Sunday, September 27, 2009

Where is comdenation of this sort of action from the Vatican, and the USCCB?

For The Crime Of Being A Catholic Priest...
Father Marek Gancarczyk, of the Archdiocese of Katowice, Poland

Here's most of the article from LifeSiteNews.com;


Polish Priest Fined for Comparing Abortion to Holocaust, Saying Abortion is "Killing"

KATOWICE, Poland, September 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a ruling that Church leaders are calling a serious infringement of freedom of speech, a Polish judge has accused the Archdiocese of Katowice and the priest-editor of their Catholic weekly newspaper of comparing a woman who sought an abortion to the Nazis, and has ordered them to publish a court-dictated apology.

Judge Ewa Solecka, further, fined the Gosc Niedzielny (Sunday Visitor) paper $11,000, objecting to comments from editor-in-chief Fr. Marek Gancarczyk that she deemed offensive, such as his statement that in seeking to get an abortion, the woman sought to 'kill' her child.

Ms. Tysiac, who suffers from an eye condition, has become something of a symbol for the Polish abortion rights movement, following her failed attempt to abort her third child after she became pregnant in 2000. Claiming that her condition would be exacerbated by the continuation of her pregnancy, she sought permission for an abortion.

In Tysiac's case, her doctors concluded that, while she was "significantly disabled," her condition was not serious enough to warrant the death of her unborn child. Thus she was not given permission for abortion, and the baby was born.

In 2005, Tysiac took the Polish government to the European Court. The court ruled in March 2007 that Poland's laws resulted in a 'wrongful birth', ordering the government to pay her 25,000 Euros in damages. The government appealed but the decision was upheld in September 2007.

Subsequently, Fr. Gancarczyk published an editorial condemning the court's decision. While he did draw the connection between the horrors committed by the Nazis and the horror of abortion, he nowhere compares Ms. Tysiac to the Nazis, but rather compares the judges who ruled against the Polish government to the Nazis, contrary to Judge Solecka's Wednesday determination.

"[The Nazis] got used to murders committed behind the camp fence," wrote Fr. Gancarczyk. "And what is it like today? Different, but equally scary."

"The European Tribunal of Justice in Strasbourg just rejected the appeal from the Polish government on the well-known by now case of Alicja Tysiac," he continued. "In consequence, Ms. Tysiac will receive 25,000 euro damages, plus the costs of proceedings, for not being able to kill her child."

"In other words, we are living in a world where a mother is granted an award for the fact that she very much wanted to kill her child, but was forbidden to do so," he said.

In the final paragraph, he applies actions to the judges that he had previously attributed to the Nazis. "And what about the judges, who issued this improbable verdict?" he asked. "They surely spend weekends in different picturesque destinations. They are laughing and relaxed. They got used to it."

Based on her reading of the editorial, the judge has ordered the Archdiocese and Fr. Gancarczyk to publish the following apology:

"The Katowice Archdiocese as the publisher, and Marek Gancarczyk as editor in chief of Gosc Niedzielny weekly apologize to Ms. Alicja Tysiac for unlawful comparison of Ms. Alicja Tysiac to Nazi criminals responsible for the Holocaust of Jews in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, as well as for the martyrdom of Jews in the ghettos.

"The Katowice Archdiocese as the publisher, as well as Marek Gancarczyk, as editor in chief of the Gosc Niedzielny weekly express their regret, that through the unlawful violation of personal interests of Ms. Alicja Tysiac and using hate speech, they caused pain and harm to Alicja Tysiac."

Calling Fr. Gancarczyk's comments "particularly contemptuous," she insisted that references to abortion as 'killing' must be made in a general way without applying it to individual persons.

She also determined it was untrue when Fr. Gancarczyk stated that Tysiac had been awarded damages because she had wanted an abortion and was forbidden to obtain it. "This claim is false," she said. "Presenting it in Gosc Niedzielny misled the readers and caused a false impression, which could lead to developing conclusions unfavorable to the plaintiff."

However, rather than making the court-mandated apology, which would require the priest to state a falsehood, the newspaper has asserted its intention to continue publishing the truth about abortion, and has indicated that they will appeal the ruling. In a statement following the verdict, Fr. Gancarczyk said, "We treat [this verdict] as an attempt to censure the public debate, which can be used by leftist circles as an encouragement to use the judiciary for the purpose of imposing their worldview on the rest of society."

Numerous Church leaders and public personalities have spoken out strongly against what they call an infringement of Catholics' freedom of speech. The Polish Conference of Bishops, expressing "solidarity" with the newspaper, called the verdict "an unacceptable limitation of the Church's mission," and "an attempt against freedom of speech and the right of the Church to moral judgement of human behavior."


posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Tradition, to be a mark of the Faithful

Modernist Rome has declared us schismatics because we hold a supposedly false notion of Tradition. I am going to show that it is the faithful of Tradition who have the true notion of Tradition and, consequently that it is those who declare us schismatics, the neo-modernists, who have a false evolutionary notion of Tradition, which they call "living tradition."

Tradition is essentially immutable, unchangeable: That however does not prevent it from being living —we will show in what manner —nor from undergoing a homogeneous development. To begin, let's look at the first point.


TRADITION IS ESSENTIALLY IMMUTABLE

Cardinal Billot, under Pope Pius XI, explained this in a work entitled: De Immutabilitate Traditionis Contra Modernam Haeresim Evolutionismi, Concerning the Immutability of Sacred Tradition (1929). This is no invention or opinion, it is the most classic doctrine of the Church: Tradition does not change. In fact, the word tradition comes from the Latin tradere which means to transmit. Tradition is the transmission without change of that which has been deposited. If in the course of the transmission there is a change, then in deed there is a breach of faith, there is a falsification of the deposit transmitted. We see this, for instance, if the transmission of popular tradition (i.e., folklore); but fidelity is so much more important in the transmission of the supernatural deposit of divine revelation, that is to say the treasure of truths revealed by the prophets, Our Lord Jesus Christ and ending with the Apostles. The revealed deposit is completed at the time of the death of the last Apostle

St. Pius X in the decree Lamentabili (1907) condemns the following:

Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles. (Proposition 21)

The proposition was condemned because it meant that there could have been other later revelations which could have been added to the revelation given to the Apostles. The Magisterium of the Church has solely the role of preserving and faithfully explaining this deposit of Revelation. This is what Vatican Council I says in the decree Pastor aeternus:

The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter that, under His revelation, they might make known a new doctrine, but in order that, with His assistance, they sacredly preserve and faithfully set forth the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the deposit of the faith.

Pope Pius IX had many years before condemned the error of progression in matters of doctrine held by those who said doctrine must evolve as human knowledge advances in his encyclical Qui pluribus (1846):

It is by as great a fraud...that these enemies of divine revelation, who bestow the highest praises on human progress, wish, with a truly reckless and sacrilegious audacity, to bring it [the progressive error] into the Catholic religion, as if religion was not the work of God, but that of men, or was some philosophic discovery that human methods could perfect.

Let us hold firmly to the essential immutability of the divine tradition. It is a deposit to faithfully transmit— and that’s that! Later we will explain in what way there is a certain progress, but this principle must be clearly established and firmly held; otherwise, we cannot continue.

TRADITION IS LIVING BECAUSE EACH ONE OF US LIVES IN IT

This essential immutability does not prevent Tradition from being living. The modernists speak of "living tradition." We also speak of the living tradition, but not in the same way, as we are going to see.

Here is what we understand by "living tradition":

That tradition is immutable does not prevent it from being living; that is to say that Catholics of yesterday, today and tomorrow live in it. Tradition is living because one lives in it.

We are going to see the life and development of divine tradition first as it concerns the individual; then as it manifests itself in the Church considered as a whole. It is very important to make a distinction between these two things.

Tradition is the revealed deposit. What is in the revelation? Essentially, the revelation is the intimate life of God which is communicated to us by grace and by the sacraments. The intimate life of God is God displaying himself in three divine Persons, and the entirety of this life is communicated to us by grace, the sacraments, and Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the essential core of the Christian revelation, the very terms of this deposit one must keep. Living tradition is the same as saying that one lives the life of God, that one is imbued with this divine life, that one lives it by the intellect, by the will, by faith, by hope, by charity and by all the virtues.

Now this Christian life-this life of tradition in our hearts, persons, and surroundings-is a participation in the immutable life of God. God does not change. The blessed in heaven contemplate the immutable God in eternity which fills them with an immense joy for all eternity. They are delighted to contemplate the same and unchanging God forever, the Source of an inconceivable and inexpressible life. This is their eternal rejoicing, and nevertheless they are fixed in the immutable. See then the error of the progressists, who wish that this would not be constant change…. No! — The spiritual life is the most unchangeable! Look at the saints in their contemplation. They are fixed on God and that is sufficient for them and nourishes their lives. I am not speaking of the ecstasies possible on earth with the body almost suspended. I am speaking of the soul who, while conducting his ordinary activities, is completely immersed and transformed in God, firm and unchangeable. We understand well that the more we live this Tradition, the more we will be fixed in the immutable who is God, and the further we will be removed from the evolution of perpetual change.

For the modem evolutionists on the contrary, life consists of perpetual change. It is very difficult for them to conceive that the highest life which already exists here on earth for the saints, for the contemplatives and those who devote themselves to prayer and meditation, consists of the contemplation of the unchangeable-and yet, thus it is!

But this life of tradition, this contemplation of the unchangeable, should nevertheless progress within each one of the faithful. There is a progression, a progressive deepening in the course of the spiritual life;

First, there is a development in the object of the faith. The faithful should not only learn more and more about the scope of all the revealed truths but also the consequences of the revealed truths in practical life, e.g., the consequences of the divinity of Jesus Christ for social and political life, etc….

There is also a development in the intensity of the faith, in the extent that we live this revealed truth more vigorously (ST Ia, IIae Q. 52). Great saints have a deeper faith because they adhere more steadfastly to God and His revelation.

There is also another development as regards the individual. This is the advancement in the power of faith when the Christian submits his entire life to the rule of the Faith. As Sacred Scripture says: "The just man lives by the faith" (Rom. 1:17).

Finally, in the individual, there is also a development in the fruits of the faith. A living faith is accompanied by charity and the entire retinue of the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, whose intrinsic law is to grow without ceasing, provided that the tendencies toward vice are fought. The Faith is then the root of the progress of each Catholic towards holiness.

It is undeniable that living tradition exists in each individual, provided that there has been authentic transmission, and that this tradition has been increased within the individual by the deepening and fruitfulness of the faith.


FALSE IDEAS OF DEVELOPMENT

This development of the Faith, of Christian virtues, of the life of Tradition does not apply to the Church taken in her totality. In effect, neither in the sources of the spiritual life nor in the case of the holiness of the most saintly among the Catholics, nor in the number of saints, can one establish a spiritual development.

Let us first consider the sources of this life of Tradition. These sources do not increase, do not change. The Church possesses from Her inception the seven sacraments. N o one can add an eighth sacrament, as the charismatics do with their laying on of hands. No one can suppress one or another of the sacraments as the modernists do, as for example in the case of Confirmation or of Penance. The sources of holiness are always the same. They are always as plentiful. One has only to drink at them.

Can there be an evolution in the model of holiness? —No, there is no development. The model of sanctity no longer evolves because "the form of all perfection" is Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it states in the ritual for the taking of the habit by religious sisters. Though saints may appear different, they are only variations on the same theme, ...different arrangements of the same flowers of the same bouquet, as St. Francis de Sales explains. Thus the code of the sanctity of the Church does not change, just as the code of morality does not change. This is of equal value for all times. To wish to establish a new religious life in the 20th century is an illusion. It is an error. Opus Dei, with that which could be its motto: "Work, Commitment, Influence" is the very example of this illusion.

Perhaps you could object: "But nevertheless, in the degree of sanctity there is a development in the Church. In the 20th century the saints are much more holy than before! There are some great saints in the 20th century!" ...Count them on the fingers of one hand! Martyrs have been canonized, it is true. St. Pius X was canonized, it is true, but that was before the Council. Padre Pio is just before the Council. After the Council does one find saints? Surely, there will always be some of them, but they are few indeed and I promise that they are not of the Conciliar Church! We are far from progress. In fact, there is a regression.

However, let us admit that an increase in sanctity in the Church lover time is not necessary. However, let us admit that an increase in sanctity in the Church over time is not necessary. God raises up the saints as He wishes, when He wishes, to lift the level of each century, but one does not observe that one century regularly produces more great saints than the preceding century .We do not have this imaginary progress in which the modernists believe. Let us then refute the ideas of this pseudo-progress.

In spite of everything, there is, in this immutable Tradition, an admirable capacity for application to all contingent circumstances. It is a matter of applying the eternal and unchanging principles to the problems and necessities of each century .The Council of Nicea is not the same as the Council of Florence, the Council of Florence is not the same as the Council of Trent, the Council of Trent is not the same as Vatican Council I. In each there is a different application, but the principles were always the same. Hence, we see here that there is a vitality to tradition in that it is capable of applying itself to each era.

Tradition is alive in that it applies itself above all to struggling against the errors of each era, against the dangers which threaten the souls of each century. It was of this that Pope Pius IX was speaking in Gravissimas Inter (1862):

The Church, because of her divine institution, must take the greatest care to keep intact and inviolate the deposit of the divine faith, keep unceasing watch over all her efforts for the salvation of souls and pay great attention to driving away and eliminating everything which can be opposed to the faith and can put in danger, in one way or another, the salvation of souls [His Excellency's emphasis added —Ed.].

Doctrine has this marvelous faculty of application! —to condemn, to eliminate, to reject everything which opposes the Faith and salvation of souls.


THE FALSE AGGIORNAMENTO OF VATICAN II

After Vatican Council II, the opposite was done. No one any longer wished to condemn anything and there was talk of adaptation, of aggiornamento. But this is a false adaptation! The proof of it was they did not wish to condemn the contemporary errors such as Communism. The 400 signatures gathered by Archbishop Lefebvre to condemn it remained in a desk drawer. They did not want to condemn the contemporary errors of Liberalism, of Modernism, etc…. They did not want to apply the revealed deposit to the danger which was currently threatening souls. This unrealistic claim of adaptation on the part of the modernists is nonsense!

Vatican II wanted to make an adaptation that was a mutation a priori, artificial, with a Protestant and modernist interpretation. Catholic application is not a mutation. It is simply the applying of unchangeable principles to contingent circumstances. The principles are living because they apply themselves! That is the important thing! It is precisely because the transmission is living, that is to say applied, that the Church constantly draws new propositions from her own and immutable treasure...new condemnations of heresies for example, or new dogmatic definitions. It is necessary at certain times to put the finger on certain errors, to add a certain dogmatic precision, as for example when the Council of Trent defined (against the Protestant errors) the Mass. That is applying the immutable principle to the needs of the era. That is what Vatican Council II did not do. It let the principles fall, under the pretext of adaptation, to the thinking of the modern world! Where there is a true adaptation, there is a battle in proportion to the errors to be battled and to the dangers which menace the eternal life of souls.

It remains to be shown how, in this matter of application in the course of time, tradition undergoes a homogeneous development.


THE HOMOGENEOUS DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA

This application, this necessity to respond to the needs of each era and protect souls against errors properly constitutes, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the divine force of a certain development of doctrine, e.g., new dogmatic definitions. But be on guard! This development is homogeneous. It is not a mutation but a homogeneous development. This is contrary to the view of the modernists who wish it to be an evolutionary development. The homogeneous progress of the Tradition of the Church is entirely a progress in

precision, and

explanation.

That is to say, that which had been universally believed in previous times is, in later years, isolated and embossed. It is like a rough diamond, having been mined from the quarry and not yet very pretty, taken to the gem cutter who is going to chisel it into a thousand surfaces in order that one can view it from all its angles with thousands of reflections. But it is the same diamond! There is simply a development in the particulars —all the colors of the rainbow are going to be refracted but there is no development in substance. A gem cutter who might want to re-chisel it afterwards would fail. This is development in precision.

There is also a development in explanation. There is a passing from the implicit to the explicit. That which one believed implicitly is going to be believed explicitly. For example, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope over all the bishops of the world. This has always been believed, but implicitly (otherwise the Church would not have survived). After Vatican Council I, this is now believed explicitly.

St. Thomas, while addressing the growth of the articles of Faith in the course of the Old Testament, sets forth a doctrine that can also, in a certain way, be applied to the New Testament:

…alone must say then that the articles of faith are never increased in their substantial content, as time goes by, because all that the later men have believed had been contained, although implicitly, in the faith of the Fathers who preceded them [thus, that which Isaiah said was contained in the faith of Moses, for example, was already in the faith of Abraham].


We must remember this very important doctrine of St. Thomas: in the Old Testament, the number of articles of the faith increased because the Holy Spirit disclosed more and more explicitly the revealed truths (ST IIa ,IIae, Q.1, A. 7).

After the New Testament {with the death of St. John) there is no more revelation. But there is the proposition by the Magisterium of the Church. In the Old Testament there had been an increase of the Revelation and thus of the articles of Faith. In the New Testament there is an increase in the proposition by the organs of Tradition, especially the Magisterium, and hence a passage from the implicit to the explicit. In the Old Testament it is God's Revelation itself which passes from the implicit to the explicit; in the New Testament, Revelation is ended, it is the proposition by the Church which passes from the implicit to the explicit. There is then a development, not in the articles of the Faith but in the explanation of the truths of the revealed deposit.

It is a homogeneous development. It is a development like a bud which blossoms...like a bud which opens up very beautifully, but remains the same bud. There is an unfolding, but without alteration; a displaying of all that which had been contained within from the outset. One calls this homogeneous because there is no mutation. It is the same living species, the same plant, it is a development without mutation, it is the same reality unfolding itself and making explicit all its details, but it is the same reality.


THE UNSURPASSABLE SUMMIT

Finally, this homogeneous development leads to a point which cannot be surpassed, which is, precisely, the defined truth. Once a truth is defined, for example, ex cathedra by a pope or in an ecumenical council, as was the Immaculate Conception (by Pope Pius IX) or the Assumption of the Most Holy Virgin (by Pope Pius XII), that truth, thus defined, constitutes an unsurpassable peak. One cannot improve upon it.

Catholic doctrine says that defined truths are irrevocable. They are no longer susceptible to development. They must always be believed in the same meaning in eodem sensu eademque semper sententia as the Anti-Modernist Oath puts it. They have been stated precisely with the assistance of the Holy Ghost. They are no longer subject to a subsequent development, even, I would say, in their formulation. The dogmatic formulas, the words employed, are no longer subject to improvement. Take for example the word transubstantiation used to express the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Mass… The word conversion is a very vague word in Latin. It means change and/or passage from one condition to another, but it does not suffice. One must state precisely that it is a transubstantiation: all the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, all the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Christ. And indeed it could never be better stated. One cannot imagine of a new formulation which could say it better, because this is the diamond finely crafted by the Holy Ghost. And all the subsequent heretics are going to try to find another word, for example Fr. Schillebeeckx, who invents the word transignification and falls into heresy. Time and again, in each newly defined dogma, the Church eventually attains an unsurpassable height. That is to say that the truths which have not yet been defined have not yet reached their unsurpassable summit, and, therefore, they can still have an homogeneous development.

It remains no less true that, in the aggregate, the doctrine of the faith grows and develops itself homogeneously. It is open to development by a further preciseness in the explanation of points which have not yet been defined.

DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE


This is the way we must understand what St. Vincent of Lerins said in his celebrated Commonitorium which affirms the immutability of Tradition and at the same time homogeneous development, too.

But perhaps someone will say "is there then within the Church no progress in religion?" Assuredly there is, and a very great progress, for who is there who would be so hardened against men and so hateful towards God that he would dare oppose such a progress? It is however in this manner; there is a progress, there is in truth an advancement in the faith, but not a change.

St. Vincent of Lerins (d. 445) remains very timely, replying to today's modernists that there is a development in the faith, but not a change, not a mutation: "There is a development when a thing in itself is enlarged; there is a change when something is changed into another thing" (RJ 2174).

This change is inadmissible for tradition, for the deposit of the faith. St. Vincent wrote:

...[u]nderstanding, knowledge and wisdom must increase and powerfully grow in one and in all, both in each individual man and in the Church, during the passage of time and of the ages, but grow solely within its own species, that is to say within the same dogma, in the same sense and in the same meaning. In eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia [This expression was lifted textually by Vatican Council I and for the Anti-Modernist Oath —Ed.].

Thus, St. Vincent of Lerins insists on continuity. There is a development he says, but a homogeneous development. There is no substantial change.

THE HOMOGENEOUS DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY

The liturgy has also experienced a homogeneous development. The so-called "Mass of St. Pius V" is the result of centuries of liturgical developments which have, little by little, sculptured the prayers of the Mass and the other liturgical prayers of the missal, to form that inestimable jewel that the holy Pope St. Pius V codified. The Canon, the essential part of this Mass, was already completed by the time of St. Gregory the Great (reigning 590- 604). There had previously been a whole development; and indeed afterwards prayers were added, by no means secondary, such as those of the Offertory. We don't in the least assert that the Mass of St. Pius V "descended from heaven," for that would not conform to reality. It was perfected during the 11th to the 14th century. But when St. Pius V codified it his bull Quo Primum (1570), it becomes an unsurpassable summit. It is the completed liturgical expression of the dogmas of the Mass (e.g., Real Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, true sacrifice which is one and the same as the Sacrifice of the Cross) and of the veneration which is due to that which is effected by the holy Mass. And St. Pius V codified this Ordo Missae precisely as the insurmountable barrier raised up against the Protestant heresy and all subsequent heresies.

One must affirm then that this Mass is an unsurpassable expression of faith and adoration, and, therefore, we must affirm that the fabrication by Pope Paul VI of a new Mass —by his experts, notably Archbishop Bugnini —by the reconstitution of ancient formulas which had fallen into disuse and which, in particular, had not been retained by St. Pius V, is something artificial. It is not a homogeneous development. It is a thing artificially constrained and not a time-honored and spontaneous advancement. They attempted an abrupt development, but this was erroneous.

This new Mass is no longer a precise manifestation of the Faith, rather it is a regression. The dogmas are less clearly manifested, the Real Presence is less affirmed, the propitiatory Sacrifice is toned down. One passes from the explicit to the implicit, from the clear to the ambiguous. It is the opposite of an homogeneous development which is an advancement in explanation. The New Mass is the opposite of true progress and that is why we do not accept it. That is the reason that we ask the faithful to not assist at the New Mass except for reasons of expediency. And if one assists at the New Mass, at such a time, it is in a passive way. One cannot assist actively at the New Mass because the Mass does not express the Faith and the respect due that which is taking place. This Mass "represents a striking departure from" the dogma on the Holy Mass, defined at the Council of Trent (Session 22), as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI (The Ottaviani Intervention, September 1969).

THE "LIVING TRADITION" OF THE NEO-MODERNISTS

What about the evolutionary concept of the so-called "living tradition" of the Conciliar Church. What do the modernists mean by this term? —They mean a non-homogeneous evolution, hence, a change. By the term "living tradition," the Conciliar Church does not mean an inviolate transmission of a deposit which one lives and which progresses in a homogeneous fashion through explanation. It is not that at all! What is it then? —It is an evolutive tradition! —evolutive via a twofold process:

The assimilation of elements foreign to the revealed deposit. (One is going to add exterior elements to the revealed deposit —extraneous elements.)

By regression from the explicit to the ambiguous, from the clear to the equivocal.

Regarding the second point, you have a clear illustration of this regression from the explicit to the ambiguous in the New Mass. Indeed the many mixed doctrinal declarations (catholico-protestant and/ or catholico-orthodox) of recent years produce some ambiguous texts where truth and error blend together under the sign of equivocation.

Let's talk about the first process of the evolution of tradition as understood by modernists, that is, the assimilation of extraneous elements into the revealed deposit. Vatican Council II, in a passage perhaps too little understood, makes a declaration of intention:

The Council intends above all to judge by this light [of the Faith] the values most highly esteemed by our contemporaries, and to link them again to their divine source. (Gaudium et Spes, #11 [emphasis added])

What are those values esteemed by our contemporaries? ...Roger Aubert, a priest-precursor of the council, will tell us that they are democracy and freedom. It is a case then of introducing them into the doctrine of the Church, by the re-linking of these values "to their divine source." The Council continues:

In fact, these values [of our contemporaries], to extent that they originate in human nature, which is a gift of God, are very good, but the corruption of the human heart often turns them from the requisite order, and that is why they need to be purified.

So, if one "purifies" these values of "liberty," of "democracy," of "the rights of man," etc, they are very good and can be assimilated into Catholic doctrine. This is to say that the new profane "dogmas" of the French Revolution —liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy, the rights of man, all that —must be assimilated by Catholic doctrine. One is going to find religious liberty, freedom of conscience, ideological pluralism in the State, and the free concurrence of ideologies (as proclaimed by Pope John Paul II when he spoke at Strasbourg to the European Parliament1 in letting it be understood that Communism is ultimately a chance for the Church, a competition between two rival ideologies, etc.).

This assimilation of dubious elements, completely foreign to revelation, is an alienating hodge-podge and thus an execration which profanes the deposit of the Faith and, moreover, has been condemned by the popes. Here is the authorized commentary on Gaudium et Spes (#11), that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger proposes:

The problem of the 1960s was to acquire the better of the values drawn from two centuries of "liberal" culture. There are in fact some values which, although born outside the Church, can find their place purified and corrected in its vision of the world. This is what has been done.2

Thus, under the pretext that Tradition and divine Revelation should be adaptable to the contemporary mentality, they want to introduce into Catholic doctrine these contemporary ideas, these false principles of the contemporary spirit, which is to say the liberal, revolutionary spirit.

Now that which Vatican II says in Gaudium et Spes (#11), one finds in the works of Cardinal Congar (deceased), and also in those of Roger Aubert, a specialist in Church history. Yves Congar and Roger Aubert were writing in that vein around 1950, 15 years before Gaudium et Spes. They are truly the precursors of the Council. Gaudium et Spes ( #11 ) is an implicit citation of Fr. Congar:

The progressivists of the 19th century [e.g., Fr. Felicite-Robert de Lamennais, the French liberal hero of the 19th century] too often took, just as they stood, ideas born in another and often hostile world, ideas still laden with a hostile spirit, and tried to introduce them into Christianity-thinking, that is, to "baptize" them Reconciling the Church with a positive modern world [which was ruled upon and condemned in its entirety by the Syllabus 1864] could not be done by introducing the ideas of the modern world into the Church just as they stood. That required a work in depth by which the permanent principles of Catholicism would take a new development by assimilating, after extracting and purifying as necessary , the valid contributions of that modern world.3

Note that this last sentence will be repeated exactly in Gaudium et Spes (#11)!... It is thus a development of doctrine by assimilation of liberal ideas; an assimilation absolutely inadmissible, absolutely impossible.

Secondly, it is an illusion to wish to "extract and purify" these ideas of the modern world. The popes have condemned them purely and simply. They did not seek to "purify" them. But Yves Congar is mightier than all those popes! ? ...than Pius VI, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X who have condemned these errors without appeal.

In 1951, Church historian Fr. Roger Aubert takes up the Congarian thesis of purification and assimilation:

The collaborators of I’Avenir [the newspaper of De Lamennais] had not taken sufficient care in rethinking the principles which were going to permit them, by means of the necessary discernments and purifications, to assimilate into Christianity the ideas of democracy and liberty, which, born outside of the Church, had developed in a spirit hostile to it.4

And so you see how modernists use, the tactic of copying one another in order to propagandize their false doctrine. Yet, despite this false credibility, the Church can never rectify and assimilate elements foreign to Her and condemned by Her.

But a disciple of Fr. Congar and of Roger Aubert, Fr. Bernard Sesboue, SJ, recycles the Congarian thesis and dresses it up as a critique, explicit this time, of the popes of the 19th century:

The drama of those pontifical declarations is that they had not discerned the element of Christian truth which lay hidden in demands that appeared at that time as attacks against religion and as a revolt against the rights of God. ...Thus the ideal which was signified by "the rights of man" was blocked off for a long time because men did not succeed in recognizing there the distant heritage of the Gospel.5

The popes did not lack discernment! They condemned those errors. Those errors were condemned and remain condemned. The popes have declared these pseudo-values incapable of being assimilated into Catholic doctrine.6 To claim that these popes had not known how to make the distinction, to assert that the condemnation of liberal "values" is therefore a mistake, is an act of impiety against these popes; it is an injustice; it is a lie. The popes have done their duty, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost. They have vigorously excluded any attempt at reconciliation between the Church and the principles of the Revolution. They have been genuine witnesses of Tradition, witnesses of a Tradition which lives because it combats.

THE FRUITS OF STERILITY AND OF DEATH

The faithful transmission of Tradition is the necessary condition of its spiritual fecundity, just as sterility, when such is the case, is an infallible sign of infidelity in the transmission of the deposit. It is an illustration of Our Lord's words on the false prophets:

By their fruits you will know them. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. (Mt. 7:17- 18)

Thanks be to God, there is good fruit amongst us. Therefore the tree is good and the Tradition authentic. It is fruitful in zeal for one's own conversion by the Spiritual Exercises; for the conversion of one's neighbour by the work of the apostolate. It bears the fruit of families with numerous children, where the flame of the Faith is passed on to a whole new generation. It is fruitful in priestly and religious vocations, etc….

On the contrary, we verify that wherever Tradition has been adulterated, there we find the fruits of sterility and of death. In general, the so-called Conciliar Church is languishing and dying of sterility. Parents no longer have children. Catholics no longer get married. There are no longer large families, thus no more vocations, and, as a result, seminaries are closing. Novitiate houses are empty, churches also, and they are being sold. It is the apostasy of the young generation. The young are completely lost. They abandon the Faith which has not been passed on to them. There has been a break in its transmission.

Let us remember this lesson. Tradition is alive as long as the deposit of the Faith is accurately transmitted. On the contrary, it dies of sterility where the transmission has been interrupted. Neo-modernism has killed Tradition because it has not transmitted it. It has falsified it; it has adulterated it, disarming it when faced with error in order to join it to the error. Archbishop Lefebvre had the great grace of simply passing on that which he had received, as was engraved on his tombstone at Econe, according to the words of St. Paul (I Cor. 11:23): Tradidi quod et accepi…. I have transmitted that which myself have received. But to transmit it faithfully, what a struggle he had to carry on! What intrepid resistance to all the pressures exerted on him to make him adopt the New Mass! —to prevent him from continuing the seminary and his work in 1975-76! What a heroic struggle in 1988 to resist the enticement of a booby-trapped consecration and to proceed with Operation Survival of Tradition, even against the wishes of the pope!

This is the fighting Tradition which assures, by its struggle, the necessary conditions of its integral transmission and of its vitality. It is especially the Holy Mass of all times, which needs neither permission nor indult to remain in force and to make the Christian life fruitful. It is the Mass which constitutes "tradition at its highest degree of power and solemnity," as our teacher Dom Guillon loved to say, following the lead of Dom Gueranger.7 By its permanence and its fruits in the midst of the "anti-liturgical heresy," 8 it is the traditional Roman Mass which sums up and focuses the essential struggle and the combative vitality of the authentic tradition of the Church. Pray then to God that He gives us the grace of fidelity to this Mass, and this Mass will assure us of receiving the genuine Tradition and of transmitting it faithfully to a whole new generation.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

TAKE HEED!

The Work Of The Devil Will Infiltrate Even Into The Church..." -
The Blessed Virgin Mary, Akita, Japan. 1973

Just thought you'd like to know what's going on behind the smoke and mirrors at the USCCB. Here's some of a rather illuminating article from The California Catholic Daily; (Emphasis mine)

Not Only ACORN
Catholic Campaign-Funded Groups Support Same-sex Marriage, Opposed Parental Notification

On July 1, 2009, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development published a list of their 2009-10 grant recipients. These grants were made after the new criteria were established. Two of the four grantees in the city of San Francisco are the “Chinese Progressive Association” and “Young Workers United.”

The Chinese Progressive Association is listed on the “API Equality” website as a “supporting organization.” API Equality is an organization of Asian and Pacific Islander proponents of same-sex “marriage”. The Chinese Progressive Association was also signatory to a No on Prop. 8 election flyer published in 2008 by Equality California. In 2009, the Chinese Progressive Association received a $30,000 grant from the Catholic Campaign.

While uncovering the disqualifying actions of the Chinese Progressive Association might have required a small amount of work, it is impossible to see how the application from Young Workers United made it through the levels of the Catholic Campaign scrutiny.

The Young Workers United published a voter guide to the November 2008 elections right on their website. It is online to this day. Under the recommendation for Proposition 4, (which would have required the parent or guardian of an underage girl to be notified before she undergoes an abortion) we read:


“Prop 4 - Parental Notification No! Back off! Prop 4 backers want to make access to safe abortions for teens nearly impossible. Physicians would be required to notify a minor’s parents or legal guardian of her intent to have an abortion and impose a 48-hour waiting period before she can have the procedure. Young women must continue to decide what’s best for them and not have to resort to dangerous, back-alley, illegal abortions.”

The recommendation on Proposition 8 was more succinct:


“Prop 8 - Limit on Marriage NO! Everyone should have the equal right to get married. Stop hatin’. Plain and simple."

Both Propositions 4 and 8 were supported by the California Catholic Bishops . In 2009, the Young Workers United received a $25,000 grant from the Catholic Campaign.


Someone help me out here.... why in the world would "Catholic" organizations, like the USCCB and The Catholic Campaign, give tens of thousands of dollars to other politically active groups that are diametrically opposed to some of our basic teachings? Please don't tell me that any of you actually believe this to be an administrative oversight.

Christ sent His mother to us with the above quoted warning for a reason. There really are wolves in sheep's clothing within the Catholic Church. Says who? Christ and His most Blessed Mother... that's who.



posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

HOW DARE YOU EXPOSE THE TRUTH HUMANA?

Congress Goes After Health Insurance Giant
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Neil Cavuto

Print Share This:
Where's Congress' outrage now?

Who's investigating Congress now?

Who's calling Congress on the carpet now? And who from Congress — anyone from Congress — is simply saying, "I'm sorry" now?

Not to us, but to a company. A company vilified for dare telling this Washington emperor: "We don't think you have any clothes on."

That company: Health insurance giant Humana, which had the audacity to warn its customers their benefits might be cut under health care reform.

Then all hell broke loose.

Congress all-but calling out the IRS on Humana. The White House all-but warning of legal action against Humana. For what turns out to be the truth: Benefits will be cut.

But don't expect Congress to cut Humana a break or offer a simple, "We're sorry."

Sorry, we called the dogs out.

Sorry, we had the nerve to try and score cheap publicity points off what turns out to be an accurate warning.

Sorry, we didn't know you were right.

Sorry, we didn't know our own congressional budget office confirmed you were right.

Sorry, we didn't know that our own numbers crunchers have concluded Medicare Advantage enrollees would indeed see their benefits cut.

Sorry, we didn't see the train wreck you apparently did see.

Sorry, we didn't warn taxpayers, like you warned your rate payers.

Sorry, we didn't have the foresight and you did.

Sorry, we were too busy scaring people about you that we didn't realize they were more scared about us.

And sorry, we don't have the time to say we're sorry.

Sorry, we're only digging in our heels more, and threatening you more. So sorry we're not sorry that our behavior toward you has been so, well, sorry.

After all, we're Congress. We don't have to say we're sorry. We just have to look it.
(In addition to this cut, the SS administration notified all recipients , that they will not be giving their normal Cost of Living increases for the next two years)
(I am going to vote each Liberal out of office,no matter what party they are for.)

Monday, September 21, 2009

Why practicing Catholics are confused!

A somber examination of Cardinal O'Malley of Boston.

By Frank Walker
Pewsitter.com



September 2009 - Now that Cardinal O’Malley has renounced the love and admiration of the faithful, he can freely pursue a more worldly respectability. I pray it does not happen, but it may be easier for him to make compromises going forward, and he’ll get even more pressure to do so. But looking at his record, O’Malley has generally been a faithful bishop. He hasn’t accumulated a list of gay accusers, preached heresy, or attacked the Pope. He has encouraged Catholics to vote against pro-choice politicians. He has even promoted the sacrament of penance. O’Malley has an easy humble likeable manner. He lobbied hard in the hopes that Pope Benedict could stop in Boston and he has handled the ponderous scandals and financial problems of that diocese with grace and skill. Why then this late fall? The Cardinal has become a striking example of one of the most insidious and pervasive problems in the Church today. He is a Catholic liberal.

Thanks to new media, the rise of new faithful religious, the new Catechism, shifting winds, and/or some other positive phenomena including the Grace of God, there is an emerging group of faithful Catholics in the U.S. But the overwhelming majority of baptized Catholics still do not really hold the Faith. Mainly through a cultivated ignorance and the heartless reach of the modern cultural machine, most Catholics are now functional heretics. We have an almost entirely protestant church within our own disabled structures. This group is often labeled Cafeteria or “liberal” Catholics. The faithful minority persists and has vitality, but within that remnant population a large part (particularly in leadership) are “Catholic liberals.” That is to say that unlike “liberal Catholics,” they hold and profess the Faith without heresy, yet they remain philosophically and politically liberal to a great extent. “Catholic liberals” stand on Catholic principle but they fall down in application and practice as Cardinal O’Malley demonstrated in recent weeks.

Liberalism as it exists today is immoral. This is because it is so generally false. While on the one hand is espouses such ideals as charity, mercy, justice, tolerance and peace; in reality it achieves none of these things. Senator Kennedy’s life was a perfect example of this. Lauded by other liberals as a champion of the poor and powerless, in fact he was a ruthless political player and a murderer. His idea of charity was to impose huge tax burdens on families then build government agencies on behalf of the poor. This is not charity or justice, as many Catholics will intone, but slavery and theft. If Kennedy truly were interested in the power of individuals, he would have promoted their democratic voice; but he showed contempt for the will of the people, hurling one false political accusation after another at his enemies and polluting the public mind with his lies.

A “Catholic liberal” is someone who may tell you that Faith is neither Liberal nor Conservative. This is true only to the extent that theological truth informs all others. Faith is higher than philosophy and of course above politics. But this does not mean, as virtually all people that say this imply, that there is much virtue in Liberalism and some big problems with Conservatism. Liberal ideals place little value on freedom or obedience to God, acting as if history should be re-played so that the Jews stayed in Egypt and the Commandments were left at Sinai. While many Catholic leaders ascribe unjust economic conditions to conservative hyper-capitalism, this is misleading. That kind of oppression grows from corporate-political alignments that build government and deny property rights. A free society is always less oppressive and property more widespread and abundant. Freedom is not a tenant of liberalism. although, license is.

“Right and Left” began when Christendom became moribund following the Protestant revolutions. Before the Church was pushed out of northern Europe and its role minimized in the remainder there was no right and left, only “right and wrong.” With the fall of Old Europe, a philosophical blindness ensued. The “Enlightenment” was not. Today civilization has been divided into two groups, neither of them spiritually guided by the Church. We can see applied Conservatism in the American Revolution and the British Empire, while Liberal principles are born out in the French Revolution, socialism, and fascism in our time. Though neither philosophical perspective reflects a complete Catholic mindset, Liberalism is the Church’s enemy.

Right and left today describe more than politics. They present two ways of seeing things. While Conservatism seeks wisdom by looking dimly back toward Western Christian civilization, Liberalism rejects that past in favor of a new utopian reality. If Conservatism is akin to a heretical form of Christianity, than liberalism is full apostasy. So then why do faithful Catholics choose liberalism if it is so morally weak and fruitless? Why do they see charity in stealing and mercy in oppression? Why do they lump the cause of convicted serial killers in with millions of innocent deaths? Why do they pretend Islam is not menacing despite centuries of Catholic history? Why do they recognize only heinous moral symptoms like abortion and gay marriage, and ignore the causes in pastoral and liturgical malpractice, enormous government and a tyrannical judicial class? Finally, why do they align themselves with the enemies of the Church and treat the faithful to scandal, scorn and contempt? The simple reason, grounded in Church teaching, lies in sinfulness or vice. Sin has a darkening effect on the reason and all people suffer from it. The blindness of a liberal world-view can be born of jealousy, anger, laziness, lust, greed. Among powerful individuals the destructive effects of pride are a timeless reality.

Cardinal O’Malley’s liberalism may have pride as its source. While urging Catholics to support pro-life politicians, he also promoted the “Faithful Citizenship” voter guide published by the USCCB. That bewildering document was slammed by exiting Bishop Joseph Martino and integral to the brilliant Obama Catholic strategy. While head of the Boston Archdiocese, O’Malley has touted amnesty for illegals and bigger social programs. Recently he was in Cuba with the Castro brothers agitating for an end to the embargo. He opposed the Iraq war and his views on capital punishment are boilerplate; citing the myth of deterrence, the cheapening of life’s value, and calling what is only justice a popular desire for vengeance. Like so many Catholic leaders, O’Malley is discouraged that there are few pro-life Democrats, as if the death culture need not accompany the progress of a mega-state. Advocating on behalf of dictators and vicious killers and lending credibility to the anti-Catholic establishment have been among the Cardinal’s pastoral goals.

Clearly one of the gentlest, most restrained, engaging and popular American Church leaders, O’Malley finally voiced where his contempt does fall when he rebuked the Catholics dismayed by the Kennedy funeral; an event that undermined every holy and good thing that the Cardinal’s life represents. After permitting a world-wide circus of scandal and contemptible moments in praise of Ted Kennedy and his agenda, O’Malley finally wielded the Bishops’ spiritual sword for something. Striking back at the “vindictive…angry” Catholics who reject “mercy, unity and the ability to change hearts,” the Cardinal took a hard line. What was the last straw? In decrying the funeral, faithful Catholics challenged the only thing Cardinal O’Malley will stand for when it counts, his liberalism.

ArchBishop Dolan speaks.

From Archbishop Dolan, 4 tips for fostering vocations
The newly-installed Archbishop of New York City, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, uses this Year for Priests to give us laity four distinct ways of promoting vocations:

The first, said Archbishop Dolan, is by emphasizing the vocation of marriage and family. Citing data from a Pew Research Center study, Archbishop Dolan stated that only about 50% of Catholic young people are approaching the sacrament of marriage.

“Taking care of the first crisis will take care of the second,” said Archbishop Dolan.“Vocations to the priesthood and religious life come from lifelong, life-giving faithful marriages.”

Secondly, Archbishop Dolan spoke of re-creating a culture of vocations.

“There were no good old days in the Church,” said Archbishop Dolan.“Every era in Church history has its horrors and difficulties.”

“We need to recapture the climate/tenor/tone/ambiance in the Church where a boy or man isn’t afraid to publicly say,‘I want to be a priest,’ and where his family, relatives, neighbors, parish, priest, sisters, teachers and even non-Catholics are robustly supportive.”

Thirdly, Archbishop Dolan said that the laity need to not be afraid to ask their priests to help them be holy.

“For a faithful Catholic, a priest is essential for growth in holiness because he gives us the sacraments, and without the sacraments we can’t be holy,” said Archbishop Dolan.“When you ask us to help you be holy, we realize that we must be holy, and you remind us that there is something unique in the Church that only a priest can do.”

Finally, Archbishop Dolan said that priests must be reminded that they are here to help the laity get to heaven.

“A priest is an icon of the beyond, the eternal, the transcendent,” said Archbishop Dolan.“Heaven gives us hope and meaning in life.”

posted by Thomas Peters at 9:00 AM

(If this is expected behavior of a Priest, What about a PASTOR?)

We are not alone!

Card. Cipriani again! Communion on the tongue, kneeling. “Our souls are at stake.”
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULA — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 11:22 am

Remember the story about Cardinal Cipriani in Lima, Peru?

Cardinal Cipriani wants

a communion plate or paten to be used
reception on the tongue
kneeling
Now comes this 20 September from a reader in Peru:



Dear Father Z,

This is wonderful news, and yet it is a logical consequence: Holy Communion at the Cathedral of Lima, PerĂº, now is distributed only to the faithful kneeling.

For that purpose, two kneelers were put before the steps of the high altar at the moment of Communion, just like the Pope does at his Masses. This can be seen in the attached picture.


And here is my translation of some important remarks the Cardinal made during his homily precisely about this:

"The most respectful way of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover a sense of respect and reverence due to the Eucharist, because the love to Jesus is the center of our christian lives. Our souls are at stake."

The whole piece from the Archdiocese of Lima:

At Sunday Mass on September 20, at the Cathedral Basilica of Lima, Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani exhorted the faithful to adore Holy Eucharist at the more than 70 adoration chapels that were build throughout the Archdiocese of Lima on occasion of the Year of the Eucharist and the Continental Mission, thus making PerĂº’s capital city a "Eucharistic city".

‘Lima is a Eucharistic city with more than 70 adoration chapels, where the Lord is exposed, where you can visit Him, because He hears you and helps you. We must adore Him and let your heart be filled with joy and the beauty of his wisdom’ the Cardinal mentioned during his homily.

The Archbishop explained that the most solemn and recommended way of receiving Communion is kneeling and on the tongue. In this sense, the faithful who participated at Mass at the Cathedral received Communion under these indications.

‘The most respectful way of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover a sense of respect and reverence due to the Eucharist, because the love to Jesus is the center of our christian lives. Our souls are at stake.’ he mentioned.
(As I have always felt, and Fr Mason taught)

Is it possible?

List:*41* Bishops against Obamacare (and counting!)
From time to time AmP has compiled (with the help of readers like you) summaries of statements by the American heirarchy on important current issues.

There is now a growing list of bishops across the United States who have preached or written about their prudential opposition to the current health care proposal in Congress.

I will update this post as time goes on....

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, PA
and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, NY
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO
Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, NY
Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA
Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND
Bishop Richard Pates of Des Moines, IA
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, KS
and Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO
Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, VA
Bishop Robert Guglielmone of Charleston, SC
Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH (PDF)
Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte, NC
and Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh, NC
Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI (PDF)
Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, SD (PDF)
Bishop Donald Trautman of Eire, PA (PDF)
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, PA
Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT
Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford, IL
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, NJ (part II here)
Bishop Anthony Taylor of Little Rock, AR
Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, WI
Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina, KS
Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, TX
and Bishop Oscar Cantu of San Antonio, TX
Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, NE
Bishop Alex Sample of Marquette, MI
Bishop Victor Galeone of St. Augustine, FL
Bishop David Choby of Nashville, TN
Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernardino, CA
Bishop Peter Sartain of Joliet, IL
Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, TX
Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, IL
Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Lousville, KY
Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas, TX
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of Baltimore, MD (PDF)
Bishop Joseph Galente of Camden, NJ
and Bishop John Smith of Trenton, NJ
Please send me tips at "thomas [at] americanpapist.com ". Thank you!

You may also consider respectfully asking your bishop to preach or write about health care if he has not already done so. This is an important issue and we ought to hear what our pastors have to say about it!

http://www.americanpapist.com/ampdemo/ampgear

Its time the USCCB start acting like Catholics

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Profiles in Personal Courage or....

Things that the USCCB should learn for $200 Alex

I think that it is high time that we all come to grips with the reality that the USCCB no longer serves the Holy Roman Catholic Church. There are far too many committees and such that allow most of our leadership to avoid personal responsibility and adherence to Mother Church.

Committees by nature are a cowards tool. Typically a committee is put together so that some idea, belief, or program can be pushed forward with anonymity. Every time I have been placed on a committee in my professional life we always knew the conclusion we were supposed to come to before we even discussed the topic. The USCCB is just one giant committee, allowing each cowardly member to support what they know is wrong, and provide the cover they need to say "look I am just one person what can I do." COWARDICE!

Vir Speluncae Catholicus is right, this is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. There is absolutely no way that any of these Bishops can support or keep quiet about what is going on in this country right now with health care, government ownership of private companies, making a grab for student loan market, and now the abandonment of Poland and other Eastern European nation states. This administration is clearly Communist, a form of government that is very hostile to the Catholic Church. Our leaders in the USCCB are so compromised from feeding at the trough of government, and very infiltrated by the communists themselves that they will not act as a group.

What is the solution? I am not certain, for one I would really like to see our Holy Father forcefully disband it. For all you nut jobs out there that say this would only make American Catholics abandon the Church I say, GOOD! Do so at your own peril. I hold out hope that many might see the right road if that happens. How many times do we have to be shown when the light shines the cockroaches flee! Just look what is happening to ACORN right now. All because two young people decided they were going to do something! Having a little personal courage.

Which brings up another embarrassing point, yes the USCCB has been involved with ACORN. Our donations to the Church have made it to this horrid organization. Have you heard any mea culpa's from any of those Catholic institutions? Nope. Any outrage over the willingness of ACORN to assist in the potential abuse of underage girls? Nope. Any dire warnings from Bishops around country that if anyone is caught having any connections with ACORN that it would be finito for that person regardless of the reason. Nope.

It takes personal courage to fight evil, and a whole lot of it. This personal courage cannot be garnered while hiding in a committee or a "Conference". I pray for the end of this organization and for the Holy Father to force these men to take up their mantle independently so we can all see who and what they are then offer our support to those that fight for Mother Church, and then give the rest a swift kick in the butt to get their courage together and fight with us!

posted by Simplex Vir

Attention Bishops

Dear Bishops
Focus... focus

Here a sure fire way for you to ensure you're doing you job:

Rule 1 - If your sole purpose in life isn't the salvation of souls, you aren't doing your job.

Rule 2 - There is no Rule 2.
Not politics, not money, not maintaing the status quo. Salvation of souls. Period.

posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

And that goes for Pastors also!

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Wake up Catholics

Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Bonus Joe Wilson Edition
by Ann Coulter
09/16/2009


I'm trying to get to the next installment of my Pulitzer Prize-deserving series on liberal lies about national health care, but apparently liberals have decided to torture us by neurotically fixating on one lie.

After President Barack Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congress last week passionately defending his national health care plan, the Democrats were agog at the brilliance of the speech. Nancy Pelosi was so thrilled, her expression almost changed.

But as Obama ticked off one demonstrably false claim after another -- eliciting 37 standing ovations from the Democrats in the audience -- America's greatest living statesman, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., yelled out, "You lie!" in response to Obama's claim that the bill will not cover illegal aliens.


There are a number of theories about why America's greatest living statesman shouted "You lie!" at that juncture, but mine is that Wilson said it because Obama told a big, fat stinking lie.

Every single American knows it's a lie. But liberals take pleasure in repeating it -- and then condescendingly accusing anyone who doesn't accept their lie of being a toothless, illiterate racist.

Our politicians, media and courts have done everything they can to encourage illegal immigration, including obstinately refusing to enforce the border. While illegals streaming across the border generally aren't prosecuted, U.S. border patrol agents who naively try to guard the border often are.

Wise (and pregnant) Latinas dash across the border just in time to give birth at American hospitals -- medical services paid for by U.S. taxpayers -- gaining instant citizenship for their children, thereby entitling them to the entire Chinese menu of American welfare programs.

In 2004, 42.6 percent of all babies born at taxpayer expense in California were born to illegal aliens, according to a state report on Medi-Cal-funded deliveries. In hospitals close to the Mexican border, the figure is closer to 80 percent. Remember: This is before health care becomes "free" to every U.S. resident.

Hospitals across the country are going bankrupt because the federal government forces them to provide free services to illegals. This situation appears to have angered some segment of the population, in particular, American citizens who pay taxes to support the hospitals, but then are forced to spend hours writhing in pain in hospital waiting rooms.

With Americans in a boiling cauldron of rage about the government's impotent response to the tsunami of illegal immigrants, last year, both political parties ran candidates for president who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants.

And now Democrats have the audacity to tell us to our faces that national health care won't cover illegals. Not only that, but they tell us we must not be able to read if we think it does.

The crystalline example of this sneering liberal pomposity came from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday night:

"Reading the House health care bill would show you that (the bill does not cover illegal aliens). But you know, sometimes reading is hard. Fortunately, in the case of the health reform bill, there is a way to get all of the information that's in it without any of that pesky reading.

"It's called HearTheBill.org. Volunteer voiceover actors have donated their time to read all 1,017 pages of the house health care reform bill, HR-3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

"So if you don't want to tire out your eyes, you could just listen to the thing that disproves (Rep. Wilson)."

Maddow then played an audio clip of Section 246 from the bill. This section, which liberals keep brandishing like a DNA-stained dress, states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded "affordability credits" to people who can't afford to pay for their own health care.

Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care -- including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.

Moreover, liberals won't have to wait for some court to find that the words "nothing in this subtitle shall allow" means "this bill allows," because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health care vouchers aren't going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.

Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions -- just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health care bill covers illegal aliens.

It's as if we have a relative who shows up at every holiday gathering, gets bombed and totals the family car. At the 18th Christmas celebration, he's not only demanding a drink, but also calling us liars for saying he's already totaled 17 family cars. Gimme a gin and tonic and the car keys, you lying racist!

I think that's why America's greatest living statesman erupted with rage when Obama retailed this particular lie during his speech on health care.

It's bad enough to be lied to, but to be lied to by people who accuse us of not being able to read when the problem is that we can read -- and also can remember what happened at the last 17 family Christmases -- is more than even Mother Teresa could bear without a quick heckle.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

catholic news


Saturday, September 19, 2009
Even Msgr Lisante will agree, Abortion is Murder

Congressman shouts "you lie" during Obama's speech. Was he right?

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) issued an apology after his outburst, "you lie," toward President Obama during his health care speech to Congress on Wednesday. "I let my emotions get the best of me," Wilson said in a statement. "I extend sincere apologies to the president." We commend Wilson for his quick humility. But questions remain:

Did Obama tell lies during the speech? Was Wilson right after all? And why doesn't Obama apologize just as quickly for calling conservatives liars? In their fact-checking, the press confirmed FIVE WHOPPERS told by the President himself:

OBAMA LIE #1: "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

THE TRUTH: The Capps Amendment to HR 3200 has a Section 4B that reads: "Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. -- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted." The Washington Times reported: "You can't get more explicit than that." And FactCheck.org exposed Obama's lie too: "Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans." So President Obama lied, plain and simple.

OBAMA LIE #2: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

THE TRUTH: The Democrat controlled Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years, but will not succeed at shrinking the overall costs of our nation's health care. Republicans claim it's more like $600 billion increased deficit spending. (Confirmed by Associated Press, 9 Sep 09.) Either way, Obama lied.

OBAMA LIE #3: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut...That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."

THE TRUTH: The Washington Post reports Obama proposes "to squeeze more than $500 billion out of the growth of Medicare over the next decade....[which has] fueled fears that his effort to expand coverage to millions of younger, uninsured Americans will damage elder care. As a result, barely one-third of seniors support a health-care overhaul, several polls found." (Washington Post, 9 Aug 09) Even the Post admits, Obama lied.


OBAMA LIE #4: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage."

THE TRUTH: Whether working or not, rich or poor, you will be ordered to get mandatory government-run health-care coverage, or pay a fine a $3800 fine per family, under the new Senate plan being railroaded through the finance committee by Max Baucus (D-MT). (New York Times, 9 Sep 09). Obama pretends you're "able" to get coverage, when he knows it's mandatory (with a big tax increase or "fine" penalty). Obama lied. But the biggest of all...

OBAMA LIE #5: "The claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."

THE TRUTH: Mandatory "end of life" counseling in HR 3200 "shall" include counseling every 5 years to the elderly, giving doctors a monetary incentive to persuade you to sign a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order to pull the plug on Grandma, just like the Obama administration already pressures all Veterans to sign them. (Confirmed by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, read extensive details at PrayInJesusName.org.) And under the British NHS government-run health plan, "Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned." (The Daily Telegraph, 2 Sep 09). Dr. Ewing Cook just admitted intentionally killing patients who signed DNR authorizations during Hurricane Katrina. "I gave her medicine so I could get rid of her faster…there’s no question I hastened her demise." Bottom line: Grandma, don't sign Obama's DNR order, even if your doctor gets a bonus check from the President for talking you into that.

Obama lied at least five times during his speech. Congressman Wilson was right after all.

ABC NEWS VIDEO: John Stossel destroys Obamacare by explaining Socialism.



Be sure to watch the last minute of this short video...click here to watch video....it would be hilarious if it weren't so sadly true. This video is going viral, watched 300,000 times in just over one month. Forward this video to your friends!

OBAMA ACCUSES HIMSELF AND FELLOW DEMOCRATS OF LYING

Last month Obama held a conference call with reportedly 140,000 members of the "religious left" and accused himself of lying, saying that anybody who claims his health care plan funds abortion violates Exodus 20:16, "thou shalt not bear false witness." But Obama knows his fellow Democrats supported the Capps Amendment to HR 3200 funding abortions through an accounting-scheme, and defeated pro-life amendments prohibiting abortion funding. On July 17, 2007, Obama himself told Planned Parenthood, "in my mind, reproductive care [abortion] is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. [My] plan…will provide…reproductive services [abortion]." It now appears Obama is calling himself a liar, since he personally believes his own plan must contain funding for abortion.

The Capps Amendment has a Section 4B that reads: "Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. -- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted..." As the Washington Times analysis says, "You can't get more explicit than that." But Obama calls a liar anybody who reads the bill aloud, verbatim.

Obama further accused as "bearing false witness" anyone who claims his plan will result in "death panels" that ration care to the young at the expense of the elderly. That must first include his own Democrat White House Health Policy Advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel.

In an article entitled "Deadly Doctors," The New York Post just confirmed from Democrat Emanuel's own writings, the White House plan prefers "communitarianism" which should guide decisions on who gets care. Emanuel says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (JAMA, Feb. 27, 2008). NY Post's translation: "Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy." Grandma's memory slipping? Obama's Death Panel convenes to de-fund her care. Emanuel said so, read his quote again, confirming Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich were right after all.

Emanuel explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31). EXCUSE ME? Obamacare funds 25 year olds, but excludes 65 year olds? RATIONING, DEATH PANELS, SMOKING GUN. Don't accuse conservatives of bearing false witness, Mr. Obama, until you first accuse your own Health Policy Advisor.

This quote is direct proof that Obama's COMMUNITARIANISM (like Socialism only bigger, on steroids, like Communism), favors treating the young at the expense of the old.


1) More Proof EUTHANASIA is pushed by Obama's socialist government "health" care.

President Obama had been confronted by a North Carolina woman asking if "everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die." In response Obama joked morbidly about euthanasia, that he hadn't yet hired enough bureaucrats to conduct such an operation, yet he could not deny the New York Post's discovery the House bill "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care" (pages 425-430). In other words, your grandmother will be told, when insufficient resources are rationed to young people, that her duty to die begins with mandatory "end-of-life counseling," or as Obama explained, "encourage the use of living wills" that terminate otherwise salvageable lives prematurely through signed "do not resuscitate" (DNR) legal releases that authorize "pulling the plug" on Grandma.

The White House made a quick video to refute claims of euthanasia in the health care bill, but interestingly they deleted Obama's quote about living wills, and AARP sent emails claiming rumors about euthanasia in the bill were generated by conspiracy theorists. But then a respected bioethicist wrote a scathing editorial in the Washington Post, confirming that euthanasia is initiated by the government in the bill. Lane writes:

"Consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary.' To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist. Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there."

Lane agrees the legislation mandates the doctor 'shall' discuss living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses: "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach" says the Washington Post.


Bankrupt state can't afford to pay for grandma's hip replacement? Obama's plan turns her doctor into a lawyer, paid by Uncle Sam to persuade her to sign a DNR, explaining her hastened duty to die, and obtaining her signature legally absolving him of all guilt. Lane says he personally has a living will, but doctors shouldn't be paid extra by the government to push them on seniors. Euthanasia begins when socialism replaces capitalism.

AARP LYING TO SENIORS TO PROFIT FROM OBAMACARE?

The seniors advocacy group AARP defended Obamacare, stating in emails to seniors: "FACT #3: There is no provision of any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any kind. The rumors out there are flat out lies...It is not mandatory and it has nothing to do with euthanasia." But since the House bill includes the legal term "shall," the Dean of Liberty University School of Law Mat Staver disagrees. "I just went back and re-read the bill. The end-of-life counseling is mandatory and there is a 5 year requirement that it must occur every 5 years. The bill is on our website and people can read it for themselves. It is not new that AARP favors killing their own members. They...do not have the best interests of their members in mind."

Attorney Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel had stronger words. "AARP is lying. See pages 424, 425 and 426 of HR 3200. The government 'consultation' that seniors 'shall' get if they have 'not had such a consultation within the last 5 years' is clearly designed to encourage them to get out of the way and to just go ahead and die already."

Widely respected Minister Rick Joyner wrote, after reviewing Mat Staver's detailed analysis of H.R. 3200 "Health" care bill, voicing his strong opinion that this bill "is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed—it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke."



2) Tax-payer funded ABORTION on demand is another guaranteed result.

Last week several so-called "pro-life Democrats" executed a bait and switch that will fully fund abortion on demand in the new Obamacare "health" bill. Led by compromiser and ex-pro-life Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), who was recently booted as an advisor to Democrats for Life of America for his lack of principle, the liberal House Democrats overruled conservative Republicans 30-28 to pass the hideous "Capps Amendment" to H.R.3200 in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This amendment now deceptively creates a phony accounting scheme that gives the false impression your tax-payer dollars will not subsidize abortion, while it simultaneously nationalizes free abortions for low-income urban neighborhoods, fulfilling the dream of Margaret Sanger (and her protege Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that African American babies will be the first exterminated in the government funded ovens that weed out "Populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) explained the Capps Amendment: "It's one of the most deceptive amendments I have ever seen. The bottom line is that money is fungible, and the plan itself will be subsidizing abortion-on-demand, with taxpayer funding commingled, and the numbers of abortions will go up significantly."



3) Obama will REMOVE Christian prayers and symbols from Government-run hospitals

The hostile socialist government takeover of Catholic or Christian hospitals will eventually result in atheistic silencing of religious expression (and removing all Christian symbols) from the very place where faith in God is critical to sick and dying patients. For example, look at the Veterans Hospitals, already government-run, who are busy removing crosses and Christian symbols from their chapels (like in Iowa), because easily-offended atheist complainers have successfully intimidated hospital administrators with threats of lawsuit, by demanding separation of church and state. Just imagine more atheist lawsuits, when all Catholic and Christian hospitals are seized in the same way Obama took control of General Motors, inviting easily-offended atheist complainers to demand we change the name of the hospital from "St. Luke's Memorial" to the "Obama Government" hospital, falsely claiming tax-dollars cannot subsidize religion. But if St. Luke's refuses government subsidies, they will be drummed out of business, and Christian doctors' licenses revoked.

Can a government-run hospital still allow Christian chapels, or pay Christian chaplains, or permit Christian doctors to pray Christian prayers with their willing patients, or even allow Christian parents to control the health care options forced upon their dying children? Just ask Florida Hospital Chaplain Danny Harvey, fired last year from Leesburg Regional Medical Center because he prayed "in Jesus name" at a public memorial service. Ask Christian Pharmacists who Washington has already forced to dispense "Plan-B" abortion pills against their conscience, or doctors denied a "conscience clause" to opt out of abortions when Obama refused to renew Bush's pro-life executive orders. Ask Nurse Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo, who recently was forced to participate in a second-trimester abortion against her will, and is now suing Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan for "blatantly" violating her rights under a 35 year old federal law that protects health care workers with religious objections from being forced to assist in murderous abortions. Ask Pentecostal Ministers Dale and Leilani Neumann, who were charged with second-degree murder of their 11-year-old daughter, because they refused to trust the power of a government hospital to heal their little girl who tragically died with diabetes. Can you say mandatory godlessness in "health" care? If government has power to dictate your health care options, they also have power to seize your children when you refuse. Think about it. Will you dare refuse the H1N1 vaccine when ordered to poison your children? No religious exemptions for doctors, patients, or parents are readily apparent in the current Obamacare bill. So take action with me...

So let me summarize Obama's health care plan: 1) Euthanize grandma and veterans, 2) Mandate funding murder of innocent children, then lie about it in denial, 3) Empower atheist litigants to outlaw the healing power of the Christian faith, 4) Lie about it to Congress and the American people five times on national television.


We all gasped when the federal government seized control of General Motors, and Obama effectively fired the Chairman and replaced the board with government bureaucrats selected by Treasury Secretary Geithner. Now Obama and his liberal Democratic House allies want to replace your doctors with bureaucrats, hasten grandma's demise, abort and kill children in urban neighborhoods, cut doctors' pay and control their religion, and transform Christian hospitals into government-controlled atheist bureaucracies. Does any of this remind you of Communism?
Posted by itzik janowitz at 7:03 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Look behind Obama's words, and find the truth.

The most heavily-promoted speech of Obama’s career since the State of the Union last week again soured millions of Americans of his brand of “health reform.” What you saw was a multitude of flowery rhetoric and platitudes, trying to put a smile on the ugly face that is health care reform. Obama wanted the American people to believe that the prescription he’s selling is on the American people can and should readily swallow.
Think again, Mr. President.
American Future Fund Political Action has heard from you. Like you, this organization remains resolved in our fight against government-run health care, which would ration ongoing and urgent care, swallow up 20 percent of this nation’s economy and leave every single citizen in this country awash in debt.
And with so many not paying taxes, how will this get paid off? With the high-income earners having their hard-earned wages garnished each day to pay for these out-of-control costs that the liberal leaders in Congress and Senate…who will be left to create the jobs?
It’s more than about health care. It’s about our way of life.

What liberals either don’t understand, or worse yet – don’t want YOU to understand is, there is not a magical pot of money that just churns out the trillions of dollars we need to “fix” every “problem” in this country. They do not understand that it’s small business owners, job creators and entrepreneurs who are putting food on the table for hundreds of millions of us. They provide health care for employees. They set us up with retirement packages so that we can grow old gracefully.
Yet liberals put roadblock after roadblock after roadblock in place to shut…them…down. Then, what’s worse, is they swoop in, claiming to have the magic solution for all of life’s problems – paid for at YOUR expense.
What’s worse is, the media is still in the tank for Obama. A CNN poll released right after his speech showed a “14% gain” in popularity for the president’s socialist health care plan. What they didn’t tell you is, nearly half of those polled WERE DEMOCRATS and only 18% were REPUBLICANS!
It’s got to stop.

You may ask, “I see us sliding down the slope toward imperialism and socialism, but what can I do?”
The key is this – We MUST educate the American people, or they will continue to buy into the liberal lies. The American people are smart enough to know that it takes hard work to get ahead. They are smart enough to know that when government takes your money in the form of taxes, there is that much less to invest in capital, new jobs, construction and our families.
But if liberals are constantly telling them otherwise – that government is the end-all, be-all answer to all of their problems, how will they get our point of view?
AFF Political Action will continue to educate the American public. The tea parties and town halls were no fluke – those also took work and did not magically appear. We can and must continue our efforts.

Forward this email to a friend:
Posted by itzik janowitz at 6:43 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama's speech, as examined by Newt Gingrich

September 9, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 36

Grading the Big Speech:
A 10-Point Citizens' Checklist on Health Reform
by Newt Gingrich


President Obama has had a month to listen to the American people.

For a month, angry Americans have gone to town hall meetings in large numbers to oppose more spending, more government, and more Washington centered bureaucracy.

For a month, the polls have gotten worse and worse for big spending, big deficit, high taxes, and big government.

But on Labor Day, President Obama gave us a sign he hasn't been listening. He gave a campaign-style speech in which he accused his critics of spreading "lies" and failing to offer their own solutions for health care reform.

Tonight President Obama has another opportunity to show us if he's willing to listen to us, or to his party's leftwing.

Below is a ten-point checklist you can use to judge for yourself.

Facing a Far Left Revolt, the President Has a Choice to Make

In his speech to Congress this evening, President Obama has a choice to make.


The Radical Left Will Not Stop Until They Succeed in Socializing Medicine.


He has to choose between listening to what the American people are telling him, and what the Left is telling him.

A recent Gallup poll revealed that only 13% of the American people want permanently expanded government.

In sharp contrast, the liberal base of the President's party views government run health care as nonnegotiable.

The Left is already threatening primary opposition to President Obama if he doesn't stick with them and seek to impose radical change on the American people.

As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said last week "If it's necessary to find somebody else to run against him, I think liberals would do it, no matter how destructive that may seem".

Despite the intransigence on the Left, bipartisan health reform supported by a huge majority of Americans is still possible.

The question is whether the President can reach out to the majority of us.

So to understand the President's speech tonight – his most important speech since his Inaugural address – do these three things:

Forget the details

Forget the rhetoric.

And ask yourself this:

Is this a speech designed to bring together Americans to pass bipartisan health reform?

Or is this a speech designed to appease the Left?

Here's a ten-point checklist to help you decide for yourself. Print it out and use it to judge the President's speech tonight.

In his proposals for reform, does the President include litigation reform, which 84% of Americans believe will help reduce costs and which is the number one goal of doctors in any health reform?

Does he include a section onsaving money by stopping payments to crooks who are bilking the taxpayers for $70-120 billion each year in Medicare and Medicaid fraud? For 88 percent of Americans, this is the first place they would look to find savings in our health care system. Is President Obama willing to look there?

Does his speech reject higher taxes, which the vast majority of Americans believe will make the current economy even worse and increase unemployment even more?

Does it reject all government rationing of health services which the American people have vocally opposed at town hall meetings across the country?

Does it reject any government run, bureaucratic health plan?

Is President Obama open to four or five bipartisan bills which could pass with big bipartisan majorities? Or does he insist on a single omnibus bill of 1000-plus pages like the one that failed when Mrs. Clinton tried to pass it in 1993-1994?

Is he for sustaining the Senate rule of 60 votes to ensure a bill that has wide, bipartisan support? Or is he prepared to destroy long-standing Senate tradition and ram through a radical bill with 51 votes?

Does President Obama give any indication he is forincreasing the power, information and choice of the individual and their doctor or is he giving more power to the government?

Does he focus on health, wellness, prevention, early detection and health management to avoid or control the severity of chronic diseases? Or does he spend his time talking only about acute care?

Does his plan invest in science and technology in order to increase innovation and accelerate the discovery and adoption of new discoveries and breakthroughs in diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes?

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Obama's speech, as examined by Newt Gingrich

September 9, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 36

Grading the Big Speech:
A 10-Point Citizens' Checklist on Health Reform
by Newt Gingrich


President Obama has had a month to listen to the American people.

For a month, angry Americans have gone to town hall meetings in large numbers to oppose more spending, more government, and more Washington centered bureaucracy.

For a month, the polls have gotten worse and worse for big spending, big deficit, high taxes, and big government.

But on Labor Day, President Obama gave us a sign he hasn't been listening. He gave a campaign-style speech in which he accused his critics of spreading "lies" and failing to offer their own solutions for health care reform.

Tonight President Obama has another opportunity to show us if he's willing to listen to us, or to his party's leftwing.

Below is a ten-point checklist you can use to judge for yourself.

Facing a Far Left Revolt, the President Has a Choice to Make

In his speech to Congress this evening, President Obama has a choice to make.


The Radical Left Will Not Stop Until They Succeed in Socializing Medicine.


He has to choose between listening to what the American people are telling him, and what the Left is telling him.

A recent Gallup poll revealed that only 13% of the American people want permanently expanded government.

In sharp contrast, the liberal base of the President's party views government run health care as nonnegotiable.

The Left is already threatening primary opposition to President Obama if he doesn't stick with them and seek to impose radical change on the American people.

As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said last week "If it's necessary to find somebody else to run against him, I think liberals would do it, no matter how destructive that may seem".

Despite the intransigence on the Left, bipartisan health reform supported by a huge majority of Americans is still possible.

The question is whether the President can reach out to the majority of us.

So to understand the President's speech tonight – his most important speech since his Inaugural address – do these three things:

Forget the details

Forget the rhetoric.

And ask yourself this:

Is this a speech designed to bring together Americans to pass bipartisan health reform?

Or is this a speech designed to appease the Left?

Here's a ten-point checklist to help you decide for yourself. Print it out and use it to judge the President's speech tonight.

In his proposals for reform, does the President include litigation reform, which 84% of Americans believe will help reduce costs and which is the number one goal of doctors in any health reform?

Does he include a section onsaving money by stopping payments to crooks who are bilking the taxpayers for $70-120 billion each year in Medicare and Medicaid fraud? For 88 percent of Americans, this is the first place they would look to find savings in our health care system. Is President Obama willing to look there?

Does his speech reject higher taxes, which the vast majority of Americans believe will make the current economy even worse and increase unemployment even more?

Does it reject all government rationing of health services which the American people have vocally opposed at town hall meetings across the country?

Does it reject any government run, bureaucratic health plan?

Is President Obama open to four or five bipartisan bills which could pass with big bipartisan majorities? Or does he insist on a single omnibus bill of 1000-plus pages like the one that failed when Mrs. Clinton tried to pass it in 1993-1994?

Is he for sustaining the Senate rule of 60 votes to ensure a bill that has wide, bipartisan support? Or is he prepared to destroy long-standing Senate tradition and ram through a radical bill with 51 votes?

Does President Obama give any indication he is forincreasing the power, information and choice of the individual and their doctor or is he giving more power to the government?

Does he focus on health, wellness, prevention, early detection and health management to avoid or control the severity of chronic diseases? Or does he spend his time talking only about acute care?

Does his plan invest in science and technology in order to increase innovation and accelerate the discovery and adoption of new discoveries and breakthroughs in diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes?