I'm not the only one who sees it

Kevin McCullough has recently penned a longer, more provocative account of the Obama administrations intentions to cram murder into the hands of our nation's doctors.  His parallel is precise and obvious.  I've pasted a lengthy excerpt and placed a link at the bottom of the excerpt for all to read the full article.  

Obama as...

by Kevin McCullough

...In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly. ...

http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/03/01/obama_as_hitler

Bishop Martino and the "home" of 'The Office'

In case someone is unaware, tv's hit sitcom, 'The Office', is set in Scranton, PA.  Scranton is also the Episcopal seat of Bishop Martino, perhaps the most plain spoken and publicly engaged member of the American hierarchy.  The sort of man one wants to follow, why? because he speak with authority--which is how the masses described Christ, "he speaks with authority"  unlike the scribes.  He speaks objectively, rather than skeptically as Pilate did to Christ, "What is Truth?"  If the Church is unable to confidently speak truth in its third millenium then can it exist in a fourth?  At any rate, the point of this post is as follows: Bishop Martino continues to serve his flock by doing all he is able in preventing scandal and doubt as to the respect and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, the Panus Angelicus.  

Bishop Martino posted the following: 

Therefore, His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, Bishop of Scranton, reminds all ministers of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary, that:

1. To administer the Sacred Body and Blood of the Lord is a serious duty which they have received from the Church, and no one having accepted this responsibility has the right to ignore the Church’s law in this regard;

2. Those whose unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is known publicly to the Church must be refused Holy Communion in order to prevent sacrilege and to prevent the Catholic in question from committing further grave sin through unworthy reception.

Earlier this month the forthright bishop informed his own Senator:  “Your failure to reverse this vote [Obama's rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, which prevents US aid money from providing abortions overseas] will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy,” 

As #915 of theCode of Canon Law instructs: Eucharistic ministers are not to administer the Blessed Sacrament to Catholics "who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." 

Bishop Martino is far from alone, as former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his 2004 message to the bishops of the United States stated:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

When it comes to the reception of the most holy Eucharist...should the congregation need to ask, "what is truth?"  Or should truth be most manifestly obvious and reverence for that which we proclaim to be Christ's transubstantiated body and blood be maintained?  If someone who public supported the tax payer's well-earned money being used to execute the children not wanted by a parent, the unborn through 'abortion,' received communion at Mass...would you want to receive from the hands (Eucharistic minister's, priests, etc.) that gave to this man, would you want to stand in line behind him, thinking: this man voted to use my money (from tax dollars) to kill children, to murder children...Scandal???  At the immediate judgement that follows death, if you are asked about standing their dumbly how will you respond...I didn't know what the truth was, honest...I just followed what my bishop said or didn't say...who am I to judge?  I didn't know...Sorry...

One of my greatest fears

Posted below is a headline from CNN.  It has been rumored and alleged for some time that the Oh, Bama administration would do just this sort of violence to the conscience of individuals.  Bush was polite and quiet as he left office, but he slipped in at least one good policy as he left.  Can you imagine going to college then medical school and residency for about a decade or so then on just as you start your job you are handed a scalpel and told to murder someone you consider to be a living child.  If this goes through...imagine all the people they would seriously have to lock up or force into retirement.  Think of how long it will take to see a doctor next year if even 15% of doctors follow their consciences and refuse, resulting in an early retirement; or prosecution?.  Could a Dr. 'More' refuse to cooperate and be subsequently be prosecuted for denying what is pragmatically sensible...Henry VIiI punished More for not going along with what he thought was morally tolerable.  My God, this scares me.  Just think of where the money to pay for much of this will come from as well...our taxes used to kill our own children.   

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.

It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."

Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even v

One final post for the day!  Angelo Scola went right to one of the central themes and missions of this blog in a recent essay in defense of Christians speaking out and applying their principles in the public square.  I've made green one line that especially highlights one of my priorities in the caption below: 

It seems to me that people often lose sight of the heart of the matter: every faith must always be subjected to a public cultural interpretation. It is an inevitable fact. On the one hand, this is because, as John Paul II wrote, "a faith that did not become cultural would not be fully welcomed, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived." On the other, since the faith – Jewish and Christian – is the result of God's compromise with history, it inevitably has to do with the concreteness of life and death, of love and pain, of work and rest, and of civic action. For this reason, it is inevitably the object of different cultural interpretations, which can be in conflict with each other. 

In this phase of "post-secularism," there are two cultural interpretations of Christianity in particular that are at odds with each other. Both seem reductive to me. 

The first is the one that treats Christianity as a civil religion, as mere ethical cement, capable of acting as a social adhesive for our democracy and for the European democracies in grave distress. If such a position is plausible in those who do not believe, its structural insufficiency should be evident to those who do believe. 

The other, more subtle interpretation is the one that tends to reduce Christianity to the proclamation of the pure, unadorned Cross, for the salvation of "everyone else.

Moloch has not died-An Escondido Priest's well-said letter

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60291

broken family, liturgically speaking

I think it's fair to say that, liturgically speaking, I'm the product of a broken family.  I was raised with the Novus Ordo, but have come to recognize it's failings.  I attend the Tridentine Rite somewhat routinely, and my appreciation for this liturgical heritage goes beyond a mere fondness.  It's very confusing for someone like myself no know of nothing but the new order and to suddenly discover the greater depth, mystery, symbolism, and reverence of Tridentine ways all of a sudden.  It's like a parent you never met is suddenly introduced to you, I'm supposing.  It's all the more frustrating to think that, perhaps, the parent you did know, the one that raised you, was not being fully truthful, fully revealing.  Controversies over translation of lines like Pro Multis, for all or many did Christ shed his blood?  That controversies that have stemmed from Vatican II's abuses, which I was wholly ignorant of for most of my life, are the parental equivalent of a divorced family with one parent hiding the other's existent, with no mention of their part in our shared past.  

Archbishop Ranjith  has been put to work on the task of restoration and reconciliation.  Catholic Culture (a link is permanently posted toward the bottom of this blog) recently posted the following in an article:      

The writings of Cardinal Antonelli, Archbishop Ranjith says, help the reader "to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to and immediately following the Council." The Vatican official concludes that implementation of the Council's suggested reforms often veered away from the actual intent of the Council fathers. As a result, Archbishop Ranjith concludes, the liturgy today is not a true realization of the vision put forward in the key liturgical document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (doc).

Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes:

Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of "active participation."

To conclude this post, I'll borrow/paraphrase from G.K. Chesterton: The man that makes the  most progress is not the one who continues to just plod along...it is the one who realizes he took the wrong fork  in the road and is first to turn back correct himself.  

Oh, Bama's Department of Justice

Family Research Council, FRC, recently sent out messages about David Ogden, a defense lawyer nominated to be second in command at the department of justice, DoJ.  Apparently Ogden has a background working with the ACLU (an institution that once "kicked" me out of their DC HQ because I wore an Ashcroft pin and stood in the corner at their anti-Ashcroft press conference) in defending people being prosecuted for crimes involving pornographic images of children.  

I Quote FRC's message:

In the brief he filed for the ACLU, Ogden said the videos were not child pornography at all.  He argued that the children’s genitals were not clearly visible and that the videos should therefore be treated as just another art form with full protection by the First Amendment.  Even more outrageous was Ogden’s claim that if the Nather tapes were child porn, then librarians everywhere would fear prosecution!  Libraries had images of clothed minors, he argued, any of which could be subject to prosecution limited only by a subjective test of lasciviousness.  

This argument was clearly absurd, and thankfully the court concluded it was also legally wrong.  On June 9, 1994, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Stephen Knox for violation of federal child pornography law.

President Obama has nominated David Ogden to a high-level position in his sub-cabinet -- not a position in agriculture or defense but the number two position at the Department of Justice, the Department charged with prosecuting adult and child pornography violations.  The porn industry is so excited by the prospect of having one of their allies in this key position that they have not been able to contain themselves.  XBiz, a leading “adult” newswire, called Ogden a “strong pick,” and porn attorney Colin Hardacre of Los Angeles said Ogden’s nomination is “a good sign for the adult industry.”

Oh, my!  Oh, Bama!