Lithuania Fights Back Against EU Resolution Favoring Homosexual Propaganda
By Austin Ruse
(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) The fight over homosexual propaganda in schools taking place between the Lithuanian and European Parliaments escalated this week with the Lithuanian Parliament (Siemas) calling on its government to file suit against the Europeans in the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU).
The argument began with passage of a Lithuanian “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” which prohibits promotion of “homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations” among children under the age of 18. While the Lithuanian president subsequently vetoed the measure, the Siemas overturned his veto and the law is slated to go in effect next March.
As a consequence, in September the European Parliament (EP) voted 349-218 to condemn the new law and ask the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to review it. The Parliament also considered what is called an “article 7” action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. Jean Lambert, a British MEP said at the time, “This law contravenes the EU Treaties, the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be urgently repealed on those grounds.”
Besides the education of children and parental rights, the issue of national sovereignty is central to the debate. The Lithuanians insist they are free to enact such laws and that the European Institutions have no “competence” in them. Many Europeans have long feared what they see as inevitable EU interference in life and family matters.
The Lisbon Treaty, which among other changes would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon members, was defeated by Ireland two years ago at least partially over such questions of sovereignty. Irish voters eventually approved the Lisbon Treaty but only after written guarantees of sovereignty were written into the treaty.
The just-passed Lithuanian response seeks to have the European Court of Justice determine the “lawfulness” of the European Parliament resolution and to determine further that the resolution is void. The Siemas contends that if the European resolution is not formally voided it would “become a dangerous precedent.” The Lithuanian resolution also expressed "regret" and "deep concern" that the European Parliament attempted to “doubt the lawfulness of the law passed by the great majority of the democratically elected parliament of a member state, although this issue should not fall under the jurisdiction of the EP.”
Lithuanian Labor Party member Mecislovas Zasciurinskas asked the Lithuanian Tribune, “What do you think, is this a one time only attempt to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign state…or is this beginning of an absolute dictate? Some years back we called this ‘Moscow’s Grip,’ the tendency to meddle in everybody’s business…”
Conservative Ceslovas Stankevicius said, “This is in the competence of the Siemas, and the EP has no place getting missed up in this, because Lithuania violated no law.”
The resolution of the European Parliament is non-binding and has no force in law. However, such resolutions are used by activists to build a public relations case against the targeted country. While the Agency for Fundamental Rights is not obliged to act on the EP resolution, it could use the EP resolution as the impetus to begin an investigation.
Friday, November 13, 2009
In case you do not think the Tea Party has any effect on Politics.
Obama eyes domestic spending freeze
Buzz up!44 votes Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks Print AP – U.S. President Barack Obama, left, and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama share a laugh as they arrive …
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama, Japanese PM seek renewal of alliance CBC.ca Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama City Goes Crazy for Mr. President ABC News Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
^DJI 10,247.65 +50.18
^GSPC 1,090.51 +3.27
^IXIC 2,159.19 +10.17
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has alerted domestic agencies to plan for a freeze or even a 5 percent cut in their budgets, part of an election-year push to rein in record deficits that threaten the economy and Democrats' political prospects next fall.
China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, has expressed concern about the size of U.S. deficits. U.S. policymakers worry that alarm over deficits could push foreigners into cutting back on their purchases of Treasury debt. President Barack Obama will visit China as part of his current tour of Asia.
White House budget director Peter Orszag said Friday that it is imperative to start curbing the flow of red ink in coming years so as not to erode the fledgling economic recovery and raise interest rates. But he called it a balancing act and said acting too fast could undercut the recovery.
Orszag wouldn't comment on the specifics of the upcoming budget, which will be unveiled in February, right after Obama's State on the Union address in which the initiative is sure to be a major focus.
Democratic officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill say options for locking in budget savings include caps on the amount of money Congress gets to distribute each year for agency operating budgets. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to frankly discuss internal deliberations.
"As part of that fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that will put us back on a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview. "I'm not going to get into the mix between spending and revenues. Obviously deficit reduction requires some combination of those two."
On Thursday, the government reported that the federal deficit hit a record for October as the new budget year began. The Treasury Department said the deficit for October totaled $176.4 billion, even higher than the $150 billion imbalance that economists expected. The deficit for the 2009 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, set an all-time record in dollar terms of $1.42 trillion. That was $958 billion above the 2008 deficit, the previous record holder.
The budget freeze was planned before Democratic setbacks in last week's elections. But the bad results for Democrats — independent voters that were central to Obama's winning coalition last year voted roughly 3 to 1 for GOP gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey — appear to have added urgency to the deficit-cutting drive.
Independents, pollsters say, tend to be more concerned about the deficit than other voters and getting them back in the Democratic column is crucial to the party' chances in midterm congressional elections.
The mandate to domestic agencies to limit their budget requests for the 2011 budget year comes as an economic advisory board chaired by Paul Volcker is debating ways to reform the tax code. Virtually all budget experts say there will have to be revenue increases to make any significant dent in the deficit.
The White House edict to agencies to submit spending plans at least freezing their budgets is but one round in internal administration deliberations on the budget. Cabinet heads are sure to seek exemptions, and Orszag warned that firm budget decisions haven't been made.
Given Democrat's poor poll number on the deficit, cutting it may be a case in which the adage that good policy is good politics holds true.
Still, politicians have typically avoided politically painful deficit-cutting steps in election years and recent history has not been kind to politician who have tackled the issue.
Tax-raising deficit deals in 1990 and 1993 had big political consequences for President George H.W. Bush, who lost his re-election bid, and for President Bill Clinton, whose party lost control of Congress the following year.
Buzz up!44 votes Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks Print AP – U.S. President Barack Obama, left, and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama share a laugh as they arrive …
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama, Japanese PM seek renewal of alliance CBC.ca Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama City Goes Crazy for Mr. President ABC News Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
^DJI 10,247.65 +50.18
^GSPC 1,090.51 +3.27
^IXIC 2,159.19 +10.17
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has alerted domestic agencies to plan for a freeze or even a 5 percent cut in their budgets, part of an election-year push to rein in record deficits that threaten the economy and Democrats' political prospects next fall.
China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, has expressed concern about the size of U.S. deficits. U.S. policymakers worry that alarm over deficits could push foreigners into cutting back on their purchases of Treasury debt. President Barack Obama will visit China as part of his current tour of Asia.
White House budget director Peter Orszag said Friday that it is imperative to start curbing the flow of red ink in coming years so as not to erode the fledgling economic recovery and raise interest rates. But he called it a balancing act and said acting too fast could undercut the recovery.
Orszag wouldn't comment on the specifics of the upcoming budget, which will be unveiled in February, right after Obama's State on the Union address in which the initiative is sure to be a major focus.
Democratic officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill say options for locking in budget savings include caps on the amount of money Congress gets to distribute each year for agency operating budgets. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to frankly discuss internal deliberations.
"As part of that fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that will put us back on a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview. "I'm not going to get into the mix between spending and revenues. Obviously deficit reduction requires some combination of those two."
On Thursday, the government reported that the federal deficit hit a record for October as the new budget year began. The Treasury Department said the deficit for October totaled $176.4 billion, even higher than the $150 billion imbalance that economists expected. The deficit for the 2009 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, set an all-time record in dollar terms of $1.42 trillion. That was $958 billion above the 2008 deficit, the previous record holder.
The budget freeze was planned before Democratic setbacks in last week's elections. But the bad results for Democrats — independent voters that were central to Obama's winning coalition last year voted roughly 3 to 1 for GOP gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey — appear to have added urgency to the deficit-cutting drive.
Independents, pollsters say, tend to be more concerned about the deficit than other voters and getting them back in the Democratic column is crucial to the party' chances in midterm congressional elections.
The mandate to domestic agencies to limit their budget requests for the 2011 budget year comes as an economic advisory board chaired by Paul Volcker is debating ways to reform the tax code. Virtually all budget experts say there will have to be revenue increases to make any significant dent in the deficit.
The White House edict to agencies to submit spending plans at least freezing their budgets is but one round in internal administration deliberations on the budget. Cabinet heads are sure to seek exemptions, and Orszag warned that firm budget decisions haven't been made.
Given Democrat's poor poll number on the deficit, cutting it may be a case in which the adage that good policy is good politics holds true.
Still, politicians have typically avoided politically painful deficit-cutting steps in election years and recent history has not been kind to politician who have tackled the issue.
Tax-raising deficit deals in 1990 and 1993 had big political consequences for President George H.W. Bush, who lost his re-election bid, and for President Bill Clinton, whose party lost control of Congress the following year.
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
1. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS DIVINE
"Moreover, in order that we may perform satisfactorily the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word." (Vatican I, Dz 1793).
2. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE UNIQUE ARK OF SALVATION
"The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock..." (Council of Florence, Dz 714).
3. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS VISIBLE AND INDEFECTIBLE
"Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages." (Vatican I, Dz 1824 [cf., Dz 1793 above]).
"The one Church of Christ is visible to all and will remain, according to the Will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it." (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, §15).
4. THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS FOREVER
"If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church...let him be anathema...."
"If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world...let him be anathema." (Vatican I, Dz 1825, 1831).
"But it is opposed to the truth and in evident contra-diction with the divine constitution of the Church to hold that, while each bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the bishops are not so bound." (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum).
5. THE POPE HAS POWER ONLY "UNTO EDIFICATION AND NOT UNTO DESTRUCTION" (II Cor 13:10) OF CHRIST'S CHURCH
"For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." (Vatican I, Dz 1836).
"And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord, in the course of the ages the Church has not and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and the Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,” that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..." (Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Dz 2301).
"It is well known unto all men...with what great care and pastoral vigilance our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs have discharged the office entrusted by Christ Our Lord to them in the person of the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, have unremittingly discharged the duty of feeding the lambs and the sheep, and have diligently nourished the Lord’s entire flock with the words of faith, imbued it with salutary doctrine, and guarded it from poisoned pastures. And those our predecessors, who were the assertors and champions of the august Catholic religion, of truth and justice, being as they were chiefly solicitous for the salvation of souls, held nothing to be of so great importance as the duty of exposing and condemning, in their most wise Letters and Constitutions, all heresies and errors which are hostile to moral honesty and to the eternal salvation of mankind..." (Pius IX, Quanta Cura §1).
6. CHURCH TEACHING CANNOT CHANGE
Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles (Condemned by Saint Pius X, Lamentabili, Dz 2021).
"Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed..."
"Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding... definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable" (Vatican I, Dz 1792; 1800; 1839).
7. PROTESTANTS AND OTHER NON-CATHOLICS DO NOT HAVE THE FAITH
"Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will... Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II II, Q.5, A.3).
8. HUMAN LAW IS ORDAINED TO DIVINE LAW
"Likewise the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects... but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law" (Leo XIII, Libertas §10).
9. BAD LAWS ARE NOT LAWS
"If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.... But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God" (Leo XIII, Libertas §§10, 13).
10. IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS DO NOT OBLIGE
a) WHEN DOUBTFUL: “When there is a doubt of law, laws do not bind even if they be nullifying and disqualifying ones...” (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 15; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 14).
b) WHEN RETROACTIVE: “A law comes into existence when it is promulgated.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 8, §1 [cf., canon 17, §2]; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 7, [cf., canon 16, §2]).
c) WHEN THEY CANNOT BE OBSERVED (physically or morally) : “No positive law obliges where there is grave inconvenience” is a principle of moral theology (cf., 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 2205, §2; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, 40). There certainly is such a grave inconvenience when observance would be detrimental to souls, for “the salvation of souls must always be the supreme law of the Church” (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1752).
11. THE MASS IS NOT ESSENTIALLY A MEAL
"If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 948.).
12. THE MASS IS THE RE-ENACTMENT OF CALVARY (and not just a narrative of the Last Supper, which was itself but a pre-enactment of Calvary)
"He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross...nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end with His death, at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world... offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine...." (Council of Trent, Dz 950).
13. THE MASS IS NOT A COMMUNITY GATHERING
"If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 955, cf., Principle 14).
14. THE PRAYERS OF THE MASS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THE PEOPLE BUT TO GOD
"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned..., let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Dz 956).
15. HOLY COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LAITY
"If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 885).
"If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 935).
16. THE BLESSED SACRAMENT IS OUR LORD AND MUST BE WORSHIPPED
"If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria... let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 888).
17. THE BLESSED SACRAMENT CONTAINS THE WHOLE CHRIST UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD AND WINE
"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 883).
18. THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN
"If anyone says that by these words: “Do this for a commemoration of me,” (Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 11:24), Christ did not make the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 949).
19. THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS IS STILL IN FORCE IN VIRTUE OF QUO PRIMUM:
"By these present (ordinances) and by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used....We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law..." (St. Pius V, Quo Primum).
AS IMMEMORIAL CUSTOM: “...unless it makes express mention of centenary or immemorial customs, a law does not revoke them...” (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 30; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 28).
AND BECAUSE THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS AN OPTION OPEN TO FAITHFUL CATHOLICS:
"1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae —considering the new elements susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted —represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery." (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, p.27.)
"To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division —a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith —is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error." (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, p.55.)
"Moreover, in order that we may perform satisfactorily the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word." (Vatican I, Dz 1793).
2. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE UNIQUE ARK OF SALVATION
"The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock..." (Council of Florence, Dz 714).
3. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS VISIBLE AND INDEFECTIBLE
"Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages." (Vatican I, Dz 1824 [cf., Dz 1793 above]).
"The one Church of Christ is visible to all and will remain, according to the Will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it." (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, §15).
4. THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS FOREVER
"If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church...let him be anathema...."
"If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world...let him be anathema." (Vatican I, Dz 1825, 1831).
"But it is opposed to the truth and in evident contra-diction with the divine constitution of the Church to hold that, while each bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the bishops are not so bound." (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum).
5. THE POPE HAS POWER ONLY "UNTO EDIFICATION AND NOT UNTO DESTRUCTION" (II Cor 13:10) OF CHRIST'S CHURCH
"For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." (Vatican I, Dz 1836).
"And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord, in the course of the ages the Church has not and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and the Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,” that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..." (Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Dz 2301).
"It is well known unto all men...with what great care and pastoral vigilance our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs have discharged the office entrusted by Christ Our Lord to them in the person of the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, have unremittingly discharged the duty of feeding the lambs and the sheep, and have diligently nourished the Lord’s entire flock with the words of faith, imbued it with salutary doctrine, and guarded it from poisoned pastures. And those our predecessors, who were the assertors and champions of the august Catholic religion, of truth and justice, being as they were chiefly solicitous for the salvation of souls, held nothing to be of so great importance as the duty of exposing and condemning, in their most wise Letters and Constitutions, all heresies and errors which are hostile to moral honesty and to the eternal salvation of mankind..." (Pius IX, Quanta Cura §1).
6. CHURCH TEACHING CANNOT CHANGE
Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles (Condemned by Saint Pius X, Lamentabili, Dz 2021).
"Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed..."
"Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding... definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable" (Vatican I, Dz 1792; 1800; 1839).
7. PROTESTANTS AND OTHER NON-CATHOLICS DO NOT HAVE THE FAITH
"Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will... Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II II, Q.5, A.3).
8. HUMAN LAW IS ORDAINED TO DIVINE LAW
"Likewise the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects... but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law" (Leo XIII, Libertas §10).
9. BAD LAWS ARE NOT LAWS
"If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.... But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God" (Leo XIII, Libertas §§10, 13).
10. IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS DO NOT OBLIGE
a) WHEN DOUBTFUL: “When there is a doubt of law, laws do not bind even if they be nullifying and disqualifying ones...” (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 15; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 14).
b) WHEN RETROACTIVE: “A law comes into existence when it is promulgated.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 8, §1 [cf., canon 17, §2]; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 7, [cf., canon 16, §2]).
c) WHEN THEY CANNOT BE OBSERVED (physically or morally) : “No positive law obliges where there is grave inconvenience” is a principle of moral theology (cf., 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 2205, §2; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, 40). There certainly is such a grave inconvenience when observance would be detrimental to souls, for “the salvation of souls must always be the supreme law of the Church” (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1752).
11. THE MASS IS NOT ESSENTIALLY A MEAL
"If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 948.).
12. THE MASS IS THE RE-ENACTMENT OF CALVARY (and not just a narrative of the Last Supper, which was itself but a pre-enactment of Calvary)
"He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross...nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end with His death, at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world... offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine...." (Council of Trent, Dz 950).
13. THE MASS IS NOT A COMMUNITY GATHERING
"If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 955, cf., Principle 14).
14. THE PRAYERS OF THE MASS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THE PEOPLE BUT TO GOD
"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned..., let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Dz 956).
15. HOLY COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LAITY
"If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 885).
"If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 935).
16. THE BLESSED SACRAMENT IS OUR LORD AND MUST BE WORSHIPPED
"If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria... let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 888).
17. THE BLESSED SACRAMENT CONTAINS THE WHOLE CHRIST UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD AND WINE
"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 883).
18. THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN
"If anyone says that by these words: “Do this for a commemoration of me,” (Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 11:24), Christ did not make the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Dz 949).
19. THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS IS STILL IN FORCE IN VIRTUE OF QUO PRIMUM:
"By these present (ordinances) and by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used....We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law..." (St. Pius V, Quo Primum).
AS IMMEMORIAL CUSTOM: “...unless it makes express mention of centenary or immemorial customs, a law does not revoke them...” (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 30; 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 28).
AND BECAUSE THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS AN OPTION OPEN TO FAITHFUL CATHOLICS:
"1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae —considering the new elements susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted —represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery." (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, p.27.)
"To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division —a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith —is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error." (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, p.55.)
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Nancy Pelosi :What constitution?
Massive Election Fraud threw vote count against Hoffman
November 12, 2009 by John Charlton
WIDESPREAD FALSE REPORTS GIVEN TO PRESS, ALL TO DEFLATE HOFFMAN VOTE COUNT
(Nov. 12, 2009) — It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.
As a matter of fact, not only has the Secretary of State of New York not certified the election, in which Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head — after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district — but that vote count is in doubt this morning.
The Post-Standard of Syracuse published this morning a detailed report which lists all the irregularities; errors of vote counting which were all against Doug Hoffman.
Ryan said an important factor in the decision to concede was the unexpected — and erroneous — close vote in Oswego County, where polls had Hoffman with a double digit percentage point lead heading into Election Day.
“That’s the thing that threw us off,” Ryan said.
Oswego County elections officials blame the mistakes on “chaos” in their call-in center that included a phone system foul-up and inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results. Of 245 races in the county — not including the congressional and court races — 84 had incorrect totals reported election night.
In the congressional race, more votes were cast in Oswego County than any other in the 11-county district.
The district’s second biggest voter turnout was in Jefferson County, where Hoffman also has benefited from a turnaround since election night, gaining about 700 votes. Owens led Hoffman by 300 votes on the final election night tally. But after recanvassing, Hoffman now leads by 424 votes, 10,884 to 10,460.
Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where Hoffman’s vote total was mistakenly entered as zero.
“Hoffman definitely gained votes where he didn’t have them,” Eaton said.
Since 10,200 absentee ballots were distributed, and more than 1,300 returned from pro-military Jefferson Country alone have not even been counted (a more than 70% return rate on ballots distributed), there is a good chance that Dough Hoffman has won the election.
The consistent errors in the election process against Hoffman’s vote count, can only indicate one thing: a conspiracy to commit election fraud on a massive scale.
It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215. The election fraud, in the NY-23 district, therefore, puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.
The question of the day, therefore, is: “Was this election fraud organized and directed from the White House, which had everything to gain or lose, based upon a favorable or unfavorable vote tally?”
November 12, 2009 by John Charlton
WIDESPREAD FALSE REPORTS GIVEN TO PRESS, ALL TO DEFLATE HOFFMAN VOTE COUNT
(Nov. 12, 2009) — It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.
As a matter of fact, not only has the Secretary of State of New York not certified the election, in which Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head — after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district — but that vote count is in doubt this morning.
The Post-Standard of Syracuse published this morning a detailed report which lists all the irregularities; errors of vote counting which were all against Doug Hoffman.
Ryan said an important factor in the decision to concede was the unexpected — and erroneous — close vote in Oswego County, where polls had Hoffman with a double digit percentage point lead heading into Election Day.
“That’s the thing that threw us off,” Ryan said.
Oswego County elections officials blame the mistakes on “chaos” in their call-in center that included a phone system foul-up and inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results. Of 245 races in the county — not including the congressional and court races — 84 had incorrect totals reported election night.
In the congressional race, more votes were cast in Oswego County than any other in the 11-county district.
The district’s second biggest voter turnout was in Jefferson County, where Hoffman also has benefited from a turnaround since election night, gaining about 700 votes. Owens led Hoffman by 300 votes on the final election night tally. But after recanvassing, Hoffman now leads by 424 votes, 10,884 to 10,460.
Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where Hoffman’s vote total was mistakenly entered as zero.
“Hoffman definitely gained votes where he didn’t have them,” Eaton said.
Since 10,200 absentee ballots were distributed, and more than 1,300 returned from pro-military Jefferson Country alone have not even been counted (a more than 70% return rate on ballots distributed), there is a good chance that Dough Hoffman has won the election.
The consistent errors in the election process against Hoffman’s vote count, can only indicate one thing: a conspiracy to commit election fraud on a massive scale.
It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215. The election fraud, in the NY-23 district, therefore, puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.
The question of the day, therefore, is: “Was this election fraud organized and directed from the White House, which had everything to gain or lose, based upon a favorable or unfavorable vote tally?”
Heresy Hunter re-visited
I. There is a recently issued brief in The Spectator (UK) where the author, Melanie Phillips, discusses the Mohammedan–inspired murderer of 13 military personnel at Fort Hood, namely Nidal Hasan. She writes: "It turns out that fellow students of the army psychiatrist... had complained to the faculty about his anti–American propaganda – but were too afraid to file a formal complaint for fear of being accused of prejudice". Further: "no one filed a formal, written complaint about Hasan's comments out of fear of appearing discriminatory". Her conclusion: "It seems that multiculturalism kills".
II. The Spectator brief was a cue.
III. In the late 1990s – during the pre–9/11 era – I wrote an review of a fairly good book entitled: The Menace of Multiculturalism: Trojan Horse in America, by Alvin J. Schmidt (Praeger Publishers, 1997, 211 pp.). The multiculuralist worldview, with the false claim of a social panacea to which its proponents believe it fosters, is now more than ever exposed to be a pernicious ideology that foments only civilizational breakdown – of a once superiorly singular Western civilization, that is; not "culture", which is a term that generically appertains to any society, malevolent or benign. Given this, TH2 figured it would be warranted to post the aforementioned book review (follows next).
IV. Most conservative commentators in North America have now come to acknowledge that the agenda of the radical Left has permeated into the very foundation of the infrastructure of Western culture. Deconstructionism, situational ethics, nature worship, paganism, nihilism, historical revisionism, biological determinism, the politicization of all aspects of personal and public life – such worldviews and others have formed into an ideational superstorm that rages against the bastions of civility and common sense. Family and social life, government and business, the judiciary, universities and the entertainment industry, the media and art – all have been poisoned. Although the origin of this crisis can be traced back much further in time, it can more immediately be fingerprinted to have burgeoned during the 1960s Antinomian Revolution.
V. In the thirty or so years since, the response to this crisis has effectively been silence. Politicians, companies large and small, the churches, administrators and educators have increasingly submitted without protest to the demands of a left–liberal elite. The new elite are not liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, where freedom was kept in check by assuming truths. Rather, modern liberalism proclaims total relativism in matters moral and epistemological, often euphemized with the word pluralism. Now that the young radicals of the Sixties have surpassed middle age, they effortlessly disseminate these relativisms as they wield positions of immense power and influence.
VI. It is this crisis in culture that the American sociologist Alvin J. Schmidt addresses in his book. Schmidt, a former Canadian of German extraction, provides a dauntless assault on what he believes to be the chief cause of the decay in American society, viz. multiculturalism. It “is a leftist political ideology that sees all cultures, their mores and institutions, as essentially equal. No culture is considered superior or inferior to any other.” Except Western Judaeo–Christian culture, that is. The celebration of non–Western cultures, says Schmidt, is really a disguised attempt to supplant the Western value system. In all aspects of American society, multiculturalists are imposing an ideology which discourages the recognition and judgement of people based on qualification and ability. Rather, race, gender and ethnicity determines one’s worth in society.
VII. Schmidt contends, quite convincingly, that multiculturalism is rooted in neo–Marxist ideology, whose purpose is to instill anti–American sentiment into the population. Other cultural commentators have made this observation, noticing that the Marxist rhetoric of a violent “class struggle” has been transposed to areas other than class. The struggle is now more politic, it unhurriedly works within institutions, it influences policy making, and is perpetuated by focussing on racial and gender differences. It is my personal theory that this process of quiet interpenetration has a striking similarity to the notion of “passive revolution”, as advocated by the Sardinian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937). Gramsci said that social change would come not by direct revolutionary confrontation, but by the gradual influx of insurrectionist principles into an already operating cultural matrix. Thus Schmidt’s use of the term “Trojan horse” is an apt analogy.
VIII. Schmidt states that antagonisms between variegated communities are heightened by multiculturalism’s emphasis on “diversity”. The politicizing of differences between various cultural groups does not promote intra–national harmony. Rather, it partitions cultures into uncompromising units of self–assertion. Physical endowments, state in life, or feelings about the world are the factors that empower the citizen. Properly – so goes the argument of those naive, multiculturalism should encourage unity in a pluralistic society by highlighting similarities between various cultures, promoting common ground for a productive public discourse that acknowledges the limits and benefits of each; and likenesses should be made preponderant (in actuality, however, differences between groups are exacerbated). But oil and water do not mix. Theocratic Islamism and democracy, for example, are mutually exclusive units. The divisiveness associated with “group identity”, states Schmidt, merely fosters cultural tribalism. The days of the American melting pot have ended. America has travelled, he writes, “from Melting Pot to Boiling Pot”. If the situation does not turn around, Schmidt forecasts that the ruinous effects of multiculturalism will pilot the U.S. to a condition of chaos and brutality comparable to that of the former Yugoslavia.
IX. Schmidt speaks of the euphemistic absurdities of “politically correct” vernacular. He underscores their consistent vilification of the Christian belief system. He identifies their omission of Western cultural achievements from educational curriculums. He demythologizes multiculturalism’s one–sided portrayal of aboriginal peoples (which is silent about, for example, their slavery, destruction of the environment, cannibalism, human sacrifice). He denounces Afrocentric revisionist history. He unabashedly comments on the vulgarities and health consequences associated with polymorphic sexual activity. Many other insights are provided which prove devastating to those enamoured by half truths and politicized descriptions of the contemporary cultural condition.
X. As a former Canadian, Schmidt has especial concern for the Quebec sovereignty problem. His view is one of sheer pessimism. He sees the dilemma as starting from the very beginning when in 1763 the British issued the Royal Proclamation Act, permitting the French language to have equal status with English. The federal government’s policy of bilingualism is, states Schmidt, “a basket case”. After the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, Canada’s “bilingualism problems with Quebec were exacerbated when it adopted a pro–multiculturalist posture in 1971.” More recently, the “distinct society” status conferred upon Quebec is “unrealistic”. No solution can be found since “inevitably Quebec will secede”. Schmidt’s bases his prediction upon the assumption that the survivance and unity of a country are dependent upon a single language. He also sees Quebec separation as primarily beneficial for Canada. However, Schmidt fails to mention – or does not know of – the multilingual Swiss federation, formed many centuries ago, as a case which challenges his own stance. His unilinguistic stance is valid, but it only goes so far. I would argue deeper and say that morality (as intimately connected with religion) sustains a country. As falls morality, so falls society. It is the lesson of history.
XI. Another concern is Schmidt’s contention that English is the best of all languages in Western civilization. He opines this on the fact that the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the American Declaration of Independence, amongst others, are composed in English. He acknowledges the dangers of linguistic determinism, yet his justifications otherwise still do not preclude the assumption that language alone (English in his case) determines whether a society will be freer and more democratic. This, I believe, is a dubious argument. I do not understand why Schmidt fails to recognize the monumental importance of Latin and its fostering by the Catholic Church, be it reflected in, say, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas or, going back to ancient Rome, in Cicero’s Orations. For that matter, until 1918 all international treatises were first written in Latin.
XII. Schmidt’s book is more of a compilation of facts and figures rather than systematic philosophical analysis of the culture wars. He does not delve into the origins of America’s cultural crisis, though he is acutely aware of the signs of the times. Nevertheless, his work acts as an excellent supplement to such works as Robert H. Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, which is a more thorough examination of the American cultural crisis, even with relevance beyond America’s borders.
II. The Spectator brief was a cue.
III. In the late 1990s – during the pre–9/11 era – I wrote an review of a fairly good book entitled: The Menace of Multiculturalism: Trojan Horse in America, by Alvin J. Schmidt (Praeger Publishers, 1997, 211 pp.). The multiculuralist worldview, with the false claim of a social panacea to which its proponents believe it fosters, is now more than ever exposed to be a pernicious ideology that foments only civilizational breakdown – of a once superiorly singular Western civilization, that is; not "culture", which is a term that generically appertains to any society, malevolent or benign. Given this, TH2 figured it would be warranted to post the aforementioned book review (follows next).
IV. Most conservative commentators in North America have now come to acknowledge that the agenda of the radical Left has permeated into the very foundation of the infrastructure of Western culture. Deconstructionism, situational ethics, nature worship, paganism, nihilism, historical revisionism, biological determinism, the politicization of all aspects of personal and public life – such worldviews and others have formed into an ideational superstorm that rages against the bastions of civility and common sense. Family and social life, government and business, the judiciary, universities and the entertainment industry, the media and art – all have been poisoned. Although the origin of this crisis can be traced back much further in time, it can more immediately be fingerprinted to have burgeoned during the 1960s Antinomian Revolution.
V. In the thirty or so years since, the response to this crisis has effectively been silence. Politicians, companies large and small, the churches, administrators and educators have increasingly submitted without protest to the demands of a left–liberal elite. The new elite are not liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, where freedom was kept in check by assuming truths. Rather, modern liberalism proclaims total relativism in matters moral and epistemological, often euphemized with the word pluralism. Now that the young radicals of the Sixties have surpassed middle age, they effortlessly disseminate these relativisms as they wield positions of immense power and influence.
VI. It is this crisis in culture that the American sociologist Alvin J. Schmidt addresses in his book. Schmidt, a former Canadian of German extraction, provides a dauntless assault on what he believes to be the chief cause of the decay in American society, viz. multiculturalism. It “is a leftist political ideology that sees all cultures, their mores and institutions, as essentially equal. No culture is considered superior or inferior to any other.” Except Western Judaeo–Christian culture, that is. The celebration of non–Western cultures, says Schmidt, is really a disguised attempt to supplant the Western value system. In all aspects of American society, multiculturalists are imposing an ideology which discourages the recognition and judgement of people based on qualification and ability. Rather, race, gender and ethnicity determines one’s worth in society.
VII. Schmidt contends, quite convincingly, that multiculturalism is rooted in neo–Marxist ideology, whose purpose is to instill anti–American sentiment into the population. Other cultural commentators have made this observation, noticing that the Marxist rhetoric of a violent “class struggle” has been transposed to areas other than class. The struggle is now more politic, it unhurriedly works within institutions, it influences policy making, and is perpetuated by focussing on racial and gender differences. It is my personal theory that this process of quiet interpenetration has a striking similarity to the notion of “passive revolution”, as advocated by the Sardinian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937). Gramsci said that social change would come not by direct revolutionary confrontation, but by the gradual influx of insurrectionist principles into an already operating cultural matrix. Thus Schmidt’s use of the term “Trojan horse” is an apt analogy.
VIII. Schmidt states that antagonisms between variegated communities are heightened by multiculturalism’s emphasis on “diversity”. The politicizing of differences between various cultural groups does not promote intra–national harmony. Rather, it partitions cultures into uncompromising units of self–assertion. Physical endowments, state in life, or feelings about the world are the factors that empower the citizen. Properly – so goes the argument of those naive, multiculturalism should encourage unity in a pluralistic society by highlighting similarities between various cultures, promoting common ground for a productive public discourse that acknowledges the limits and benefits of each; and likenesses should be made preponderant (in actuality, however, differences between groups are exacerbated). But oil and water do not mix. Theocratic Islamism and democracy, for example, are mutually exclusive units. The divisiveness associated with “group identity”, states Schmidt, merely fosters cultural tribalism. The days of the American melting pot have ended. America has travelled, he writes, “from Melting Pot to Boiling Pot”. If the situation does not turn around, Schmidt forecasts that the ruinous effects of multiculturalism will pilot the U.S. to a condition of chaos and brutality comparable to that of the former Yugoslavia.
IX. Schmidt speaks of the euphemistic absurdities of “politically correct” vernacular. He underscores their consistent vilification of the Christian belief system. He identifies their omission of Western cultural achievements from educational curriculums. He demythologizes multiculturalism’s one–sided portrayal of aboriginal peoples (which is silent about, for example, their slavery, destruction of the environment, cannibalism, human sacrifice). He denounces Afrocentric revisionist history. He unabashedly comments on the vulgarities and health consequences associated with polymorphic sexual activity. Many other insights are provided which prove devastating to those enamoured by half truths and politicized descriptions of the contemporary cultural condition.
X. As a former Canadian, Schmidt has especial concern for the Quebec sovereignty problem. His view is one of sheer pessimism. He sees the dilemma as starting from the very beginning when in 1763 the British issued the Royal Proclamation Act, permitting the French language to have equal status with English. The federal government’s policy of bilingualism is, states Schmidt, “a basket case”. After the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, Canada’s “bilingualism problems with Quebec were exacerbated when it adopted a pro–multiculturalist posture in 1971.” More recently, the “distinct society” status conferred upon Quebec is “unrealistic”. No solution can be found since “inevitably Quebec will secede”. Schmidt’s bases his prediction upon the assumption that the survivance and unity of a country are dependent upon a single language. He also sees Quebec separation as primarily beneficial for Canada. However, Schmidt fails to mention – or does not know of – the multilingual Swiss federation, formed many centuries ago, as a case which challenges his own stance. His unilinguistic stance is valid, but it only goes so far. I would argue deeper and say that morality (as intimately connected with religion) sustains a country. As falls morality, so falls society. It is the lesson of history.
XI. Another concern is Schmidt’s contention that English is the best of all languages in Western civilization. He opines this on the fact that the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the American Declaration of Independence, amongst others, are composed in English. He acknowledges the dangers of linguistic determinism, yet his justifications otherwise still do not preclude the assumption that language alone (English in his case) determines whether a society will be freer and more democratic. This, I believe, is a dubious argument. I do not understand why Schmidt fails to recognize the monumental importance of Latin and its fostering by the Catholic Church, be it reflected in, say, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas or, going back to ancient Rome, in Cicero’s Orations. For that matter, until 1918 all international treatises were first written in Latin.
XII. Schmidt’s book is more of a compilation of facts and figures rather than systematic philosophical analysis of the culture wars. He does not delve into the origins of America’s cultural crisis, though he is acutely aware of the signs of the times. Nevertheless, his work acts as an excellent supplement to such works as Robert H. Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, which is a more thorough examination of the American cultural crisis, even with relevance beyond America’s borders.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
How to destroy a City
Same-sex marriage law in D.C. could ‘suppress’ Catholic institutions, archdiocese warns
Washington D.C (CNA).- A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits, burdensome regulation and the compromising of their faith, the Archdiocese of Washington has warned.
The proposed law, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, redefines marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people.” It says a religious association or a non-profit associated with a religion shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs unless the entity makes those services available to members of the general public.
Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.
In written testimony, the archdiocese opposed the legislation and “any effort to redefine marriage as any other than that between a man and a woman.” The archdiocese voiced “deep concerns” that the bill would restrict religious freedom if it is passed as drafted.
To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”
In its support, the archdiocese cited a legal analysis of the bill by the Williams & Connolly law firm, which said the expected effect of the bill would put the archdiocese in an “untenable” position under the First Amendment unless religious conscience protections are expanded.
“The District will effectively force the Archdiocese either to violate the law or to abandon forms of religious practice – care for the poor, hungry and homeless – that are fundamental to the practice of Catholic social teaching,” the law firm commented.
In addition to overturning the definition of marriage, the legislation has no exemptions for churches, religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities if they provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside of their faith.
According to the archdiocese, six prominent legal scholars including Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University have independently submitted a letter to City Council Chairman detailing serious religious freedom problems with the legislation.
“They note that religious organizations are at risk of lawsuits if, for example, they decline to offer their facilities to same sex couples or to limit married student housing to couples of the opposite sex,” the archdiocese said in a press release.
Other risks for religious organizations and individuals who cannot recognize same-sex “marriages” include the denial of access to government contracts and access to government facilities, such as leases. Licenses for objecting doctors and social workers could be revoked while child care licenses could be denied.
The proposed law could also allow lawsuits against those who do not provide same-sex benefits to employees and could result in the revocation of the accreditation of religious colleges.
“This would have serious implications in the District of Columbia, where Catholic Charities provides foster care and adoption services for nearly 100 children every year as well as shelter every night for nearly one in three of the city’s homeless men, women and children under contracts with the city, which cannot provide these services itself as efficiently and cost effectively,” the Archdiocese of Washington said.
“Every year, Catholic Charities provides shelter, food, counseling, medical and legal assistance, and more to 68,000 people in the District of Columbia regardless of their faith,” explained Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. “If the Council passes this bill as written, these programs are at risk along with nearly 100 different parish social ministry programs, all of the other ministries operated by the Catholic Church and even meeting space for groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Scouts and neighborhood organizations who partner with churches.”
The lack of an adequate exemption, the archdiocese said, would require religious organizations and individuals to choose “between exercising their faith and following the law.” This would cause “division and dissatisfaction” among the citizens of D.C., it warned.
Washington D.C (CNA).- A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits, burdensome regulation and the compromising of their faith, the Archdiocese of Washington has warned.
The proposed law, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, redefines marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people.” It says a religious association or a non-profit associated with a religion shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs unless the entity makes those services available to members of the general public.
Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.
In written testimony, the archdiocese opposed the legislation and “any effort to redefine marriage as any other than that between a man and a woman.” The archdiocese voiced “deep concerns” that the bill would restrict religious freedom if it is passed as drafted.
To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”
In its support, the archdiocese cited a legal analysis of the bill by the Williams & Connolly law firm, which said the expected effect of the bill would put the archdiocese in an “untenable” position under the First Amendment unless religious conscience protections are expanded.
“The District will effectively force the Archdiocese either to violate the law or to abandon forms of religious practice – care for the poor, hungry and homeless – that are fundamental to the practice of Catholic social teaching,” the law firm commented.
In addition to overturning the definition of marriage, the legislation has no exemptions for churches, religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities if they provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside of their faith.
According to the archdiocese, six prominent legal scholars including Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University have independently submitted a letter to City Council Chairman detailing serious religious freedom problems with the legislation.
“They note that religious organizations are at risk of lawsuits if, for example, they decline to offer their facilities to same sex couples or to limit married student housing to couples of the opposite sex,” the archdiocese said in a press release.
Other risks for religious organizations and individuals who cannot recognize same-sex “marriages” include the denial of access to government contracts and access to government facilities, such as leases. Licenses for objecting doctors and social workers could be revoked while child care licenses could be denied.
The proposed law could also allow lawsuits against those who do not provide same-sex benefits to employees and could result in the revocation of the accreditation of religious colleges.
“This would have serious implications in the District of Columbia, where Catholic Charities provides foster care and adoption services for nearly 100 children every year as well as shelter every night for nearly one in three of the city’s homeless men, women and children under contracts with the city, which cannot provide these services itself as efficiently and cost effectively,” the Archdiocese of Washington said.
“Every year, Catholic Charities provides shelter, food, counseling, medical and legal assistance, and more to 68,000 people in the District of Columbia regardless of their faith,” explained Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. “If the Council passes this bill as written, these programs are at risk along with nearly 100 different parish social ministry programs, all of the other ministries operated by the Catholic Church and even meeting space for groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Scouts and neighborhood organizations who partner with churches.”
The lack of an adequate exemption, the archdiocese said, would require religious organizations and individuals to choose “between exercising their faith and following the law.” This would cause “division and dissatisfaction” among the citizens of D.C., it warned.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Just to let you know what is happening to me.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Just to let you know what is happening to me.
I have been threatened by a poster Nange4jpl(aka nancy-ann) who has started a campaign designed to shut me down, and shut me up. The former holder of this blog was a GENTLEMAN, and maybe was approached by the Bishop or someone from the Bishops office, I have not found out yet. I believe this Nange4jpl was the starter of the
"Death Threats" that they claim Msgr Lisante had received. I have been slandered,
character assassinated, demeaned, and lies about my past work record, where they claim that I had been fired. All Lies to try to shut me up. I believe that I have reported the truth, and gave my feeling on what has transpired at OLLMP. At the
website that I had originally started posting, I had even tried to broker a meeting with Msgr Lisante, to try to bring about a meeting of the minds. I was demeaned,
and answered with "who do you think you are, why would Msgr Lisante meet with you or any of your group". I have not been a group, just one solitary retired man, who refuses to accept being attacked, and seing a loving parish being turned up-side down, and the parish attacked by mean actions taken against it. Those at the other sites, can not accept the truth, have no answers to the questions presented to them,
and only attack the poster, not the messages. The following is the latest, where when I complained about the Crucifix being removed from the Altar, one of the snakes
tried to bite me as you will see.This ListeningIn, claimed that the huge crucifix to the left of the Altar, was ON THE ALTAR. when I called him/her on it, they tried to insinuate that I was gay by saying they smell lavender. when a picture of the Altar at ollmp showed clearly that the huger 8 foot crucifix is to the left of the stairs leading up to the Altar, they could not accept that, this was a short follow-up post that ensued:
[QUOTE who="ListeningIn "] Nange you're the best! Thanks for being on this from the beginning.[/QUOTE]
What happened ListeningIn, you made a fool out of yourself at the "
Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive'",site, by saying that the 8 foot crucifix was on the altar, and you ran to your Doctor here?
Better you go to an ophthalmologist ,and get your eyes checked out.
Nancy-Ann can't help you there, she went into a rage when I pointed out all of her name callings, and diagnosis of everyone being out of their minds. I guess when you have no answers for the truth, that is what you do, you demean, slander, make up stories......etc, just like the story made up about my work ethics,
and that I was fired, all LIES, and when I called her on that, the attacks on me really heated up, and now she is crying to the Bishop? Police? FBI? Berkeley college? Who knows who else? There is nothing I have done wrong, outside of telling the truth, which the guilty can not stand. TOO BAD! This is still the United States of America, and Freedom of speech is still our right.
You and Nange, and the rest of your vitriolic crew can slander,make up stories, demean, Lie, and that is alright? If you would stick to the subject that is posted that would make sense.
But NO, you have no answers to the truth, so you attack the messenger. Is this what Msgr Lisante is teaching?
You are all a bunch of babies, you can give it alright, but when you get it back, you cry to mommy, "He's talking back to me , can't you shut him up". Stopthewacko, ListeningIn....all followed me to another site, and from that site DA Broad and others followed
me, and attacked me. Did I start calling on anyone to help me?, that I was being "Stalked"? NO! You all are just a bunch of spoiled children in raging tantrums because you can not get your way, and can not understand that I have taken all of your attacks and still remain standing and "on the job". I was taught a long long time ago, "if you can not take the heat, get out of the kitchen" If you children would have listened to Nange in the first place, and not started following me around from one site to the other,I would have stayed put, and even was willing to make that deal, but I was laughed at and received a renewal of attacks.
The dates and posts can easily be seen,and what I say can also be seen, as well as all of your demeaning , slanderous lies, and character assassinations. So take your threats and shove them,
meanwhile I will still be praying for each one of you losers.
Yours in Jesus,
Itzik
I have posted this to ensure that everyone that reads my posts know what is happening
for I have no Idea what course these vitriols will take.
ST Michael, defend us in battle.
Semper Fidelis
Just to let you know what is happening to me.
I have been threatened by a poster Nange4jpl(aka nancy-ann) who has started a campaign designed to shut me down, and shut me up. The former holder of this blog was a GENTLEMAN, and maybe was approached by the Bishop or someone from the Bishops office, I have not found out yet. I believe this Nange4jpl was the starter of the
"Death Threats" that they claim Msgr Lisante had received. I have been slandered,
character assassinated, demeaned, and lies about my past work record, where they claim that I had been fired. All Lies to try to shut me up. I believe that I have reported the truth, and gave my feeling on what has transpired at OLLMP. At the
website that I had originally started posting, I had even tried to broker a meeting with Msgr Lisante, to try to bring about a meeting of the minds. I was demeaned,
and answered with "who do you think you are, why would Msgr Lisante meet with you or any of your group". I have not been a group, just one solitary retired man, who refuses to accept being attacked, and seing a loving parish being turned up-side down, and the parish attacked by mean actions taken against it. Those at the other sites, can not accept the truth, have no answers to the questions presented to them,
and only attack the poster, not the messages. The following is the latest, where when I complained about the Crucifix being removed from the Altar, one of the snakes
tried to bite me as you will see.This ListeningIn, claimed that the huge crucifix to the left of the Altar, was ON THE ALTAR. when I called him/her on it, they tried to insinuate that I was gay by saying they smell lavender. when a picture of the Altar at ollmp showed clearly that the huger 8 foot crucifix is to the left of the stairs leading up to the Altar, they could not accept that, this was a short follow-up post that ensued:
[QUOTE who="ListeningIn "] Nange you're the best! Thanks for being on this from the beginning.[/QUOTE]
What happened ListeningIn, you made a fool out of yourself at the "
Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive'",site, by saying that the 8 foot crucifix was on the altar, and you ran to your Doctor here?
Better you go to an ophthalmologist ,and get your eyes checked out.
Nancy-Ann can't help you there, she went into a rage when I pointed out all of her name callings, and diagnosis of everyone being out of their minds. I guess when you have no answers for the truth, that is what you do, you demean, slander, make up stories......etc, just like the story made up about my work ethics,
and that I was fired, all LIES, and when I called her on that, the attacks on me really heated up, and now she is crying to the Bishop? Police? FBI? Berkeley college? Who knows who else? There is nothing I have done wrong, outside of telling the truth, which the guilty can not stand. TOO BAD! This is still the United States of America, and Freedom of speech is still our right.
You and Nange, and the rest of your vitriolic crew can slander,make up stories, demean, Lie, and that is alright? If you would stick to the subject that is posted that would make sense.
But NO, you have no answers to the truth, so you attack the messenger. Is this what Msgr Lisante is teaching?
You are all a bunch of babies, you can give it alright, but when you get it back, you cry to mommy, "He's talking back to me , can't you shut him up". Stopthewacko, ListeningIn....all followed me to another site, and from that site DA Broad and others followed
me, and attacked me. Did I start calling on anyone to help me?, that I was being "Stalked"? NO! You all are just a bunch of spoiled children in raging tantrums because you can not get your way, and can not understand that I have taken all of your attacks and still remain standing and "on the job". I was taught a long long time ago, "if you can not take the heat, get out of the kitchen" If you children would have listened to Nange in the first place, and not started following me around from one site to the other,I would have stayed put, and even was willing to make that deal, but I was laughed at and received a renewal of attacks.
The dates and posts can easily be seen,and what I say can also be seen, as well as all of your demeaning , slanderous lies, and character assassinations. So take your threats and shove them,
meanwhile I will still be praying for each one of you losers.
Yours in Jesus,
Itzik
I have posted this to ensure that everyone that reads my posts know what is happening
for I have no Idea what course these vitriols will take.
ST Michael, defend us in battle.
Semper Fidelis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)