Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity". Pope Francis/Pope Benedict

Monday, 29 February 2016

America on the verge of total collapse: NO pro-life candidates running for US President

[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one’s interests are encroached upon—concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called “natural” intercourse

Bolshevik, Grigorii Btakis

The United States of America is in very, very serious decline. America's ruling capitalist class is deeply and profoundly imbued with a decadent bourgeoise morality that is completely anti-Christian. This was warned about sternly by Pius XI and denounced by Pius XII in his Pelerinage a Lourdes. No one listened. The holy Pope accurately predicted that capitalism - just as socialism did - would become a perverse moral force leading to greater immorality and a culture of death. International financiers and bankers etc. are not paragons of virtue. To my knowledge, the "Pill" and other contraceptives are manufactured by capitalists. 

It is always difficult to predict the future, but there exists in the United States (and western Europe, for that matter) the moral chaos that permeated the Weimar Republic, prior to its transition into National Socialism. The emerging Presidential elections show certainly one thing: an angry populace. But it is an angry debased populace which will lead to a certain conclusion. The capitalist, Donald Trump, and the socialist, Bernie Sanders benefiting from this anger. 

Here are a couple of predictions: Trump and Sanders will be the nominees. Neither have the solutions, but both are asking and raising serious questions that no one else wants to raise. Both have become the self-appointed spokesmen against the horrendous decadence and corruption that exists in American politics, economics and social life. Sadly, neither man recognizes Our Lord Jesus Christ. Trump is a nominal Christian; Sanders a Jew. Neither man recognizes Catholic social teaching. Neither man can stop America's accelerating decline. As a "good" Protestant, Trump will follow the dogma of separation of the Christian from the citizen; as a "good" Jew, Sanders will embrace the new jurisprudence that emerged from Protestantism and morphed into the the so-called Age of Enlightenment (in truth a new dark age) that sought to dethrone Our Lord in Society. In truth, Trump versus Sanders is merely an in-house quarrel between David Ricardo and Karl Marx. Our Lord Jesus Christ is firmly blocked out of any consideration. 

What of the various "pro-life" candidates running for President? A sober analysis of the positions held by the various GOP candidates - all claiming to be "pro-life" collapses under analysis. Yes, they are against abortion in various degrees: the fact is, though, when you are in favour for abortion for "life of the mother", that usually ends up in abortion on demand. From what I have read these men favour the mass sale and distribution of contraception. 

But no one can claim to be pro-life who favours contraception. This monstrous evil, is the elephant in the room. 

Let us take these men back 100 years: would they be acceptable by the man of the soil, the farmer, the worker? Who, back 100 years ago would welcome them as a candidate? Let us remember these men are on record as contraception supporters. For a start they would both be firmly repudiated by their respective religious communities. They would be considered libertines, trail blazing for Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement. Though holding moral positions similar to Marxist-Leninists, as advocates of capitalism they would have to seek political support elsewhere. 

Such men would turn to other nascent groups that rejected Christian morality. Political parties were appearing that adhered to capitalism and rejected Christian morality. Within a few years, in Italy, a socialist would switch to supporting capital and eventually emerge as Il Duce. In Germany, the German Workers Party would be joined by another eugenics supporter and evolve into the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Without Our Lord Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone the grandest plans will come to naught. 

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Martin Luther hated the Mass:"...the greatest and most horrible abomination..." yet why do priests promote and praise Luther?

Martin Luther. Article II: Of the Mass: 

That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible is but a pure invention of men...In addition to all this, this dragon's tail, [I mean] the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries....In short, the Mass itself and anything that proceeds from it, and anything that is attached to it, we cannot tolerate, but must condemn...

And so did the practicing homosexual priest, Gregory Baum. Imagine: committing sodomy and then using those very same hands to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ unworthily. How many demons must have been surrounding Baum as he committed this blasphemy and sacrilege, time and again.  

Friday, 26 February 2016

BREAKING: Canadian Special Joint Committee recommends "EFFECTIVE REFERRAL" for euthanasia and NO freedom of conscience for health care providers

German children marked out for euthanasia by Nazis

Euthanasia has come to Canada. No holds barred. Recommendation 10 is a particularly vile attack on conscience rights of health care providers who reject and refuse to participate in someone's suicide and/or their effective murder. It is now quite evident that all preliminary discussions about how and who will be exempt have been swept off the table by the Special Joint Committee. For example, seeing the weakness of those opposed to euthanasia (as manifested in "The Proposal") only emboldened the enemies of life, knowing there is no substantive opposition. When evil senses weakness, it always strikes harder, demanding more. A disastrous error was committed to surrender before the battle had even been joined. 

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Minister of Health, Jane Philpott,  have issued a joint statement on February 25, 2016, a day that will live in infamy along with abortion legislation from 1969. 

“We are pleased to welcome the Special Joint Committee's reports, tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons today. The reports set out recommendations that our government will consider in crafting a framework on physician-assisted dying (PAD)".

In the following recommendation for the proposed legislation, -"Recommendation 10" - notice the pro-death language, and notice the duplicity and hypocrisy about respect for a "health care practitioner's freedom of conscience".  There is none! 


That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and territories and their medical regulatory bodies to establish a process that respects a health care practitioner’s freedom of conscience while at the same time respecting the needs of a patient who seeks medical assistance in dying. At a minimum, the objecting practitioner must provide an effective referral for the patient. 

So there we have it! A physician, a nurse, "at a minimum" will have to "provide an effective referral". This is simply beyond outrageous! This is a vile, monstrous attack on our health care providers. 

Since this will be going to the House of Commons as legislation, any attempt to deal with this subject ought to be directed towards lobbying MPs and support for acts of civil disobedience. We must also remember: it is not just about protecting physicians' conscience rights, but all health care providers rights! 

There will be physicians, nurses and other health care providers who will resist this evil. We must be prepared to stand with the, to support them. 

A legal Defense Fund should be established for conscientious objectors who will engage in civil disobedience. We need a grass roots response and some way for it to be manifested.

Action item. Please write immediately to the Prime Minister of Canada at: 
Mail may be sent postage-free to any Member of Parliament. 

Justin Trudeau
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Fax: 613-941-6900
Telephone: 613-947-0310

Minister of Health

Jane Philpott
House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Fax: 613-992-3642
Telephone: 613-992-3640

Minister of Justice
Jody Wilson-Raybould
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Telephone: 613-992-1416
Fax: 613-992-1460

Please write to your local MP. They can be found here. 

Thursday, 25 February 2016

The Pope is not Mohommed: A Magisterium in crisis ~ every word out of the Pope's mouth does not come from the Holy Spirit

Over the decades, for various reasons, there has been a gradual buildup amongst Catholics that: a) the Pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit during a Conclave; b) the Pope is an automaton of the Holy Spirit; and c) as an extension of "b", every word and action by a pope is holy, perfect and from the Holy Spirit.

The main reasons for this idol worship of a mere man - this papolatry - is that in past decades the Church was blessed with a number of extraordinarily holy popes while at the same time as there was a growth in mass media.

Catholics suddenly heard from, could see their Holy Father. This was and is a good thing, but it carries certain dangers. It is natural that Catholics revere the successor of Peter, to owe him a filial obedience, love and respect. However, such loyalty, without proper catechesis and a check on emotions (driven and exacerbated by a celebrity-crazed culture of which Catholics are not immune as evidenced by crazed youth at World Youth Day junkets) a Catholic can quickly fall into idolatry and error.

A Pope speaking, musing like a parish priest before the entire world is not a good thing. Especially since many believe that his every word is from the Holy Spirit. That the Pope is some cassocked version of Mohommed. 

This attitude has led to a crisis in the Magisterium. Most Catholics forget that the Pope is the Guardian of Faith and Morals as handed down by Tradition. The Providential genius of Vatican I, in its declaration of Papal Infallibility, was to actually put severe restrictions on the words and actions of a Pope. A few decades later we would see heretics overturning 2000 years of morality by taking up contraception: the the Pope, the most powerful man in Christendom was and is powerless to take contraception up. He is powerless for he is a servant of Jesus Christ (while the others serve the world, the flesh and the devil). 

Unless speaking ex cathedra to the whole Church and making it plain is was doing so, the words and actions of a Pope are not part of the Magisterium per se; unless they repeat what was already and everywhere taught. 

Are, for example Pope Francis' improvised daily homilies magisterial in any way? Are his in-flight verbal meanderings? Absolutely not. 

Yet, we have celebrity priests using them to further their personal agendas. This is disgraceful. The few Catholics, who state that what the Pope says at daily Mass and in-flight carry no authority and should not be worried about, are missing the point. The Pope's improvised remarks carry a veneer of incredible authority because of the papolatrist culture. To say that what the Pope said about contraception and the Congolese nuns is nonsense or unimportant is gravely erroneous. What he said was incredibly important, because most Catholics believe it to carry magisterial authority, and will shout down those who say it does not with cries of "disobedience", and being "against" the Pope. 

Yet all of this is plainly contradicted by Sacred Scripture, by the Councils and by Popes themselves. A Pope can err like the next man, and as history has shown, does. Evil men have been elected to the Throne of Peter. Evil men on the Throne of Peter have also damaged the Church. 

Unlike Mohommed- whom Moslems believe to be Allah's "prophet" and law giver; a man to whom the Koran was dictated (every word) to by this higher "Power" - the Pope is not a pawn in the hands of a higher Power, to whom God "dictates" or inspires every word. To believe this of the Pope is heresy. Yet, sadly, I have heard good and devout priests say about Popes: "don't worry, the Holy Spirit is leading..."

It is time for there to be true loyalty to the Church, to the Magisterium - by the Pope and on down to the all the Faithful. The post-flight statements and behaviour by Federico Lombardi S.J. following the disaster of the in-flight press conference are beyond disgusting and disgraceful. Fr. Lombardi continues to perpetuate the LIE about Paul VI supporting contraception. Sandro Magister carries an excellent article about the errors and deceptions of Lombardi. Ed Peters, likewise,  has an excellent article on John Allen Jr's completely erroneous understanding of the papal Magisterium (this article being eagerly re-tweeted by celebrity priests). 

The Pope is not Mohommed, he is not some idol, some god who makes up truth and falsehood as he goes along. 

He too, must work out his salvation in "fear and trembling". 

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

"Crux" and "America" continues the LIE about Paul VI and contraception ~ the Pope DID NOT approve the use of contraception

Not to be outdone by the arch-modernist Jesuit publication, "America, the "religious" arm of the Boston Globe continues to perpetuate the LIE that Pope Paul VI approved contraception for nuns in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I wrote against "America" and its promotion of the big LIE regarding Pope Paul VI. Today, I shall concentrate on the shameful journalism (in reality propaganda) coming from Crux. On February 18th, Crux published an article claiming that the late Pope Paul had given permission for nuns to use contraceptives in the Congo.  Ines San Martin wrote: 

"the Pope cited a decision by Pope Paul VI in the early 1960s..."

When it was exposed that this is a LIE - here and here, Crux had to find new kindling to build its fire and John Allen Jr. has trotted this out: 

" Francis said Paul VI “permitted” birth control in that context, which, to Anglo-Saxon ears, implies a formal juridical act. The line sparked a frenzy of fruitless Internet searches, as people went looking for a Vatican edict or decree that just doesn’t exist.
Here’s what happened: In December 1961, the influential Italian journal Studi Cattolici (“Catholic Studies”) published an issue in which three Catholic moral theologians agreed that in the Congo case, contraception could be justified.

The future Paul VI, at that stage, was still the Archbishop of Milan, and close to the currents that shaped Studi Cattolici. It was assumed the conclusions reflected his thinking. That appeared to be confirmed later when Paul VI made one of the authors, Pietro Palazzini, a cardinal.

Is this it?  Is this the argument? If so, why not trot it out on the 18th? But let us examine this "argument".  When did innuendo become papal Magisterium?  Catholic moral theology is clear cut: one cannot do evil that good may come of it. Contraception is, in every circumstance intrinsically evil.

It is historically wrong: Pope Paul elevated Raymond Hunthasen to archbishop in 1975 - is Allen implying the Pope did so because of Hunthasuen's heresies? John Paul -sadly - elevated many a dissenter to the Cardinalate; that in no way implied his support of their heresies (e.g. Carter, Mahoney, Martini, Kasper...). 

It is rascist. Why speak of "Anglo-Saxons" in this derogatory manner? In point of fact, this scandal is all over the internet in many languages. For example, the Polish media are carrying it. Will Allen Jr. now start complaining about the "Slavs" as having juridical hang-ups?
What we have is a big LIE being spread by Crux.

It is time they stopped, and it is time that celebrity priests: such as James Martin S.J., Edward Beck C.P., and Thomas Rosica, CSB stopped supporting this deceptive propaganda and nonsense coming from Crux and America.

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Euthanasia in Canada: the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians must REJECT "The Proposal"

Late last year I was made aware of the grave dangers and errors of "The Proposal" by our dear friend and sister, Mary Wagner. It is a document drawn up by the Canadian Medical and Dental Society and co-sponsored by the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians  Societies and Canadian Physicians for Life. "The Proposal" was accepted by the Canadian Medical Association. All sides seemed happy; all could return to a comfortable life. The proponents of death would have an open path to expanding the culture of death unopposed; the physicians who found euthanasia wrong would agree not to actively resist and go quietly into the closet. Where "The Proposal" is coming from is quite evident even from the euthanasia language that it uses. The monied and multi-million dollar Foundation funded, First Things neo-con outfit, criticized Mary for her calling out the surrender of euthanasia. I have more than effectively rebutted the establishment's critique of her.  

Catholic blogger, Susan Fox, of Christ's Faithful Witness - a dear friend of mine who helped organize Mary Wagner's birthday gift of a Rosary Bouquet - has written an analysis of "The Proposal" as well as her observations of the manner in which those who should be leading the charge against this evil have just surrendered. I cannot recommend Susan's article enough. 

Susan writes: 

Canadian physicians with consciences wrote up “The Proposal” to the Canadian Medical Association. It was offered by the Christian Medical and Dental Society with the support of the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians' Societies and Canadian Physicians for Life.

In it, they developed a “safe” approach to saving their consciences and staying out of jail. They could not in good conscience refer a patient to be euthanized, but they could, in fact, inform them that they might self-refer themselves. Patients are autonomous agents, after all, and able to make their own choices.

 In the physician’s defense, they propose to try and “cure” the patient first of whatever is causing him to choose death.

But what is the difference between referring and informing someone about euthanasia? Catholic Theologian in Training, Lawrence Fox, who grew up on the rough streets of Baltimore, answered the question. “You tell them you can’t condone stealing, but you’d be happy to tell them where nobody’s looking!”

Once again I ask: when will the evil "The Proposal" be rejected? 

America magazine continues to promote the myth of Paul VI, the nuns and contraception ~ celebrity priests - Beck and Rosica - re-tweeting this moral error

The neo-modernist Jesuit magazine, America, continues to spread the falsehood about Pope Paul VI giving permission for nuns in the Congo to use contraception. This myth is being re-tweeted by CNN's religion commentator and close friend of the militantly pro-abortion Cuomo family: Fr Edward Beck, and the Vatican's English language spokesman, Thomas Rosica CSB. 

It is indeed disconcerting that these two celebrity priests would be re-tweeting what is a fiction. But there is a greater evil at work here. America is advocating that one can do evil that good may come from it. Two priests are re-tweeting this morally unacceptable position. It is time that Frs. Beck and Rosica reject this error. 

Sp, once again - can contraception be used to avoid a disease? The answer is absolute: NO. One cannot do evil that good may come from it. Intrinsically disordered acts do not - ever - permit exceptions. The solution to this disease is simple: abstinence. It is not hard - a child can do it. 

 Humanae Vitae: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend positively something which intrinsically contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual of a family, or of society in general (n. 14).

This is not at all a theological opinion which is open to free discussion, rather, as was stated with extreme clarity by John Paul II on 5 Tune 1987: “What is taught by the Church on contraception is not one of the matters that may be freely disputed by theologians. To teach the contrary is equivalent to leading the conscience of spouses into error”.

Friday, 19 February 2016

St. Pope John Paul II: the use of contraception is always intrinsically evil ~ it DOES NOT permit exceptions

Contrary to the twitterati, no door can be opened to an action that is always and everywhere intrinsically evil. 

Can a woman use contraceptives to avoid - e.g. the dangers of the Zika virus? 
Contrary to the zealous twitterati, seemingly eager to bring birth control in, the Church has a different answer. It is a firm:NO. 

Contraception is intrinsically evil, and no one may do evil that good may come of it. There are no exceptions.

From L'Osservatore Romano, February 27, 1987, page 9:  

Recent weeks have witnessed critical and sometimes harsh observations on conjugal morality as this is taught by the Magisterium of the Church and in particular by the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI.

Doubts have been raised about interpretations of this teaching judged excessively rigid and intransigent, and grave fears have been expressed that, if the Church continues to teach and urge the moral norm of Humanae Vitae in keeping with such interpretations, she may lose credibility and attention with the critical person of today and with a large number of the faithful.

The mass media, for their part, have not been silent; they have echoed the doubts and fears of some theologians, often with undue simplification and mistaken interpretations, producing much confusion among the faithful.

In general, these doubts and fears are raised by considering first of all those couples who find difficulty in observing the moral norm regarding responsible procreation, that is to say, they are raised in terms of a sensitivity and concern which are meant to be pastoral. But one also finds reference to more specifically doctrinal questions, such as, for example, the interpretation of certain elements of tradition the claim that it is impossible to provide a biblical foundation of some particular moral norms (like the norm which prohibits contraception), recourse to a more definitely theological way of posing the moral question (“teleological” in the sense of a weighing of the consequences), and stressing the rights of personal conscience vis-à-vis the teaching of the Magisterium. Such objections are sometimes formulated without the scientific rigour which should distinguish serious theological reflection. Occasionally they take the form of personal attacks of a rancorous and disconcerting kind.

1. Certainly, every couple in difficulty merits great respect and love, especially when it is the various circumstances of life, not only personal but also economic and social, which make it difficult to fulfil moral duty.

The Church, for her part, as Teacher and Mother, is called to draw inspiration from the attitude of her Lord, from whom she receives the gift of pastoral love; this is an attitude full of love, of understanding, of patience and of mercy, while at the same time it is clear and strong in announcing and proposing the truth and the moral norm whose observance is a necessary condition of a life that is truly and fully human, and for the journey of holiness to which we are all called.

The Gospels bear witness to the fact that truth and mercy unite to form the single and undivided attitude of the Lord Jesus. His pastoral attitude is revealed in an outstandingly clear and typical example in the word which Jesus addresses to the woman who was a sinner: “Has no one condemned you?... Neither do I condemn you, go, and do not sin again” (Jn 8:10-11). Calling good and evil by their right names, Jesus does not falsify moral truth, but bears witness to it in an unmistakable way, and in offering his merciful love to the woman who had sinned and repented, he leads her back to the truth and to salvation.

Thus love and pastoral concern towards couples in difficulty can never (if one means to offer them real help) be separated from the truth, and can never evade or dilute the duty of calling good and evil by their right names. As was well said by Paul VI in his Encyclical, “it is an outstanding manifestation of charity towards souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ” (Humanae Vitae, n 29).

The duty of calling good and evil by their right names in the area of responsible procreation was carried out by Paul VI with a most faithful love for Christ and for souls, particularly in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae. The Holy Father John Paul II has fulfilled the same duty, and continues to fulfil it, in full keeping with the Second Vatican Council and with the Encyclical just mentioned.

2. Part of this very duty is maintaining that the moral norm of Humanae Vitae concerning contraception, as prohibiting an intrinsically disordered act, does not admit exceptions. Such a statement is not at all a rigid and intransigent interpretation of the moral norm. It is simply the clear and explicit teaching of Paul VI, often repeated and maintained by the present Pope.

As we read in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend positively something which intrinsically contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual of a family, or of society in general (n. 14).

This is not at all a theological opinion which is open to free discussion, rather, as was stated with extreme clarity by John Paul II on 5 Tune 1987: “What is taught by the Church on contraception is not one of the matters that may be freely disputed by theologians. To teach the contrary is equivalent to leading the conscience of spouses into error”.

3. The Christian moral tradition has always distinguished between positive norms (which bid us to act) and negative norms (which forbid action). Further, this tradition has constantly and clearly maintained that, among negative norms, those which prohibit intrinsically disordered acts do not admit exceptions; such acts, indeed, are morally “disordered” on account of their own innermost structure, hence in and of themselves, that is, they are opposed to the person in his or her specific dignity as a person. For this very reason, no subjective intention and circumstance (which do not change the structure of these acts) can make such acts morally ordered.

Contraception is one of these acts in itself and of itself it is always a moral disorder since objectively and intrinsically (independently of subjective intentions, motives, and circumstances) it contradicts “the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife” (Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 32).

Thursday, 18 February 2016

Bernie "the Bolshevik" Sanders re-tweets vicious pro-abortion feminists, "Pussy Riot"

Bernie Sanders, has finally revealed the depth of his evil. Behind the veneer of championing the poor, the downtrodden and the deprived; behind the hypocrisy of re-tweeting papal social tweeting (to deceive the unwary), there is another Bernie Sanders: the real Bernie. His economic policies are a mere side show.  

The real danger, the real evil is not Mr. Sanders advocating for some form of universal health care - no, his real, diabolical evil is his support of killing babies in the wombs of their mothers, his support of homosexuality, his militant support of same-sex "marriage". The evil that is Sanders cannot be underestimated. If elected, America will indeed "feel the burn". It will not be a pleasant experience. 

Needless to say Catholics should not be surprised that this despicable man has re-tweeted the grotesquely obscene and blasphemous "Pussy Riot" feminists. Thank God, these horrid feminists were dealt firmly with by the Russian authorities when they profaned a Cathedral. An attempt to disturb the peace during the Olympic Games were also dealt with by Cossacks. 

Watching the video below, we can appreciate the hatred that Sanders has for Christ the King. It is no coincidence that Bernie Sanders is strongly supported by the dissident homosexualist group, New Ways Ministry. 

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

The Holy See Delegate delivers another speech at the UN worthy of a Freemason

The Holy See Delegation at the United Nations seems to be distinguishing itself as an exponent of secularism. A secularism that surely must warm the hearts of many a Freemason in the "august" Hall. 

According to the Holy See's delegation, the UN Charter is the "key to international peace and security". One must presume that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not welcome at the UN. In vain will one search for a mention of God, of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Objectively speaking, to talk of peace without the Prince of Peace is blasphemy. 

The following scandalous speech was delivered before the UN by Mgr. Simon Kassas:  

New York, 15 February 2016

Mr. President,
My delegation extends to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela its thanks for bringing this topic to the attention of the Security Council.
As extremist ideologies grow within the human community, giving rise to terrorist groups and various non-state actors, it is important to look closely at the thoughts of the United Nations founding members as they were reeling from the devastation of two world wars in less than half a century. Their desire to save future generations from the scourge of war and to forbid war as an instrument of foreign policy speaks to a moral and ethical value to be highly esteemed as integral to human development.
Mr. President,
When Pope Francis addressed the General Assembly last September 25, he spoke of the means by which the hopes enshrined by the UN’s founding members in the Charter would be realized or frustrated. He stated, “When the Charter of the United Nations is respected and applied with transparency and sincerity, and without ulterior motives, as an obligatory reference point of justice and not as a mean of masking spurious intentions, peaceful results will be obtained. When, on the other hand, the norm is considered as an instrument to be used whenever it proves favorable, and to be avoided when it is not, a true Pandora’s Box is opened, releasing uncontrollable forces that gravely harm defenseless populations, the cultural milieu and even the biological environment.”
Mr. President,
In his address to the General Assembly last October 2nd, Archbishop Paul R. Gallagher, the Holy See’s Secretary for Relations with States, suggested four areas of reflection that could be useful to furthering the mission and commitment of the United Nations, including two that are especially relevant to the work of this Council: the “responsibility to protect” and the respect for international law.
What is needed, as Archbishop Gallagher highlighted, is a genuine and transparent application of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which established the principle of non-intervention, excluded all unilateral force against another member of the United Nations, and demanded full respect for lawfully constituted and recognized governments. Pacta sunt servanda, he said, and Article 2 of the Charter has definitively banned concepts like “preventive war,” attempts to redesign geographic areas and peoples under the pretext of a principle of security, or interventions of third party States in favor of one side in a situation of civil conflict. He added, however, that Article 2 cannot be used as an alibi to excuse grave violations of human rights. Where such violations persist and further intervention is considered necessary, there is no other recourse than to apply the measures set forth in Chapters 6 and 7 of the Charter.
Mr. President,
As the Holy See has indicated in previous interventions on the topic of war, hidden beneath the rhetoric of impunity against civilians and the difficulties of providing humanitarian aid to those suffering, is the harsh reality that the industrial complexes of the world are providing weapons and munitions either for money on the open or black market, or perhaps as gifts to client groups, governments or non-state actors. The arms trade must be restrained. Rather than attaining peace and stability, weapons proliferation has resulted in more deaths and injuries and has produced waves of fleeing refugees. To market and sell weapons for self-defense is one thing, but the aggressive nature of current technologies is cause for grave ethical concern. Indiscriminately to kill civilians is a heinous crime. As technological advances are applied to weaponry, it appears to my delegation that we may know more about killing than we do about providing for the living. Have the words of the Charter to save future generations from the scourge of war been fulfilled? Each of us in the Chamber knows in the depths of our being the answer to that question.
Thank you, Mr. President.

Monday, 15 February 2016

Donald J Trump: can a Catholic vote for him?

Planned Parenthood is the most evil organization in the world. How can anyone possibly support them? Has Donald Trump just joined Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as another Presidential candidate that no Christian can support without committing grave sin? 

The US elections are especially complex this year: no candidate is perfect and all four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance are supported within the totality of all the candidates. For example, Marco Rubio while opposing the sin of homosexuality, supports the sin of depriving workers of a just wage and so on. Have Catholics been disenfranchised or will there still be the possibility to vote for the lesser of two evils? The next few months will provide greater clarity. 

Friday, 12 February 2016

"First Things" gets it wrong about Mary Wagner and "The Proposal": How euthanasia is roaring into Canada

German children - victims of the Nazi euthanasia program 

Toronto Catholic Witness  - to my knowledge - was the first to publicly criticize "The Proposal". I became aware of it late last year, when Mary Wagner raised her concerns about it with me in a number of conversations. This was shortly prior to her arrest on December 12, 2015 at a Toronto abortion killing factory.  Readers will know that Mary is to stand trial on March 10th, and is expected to receive a nine month sentence for defending Christ and His Truth. 

I promised Mary I would look into it. When I read "The Proposal", I was deeply shocked; in fact, horrified. 

The Proposal  

I wrote about it on this blog, calling attention to its errors. More recently Mary wrote an Open Letter on Euthanasia reiterating her concerns, and asking  that her Letter be distributed far and wide - which is what this blog, Light up the Darkness, and Christ's Faithful Witness have been doing. We will not cease to publicly criticize "The Proposal" until the various Christian and Catholic associations disavow it in its present form. Mary is correct in identifying the "defeatism" that permeates it. 

Recently, an American publication called First Things has published what can best be described as a passive-aggressive article on Mary's Open Letter by Douglas Farrow, from the University of McGill. As I reviewed First Things website, I noticed it boasted of being:"America's most influential journal of religion and public life". 

Though around for years, in a keyword search of their website, it would seem that this is the first time First Things has ever mentioned Mary Wagner. Sadly, Linda Gibbons - who has been resisting abortion for over twenty years - has yet to come onto the radar of "America's most influential journal of religion and public life". A further search of the internet revealed that Farrow has addressed a 2009 conference of the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians Societies in Ottawa, Canada. The Federation is an endorser of "The Proposal". In the interests of a possible conflict of interest, Farrow should have disclosed his association with the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians Societies.

Nazi euthanasia nurses 

One must wonder what is the purpose and timing of the article? What has motivated First Things to finally write about one of two Canadian resisters to the horror of abortion that exists in this country? If the article is, as the author says, "to underline her point that language matters.." why devote nearly the first half - just under 50% -  to defending "The Proposal" and trying to undermine Mary's - and others' critique - of  its unacceptability; all the while claiming: "I won't try to offer my own analysis of the Proposal"! An interesting tactic. In his "passive" conclusion Farrow concedes in Mary's favour: the euthanasia language of "The Proposal" is totally unacceptable. 

Why then write about Mary in First Things? The answer is simple: her position on euthanasia and the very  challenging questions she is raising about "The Proposal" is causing discomfort for the comfortable. The fact remains, the self-declared Catholic "establishment" will have to accept that there will be on-going public scrutiny and criticism of "The Proposal". It is indeed condescending and elitist to speak of "outsiders" who should know better. Someone has been rattled by this opposition to "The Proposal". Good! It is time for a Gospel of Life movement! It is time for authentic Christianity to be counter-cultural. 

"The Proposal" needs to be rejected.