GAY SOFT BALLS

OK, that'll be the last time I talk about balls.

Oh, sweet irony.

If any organization in America tried to limit the people that can belong to it based on sexual orientation (think Boy Scouts) the leaders of the Gay Softball (I'm trying as hard as I can not to say anything) Association would probably be the first to squeal...complain (sorry).

This sort of double standard is pervasive among those that decry, rightfully, unjust discrimination. I believe that private groups should be able to choose those that would belong so I don't care about all white, black, gay or female groups. If you don't like them, stay away. But don't expect to be able to engage in the same discriminatory activities that you would deny others.

By the way, how does someone prove that they are "gay enough" anyway?

"Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago.

The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle accuses the alliance of violating Washington state laws barring discrimination. The alliance organizes the annual Gay Softball World Series.

...The alliance's rules say that each World Series team can have no more than two heterosexual players. According to the lawsuit, a competing team accused D2 of violating that rule.

Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay, the lawsuit alleges. The alliance has no category or definition for bisexual or transgender people in its rules, the plaintiff's attorney said.

At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs was told: "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series."

..."This case is just about treating everybody in the community equally ... and not interrogating folks about whether they're gay enough to play," said Melanie Rowen, an attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing the three men.

The men also are asking the court to toss out the alliance's rule limiting the number of straight players on each team.

Hypothetically, that could mean a team of all-straight people could form, but "it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen," Rowen said."
Seattle times

CHURCH BELLS AND FETISHES

"A court in Arizona ruled on Tuesday that a noise ordinance banning churches in Phoenix from ringing their bells is unconstitutional. One pastor was sentenced to jail last year for violating the ordinance, which allowed an exception for ice cream trucks but not for churches.

St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish, First Christian Church, and Christ the King Liturgical Charismatic Church all challenged the ordinance in a lawsuit filed by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) in 2009.

Christ the King Church joined the lawsuit after its pastor, Bishop Rick Painter, was sentenced for ringing his church’s bells, despite making compromises to appease the few local residents who filed complaints. He was given a suspended sentence of 10 days in jail and three years of probation on June 3, 2009.

ADF reported on Tuesday that a federal judge ruled the city of Phoenix could not enforce its noise ordinance to prohibit “sound generated in the course of religious expression.”

“Churches shouldn’t be targeted and punished for ringing their bells as a public expression of faith that’s been done for centuries,” said Erik Stanley, ADF Senior Legal Counsel in response to the court decision.

“The federal court has made the right decision by declaring that the city’s noise ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
EWTN News

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
1st Amendment-U.S. Constitution

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th Amendment Section 1-U.S. Constitution

There are some things that just don't require a law degree from Harvard to figure out. Bell ringing at a church is clearly part of religious practice and thus cannot be prohibited by the government. The wall of separation that Jefferson wrote about in his letter to the Danbury Baptists also is clearly pertinent here because that wall is intended to keep government out of the affairs of churches.

There is a reason that something as seemingly clear and simple as the bell issue cannot be seen by some in our country, including legal scholars. The reason is that the clear intent of the founders, to allow for free expression of political thought and religious worship has been polluted by filth like the story below.

How can we have an 8-1 majority opinion, including from the likes of Scalia and Thomas, in favor of this level of perversion and hiding it under the cover of freedom of speech? If the men that wrote the Bill of Rights were alive today they would hang the freaks with the "fetishes" and then figure out a way to reestablish the original intent of their words.

America is wallowing in a cesspool of Satanic degradation. When even respected jurists refuse to call deviancy what it is but instead see fit to raise it to the level of protected speech we are nearing a judgement from above. And we deserve it.

"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.

In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called crush videos, supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far.

"Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, "but if so, there is no evidence that depictions of animal cruelty is among them."
Dallas News

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH

This is absolutely the best thing I've seen written on the teachings of the Church and human rights. In light of all the misstatements on this subject that have emanated from the media, the government and not least of all the USCCB, this critique of the Catholic understanding of rights should be required reading for all of us that comment on this vexing issue.

"Now the Church definitely rejects the radical libertarian position that government can never, even in principle, justly intervene to help even the neediest citizens to acquire services of this sort. Catholic social teaching affirms the principle of solidarity, according to which we have, by nature, positive obligations to one another that we did not consent to and that the state as a natural institution can in principle step in to assist us in fulfilling when necessary. But the Church also firmly rejects the leftist tendency to regard governmental action as the preferred or even the only appropriate means of fulfilling our obligations to others. And she firmly rejects too the egalitarian tendency to regard our obligations as extending to all other human beings in an equal way. Contrary to what the libertarian supposes, the individual is not the basic unit of society; contrary to what socialists, communitarians, and many liberals suppose, “society” or “the community” as a whole is not the basic unit either. The family is the basic unit, and it is to our family members that our obligations are the strongest and most direct, with positive obligations to other human beings, though deriving from natural law rather than consent, becoming less strong and less direct the further they are from the family. Hence my obligations to the local community are stronger and more direct than they are to the nation as a whole; and my obligations to the nation as a whole are stronger and more direct than they are to the community of nations.

This approach is enshrined in another central principle of Catholic social teaching, the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the needs of individuals, families, and local communities ought as a matter of justice to be met as far as possible by those individuals, families, and communities themselves...

...There can be no question, then, that while the Church allows that government can legitimately intervene in economic life and in other ways come to the assistance of those in need, she also teaches that there is a presumption in justice against such intervention, a presumption which can be overridden only when such intervention is strictly necessary, only to the extent necessary, and only on the part of those governmental institutions which are as close as possible to those receiving the aid in question. This surely follows from the principles of subsidiarity and the priority of the family. And it surely rules out not only libertarianism but also the sorts of policy preferences typical of socialists, social democrats, and egalitarian liberals."
Edward Fesser
H/T Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

ALL "RIGHTS"-NO RESPONSIBILITY

Philadelphia officials are taking aim on recent "flash mobs" that have erupted around the city. Mayor Michael Nutter reassured city residents they are safe during a news conference at Headhouse Square Wednesday.

...Officials said parents must take responsibility for their children, or they could face charges if their kids participate.

"I ran for mayor, I didn't run for mother. I can't take care of everybody's child," Nutter said.

...The police commissioner even lashed out at parents of teens involved in the melee.

"You had them, you raise them, you take care of them. When they come to me, I got something else for them," Ramsey said."
CBS3

I just love all this tough talk to parents; "You had 'em, you raise 'em" and how the parents are going to be held responsible for the actions of the kids.

Well, here's the deal. We aren't allowed to "raise 'em" anymore. Our kids have been given "rights" by the same government that now wants to hold us responsible for their actions. It gave them these "rights" without ever once explaining to them that with "rights" come responsibilities. Maybe that's only true of real rights, though. And the ones the government gave them aren't real because the kind it gave them stops parents from any effective form of discipline. The kind of "rights" kids have been given intrude upon and destroy the real rights to parental authority that parents possess. And real rights cannot infringe on the rights of another.

If my kid decides to go on a rampage and I try to stop him he doesn't have to listen to me. If I try to physically restrain him, well he'll just call the police and I'll go to jail. So I'm forced to call the police, social services and who knows what other government agency and get them involved in my family and my life. All this does is strengthen the idea in the kids head that their parents really can't control them.

There is a relationship between rights and responsibilities and it goes both ways. Just as rights come with responsibilities, responsibilities come with rights. If I am responsible for something it only stands to reason that I have to be able to exert control over it. If parents can't spank, yell at or restrain their children when needed then they can't control them. If kids can run to the government to over rule the decisions of their parents then their parents can't control them. If kids think they've been "done wrong" and a simple complaint (childish whining) to a counselor at school can turn loose the force of government against the parent, then the parent can't control them. If society refuses to recognize the God given right of parents to raise their kids as they see fit, then the parents cannot be held responsible for the action of the child.

I guess I grew up in a different time. While I was seldom spanked (seldom, not never), I knew that it could happen. I knew where the authority in my life was centered. It was my parents. There was no place to hide. If I lived in my parents house I lived by my parents rules. And every other adult that I came into contact with was part of the conspiracy. From the teacher to the cop, from my friends parents to the priest, they all conspired to hand me over to justice. Usually after they had exacted some of their own.

And I knew that the only truly safe haven was at my parents house. So my choices were rather limited; do as I was told and keep a roof over my head and a warm bed to sleep in or hit the road. Obviously we weren't as smart as the kids today because the choices were kept much simpler.

Kids aren't old enough or wise enough to be given the kinds of authority they are given today. And since most have been coddled by parents that worship the ground their kids crawl on, they are even less prepared to accept responsibility than we were. They aren't responsible yet they have "rights"; and we are held responsible. Just like everything else in this Satanic Utopia we live in this is all turned on it's head and backwards.

So I leave our children with a bit of advice I got from my Dad on a fairly regular basis, "Kids are meant to be seen and not heard. I'm only going to tell you this once."

We never felt that special. As a "product of a moment of lust" (thanks, Dad), I knew my place in the world. And so did all the rest of us. We learned responsibility before we were trusted with rights. That's they way it is supposed to be.

THE FIGHT IS UPON US

I see two ways for those of us that hold to true Catholic teaching to fight this "cancer". Both involve radical surgery.

1) As I've stated over the last few days the Pope needs to kick the bums out. He should start at the top. Any Bishop that is not towing the line when it comes to authentic Catholic teaching and Doctrine needs to be removed from office. If they choose to remain priests they need to be assigned duties that will absolutely restrain them from corrupting the teachings of the Church. Since this is probably impossible and because in many cases their own words and actions may have automatically excommunicated them, remove them from the priesthood, give them their walking papers and send them on their way. I'm sure that the political relationships they've cultivated will come in handy when looking for work.

As far as the laity goes; if a person has publicly or privately strayed from the Church on issues such as abortion, "social justice" or any other number of issues give them the chance to repent. Those that have strayed publicly and from positions of power and influence need to recant their positions publicly and show, to the public, due respect and submission to the authority and truth of Church teaching. As part of their penance they need to begin to undo the damage they have done. If they refuse; excommunication.

2) If we can't get the leadership to begin the process of curing the "cancer" we'll have to do it ourselves. Groups of Catholics, loyal to the Pope and the Church, need to begin to assemble. We need Bishops that will join us and parishes that we can call our own. We can begin to put pressure on the Vatican from the ground up.

I'm not talking about an SSPX style movement outside the Church but something kept within the family. The protections of Christ in Matthew 16:18 apply directly to the offices of Pope and Bishop. We must stay with Peter. To stray from the chair is to invite heresy. Look at how quickly Luther's actions began the chain of disobedience that resulted in the formation of creed after creed, church after church.

Doing this will require Bishops of great wisdom, strength and leadership. It would also require the absolute protection of the Holy Spirit. This is a potentially destructive and dangerous undertaking, fraught with temptation to assume authority were it doesn't belong. The leaders of this movement would need incredible boldness and Christ like humility. A rare combination, to be sure.

These are the times that try men's souls. We, the people, are being asked to stand up, both in our political lives and our faith lives. This isn't a coincidence. This is part of a process; a winnowing, separating the wheat from the chaff. Everything we have known is changing; radically.

We can no longer stand by and hope that others will take up the cross; it's our turn. We either accept our responsibility or evil will triumph. It's that simple.

Simplicity is the key. The bad guys keep trying to muddy the waters, making things sound so complex and confusing that most people believe they can't possibly understand what's going on. But it isn't. These issues are issues of natural law. That's why you feel them in your gut. The leaders of the physical world and the spiritual have offended God and His law.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Declaration of Independence

It is not only our right but our responsibility to stand up and set the world aright. In the end, the people are the last, best hope. We have the authority from God himself because we have the right to freedom, which came from God. We are obligated by the right to defend freedom whenever it is under assault. We are also given the right to truth and because of this, we are obligated to speak the truth and protect it.

Nobody is coming to save us. We must save ourselves. Our actions will cause the heavens to open and the power of God will rush to our cause.

"Yet if he shall continue knocking, I say to you, although he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend; yet, because of his importunity, he will rise, and give him as many as he needeth.

And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.

For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion?

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?"
Luke 11: 8-14

So we must act, for to posses our rights to freedom and truth we are obligated to work for them.

"For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:10

STEALING IS GOOD- THE BISHOPS SAY SO

Archbishop Dolan is on the healthcare bandwagon along with many of the other Bishops. In his statement below, which of course I heartily disagree with, he states, "...Health care, we insist, has to be truly universal. That means everybody – the baby in the womb, his or her mother, the poor, the immigrant, and our elders until natural death.”

I'm going to make an assumption here based on the many other statements I've read from the USCCB that when he says immigrants he means illegal immigrants. I spent a good bit of time yesterday reading "Pacem in Terris", Pope John XXIII's 1963 encyclical regarding human rights. In it the Pope links rights and obligations. Our right to health care is linked to our right to life as an obligation upon others to, if it is within their power, supply us with life saving medical care. He makes the argument that the government has an obligation to the people to support their basic rights because the people support the government through their taxes (work). Basically, because the government is an extension of us it has the same obligations we do.

I agree with this. We lend the government some of our rights so that it has the authority necessary to govern. Logically then, if rights and obligations are inextricably bound to one another it would follow that our obligations transfer to the government along with our rights.

So then I have to wonder; since illegal aliens cannot, because they are not citizens, lend anything to the government, how is the government obligated to give them anything back? Further, since most illegals work outside the law, avoiding income tax, they are not supporting the government.

"...Since men are social by nature, they must live together and consult each other's interests. That men should recognize and perform their respective rights and duties is imperative to a well ordered society. But the result will be that each individual will make his whole-hearted contribution to the creation of a civic order in which rights and duties are ever more diligently and more effectively observed."
Pacem in Terris

If illegals are not performing their respective duties by avoiding the income tax how can the government (the people) be obligated to pay their health care costs?

Further, this womb to the tomb health care system being supported by the Bishops and our political leaders is not supported by the Church. Society is not obligated to provide this. Just as the government cannot possess rights that the people don't possess it follows that it cannot have obligations beyond those of the citizen.

Is there anyone out there that believes they have the moral obligation to steal the property of someone else to pay for the health care of a third party, for the rest of their natural lives? If there is please write me and explain how theft becomes the moral norm and expectation.

(And I wonder? As the Archbishop states, "“The bishops have been advocating universal health care for nearly a century." Is it any coincidence that, at about the same time as the Bishops started advocating this lie Saul Alinsky and the Progressives were working their way into the Church through the Bishops conference? I'm just asking.)

Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan says the use of federal money for abortion remains a “grave concern.” He has argued that abortion funding is a threat to universal health care because it excludes unborn children from its scope.

Writing in a Monday post at his blog “The Gospel in the Digital Age,” Archbishop Dolan noted the “tough spot” of those who are enthusiastic about universal health care.

“The bishops have been advocating universal health care for nearly a century. So, we sure want to see it work, and appreciate the efforts of the president and both parties in Congress to bring it home.”

“On the other hand, we’re worried. Health care, we insist, has to be truly universal. That means everybody – the baby in the womb, his or her mother, the poor, the immigrant, and our elders until natural death.”
Catholic News Agency

THE POPES ON HEALTH CARE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

(I'm going to preface this by saying, "I need to get a different hobby!")

The quotes at the end of all my ranting come from Pacem in Terris Pope John XXIII's 1963 encyclical. Most of the "social Justice" claims that come from groups inside and outside the Church are based on this work. I suggest reading it to understand how the Church views this issue without having it filtered through the lens of special interest (like me).

It is vital to understand the Church's teaching on subsidiarity; the idea that all things are best addressed at the lowest possible level. I believe that the current "social justice" movement in the Church badly mis-states the intention of John XXIII in this encyclical by consistently rejecting subsidiarity. These religious and lay proponents of "social justice" look to the government for solutions, not the individual. They have also corrupted the teachings on human rights found in this encyclical to their own ends. As an example, this from the Immaculate Heart of Mary Social Justice Committee:

Because human rights are relational, they can come into conflict. One person's right to work could interfere with another's right to a healthy environment. One person's right to private property could clash with another's right to food or shelter. Three (3) principles of Catholic social teaching should govern public decisions in such situations.

1. The needs of the poor take priority over the wants of the rich

2. The freedom of the dominated takes priority over the liberty of the powerful

3. The participation of marginalized groups takes priority over the preservation of a political order which excludes them.
(Read Centesimus Annus for a clarification of true Church teachings on these issues)

Compare this to the quote below from Pacem in Terris:

"...One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate superintendence and co-ordination of men's respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way 1) that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs; 2) that the individual, standing upon his own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties; 3) that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated."

While todays proponents of "social justice" are more than happy to have the rights of one group elevated over another the Church teaches that this should not and cannot happen.

Pacem in Terris, by stating that man has a right to healthcare, food housing etc., can be used to support the Communist/Progressive social agenda, but only if one omits the teaching of subsidiarity, a hard and fast doctrine of the Church. The duty to provide the services that are necessary to these rights fall on the individual, through an act of free will and cannot be forced upon us by the state. If the state is allowed to force these obligations on us it will have become a Socialist state.

"...His words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community".39 The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called "Real Socialism" — could not be better expressed."
Centesimus Annus

I have stated many times in regards to the proposed health care takeover that we don't have a right to health care and I stand by that statement. The "right" to health care that is being proposed by our government tramples on the rights of others and true rights (see Pacem in Terris) cannot do that. I believe that Centesimus Annus also supports my belief along with Pacem in Terris .

Our rights to health care, food, shelter, etc. are rights in that we cannot be refused something necessary to support our right to life. In other words, if I am in danger of death and you have the means to save me you are obligated to do so. This is manifestly true in that refusing to supply life saving care is tantamount to murder and thus a mortal sin. The same thing can be said of housing, food, etc.

That being said, can I demand that another surrender his right to his labor or his property to give a third party shelter? Well, I suppose I can demand it; hell, I can yell as loud as I want. He still is under no obligation to me to supply anything to another. His obligation is to the one seeking shelter and no one else.

For the state to force anyone to fulfill an obligation for which they have no responsibility is Socialism and Socialism has been condemned by the Church in no uncertain terms.

The only responsibility that the state has regarding our rights is to see that they are not infringed. It cannot do this by trampling some to protect others. Are we obligated, through our association with the state to provide, through the state, some limited health care to those that have absolutely no way of acquiring it? Yes, because we would be obligated as individuals. However, this obligation is limited to extreme circumstances and to protecting life.

We do not possess an unlimited right to state sponsored health care, regardless of what the Democrats, the USCCB or the unions believe. To say we do is a lie. The Church has never taught this and never will. It conflicts with natural law and true human rights.

Read both Pacem in Terris and Centesimus Annus. Truth cannot contradict truth (you'll have to go here for that one)and these encyclicals work hand in hand to support the truth.

From Pacem in Terris:

"...But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood."

"...As a further consequence of man's nature, he has the right to the private ownership of property, including that of productive goods. This, as We have said elsewhere, is "a right which constitutes so efficacious a means of asserting one's personality and exercising responsibility in every field, and an element of solidity and security for family life, and of greater peace and prosperity in the State."

"...Nature imposes work upon man as a duty, and man has the corresponding natural right to demand that the work he does shall provide him with the means of livelihood for himself and his children. Such is nature's categorical imperative for the preservation of man."

"...The natural rights of which We have so far been speaking are inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the same person. These rights and duties derive their origin, their sustenance, and their indestructibility from the natural law, which in conferring the one imposes the other.

Thus, for example, the right to live involves the duty to preserve one's life; the right to a decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion; the right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it."

"...Since men are social by nature, they must live together and consult each other's interests. That men should recognize and perform their respective rights and duties is imperative to a well ordered society. But the result will be that each individual will make his whole-hearted contribution to the creation of a civic order in which rights and duties are ever more diligently and more effectively observed."

"...Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts. In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision. Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement. There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force. Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."

"...Hence, before a society can be considered well-ordered, creative, and consonant with human dignity, it must be based on truth. St. Paul expressed this as follows: "Putting away lying, speak ye the truth every man with his neighbor, for we are members one of another."(25) And so will it be, if each man acknowledges sincerely his own rights and his own duties toward others."

"...Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good. And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings. Authority is before all else a moral force. For this reason the appeal of rulers should be to the individual conscience, to the duty which every man has of voluntarily contributing to the common good. But since all men are equal in natural dignity, no man has the capacity to force internal compliance on another. Only God can do that, for He alone scrutinizes and judges the secret counsels of the heart."

"...We must add, therefore, that it is in the nature of the common good that every single citizen has the right to share in it—although in different ways, depending on his tasks, merits and circumstances. Hence every civil authority must strive to promote the common good in the interest of all, without favoring any individual citizen or category of citizen. As Pope Leo XIII insisted: "The civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual, or of some few persons; inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all."

Nevertheless, considerations of justice and equity can at times demand that those in power pay more attention to the weaker members of society, since these are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending their own rights and asserting their legitimate interests."

"...One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate superintendence and co-ordination of men's respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way 1) that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs; 2) that the individual, standing upon his own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties; 3) that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated."

CHURCH, STATE, LESBIANS AND THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP

In light of the article preceding this on the collusion between Church and state, one has to wonder how long Archbishop Chaput will be able to maintain his stance on rejecting the children of lesbians from admission to Catholic schools as quoted below. While the Archbishop is correct in everything he says, if the Archdiocese is taking money from the state or the federal government to support its schools some hard choices are coming. The government will not allow the Church to enforce its own rules if some whiff of discrimination lingers in the air. If this is the case, will the Archbishop sever the ties that bind the Church to the state?

"The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are “bad,” or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves. Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church."
Denver Catholic Register
H/T Inside Catholic

HEALTH CARE AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN

All quotes below come from the Catholic Encyclopedia and can be found at New Advent.org.

"Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds an obligation on the part of others, so that right and obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to give them to me; without this obligation, right would be illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or omit something."

"Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own."

Do we have a right to the labor of a doctor or a nurse? And, if we have a right to their labor, how does this differ from slavery? For the slave owner the use of another's labor to satisfy the owners needs was morally acceptable. Isn't this exactly the position the government is taking in the health care debate?

The difference is that the government isn't as honest as the slave holder. The slaves were well aware of their condition for it was not hidden from them. They were forced to labor for their owner and their owner benefited directly from their work. In the health care bill being offered to the American people the slaves are not the health care workers directly, because they will be paid for their services, albeit not at the level they are accustomed to. No, the slaves are the citizens. We are being forced to hand over the fruit of our labor to the government from which point it will be redistributed to whomever the government deems most fit.

Does the government have a right to our labor, and do we have an obligation to supply it? How does this differ from slavery?

"Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner."

"The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the members of human society to one another, and aims at securing that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good. It must be authorized to make laws to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is called legal justice, because the law has to determine in individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a complete and independent society, wherefore it also must be justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the members of the State have not only obligations towards the general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to distribute public burdens (e.g. taxation) according to the powers and capability of the members, and is also under the obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours) according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members."

"From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects."

Without government man cannot achieve his goals. The question is, how much government do we need? In America, at the national level, the answer to this can be found in the Constitution, Section 1, Article 8. The eighteen clearly defined rights and obligations of our federal government does exactly what the quote from above suggests; it creates a framework for its own support. It defines the levels beyond which the government may or may not interfere in the freedoms of its citizens. These are powers proper and necessary to a government.

In America we believe, just as the quote above states, "...the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State...". The founders understood that the power of the state comes from God through the people, setting an order of authority that the federal government has since turned on its head. "...To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members." Notice that it is the state that possesses the duties while it is the citizens that posses the rights. Our government, in the instance of health care and many other things, has begun to acquire unto itself rights that it can never lawfully or morally posses. Rights, like the government, belong to the people, not the other way around. The government has no legal or moral authority to demand from its citizens anything more than is necessary to support its own existence. The government does not require healthcare to survive.

"...and the attainment of its objects." Is healthcare a lawful object of government? Only if the people demand it. Our government is a government of the people and by the people. We brought it into existence and it is designed, by God and the founders, to serve us and further our good. If we reject an action of the government it has the moral responsibility to cease that action. The people have rejected the current health care proposal by margins of up to 70%. For the government to continue to attempt to pass this against the will of the people is obscene and unjust.

"On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the members of human society in their intercourse with one another freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions. For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and independence of every member of society in the use of his own. If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one is bound to make use of his right", since the community---or, more correctly, its leaders--must make use of public rights, whenever and wherever the good of the community requires it. Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services. Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont. Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful possession of his own."

"...If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others..."

The free use of his own; his labor. If one is forced to labor at the direction of others he is not free to fulfill his destiny. Whether it be the citizen forced to pay for the health care of others or the health care worker forced to accept a reduced wage for his labor, the control of health care by the government directly violates the rights of man as established by God. It is a form of control and a restriction of the exercise of our rights to our own labor, contrary to the true obligation of government to protect our rights.

We are supposed to receive back from government services equal to what we put in. "...Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services..." The tax code as it is currently designed will take from those that have and give to those that do not. The poor will receive services far beyond their level of investment while the rich will pay for services they never receive. This is the difference between distributive justice as taught by the Church and the redistributive justice embraced by the current administration.

Charity is the obligation of all but it must be an act of free will. Redistribution of wealth is not charity; it is slavery.

"Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding to right) is enforceable at least in general--that is, whoever has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it. This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily from the object of right. As already said, this object is to secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and for society the means necessary for its development, and the attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his obligations or not. In a large community there are always many who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently, the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public authority, since, if each might employ force against his fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity, where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has the individual the right of meeting violence with violence.

While right or the obligation corresponding to it is enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc."

The government has the power and the authority to enforce our rights against those that would take them. This power, however, should not be construed, in and of itself, as giving the government rights it does not posses.

The American government has and is exceeding its lawful authority and demanding from us, through coercive powers, a negation of our true and natural rights. This overstepping of its authority brings into question its very right to exist. The governments rights come from the people and cannot exceed the rights of the people, for they cannot give to the government something they do not posses themselves. "...Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner..." If we have not given the government the right to our labor it cannot take it. If it does it is a thief and deserves to be treated as such.

America is at a crossroads. The immediate future will determine whether we continue to exist as a free country, a government of the people and by the people, or whether we become a despotic state, slaves to our own freely elected masters.

We are in the process of reaping what we have sown.

MAN DOES NOT CREATE RIGHTS-THEY COME FROM GOD

"We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago," Daley said."
CBS2 Chicago

Isn't this really the problem with our political leadership? They create "rights" out of thin air to support their own personal agenda while denying the people the real rights they possess, like the right to carry a gun, because they disagree with them. The mayor would use his made up "right" to infringe on our God given right.

I challenge Mayor Daley or anyone else for that matter to demonstrate how we have the "right" to safety or health. In reality our safety is directly tied to our real right to self defense. Our rights belong to us and cannot impose on another. Our so called "right" to health and safety exist only in so far as we can provide them for ourselves.

THE FANTASY WORLD OF THE LEFT

Perhaps Mayor Daley and the Brady people ought to go to Brazil to see just how well those gun controls work. Do the gun controllers believe that if they just repeat the lie often enough it will become the truth? Compare the states where it is legal to carry a gun, their crime rates and gun problems, to Brazil, a country with some of the worlds most restrictive gun laws. Are our states safer because Americans are just somehow genetically predisposed to a more law abiding nature? Or could it be true that more guns in the hands of the law abiding truly does decrease the rate of crime?

This is example of how the left believes that man can be perfected through government control. If they can just get enough of the right laws passed our benevolent masters believe they can create a worldly nirvana and once and for all cure our corrupted nature. They can fix God's mistake.

This is another issue that I have grown tired of. Like global warming, all of the evidence points to a conclusion that the activists on the left refuse to accept so they just ignore it. No matter how many times they are defeated they keep coming back; sort of like herpes. Their self righteous sense of moral superiority knows no bounds and recognizes no restraints.

It's time to move on.

July 2, 2004:

"A law to ban the carrying of guns in public and control illegal ownership has come into effect in Brazil.
The law, passed by Congress in December, came into force on Friday after being signed by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

It will tighten rules on gun permits and create a national firearms register, with strict penalties for owning an unregistered gun."
BBC

February 27, 2010:

"A boy steps boldly into the night traffic and waves a gun to bring the cars to a halt, clearing a path for a motorcycle which screeches into the intersection. Riding pillion is another boy, brandishing a machinegun.

Later two teenagers, also riding pillion on motorbikes, flash their guns at other motorists; nearby, a boy can be seen taking aim with a rifle equipped with a telescopic sight. Other youths wander the street smoking crack.

For residents, the junction between the busy Dom Helder Câmara and dos Democráticos, in North Rio de Janeiro, has become known as the Corner of Fear — and video footage of daily life there has shocked a nation already familiar with guns and violence."
Times Online

February 28, 2010:

"Gun control advocates think, if not pray, they can win by losing when the Supreme Court decides whether the constitutional right to possess guns serves as a check on state and local regulation of firearms.

The justices will be deciding whether the Second Amendment - like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights - applies to states as well as the federal government. It's widely believed they will say it does.

But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments "from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence."...

..."Chicago is defending its gun laws at the high court. Mayor Richard Daley said a ruling against his city would spawn even more suits nationwide and lead to more gun violence.

"How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?" Daley said at a Washington news conference last week that also included the parents of a Chicago teenager who was shot on a bus as he headed home from school.
Annette Nance-Holt said her only child, 16-year-old Blair Holt, shielded his friend when a gang member boarded a bus and began shooting at rival gang members.

"You might ask, 'What good is Chicago's handgun law if so many of our young people are still being shot?'" Nance-Holt said. "All I can say is, imagine how many more would be if the law were not there."
AP News

SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS A DANGEROUS CHIMERA

"The bishops of New Mexico have voiced opposition to a bill in the state legislature that would create domestic partnerships for opposite- and same-sex couples, saying it would undermine the “true nature” of marriage and would serve as a foundation for the implementation of same-sex “marriage.” Last week the bill passed the Senate Judiciary and Senate Public Affairs Committee. It needed to pass the Senate Finance Committee before heading for a full vote, KFOXTV.com reports."

Catholic News Agency

Nature:

"...the term nature is sometimes applied to the collection of distinctive features, original or acquired, by which such an individual is characterized and distinguished from others...

...Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources."

Catholic Encyclopedia

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.

And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10: 6-9

Marriage:

The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Dictionary.com

At the risk of being called a homophobe, a term I've never understood because opposition to the homosexual rights movement doesn't logically equate to fear of homosexuals, I have to say that I agree whole heartedly with the Bishops in New Mexico. We absolutely must stop the same sex marriage agenda.

Politically my beliefs tend toward the Libertarian. As long as your actions cause harm to no one else, do as you like. Of course, one must be careful to truly recognize when harm is done. It's awfully easy to filter out the true effects of an individual action when the realization of harm would force a curtailment of activities that appeal to us. Been there, done that. I'm the king of self justification. So, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to engage in homosexuality, and you are absolutely sure that your actions are harming no one else, knock your self out. Just don't expect me to applaud your decision or change my life, laws or belief to accommodate you.

And this is what the same sex marriage debate is really all about. It is an attempt to enshrine in law the acceptance of an act that is unnatural and to most abhorrent. Homosexuality is unnatural because it defeats the primary purpose of the sexual act which is to create new life. Sure, sex serves a number of other very legitimate purposes but it's primary reason is to make kids and any use of it outside of that purpose offends the natural law. It's no different than gluttony. While we have to eat and eating is good, gluttony misuses the act of eating and becomes destructive. Homosexuality and any sexual act not open to the creation of life does the same thing to sex.

Homosexuality is also abhorrent to most people, no matter how hard the gay rights advocates work to create in us a sense of shame for this most basic human instinct. Most people DO NOT want to have any sort of sexual contact with others of the same sex. It does not hold any appeal to us. Really, it's just gross.

The advocates of same sex marriage demand that we recognize their unnatural and abhorrent behavior as normal and healthy. To do this they expect us to raise their disordered life style to the same level of acceptability as traditional marriage. Just as they have attempted to change the nature of sex they demand we change the nature of marriage.

The problem is that you can't change the nature of things. Sure, you can change the name or the meaning of the words that describe something but you can't change the thing itself. No matter how you package it homosexuality will always offend the natural law. Likewise, no matter how you try to redefine it, marriage will always be between a man and a woman. It's the very nature of the thing; it has always been and it will always be. Man made laws can't change that; anymore than changing the name of gravity will stop an apple from falling from a tree.

If homosexuals want some sort of legal recognition of their relationships that's a matter for the states to decide. Just don't call it marriage because it isn't and it can't be. We haven't stepped through the looking glass and the natural law still applies to us. Words have meaning; at least they're supposed to. So come up with a new word for your legal unions and quit trying to use ours for the wrong purposes.

THE CHURCH IS UPSET ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE- THEN WHY DOES THE USCCB SUPPORT IT?

"A two-man Washington, D.C. panel has preferred to advance same-sex “marriage” at the cost of religious liberty, the Archdiocese of Washington has charged. The panel ruled that a referendum on a city council bill recognizing same-sex marriage would violate the District’s human rights law.

Opponents of the D.C. City Council’s decision, including the archdiocese, have sought a referendum to try to overturn the action.

However, two members of the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled the referendum would thwart the Council’s efforts to “eradicate unlawful discrimination” and would violate the District’s Human Rights Act (HRA).

“The Civil Marriage Equality Act represents the Council’s effort to eliminate the discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Referendum seeks to frustrate this effort, and would, if successful, have the effect of authorizing discrimination in contravention of the HRA,” the board stated.

The ruling was issued by Errol R. Arthur, Chairman of the Board of Elections and Ethics, and board member Charles R. Lowery, Jr.

The Archdiocese of Washington in a Friday statement said it was “extremely disappointing” that the two-person panel forbade the referendum without addressing religious liberty concerns."

CNA

I think that the Church should  be upset about these pro gay rights bills being passed. Of course, I might be just a bit happier if the United States Council of Catholic Bishops didn't support the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a group which promotes abortion, gay rights and same sex marriage.

I realize that the USCCB is not an official Church organization; it's more of a trade association for the Bishops. However, if the Church wants the secular world to follow Gods rules might I suggest that it ask the Bishops not to belong to the at least schismatic, if not heretical, USCCB?

If you go to the website linked above you can find out who your CCHD money has supported. Here is the description of the organization they have posted on their website:

"Civilrights.org is a collaboration of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights coalition, consisting of nearly 200 national organizations, representing persons of color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups. LCCR was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957. LCCR is a 501(c)(4) organization that engages in legislative advocacy.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF) was founded in 1969 as the education and research arm of LCCR. LCCREF produces educational materials such as special reports, email newsletters, the Civilrights.org website, and the Civil Rights Monitor. In addition, LCCREF tracks legislation, court decisions, and the enforcement of civil rights laws. LCCREF is a 501(c)(3) organization and contributions are tax-deductible."

So on the one hand the Church is spending money and other resources to fight same sex marriage while on the other hand it is allowing the USCCB to take donations from the parishioners and send them to this group and others like it which are fighting to legalize it.

Click on this link (LCCR Coalition Members) to see who else belongs to this coalition along with the USCCB. You'll find the usual cast of Progressives; the same ones our President surrounds himself with. Groups like SEIU and the ACLU. In other words, the usual suspects.

Hey Rome, who's the ring master in this circus? Can't you exert at least some control on the Church in America? Don't the Bishops answer to you?

Is it a wonder that the Church in America is in decline?

O SWEET IRONY

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

"The mayor of Moscow, known for his overtly homophobic statements, said Monday that he would never allow a gay pride parade in the city, calling it "Satanic" and saying marchers should be punished."

Breitbart

ENEMY COMBATANTS NON PERSONS ACCORDING TO SCOTUS RULING

I guess this is the change that all of those screaming about the abuses of the Bush administration were hoping for when they voted for Obama. Not only is torture acceptable it is to be expected as a normal condition of imprisonment during war. And they went a step further, declaring prisoners non persons. So, if you are declared an enemy combatant (we know that would never be abused) you will effectively be stripped of all rights afforded a human being. You will be considered a non person; just like slaves were before they were granted civil rights and just like babies in the womb today.

So, if you speak out against government activities during a time of war would you be considered an enemy combatant? If so, what stops the government from making you disappear? Does this ruling effectively give the FBI or Secret Service essentially the same powers as the KGB?

Do we even have a "Bill of Rights" any longer? Do we have freedom? Is this still America?

"In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., had ruled that government officials were immune from suit because at that time it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal.

Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law."

Anti War

BISHOP PROTECTS HIS FLOCK - AGAINST ANOTHER BISHOP

From The New Oxford Review:

"We suspect that this is another indication of a more hopeful future for the American episcopacy — at the very least it belongs in the did-I-read-that-correctly category: Recently, two bishops in two separate dioceses prevented brother bishops from making public appearances on Catholic property in their dioceses. Yes, you read that correctly. A lone bishop banning a brother bishop is a rarity in this day and age. Frankly, it just isn't done. For two of them to take such similar courses of action is inconceivable.

Thomas Gumbleton, retired auxiliary bishop of Detroit, was slated to speak in the Diocese of Marquette (in Michigan's Upper Peninsula) at a conference sponsored by Marquette Citizens for Peace and Justice. According to episcopal protocol, when one bishop comes into another bishop's diocese to preach, celebrate the sacraments, or otherwise make a public appearance, he is expected to notify the local diocesan bishop — in effect, requesting his permission. It is necessary for the visiting bishop to be in harmony, so to speak, with the local bishop. In a perfect world, one bishop would not be contradicting the local shepherd.

Bishop Gumbleton didn't bother to contact Mar­quette's Bishop Alexander K. Sample about his anticipated visit. In fact, Bishop Sample only learned of Gumbleton's plan to be the keynote speaker at the Peace and Justice conference when the event was advertised. According to Bishop Sample, when he discovered the plan he sent a private note to Bishop Gumbleton in Detroit, informing him that His Excellency is unwelcome in the Diocese of Marquette — no, not because Bishop Sample doesn't believe in peace and justice, but because of Bishop Gum­bleton's longtime status as a prince of episcopal heterodoxy. Consecrated a bishop at the absurdly young age of 39 by liberal icon John Francis Cardinal Dearden, Gum­bleton is well known for his advocacy of women's ordination to the priesthood and as a figurehead for the "gay rights" movement in the Catholic Church."

Is this great, or what? It is so good to see a Bishop stand up publicly and protect his flock. I know this happens all the time in decisions large and small but we seldom see it. A Bishop publicly standing for the truth encourages others to do the same. It helps to see real leadership.

Good work, Bishop Sample and thanks. We really do appreciate it.