large text file, use the Ctrl F search function to locate the quotes.

---

What is Jihad? Is it 'holy war'? Is it an internal contest against ego & tempation? The root word is strive. In Hilali & Khan's tranlation of the Qur'an, you will find this expression frequently used: "strive hard and fight". Lets see how it is defined in Sharia.

The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad

Chapter O-9.0: Jihad
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.
``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:
1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387
• Abu Dawud 14.2635
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196
• Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0030 ...0033

and the hadith reported by Muslim,
``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 572

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

Al Misri overlooked 8:39, 9:29, 9:123 & 47:4 in that explanation. To those who would deny the clear and obvious meaning of the cited ayat, I answer with Ibn Kathir's scholarly exegeses, which includes the ayat and relevant hadith. The tafsir titles alone should be sufficient to clue you in. Click them and read the entire text, ignoring the Arabic, which is translated in the text.

• The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them
• The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group
• Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

What is the practical application of Al-Anfal 39, Al-Taubah 29 and the hadith which confirm them?

The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad

O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

O-9.9
The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y-21), 6.48-49) ).

How frequently does the Caliph attack Kuffar?

@O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"

and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

The Caliph makes war upon Kuffar because it is Allah's command expressed in 8:39 & 9:29. That is Islamic law because Allah commanded and Muhammad exemplified it. See the Tafsir topics including the word order from the list provided above.

• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites

If you doubt that Muhammad exemplified obedience to those commands, then turn to Riyad-us-Salaheen Book 11, Chapter 234 : Obligation of Jihad.



Underlined bold blue text in this post is hyperlinked to authentic translations of Islamic texts. Click those links and verify what I have written. The Koran and hadith links will give you direct access to the specific verses and indirect access to the entire Koran and four major hadith collections.

Jihad is not about talking down your woody, its about rape, pillage, plunder, terror & genocide. Islam is not peaceful, it is extremely violent, not by distortion or perversion, but by design. Now that you know you've been lied to by Muslims, Presidents, Prime Ministers, academics and the media, what are you going to do about it? Will you go back to sleep or will you share your new found knowledge with others less informed?

If you love truth, if you love freedom; if you want your children & grandchildren to live in peace, prosperity & freedom, then you will immediately copy this blog post, paste it into an email, and send it to all your associates, friends and relatives.

Ben 09/06/08

Sphere: Related Content

B*N*S*N1

IEDs ‘Largely Ineffective’ in Iraqi Province, U.S. Officer Says
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2008 – The enemy’s use of improvised explosive devices continues to decline in northern Iraq’s Salahuddin province, a senior U.S. officer posted there said today.Consequently, “the situation here continues to improve from a security standpoint,” Army Col. Scott McBride, commander of the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, told Pentagon reporters during a satellite-carried news conference.

McBride’s unit is based in Tikrit, northwest of Baghdad in Salahuddin province. The 4,000-member brigade is a component of Multinational Division North, and it has been in Iraq for about a year.

The enemy is still active in Salahuddin province, McBride said. However, he added, security indicators in the province are “significantly better” than they were at the first of the year.

For example, McBride said, the “amount and volume of improvised explosive devices continues to decline” in Salahuddin province....

This has to be great news for everybody! Find the rest of this B*N*S*N here.

Sphere: Related Content

B*N*S*N2

Iraqi army confident in ability to defend

Aug 15, 2008
BY Sgt. Rick Rzepka

An Iraqi Army soldier provides security as his platoon searches for weapons in the western desert of Bayji, Iraq. Photo by Sgt. Rick Rzepka

BAYJI, Iraq (Army News Service, Aug. 15, 2008) -- Iraqis taking care of Iraqis -- this is the shape of things to come here.

Garnering the trust and cooperation of the Iraqi people, Iraqi Army battalions near the oil-rich town of Bayji, have made the turn. No longer is the burgeoning Iraqi Army being coddled by their American counterparts. Rather, according to Military Transition Team Soldiers of the 1st Battlaion, 327th Infantry Regiment, Iraq's defenders are confident, determined and capable of securing its citizens.

As violence tapers off across the country, Iraq's security forces are increasingly taking responsibility for the security of the people. Seen as a critical component of success here, Iraq's Army has grown from a pocket-sized force in 2004, to a military monolith that has earned the trust of the people and the respect of its coalition partners....

Who'd a thunk it? Us, of course! But don't wait for the msm to print this. YOU can find the rest of this B*N*S*N story here.

Sphere: Related Content