Obama's War On The U.S. Catholic Church

Originally posted back on July 3, 2009. I brought it back from the archives to shed some light on Obama's recent HHS mandate....

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It is the opinion of this blogger that alleged President Barack Obama is actively working to do everything he can to crack and split the U.S. Catholic Church in half. His appointment of exclusively pro-abortion Cafeteria Catholics to key positions in the government, coupled with the statements below demonstrate this beyond the shadow of a doubt. Allow me to elaborate....

Obama has a pro-choice Liberation Theology (i.e. "Christian" Socialism) agenda, and the only thing standing in the way is the U.S. Catholic Church, which officially opposes both. Unfortunately, the U.S. Catholic Church has been considerably weakened in recent years, plagued by sex-scandals (which only affected 5% of the clergy), and other scandals related to associations of the USCCB, coupled with a general liturgical crisis and poor catechises over the past four decades. The U.S. Catholic Church is ripe for schism, and President Barack Obama knows if such a thing were to happen, it would only help clear the way to push his agenda through. Nothing would serve the Obama administration better than a U.S. Catholic Church torn by infighting and reorganization.

There is nothing new about this strategy. It's been successfully employed in the past by Marxist regimes in Central and South America, where Liberation Theology (i.e. "Christian" Socialism) was born and has pitted the Catholic clergy and laity against each other in that region. Obama is doing the exact same thing here in the USA, except he's just a bit more subtle about it. It all starts with the appointment of dissenting Cafeteria Catholics (who agree with his pro-abortion Marxist goals) to key positions in government. Obama has made it clear that Catholics who actually believe and practice what the Church teaches on abortion and socialism are not welcome in his administration. In other words, Catholics who oppose the teachings of the Church will be rewarded with high level cabinet positions, while Catholics who adhere to Church teaching need not apply.

Okay, so what does this do?

Well, the U.S. Catholic Church is already split on social issues about 50/50. Approximately 50% of U.S. Catholics are what we call "practicing Catholics" (actually the number may be a little less than that, but about 50% rise to the occasion when the bishops call them to on key issues). The other 50% are what we call Cafeteria Catholics, and these are the dissenting group who may (or may not) regularly go to mass, and like to "pick and choose" which teachings of the Church they will follow, and which they will not. It's sort of like a "salad bar" approach to the Catholic faith. According to the Vatican, and the U.S. Catholic bishops, this Cafeteria Catholicism is unacceptable, and in some cases it causes those who practice it to put their status in the Church in jeopardy. In other words, Cafeteria Catholics aren't really good Catholics, they just say they are.

By exclusively putting Cafeteria Catholics in key government positions, Obama is pandering to the Cafeteria Catholic community, and in the United States, that's about 50% of all U.S. Catholics. Simultaneously he shields himself from any criticism of anti-Catholicism, because he has plausible deniability. As soon as the accusation is made, he can simply say that such charges are ridiculous because he's appointed more "Catholics" to government positions than any other president in recent memory. He won't bother to point out, of course, that these are only Catholics who oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church. His most recent nomination of a Cafeteria Catholic to the U.S. Supreme Court was his crowning achievement in implementing phase one of his plan to crack and split the U.S. Catholic Church in two.

Phase two is now underway. Barack Obama will embark on a media campaign, directly engaging U.S. Catholics, via press interviews and photo ops with the pope and various Catholic leaders. This is where the propaganda war goes into effect. What Obama started in appointments, he now follows through with in commentary. On July 2nd, Obama met with a Catholic press conference ahead of his July 10th meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. In that interview he had the following to say, among many other things, but the trigger lines I have bolded for clear recognition....

“When I was first becoming interested in social justice issues, the American bishops were talking about nuclear freezes and sanctuary for illegal immigrants and protesting U.S. policy in Latin America, and there was, I think, a very different set of perspectives that were represented, arising out of the Second Vatican. And then there was a decided shift that I think took place within — among Church officials. And, in some ways, that tracked changes in American society at large, or at least American politics... I think responses to my administration mirror tensions within the Church as a whole. Cardinal Bernardin was strongly pro-life, never shrank away from talking about that issue, but was very consistent in talking about a ‘seamless garment’ and a range of issues that were part and parcel of what he considered to be pro-life, that meant that he was concerned about poverty; he was concerned about how children were treated; he was concerned about the death penalty; he was concerned about foreign policy... and that part of the Catholic tradition is something that continues to inspire me. And I think that there have been times over the last decade or two where that more holistic tradition feels like it’s gotten buried under the abortion debate. Now, as a non-Catholic, it’s not up to me to try to resolve those tensions... All I can do is to affirm how that other tradition has made me, a non-Catholic, I think reflect on how I can be a better person and has had a powerful influence on my life. And that tells me that it might be a powerful way to move a broader set of values forward in American life generally.”

Okay, notice how Obama is trying to pit one side of Catholic Social teaching against another, and thereby trying to pit Cafeteria Catholics against practicing Catholics. He's lecturing the U.S. Catholic bishops (and ultimately the pope) on how Catholic emphasis on the holocaust of abortion is clouding the "larger" social teaching of the Church. In effect, he's telling the U.S. Catholic bishops (and the pope) that they ought to tone it down a bit on the abortion issue, so more Catholic Americans can "recognize" how much he supposedly agrees with the other aspects of Catholic social teaching. But does he really expect the pope and bishops to take his advice? Of course not! He may be a narcissist, but he's not stupid. Obama knows perfectly well that his supposed "advice" will fall on deaf ears with the pope and bishops, and in fact, he's counting on it. The comments are not intended for the pope and bishops. They're designed for the 50% of U.S. Cafeteria Catholics who would be more inclined to agree with him on the matter. The point here is to come across as seeming "reasonable" and "open to dialog." The idea being that he wants to paint the pope and U.S. Catholic bishops as being "unreasonable" and "stubborn." His coming photo op with the pope will be his capstone on this phase of the plan.

Notice, however, that Obama let the cat out of the bag with the second bolded comment. He said "I think responses to my administration mirror tensions within the Church as a whole." This is the wedge people. He just pointed out the very thing he hopes to exacerbate by his actions and comments. In this one comment he has revealed that he is all too aware of the catechises problem within the U.S. Catholic Church. He is mindful of the sad fact that the U.S. Catholic bishops have nearly lost control of half of their flock, and indeed some of those bishops are contributing to the problem. Then he goes on to lament how the Catholic bishops "unreasonable and stubborn" emphasis on abortion has "obscured" the "larger message" of Catholic social teaching, of which he claims to be in agreement on. We can expect a lot more comments like this in the near future, as this is the strategy folks. He's trying to paint the leaders of the Catholic Church as intolerant and unreasonable. Simultaneously, he's trying to make himself out to have a greater understanding of Catholic social teaching than the Church does. It's designed to drive the wedge deeper between Practicing Catholics and Cafeteria Catholics. It's designed to pit as many Catholics as he can against the leadership of the U.S. Catholic Church. It's designed to create a full-blown and all-out schism in the U.S. Catholic Church, and thus neutralize the influence of U.S. Catholic bishops on the 2012 election, and any major issue of his agenda that comes up between now and then.

Of course, the last thing Obama will let us know is that he really doesn't agree with the Catholic Church on ANY of it's social teaching. That's the dirty little secret. You see, Catholic social teaching on poverty and fairness is based on the principle of SUBSIDIARITY. Essentially it's an anti-Marxist principle. The idea of subsidiarity is that it's immoral for larger government functions to take over and perform the roles of smaller entities (state, city, local, neighborhood, family, parish church, private charity, etc.) when those entities are perfectly capable of performing those functions for themselves. The larger government entities should instead refrain from direct interference (i.e. micro-management) and instead attempt to coordinate efforts between them, to help things run more smoothly. In other words, the American principles of limited government and federalism are consistent with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, while the Marxist principles of huge government and micro-management are not. Unfortunately, the kind of Liberation Theology Obama believes in is Marxist in principle, and flies in the face of subsidiarity. The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church is very clear that all social principles are based on subsidiarity, and subsidiarity is the "hinge" upon which all Catholic Social Justice turns.

U.S. Bishops Snookered By Obamacare

President Obama Signed the Healthcare Bill on March 23, 2010

(EWTN News) — President Barack Obama has not kept his promises about conscience protections for abortion opponents, and those who trusted him to exclude abortion from the health-care bill seem to “have been played,” Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami said.

“His administration is running roughshod over conscience-protection provisions’ long part of the law that find their justification in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, a foundational human right,” the archbishop wrote in a Dec. 2 essay in the Miami Herald.

“It is one thing for an administration to support and promote an agenda; it is quite another to force those who disagree with it to violate their moral and religious principles.”

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: You were warned your excellency. You and your brother bishops were all warned. We Catholic bloggers told you this day would come. We yelled it from the top of our lungs. YOU CANNOT TRUST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS!!! YOU CANNOT TRUST BARACK OBAMA!!! YOU CANNOT TRUST THE LIKES OF NANCY PELOSI!!! (My God! Is she still in the Church? Have you not excommunicated her yet!?! What does this woman have to do to be excommunicated???) WE WARNED YOU. YOU DID NOT LISTEN. WHERE IT NOT FOR YOUR SUPPORT, OBAMACARE WOULD HAVE NEVER PASSED. BUT YOU DID SUPPORT IT, AND YOU TRUSTED THOSE WHOM YOU KNEW WERE NOT TRUSTWORTHY. NOW WE MUST ALL PAY THE PRICE!!!

The first to pay will be Catholic healthcare workers. Doctors, nurses and technicians will become the first martyrs of your naivety. Next it will be you! I do hope your excellencies will lead us now by example in martyrdom. I do hope you would not permit your sheep to be fined and jailed before you. I do hope you have not left us, the laity, to fight for the faith in your place. You led us into this situation, and since you cannot now lead us out of it, we do hope you will at least lead us into martyrdom.

In HIS Majesty's Service,

The Catholic Knight

(PS - I work in healthcare. I am prepared to be martyred for this. If I'm lucky, I may only lose my job. If necessary however, I am prepared to face fines and a prison sentence for following my conscience. It's just too bad my kids will have to go into poverty should it come down to that. Maybe you could help them out when the time comes?)

Catholic Democrat = Lost Soul

For my international readers -
The Donkey is the official symbol of the U.S. Democratic Party,
The U.S. Republican Party uses the Elephant as it's symbol.

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I believe we have reached a point now, both in this nation and the U.S. Catholic Church, where the term "Catholic Democrat" means the equivalent of selling ones soul to the devil. Basically it works like this.  The Democratic Party is so anti-Catholic on every single social issue imaginable, from abortion to gay-marriage, to school-choice, to religious freedom, that in order for a Catholic to be a successful elected official in the Democratic Party, he basically has to ignore everything the Catholic Church teaches.

I challenge anyone to survey the U.S. political landscape today and prove me wrong.

That being said, this is not an endorsement of the Republican Party either.  While the Republican Party holds to many positions that oppose Catholic social teaching, there is at least a little wiggle room left for Catholics in that party to still be Catholics with good conscience -- for now.  Granted, that would entail not towing the party line on some issues, and even opposing the party on some issues, but nevertheless I would say it is still at least possible to be a Catholic and a Republican -- for now.

That being said, yours truly (The Catholic Knight) is a Distributist, so I'm basically unrepresented in American politics.  I'm forced to identify myself as an Independent.  When I do vote, I'm forced to choose between Republican and third party candidates, as I've come to the conclusion that voting Democrat in today's political environment is to sell my soul.  I believe it was Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura, who recently said the U.S. Democratic Party is swiftly becoming the "Party of Death."

Anti-Christian Liberal Tyrants

Have A Nice Day!

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The problem with so-called "Liberalism" or "Progressivism" is that at it's heart there is nothing really "liberal" or "progressive" about it. What it really amounts to is a bunch of Leftist ideas that if given free reign will result in the oppression and downright persecution of literally ANYONE who dares to speak out against it. In the above video Michael Voris has gone to Manilla to assist the Catholic Church in opposing a pro-contraception law that once implemented would effectively jail anyone who publicly opposes it. So you say, "Sir Knight, this is another country, what does that have to do with us in the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe?" Actually, it has a lot to do with us, because you see one of the main organizations that is sponsoring the anti-free-speech contraception bill is none other than "Planned Parenthood."

As a child growing up in the public schools of Southern California, I remember getting "the talk" in our sixth grade classroom. First our principle came in and explained the mechanics of sexual relations, then another person was introduced to us, a female representing Planned Parenthood. At this point we got another "talk" about how to prevent babies and other problems using so-called "safe sex" contraception devices. The point of this anecdotal story is to point out just how deeply organizations like Planned Parenthood are wrapped up into our public educational system like an octopus. For children in public schools, there is literally no escape. Indoctrination comes at a very early stage in the United States, and based on Planned Parenthood's support of this contraception bill in the Philippines, it would appear that if they could have their way, they would crush all written or verbal opposition to such things (including this blog) using the full force of the government.

We shouldn't be surprised really. That is, after all, the nature of Leftists. Their greatest enemy is free speech. Their greatest opposition to imposing their ideological agenda is free speech. So long as people are allowed to protest their intentions, their agenda will be hampered, and in the Leftist mindset the ends always justify the means.

That's why we shouldn't be surprised when Leftist organizations, such as Planned Parenthood for example, would have no problem supporting a bill that would effectively jail every member of the Catholic clergy in an entire nation. That's why we shouldn't be surprised when they would support a bill that would (if enacted) effectively shut down every newspaper, blog and magazine that opposes the bill within that same country. That's why we shouldn't be surprised when they use whatever legal means available to them to try to prosecute anyone and everyone who dares to expose this evil organization for what it truly is. It isn't just about Planned Parenthood though. There are plenty of other Leftist organizations, many of them stationed right here in the United States, that are just as radical and would gladly do whatever they can to shut down free speech in as many nations as possible.

That is the nature of "Liberalism" or "Progressivism" That is what it's all about when you really get down to it. "The ends justify the means, and do whatever it takes to get the agenda enacted." There is really nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about it at all, but then, that shouldn't be a surprise either. Leftists willingly embrace those labels because they effectively mask who and what they really are, giving them the cover they need to go about their business virtually undetected.

Why Catholics Can No Longer Be Democrats

From the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property...

Ten Reasons to Reject Socialism

Why we must protect the family,
private property and America from
the dangers of socialism

1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology

Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.

2. Socialism violates personal freedom

Socialism seeks to eliminate “injustice” by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity.

3. Socialism violates human nature

Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative – a fruit of our intellect and free will – and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented.

4. Socialism violates private property

Socialism calls for “redistributing the wealth” by taking from the “rich” to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift. It uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism, a goal that will be fully achieved, according to The Communist Manifesto, with the “abolition of private property."

5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage

Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.

6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education

Socialism has the State, and not parents, control the education of children. Almost from birth, children are to be handed over to public institutions, where they will be taught what the State wants, regardless of parental views. Evolution must be taught. School prayer must be forbidden.

7. Socialism promotes radical equality

A supposed absolute equality among men is the fundamental assumption of socialism. Therefore, it sees any inequality as unjust in itself. Private employers are quickly portrayed as “exploiters” whose profits really belong to their employees. As a consequence, they rule out the system of wage earning.

8. Socialism promotes atheism

Belief in God, who unlike us is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, clashes head-on with the principle of absolute equality. Socialism therefore rejects the spiritual, claiming that only matter exists. God, the soul, and the next life are illusions according to socialism.

9. Socialism promotes relativism

For socialism there are no absolute truths or revealed morals that establish standards of conduct that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Everything evolves, including right and wrong, good and evil. There is no place for the Ten Commandments, neither in the private mind nor in the public square.

10. Socialism mocks religion

According to Karl Marx, religion is "the opium of the people." Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, agreed: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."

May God protect America from socialism.

--------------------

From WorldNetDaily...

In October 2009, the Democratic Socialists of America released in its newsletter a list of 70 members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization:

Co-Chairs

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: As far as I can tell, virtually every name on that list is a Democrat - a member of the DNC.  The Democratic Party in the United States has become nothing more than a front organization for American socialism. Liberalism itself is nothing more than a weak mindset that ultimately leads to socialism and all the anti-life consequences the socialist gospel entails. It is for this reason why in 2008 a high ranking Vatican official, Archbishop Raymond Burke, referred to the U.S. Democratic Party as the "Party of Death." He made this remark as the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial office in the Vatican. The pope was made aware of Burke's comments and made no attempt to correct him. Apparently, the pope holds to a similar view.

The time has come to stop mincing words.  The U.S. Democratic Party (DNC) is a radical socialist front group, hell bent on electing socialists to public office, and establishing their version of a socialist "utopia" in the United States.  Socialism is an ideology that is diametrically opposed to Catholic Christianity on every front.  It is an EVIL counterfeit, that masquerades as compassion for the poor, when it reality it only seeks to dominate them.  Socialists will cite the words of Jesus to support their positions, but then undermine everything Jesus stood for with their very actions.  As the Holy Scriptures say of them "They have a form of godliness but deny it's power." - (2nd Timothy 3:5)  They speak love and compassion for the poor, but rather than call upon the charity of Christians to help them, they advocate the use of government force to replace the work of the Church.  They replace the true and proper worship of God, which is to care for the disadvantaged (James 1:27), with the "Cult of the Omnipotent State!"  They play the role of the pious, but then deny men the opportunity to act in charity, forcing them to give to the government instead of the poor.  Let me say this with ABSOLUTE CLARITY.

No Catholic in good standing with the Church can be a Democrat anymore! 

The Democratic Party, under the leadership of President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has moved so far to the Socialist Left that it can no longer represent the interests of Roman Catholics or any other Christians for that matter.

To be a Democrat in America now is to be a Socialist.  That may not be the philosophy you personally subscribe to, but it is the philosophy you are supporting (perhaps unwittingly) so long as you remain a member of this party and continue to vote for it's candidates.  So you say you cannot stomach the Republicans?  Fine!  Don't vote for them either.  Vote independent.  Vote third party.  Do something, but STOP voting for the Socialist Democrats!  Stop sending them money, and for heaven's sake, stop associating with their party!  For every day you remain a Democrat is another day you attack and undermine the Catholic Church, standing as an affront to everything the Church represents.

Lastly, if you want to help undo the damage of Socialism in America, than forward this blog entry to every Catholic you know.  Send it to non-Catholics too.  Copy it!  (You have my permission.)  Republish it on other blogs and Internet forums.  Get the message out.  Here's the link:
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-catholics-can-no-longer-be.html

Environmentalists Are Like Watermelons - Green on Outside and Red on Inside

 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A row has erupted after Cardinal George Pell of the Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia criticized the Green Party, which supports abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex "marriage," as "sweet camouflaged poison" that represents an "anti-Christian" point of view. The archdiocese stood strongly by the comments after Green leader Robert Brown implied that Pell lied about the party's position, and claimed to be more in touch with Catholic and Christian sentiment than the Cardinal.

When asked by young adults about how to vote in the upcoming elections, Pell recounted in a column Sunday that he did not endorse a specific party but encouraged his audience "to examine the policies of the Greens on their website and judge for themselves how thoroughly anti-Christian they are.....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Cardinal Pell just hit the nail on the head, and it's something The Catholic Knight has been saying for a very long time. The Greens are red! Red as in communist red. The problem centers NOT in their love for the environment, but in their proposed solutions to environmental problems. Sadly, most environmentalist propose solutions that involve bigger government, more government control, and less individual freedom. They almost NEVER take a free market approach to solving environmental problems, and often see big government socialism as the "best" solution to everything. This is in spite of the fact that every example of big government socialism (communism) has the worst environmental record in history.

To make matters worse, many environmentalists advocate draconian solutions to health and social issues. These include abortion on demand and euthanasia. They are often advocates of forced sterilization as well, putting them on the forefront of what Pope John Paul II called the "culture of death."

It is truly sad that most environmentalists fall into this category. Perhaps a few reading this might take it upon themselves to adopt a more pro-life and pro-freedom approach someday. Until then I think it's safe to say "The Greens Are Red!"

The Catholic Bishops' Epic Failure On Healthcare Reform

(The New Ledger) - At the most basic possible level, the Catholic Bishops — the men I hold as a matter of faith to be in the direct line of Apostolic Succession — have enabled scandal, and it has finally flowered in full. A bishop has plenary discretion in the manner in which he brings his wayward sheep back into the fold, but by any measure, to put this politely, the American bishops’ exercise of their discretion has been a total embarrassment. Scandal is the act of teaching, from a position of authority, by word or deed, that what is evil is actually good. For essentially my entire lifetime, the Democratic Party has made as one of its governing planks that women have an inherent right to murder their children. Catholic Democrats have not, with a tiny handful of exceptions, bothered to even murmur a protest; the most prominent among them have taken up that position as their own — some without even bothering to run for the Presidency first.

The roster of names is so long that its recitation would be a total rebuke to the authority of any American Catholic bishop now living and many dead. Kennedy, Leahy, Kucinich, Drinan, Durbin, Pelosi, Casey (Jr.), Mitchell, Sebelius, Cuomo, I could go on. These are men and women who have made it the goal of their careers to advocate the abortion license, to preserve it and expand it. The leaders in the fight to keep public funding of abortion were overwhelmingly self-professed Catholics. Last night, they succeeded.

They teach by word and act that abortion is, at worst, an unfortunately necessary convenience, and is more often a good. They create scandal. They do so as Catholics...

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The problem is there is nothing in the article I can argue with. Sadly, it's all true. The USCCB is an epic failure on just about every front, and this of course carries on to many individual American bishops. Not all bishop have failed, but many have, and as a result the USCCB (a left-leaning bureaucratic body anyway) is pushed into the realm of extreme Left on economic issues, dabbling into various forms of outright Marxism.

The problem here is centered around Subsidiarity, the Catholic principle of Social Justice which explicitly states that it is immoral for higher governing agencies to take over jobs that should be done by lower governing agencies. It's a bottom-up grassroots approach to government that is the complete antithesis of various forms of collectivism - Marxism, socialism, fascism and communism. The American constitutional ideal of federalism closely relates to Subsidiarity. Experts on Catholic Social Justice have called this the "hinge" upon which all of Catholic Social Justice turns, and without it there can be no Catholic Social Justice.

For something as important as Subsidiarity one would think the U.S. Catholic bishops would cover it in their official Catechism for U.S. Catholics. Instead, this all important principle of Subsidiarity gets barely a single line of mention. That is revealing. It tells a lot about where the priority of the USCCB is.

So when the Democratic controlled Congress introduced a healthcare reform bill that essentially set the stage for an eventual government takeover of the whole healthcare industry, the USCCB, along with many individual bishops, didn't see a problem with that. Instead they tried to negotiate the issue of abortion, as if it were some minor detail that had to be ironed out before this "wonderful" (yes, that's how one bishop described it) piece of legislation could be passed into law. Of course, once the extreme Left-wing Pro-Abortion Democrats in Congress and the Whitehouse realized the USCCB was willing to play footsie with them, they went to work on the backroom deals and language modification necessary to woo the Catholic votes needed and confuse the issue as much as possible. IT WORKED!

Because the USCCB was unwilling to take a clear stand for life over the years, by formerly excommunicating high profile Catholic politicians that voted for abortion, their last minute effort to throw the bill under the bus didn't work. Supposedly "Pro-Life" Catholic Democrats knew they were safe from any consequences of voting for a blatantly pro-abortion bill, so long as the President gave them the verbal promise of an executive order banning federal funding of abortion. After all, if the Catholic bishops never excommunicated the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, how could they possibly chastise them? As for Subsidiarity - what's that? Obviously Catholic Democrats had never heard of it before, certainly not from the US Catholics Bishops. So obviously that was never a problem to begin with.

Yes, the USCCB is a miserable failure, and they had better be men enough to take the blame. It was in large part their fault and I do hope they'll own up to it. However, we certainly cannot lump all American bishops in together with them. There are quite a few who have individually stood for Life and Subsidiarity without reservation and without budging. To them "The Catholic Knight" tips his helmet, but sadly in the United States they are few and far in between.

The Weakness of Democracy

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: "It is the natural progression of all representative government to inch toward socialism and tyranny." Yes, you can quote me on that. Indeed there are short periods of time when things move too fast, and the people temporarily return to their traditional sensibilities, but this is only a setback. It doesn't last. In time the steady march toward socialism and tyranny will continue. This is the lesson of the last 100 years.

(Screwtape Proposes a Toast, 1959) - Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, you remember, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn’t know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side) we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state….

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose…. [T]hey should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.

You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal…. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.

The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you….

No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority…. “They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.”

Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by the incantatory use of the word democratic.

Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else to their own level. But that is not all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic…. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals….

Meanwhile, as a delightful by-product, the few (fewer every day) who will not be made Normal or Regular and Like Folks and Integrated increasingly become in reality the prigs and cranks which the rabble would in any case have believed them to be. For suspicion often creates what it expects…. As a result we now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.

But that is a mere by-product. What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence – moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how “democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods?…

Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments; especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time…. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem”…. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma…by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career….

In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.

Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician remarked not long ago, “A democracy does not want great men.”

We, in Hell, would welcome the disappearance of democracy in the strict sense of that word, the political arrangement so called. Like all forms of government, it often works to our advantage, but on the whole less often than other forms. And what we must realize is that “democracy” in the diabolical sense (I’m as good as you, Being Like Folks, Togetherness) is the fittest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth.

For “democracy” or the “democratic spirit” (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first sign of criticism. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is possible….

It is our function to encourage the behaviour, the manners, the whole attitude of mind, which democracies naturally like and enjoy, because these are the very things which, if unchecked, will destroy democracy. You would almost wonder that even humans don’t see it themselves. Even if they don’t read Aristotle (that would be undemocratic) you would have thought the French Revolution would have taught them that the behaviour aristocrats naturally like is not the behaviour that preserves aristocracy. They might then have applied the same principle to all forms of government….

The overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave states are for us a means (besides, of course, being fun); but the real end is the destruction of individuals. For only individuals can be saved or damned, can become sons of the Enemy or food for us. The ultimate value, for us, of any revolution, war, or famine lies in the individual anguish, treachery, hatred, rage, and despair which it may produce. I’m as good as you is a useful means for the destruction of democratic societies. But it has a far deeper value as an end in itself, as a state of mind which, necessarily excluding humility, charity, contentment, and all the pleasures of gratitude or admiration, turns a human being away from almost every road which might finally lead him to Heaven.

source

Catholic Social Justice Verses Socialism

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Fast forward the above YouTube clip to 2:30 minutes and watch it until you get to about 3:50 minutes. There is a section in here that's of particular interest to us. Here Michael Moore trounces Sean Hannity on the issue of socialism v. capitalism. To set the stage, both men are "Roman Catholics" - believe it or not. They both attend mass regularly, and they both claim to subscribe to the teachings of the Church. Now we could debate their fidelity to Church teaching from now until kingdom come, but that doesn't serve our purpose here. What does serve our purpose is the observation that neither men have any clue what the Scriptures teach about economics and property rights. Both men appear to possess a small piece of the picture, and admittedly, Michael Moore is far more skilled at defending his. Now I've watched, and listen to, both men for a while. I'm not too particularly impressed with either one. Hannity, though having gone through divinity school, has always been a huge disappointment. I think he lost a lot of credibility in my book a few years back when the 'Passion of the Christ' movie came out, and the man could not adequately explain on air the reason and message behind the atoning suffering and death of Jesus Christ, and this from a man who attended divinity school! So I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that he was completely unable to defend a simple Church teaching about economics and property rights. Michael Moore has been at least as disappointing as Sean Hannity, if not more so. Like many who subscribe to the heretical view of "Liberation Theology" (Christian Socialism), Moore is adept at pointing out sections of Scriptures that exhort compassion toward the poor. However, he conveniently leaves out some very important details.

Now 'The Catholic Knight' is not a theology major. I never went to divinity school or seminary. That however, does not make me incompetent as a Christian. I can make some simple observations of Scripture and Church teaching, as can anyone with at least half a brain, and point them out in a public setting like this blog.

Michael Moore, like many "Christian" socialists, is very adept at pointing out passages of Scripture that exhort compassion for the poor, and judgement for the rich who fail to help them. This is all well and good. What he fails to point out is context. For the sake of brevity I will not bother to indulge in these multiple passages, since I'm sure our Christian socialist friends can point them out ad nauseum. Instead I'll focus on two passages which give us a universal context in which to place all Scripture references on the subject. They both come from the Book of Acts...

Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. - Acts 2:43-45 NIV

----------------

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. - Acts 5:1-6 NIV

They slaying of Ananias and Sapphira is a miracle of terror which should strike fear and trembling into the heart of every Christian believer. The point of the story has more to do with authority than anything else. You see Ananias and Sapphira were lying to the apostles, and in doing so they were lying to the Church, and ultimately to God. The point of the story is the Church occupies God's position of authority on earth. Lying to the Church is no different than lying to God himself. Ananias and Sapphira have been enshrined in Scripture as perpetual examples of what not to do. Don't lie to the Church!

Now having dealt with the reason why these two were slain, let's deal with the context. The first passage from Acts 2 deals with the habits of the very first Christians. They were very communal, in the sense that they shared everything. It was the love of Christ that compelled them to do this, and it was their right to do so if they so desired. However, by the time we get to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, we discover something else about the early Church. After having lied about donating all of their possessions, St. Peter confronts Ananias about this, pointing out to him that it was certainly within his right as a Christian to retain his property and give only as he saw fit. Regarding Ananias' property, Peter asked: "Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?" In other words, you had the right to do with it as you pleased. Nobody was forcing you to give it all to the Church. So why didn't you just give what you saw fit? Why did you LIE and tell us you are giving the full amount? In this Peter is pointing out a fundamental human right that is acknowledged by the Church. It is the right to own property, buy and sell it, make a reasonable profit, and do with it as you please. The context of Christian communal living is the right to not participate, which is what makes the communal living of the first Christians so remarkable. They didn't have to do it. There was no sin in retaining their property and just giving a small donation to the Church. In spite of this however, the first Christians chose to give up everything! And that is what makes them so remarkable. If we fail to acknowledge their Christian right to keep their property for themselves, we diminish their sacrifice, and we damage their testimony.

From this early communal living arose the Christian concept of monasticism. Throughout the ages, Christians have voluntarily engaged in this lifestyle. It was (and still is) their choice, and if we say it was (or is) anything other than a choice, a Christian "duty" for example, we lessen their sacrifice. Herein we have the quintessential difference between Social Justice and Socialism.

In contrast, Socialism is a form of Marxism, and it arises from the misguided utopian notion that if everybody were forced by the government to sacrifice most of what they have, or all of what they have, society would be more "fair" and "just." Typically the needs of the poor are promoted as the reason for socialism. In other words, instead of voluntarily sacrificing your own property for the sake of the poor out of a sense of compassion and selfless charity, you should be FORCED by the government to surrender it against your will.

Marxism, in all it's forms (including communism, socialism, fascism and liberalism) has been condemned by the Catholic Church. This is especially true for so-called "Liberation Theology" or Christian Socialism. The problem with these ideologies is their reliance on government force to accomplish a job that is reserved for the Holy Spirit alone. Christians are supposed to be convicted by the Holy Spirit of God to feel compassion for their fellow man, and thus be compelled to sacrifice their own property (as they see fit) to assist those in need. There is absolutely nothing in Biblical Scripture, nor in the teachings of the Catholic Church (thus nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ), which suggests that people (Christian or otherwise) should be FORCED by the government, against their will, to give part (or all) of their property to assist their fellow man. To force this action is to deprive the Holy Spirit of his job, and effectively put government in the place of God.  It also deprives Christians of their role in the world, effectively minimizing the ministry of the Church to a mere academic role.

Now having said all that, the Church does not subscribe to a laissez-faire approach to capitalism either. The problem with this again goes back to property rights. Pure and unregulated capitalism can become just as oppressive as socialism because once again, through unbridled market forces, it can deny people of basic property rights. A perfect example of this is the minimum wage. When employers refuse to pay their employees at least a basic standard, they can effectively conspire together to keep wages low, as they have in the past, resulting in a lower social-economic class of citizens who are economically enslaved by their employers. Another example is free-market trading practices, which effectively allow the rich and powerful to trade property (flash trading) at speeds beyond the reach of middle class citizens. Monopolies are another example, wherein competent middle class citizens are denied the right to commercial property due to market practices that unfairly undercut their competition for the purpose of driving all competitors out of business and maintaining the monopoly. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. The Church would not even bother to address such things, if it didn't believe that free-enterprise property rights are the basis of economic social justice.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church...

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

So the moral of the story is that Michael Moore and Sean Hannity are both wrong. Each of these so-called "Catholics" subscribes to an ideology the Catholic Church opposes. Moore is a socialist, and the Church has condemned this philosophy by name, and historically has even gone so far as to excommunicate those who espouse this ideology as "Christian." (Better be careful Michael!) On the other hand Sean Hannity also subscribes to an ideology of "libertarian capitalism," a type of laissez-faire that goes far beyond what the Church approves. Both ideologies oppress the poor when taken to their logical conclusion, and both ideologies have historical examples where this is exactly the case. Both men are ideologues, and neither one of them makes a case for authentic Catholic Social Justice. Moore abuses Church teaching, and Hannity has no idea how to defend it.