Fr. Sammie Maletta’s Homily on Religious Liberty and the HHS Mandate

In recent years, we’ve had cause to discuss the subject of political speech from the pulpit here at St. John the Evangelist. Many many many of you have regularly challenged me to speak out more frequently on matters that I deemed are purely political and as a result, I have refused to do so. However, others are so sensitive about this that even when I recently recommended two of our parishioners that were running for local office, they became vocally upset. Generally speaking, the message we priests preach should not be political except when it comes to faith and morals. What I’m about to share with you in my opinion moves beyond faith and morals and goes to our very existence to function and therefore I claim the right as your pastor. I claim the right as an American citizen. I claim the responsibility as a priest to speak what I perceive to be the truth.

Little more than three years ago, after Mr. Obama was elected but not yet sworn in as President of the United States of America, the bishops finally gave us priests permission to tell our congregations the truth about what Mr. Obama’s intention was and that was to force the Catholic Church to engage in morally repugnant actions or lose our ability to carry out the gospel message in health care, social services and education. I gave a stirring talk that Sunday, and you as well as people across the country, because the priests in their parishes also got up and spoke, sent millions of cards, letters, phone calls to DC, demanding reassurances that the Obama administration would not proceed with its plans. Almost immediately, the President-elect contacted the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and invited the bishops to a meeting, at which time he gave his word. He gave his word to our bishops that the conscience clause that exempts religious organizations from participating in those federal mandates that go against our conscience would not be disturbed. At that time, President-elect Obama feigned surprise that Catholics would even think that he would do something like this. And with those assurances, the bishops backed down. Within a few months of his administration, Obamacare was introduced creating a deep division in our country as the President’s vision of comprehensive health care coverage became clearer. Arguing that the poor would finally receive health care which is a longstanding goal of our bishops and of all Catholics, arguing also that the cost of healthcare under Obamacare would be reduced, another longstanding goal of our bishops and Catholics, the President asked the bishops to support this legislation. They were once again given assurances that abortion, sterilization, and other so-called reproductive services would not be included in the legislation, at least not in a way that would compromise Catholic conscience. As a whole the bishops declined to support that legislation. However, some naive bishops believed the President and came out in support of the ideas behind Obamacare.
Last week all those assurances and promises President Obama made were broke and his true intentions made known when the Department of Health and Human Services announced that virtually all insurance plans must pay for reproductive services even if they are morally repugnant to the organizations, specifically including the Roman Catholic Church.
Stop and think of this. We are the one voice that speaks out clearly to this culture of death that abortion is wrong. We are the one voice that speaks out clearly to this nation on issues of life. And now we will be forced to actually pay for someone to have an abortion. This is only part of the war that the Obama administration is quietly waging on the Catholic Church. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the US Labor Department has aggressively attempted to expand its control of how we conduct business. This is one of the regulations, there’s about eight of them. Imagine how thick that is. This is page after page, detailed. I as a lawyer, it takes me about an hour to go through and try to understand each of these pages.
Now, I’m your pastor! Now, we have to comprehend and implement every detail of that because the government wants to get into our business and tell us how to run our business, how to run our Churches! And there are no exemptions for us. I mean it’s overwhelming, just stop and think of that. How can I be pastor when I got to stick my nose in this kind of stuff every single day. I can’t make a decision about the Church without going through all this stuff, and this is across the country.
Furthermore, again as I mentioned a few weeks ago, federal moneys are being withheld from Catholic social services even though the Catholic services receive top ratings from the government. The government creates the rating system, the government scores the rating system, the government sets the rating system. Catholic social services get the highest score, even though part of that rating service is to penalize the Catholic church because we don’t provide reproductive services. And so the scores drop down, even after that, we’re higher than others. And consistently the government is giving money to other organizations with lower scores in other words to other organizations who reach fewer people, do it less effectively and cost more, will not give it to us because we do not provide reproductive services.
One would think that many of the objectives of the Obama administration would be consistent with Catholic objectives, relative to caring for the forgotten, the underprivileged and the needy. The president has been most eloquent in speaking about this segment of society and frankly, his words are very appealing to our sensitivity as Roman Catholics. So why is this president’s administration so intent on destroying the Catholic Church’s ability to perform our ministries which we do better and for less than the government can do?
Why is President Obama’s administration, with all the problems in this world, with the economy, with terrorism, with our country being sold to China, with Iran possibly becoming a nuclear power, with all these things. Why is it so obsessed on reproductive services and so obsessed by forcing us to go against our faith to do what they want us to do in that matter?
The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health services, social services and education. If the government can put us out of business, and make no mistake, the Bishop is right, we cannot and we will not follow this law. We will close down our schools, our hospitals, our nursing homes, our orphanages. We will go out of business in that area before we will pay to have a child murdered.
And once we are out of business, there will be literally millions of people suffering because who will provide those services for them? There will be a gap, a crisis in our nation and then we begin to see the real issue that’s going on here, because once that happens the government can reasonably argue that we cannot as a nation allow that suffering to continue. And the government will step in and provide less effective and more costly services which will mean more government employees, more individuals who become completely dependent on government help. Taxes will be raised to cover this, and the ultimate goal behind all this is exposed, for the United States of America will be one step closer to socialism. And in every country that has become socialistic, religion has become peripheral, but you’ll be able to have reproductive services available at every corner.
Why is the Obama’s presidency so addicted to expanding abortion and so called reproductive services on all of America and forcing Catholics to participate in what we consider to be the culture of death? Why would they sacrifice the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in favor of reproductive services? When did reproductive services become the national cry of our nation? When did it become more important than the Bill of Rights? More important than the Constitution?
And so before you get upset with me or any priest at our bishops’ instruction for addressing a political issue, get more upset over what’s happening in this country on this issue and how it will be devastating to your Church! I especially address those of you who voted for this President. I cannot believe that you voted for this, and now, I need you and all of us to stand up for the First Amendment, to defend your Church and to stand up for your Catholic faith. This week, we are going to follow the Bishops’ instruction and I ask you all to pray, to fast, to ask God for wisdom.
Next week we will have materials available for you to let your voice be heard to do what we can to stop this. We need to contact DC and demand that the longstanding conscience clause is respected and preserved even under Obamacare.
Let our message be clear. President Obama, let us be Catholic! And let us continue to contribute to this great nation as Catholics providing vital services and care especially to that segment of our nation that needs us the most. Let the Church say Amen.

The Polonia Pearl....aka.....eddie

Population Research Institute

The Head of a Catholic Nonprofit Explains:

"Why My Employees Don't Want Free Birth Control"
(Even if Sandra Fluke Does)
                    
by Steven W. Mosher

    In violation of the First Amendment, President Obama has ordered all Catholic nonprofits to provide their employees with so-called “modern methods of birth control.” Even the openly abortifacient Morning After Pill is supposed to be included. It is “preventative health care,” he claims, and must be “free” for the asking.


We at Population Research Institute reject this unlawful “mandate.” Not only does it violate our deeply held religious beliefs, it also violates our mission: to protect and defend innocent unborn life.

You see, the pill — along with all its injectable and implantable counterparts — is abortifacient.

Most American women don't know that the pill they swallow with their morning orange juice can cause early-term abortions. They don't know that, while on the pill, they (1) may still ovulate, (2) may still conceive a child, and (3) may then abort that child. This is one of the ways that the pill works.

This hard truth would probably give even Sandra Fluke pause — remember, she is the law school student who whined last week to Barbara Boxer that Georgetown University won't give her “free” birth control — if she knew about it. She probably doesn't.

Our employees are informed about the abortifacient action of the pill, and they want nothing to do with it.

Odds are that PRI's employees also grasp something else that Sandra Fluke doesn't: That the powerful, steroid-based drugs that she is so eager to ingest may negatively impact her health. Not that this ignorance is her fault. How many American women have had the downside of contraception explained to them?

“The pill is not a warm little fuzzy harmless object,” Dr. Rebecca Peck notes, “but causes significant harm to women. As a practicing physician, I see the fallout every day — young women with blood clots in their legs, strokes, early breast cancer, HPV, and cervical cancer. But women aren't told. Informed consent provisions are simply ignored.”

We at PRI helped to get Norplant taken off the market some years ago, after thousands of women became ill after having the drug-laden capsules implanted under their skin. How many women know this? How many women know that there are currently a number of class action lawsuits going forward in the U.S. against various contraceptives because of the harm they have caused women?

We prosecute athletes for using steroids, we warn elderly ladies about the dangers of Hormone Replacement Therapy, and then we deceive young women like Sandra Fluke into thinking that taking megadoses of powerful, steroid-based drugs to chemically disable their reproductive systems is completely harmless. How could it be?

Of course, the master deceiver in this ongoing drama is President Obama himself, who claims against all reason that birth control is simply “preventative care.”

Really? Every day, doctors across the U.S. perform true preventative care, examining patients for diseases of the reproductive system. They perform pap smears looking for cervical cancer, perform breast exams looking for breast cancer, refer for mammograms, order colonoscopies looking for colon cancer, and give immunizations to prevent pneumonia and influenza.

These time-tested measures are totally different than surgically sterilizing someone, or prescribing a pill to prevent a child from being conceived or developing. Is fertility a disease? Is pregnancy a disease state? Or is the gestation of a child a normal physiological process of the human body? As Peck and Norris have convincingly argued, birth control simply does not qualify as preventative care.1

Ever the politician, President Obama is now trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, he has not only promised the Sandra Flukes of the world that they can have all the drugs and devices they want for “free,” he is now also trying to convince upset Catholics that their Catholic health care and educational institutions like Georgetown won't have to pay for them either. “I have ordered the health insurance companies to cover the cost,” he airily assures us.

Of course, the insurance companies will carry out this mandate by simply passing the cost through to their policyholders, including PRI. The result is that not only PRI but all Catholics and Christians will wind up paying extra insurance premiums for things that they find morally objectionable.

Such an uncompromising compromise leads me to seriously wonder whether the current occupant of the White House thinks that we are all idiots. More likely, he believes that most Americans don't pay that much attention to his misdeeds, and that those that do don't matter because we won't vote for him anyway. Political calculations are never very far from the surface where Scary Barry is concerned.

A real compromise would remove free birth control, sterilizations and other abortifacient drugs from the preventative care mandate completely. Of course, American women would have the same access to them that they have always had. They would just not be “free,” they would not be part of “preventative care,” and Catholics would not have to pay for them.

There is a final reason that PRI employees are not interested in “free” birth control. It has to do with a cheap, easy and healthy method of family planning that involves no powerful, steroid-based drugs or invasive procedures, and is, in fact, promoted by the Catholic Church. Modern methods of Natural Family Planning or NFP — such as Dr Fehring's Marquette method, or Dr. Hilgers' Creighton method, or Dr. Billings' method — have no unhealthy consequences at all. Instead, they empower women, strengthen marriages, and allow couples to express their sexuality in the natural way that nature, and nature's God, intended.

All it requires is a little self-control for a few days a month.

At this point, the President's circle probably dissolves into mocking laughter. It is simply inconceivable to them that anyone could or would practice self-control in matters of sex.

But what human activities don't require at least a modicum of self control? Most of us voluntarily abstain from food from time to time, whether we do it for spiritual reasons (it is Lent, after all), or because we don't like how we look. We work hard to quit smoking and admire those who succeed. We put warning labels on food packages and danger signs on cigarette packages. (Maybe we should put pictures of stroke victims on the covers of birth control pills?) And even those of us who fail in diets and workout regimens admire those who succeed, or at least we pretend to.

Even Barack Obama's beloved condoms and birth control pills require a certain amount of self-control. How many condoms fall victim to overeager fumbling? How many pills languish in their packets, forgotten in the lust of the moment. Such failures explain why contraception invariably leads to abortion.

We at PRI understand that, despite taking a few days off each month, happily married couples who practice NFP have more and better sex than singles — in lifelong monogamous relationships that are both open to Love and Life and free from disease.

These are lessons that Sandra Fluke, along with all students at Catholic universities, need to be taught. In Fluke's case, maybe one of her Catholic professors could also mention to her that she shouldn't expect others to pay for her recreational sex.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.


http://www.pop.org/

The Polonia Pearl..........aka.....eddie

Abortion and Contraception: Fruits of the Same Tree

Fr. Frank Pavone

National Director, Priests for Life

Sex is an extremely powerful force, and never a neutral one. Either it serves life, or it serves death. Its fruit can be the highest joy of earth, bringing forth new life in the embrace of self-giving, or else its fruit can be violent and destructive activity, ruining and ending the lives of others or oneself.

Society is not obsessed with sex. It is afraid of it…afraid of the total reality and power of what it represents, where it comes from, and where it leads. Sex properly understood requires that we acknowledge God who made it. More than that, sex can never be separated from its purpose: to insert us into an immense, powerful movement of life and love that started when God said "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) and culminates when the Spirit and the Bride say "Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22:17).


Sex is deeply symbolic. It is a language that speaks of things beyond sight and feeling. Many think of the Church's teaching about sex as "You cannot do it except in marriage and when open to life." That is true, but the fuller understanding of why this is true comes when we can see that sexual activity means so much that it is wrong to diminish its message or deny its full reality. It belongs in the context of committed love (sealed by marriage) and openness to life precisely because this is the only context great enough to hold its message and reflect the greater reality to which the gift of sexuality directs and commits us. The teaching is not just that it is wrong to have sex in certain circumstances. The teaching is that it is wrong to run away from the full reality of sex. It is wrong to think we have the kind of control that can change that reality to suit ourselves.


The most bitter fruit of this flight from the full meaning of sex is abortion. Thousands of lives a day in our nation are deliberately killed in order to control who will be born and when. They are even destroyed in the very process of being born. If we ask why abortion happens, or how we arrived at the culture of death, we would do well to consider another question: What happens when you distort the meaning of sex?


One of the many ways in which the meaning of sex is distorted is through contraception, which is an intrinsically evil act. The links between abortion and contraception are more and more widely recognized, and not only in Catholic circles.


They are linked by a common mentality, which is that I may stifle the power of sex to produce a new life. Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical The Gospel of Life, " It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

The Polonia Pearl....aka....eddie

A Few Words About Persons

Last week was 39 years since Roe vs. Wade.   Since then, "physicians" have performed more than 50 million abortions. Abortion is the most frequent medical procedure performed in the U.S.   Roe vs. Wade declares that the baby in the womb is not a person. The Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 ruled that blacks were not persons. Modern medical science has clearly shown us that human life begins at conception.



If the baby in the womb is a person, then all abortion is unlawful. That's because of the constitutional protection for all persons. The Constitution unambiguously prohibits the government from impairing or permitting others to impair the life, liberty and property of persons without due process


Is the baby in the womb a person? Of course babies in wombs are persons. From the moment of the union of egg and sperm, there is present a fully actualizable human genome; meaning all the genetic material necessary for post-birth existence is there. And the parents of that union are human beings. With human parents and a human genome, what else could a baby in a womb be but a person? If you have any doubt, why not give the benefit of that doubt to life, rather than to death? Unless you prefer death to life and killing to nurturing and misery to joy, I expect you agree.


Since medical science now recognizes and has declared that the baby in the womb, since conception, is a person, it would seem logical that Roe vs. Wade has become invalid. So, what are we waiting for? OH, Planned Parenthood does not accept the above........
 
The Polonia Pearl   aka......eddie

Overturning Roe? Not anytime soon—Thanks to Catholics

By Paul G. Kengor Ph.D.

“Romney and Santorum: Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned.” Thus read the headline in LifeNews.com. My reaction: No, not anytime soon.

Don’t get me wrong, I love LifeNews. Few publications are so thoroughly excellent in what they do. And I like Rick Santorum. As for Mitt Romney, he is not my top choice for president, but I can’t say I dislike him.

But what about this headline? The article reports that a President Romney or Santorum would favor overturning the deadly Roe v. Wade, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 39 years ago this week. Santorum’s position is not a surprise. He has been a superb, reliable pro-lifer. Romney’s position is great to hear, a further sign of his gradual evolution in favor of the unborn. Romney said of Roe: “I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided…. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.” Romney stated clearly: “Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.”

I applaud this. It’s good news. It’s a commendable position.
But it also elicits a big “I doubt it.”

Why? Because overturning Roe under a President Romney or Santorum is largely a moot point. It’s very unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned under any Republican successor to Barack Obama. Why? Brace yourself for the ugly truth: Because of Catholics. Yes, that’s right, Catholics.

By a decisive majority in November 2008, Catholics voted for Obama, enough to make the difference in Obama defeating John McCain and taking the White House. In so doing, these tens of millions of self-identified, self-professing Roman Catholics guaranteed this nation more bloody decades of Roe v. Wade. It’s a done deal, already decided.

Let’s recall the situation in 2008:

The November 2008 election was a pivotal moment for Roe v. Wade, a literal matter of life and death. The balance of the Supreme Court was at stake, precariously positioned to become either pro-life or anti-life. The next president would surely get two Supreme Court picks, probably three. A radical “pro-choice” president would choose “pro-choice” nominees. A pro-life president, which John McCain would have been, would opt for justices who would likely overturn Roe, or at least not affirm it.

And what happened? Obama won, and he got two picks right away, in both instances picking not only very liberal “pro-choice” women, but very young (by court standards) women. If Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor enjoy a normal life span, they will be loyal pro-Roe votes for decades to come. If Obama wins in November 2012, he’ll get a third pick, likely a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In fact, even if he loses, he might quickly get a chance to replace Ginsburg with another (much younger) pro-Roe judge. Believe me, Ginsburg and the “choice” crowd know what is at stake—better than oblivious Catholics do.
Did we see this coming back in 2008? Of course, we did. I did dozens of commentaries warning about this, as did countless pro-life Catholics who understood the enormity before them. This was obvious.

To be fair, I don’t want to indict all Catholics. The data shows that Catholics who attend Mass regularly or more than once a week voted against Obama and thus against Roe in 2008. Unfortunately, those are not the majority of Catholics.

George W. Bush won Catholics in 2000 and in 2004. In turn, Bush made wonderful Supreme Court picks that were positioned to overturn Roe; that is, if he was succeeded by a pro-life Republican. That would-be Republican successor lost, defeated because he failed to get a majority of Catholics.

I’m convinced that if you really want to discern the underlying currents of history, watch the happenings in the Catholic Church and her people. November 2008 was one spot where the Church’s people blew it big time.

So, back to that LifeNews headline: Romney and Santorum believe Roe should be overturned? That’s good, but it’s unlikely to happen in their administrations.

That said, all hope is not lost. On a positive note, we can be content to know that these two men would select nominees who, in the long run, would make a pro-life difference, and could eventually help to overturn Roe, and at least not solidify it. They could again redirect the ship. But overturning Roe? No, not anytime soon. Thanks to Catholics.

Dr.Paul Kengor is professor of Political Science at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press) and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

This article first appeared in Catholicvote.org.

CatholicVote is a non-profit political advocacy group based in the United States that describes itself as consisting "of committed Catholics who are passionate about living out the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church in the modern world."^[1

http://catholicvote.org/

Polonia pearl....aka.....eddie

Is A Vote For An Anti-Life Political Candidate Morally Defensible?

F. K. Bartels

http://www.catholic.org/

GLADE PARK, CO (Catholic Online) -- Election Day draws nearer. Yet this "day" is hardly one among others, for rarely -- perhaps never before -- in the history of this nation have Americans faced such radically opposed ideologies among those candidates who hope to occupy future positions of political power. To be sure, Americans are soon to make gravely important political decisions concerning their future and the future of their children.

So serious are our political choices that the USCCB stated: "It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation. Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being" (Faithful Citizenship 38).


For many Catholics and other Christians the proverbial line drawn in the sand is legalized abortion. Why? The horrifying barbarism of abortion is cutting the heart out of our nation; it has killed over 50 million of our youngest neighbors; and it is physically, emotionally and spiritually damaging untold millions of women and men.


That a nation populated by a Christian majority who claims the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" intentionally kills its youngest citizens under cover of law, is not only unacceptable, it is unspeakably evil. The right to life, the foundational right upon which every other human right is built, is no longer upheld by civil law. Our society has become a self-terminating society.
What will it take to bring an end to the willful and legalized bloodshed of the innocent? Does the solution lie in Americans' voting power? We must not forget that presidents nominate future Supreme Court justices who are in turn confirmed by the Senate. The continuation of the "positive law of destruction" we term legalized abortion hinges on the next Supreme Court decision against it. Given what is at stake and the fact that in nearly every case we have the ability to give the nod to pro-life politicians, is a vote for an anti-life candidate morally defensible?


We might ask, as did Archbishop Chaput, if we can come up with a "compelling proportionate reason to justify" such a vote. "What is a 'proportionate' reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason," he continued, "we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."


We might also ask ourselves, since God will not be mocked and whatever a man sows he will reap (Gal. 6:7), if our Lord Jesus Christ will approve of our voting preference -- and we can be certain he will indeed expect an answer. Also, what will our spiritual Mother, the sweet Virgin Mary who bore our Savior in her womb, nursed him at her holy breasts, and witnessed his shameful death on the bloodied Roman cross, have to say about our personal political convictions?


These are not simply emotional appeals. Far from it. Every Christian ought know that God will bring "every deed" and "hidden thing" into judgment (Ecc. 12:14). Further, we will be required to answer for every "careless word" uttered (Matt. 12:36). Therefore it would be difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of those far-reaching choices we make through our participation in the political arena of contemporary society.

http://www.catholic.org/

The Polonia Pearl.....aka ...eddie

Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed

It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him.


It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

It Offends God

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand

In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/


The Polonia Pearl....aka....eddie

A Biblical Roadmap To The One, True Church

by Gary Zimak

Teach me, LORD, your way that I may walk in your truth. (Ps 86:11)


Sounds simple, doesn’t it?  I can’t imagine any Christian looking at the above verse and disagreeing with its content.  Essentially, it is a summary of our mission as followers of Christ. But exactly how does the Lord teach us “His way” so that we can “walk in His truth”?  Even though we acknowledge Jesus as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, we still need a set of guidelines for making moral decisions.

The Bible tells us that “the church” is the guardian of the truth, but why is it that various Christian churches hold such radically different beliefs?  While pledging loyalty to the Bible, many denominations have conflicting teachings on important moral issues such as abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexuality.  Didn’t Psalm 86 state that there is one way which allows us to walk in God’s truth?  Can there actually be multiple conflicting “truths”?

In reality, the Bible illustrates that there is indeed ONE truth and that there is ONE Church which was established to help us learn and live that truth.  Let’s look at 10 Scripture passages that take us from point “A” (there is one absolute truth) to point “B” (there is one Church that contains the fullness of truth).  Once we arrive at our destination, finding that one, true Church is relatively easy!

1. This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth (1 Tm 2:3-4).
According to St. Paul, God wants everyone to be saved and to know THE “truth”.  It sounds good to me, but how can I discover THE “truth”?

2. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tm 3:15).
A clue!  We are to look to “the Church” to discover the truth…but which one?  There are tens of thousands of Christian churches!

3. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming (Jn 16:13).
There’s that “truth” thing again! This could be another clue.  If (as Jesus promised) the Holy Spirit really guides us to all truth, then conflicting doctrinal beliefs would not be possible.  Doesn’t that make a strong case for a single, authoritative interpreter of the truth?  Could this interpreter possibly be “the Church” referred to as the “pillar and foundation of truth” in 1 Tm 3:15?

4. If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’  If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.  If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven  (Mt 18:15-18).
Jesus gives us a clue about “the Church”.  He points to “the Church” as the ultimate authority for settling moral issues and He gives this Church authority to make binding decisions on earth. That narrows my search down a bit; I need to find a church who can teach authoritatively…

5. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”   (Mt 16:18-19).
Not “churches”, but CHURCH (singular)!  This Church, founded by Christ, is built on the leadership of St. Peter (the first pope), to whom Jesus gives the power to make authoritative decisions on earth.  This could be that Church that I’m searching for, but I still need to look for more clues…

6. Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”  (Mt 28:18-20).
Let’s see…Just before Jesus ascended into Heaven, He instructed the Apostles to carry on His mission by baptizing and teaching ALL that He has commanded.   This is an unexpected development.  Now I’m looking for a church that presents the teaching of Jesus Christ and also utilizes baptism as a means to become a disciple.  I thought I was getting somewhere, but now I’m not so sure.  Lots of churches baptize their members.  I need to look for more clues…

7. Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit (Jn 3:1-5).
Wait a minute!  Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can achieve salvation “without being born of water and Spirit”.  It sounds like He’s referring to baptism and deeming it to be necessary for our salvation!  Now I’m looking for a church with a common set of beliefs (the “truth”), that is visible, can make authoritative decisions AND teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.  Our list of potential churches has gotten a lot smaller!

8. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him (Jn 6:48-66).
Huh?  Did Jesus just say that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for achieving salvation?  This sounds like cannibalism!  He must be speaking figuratively and probably means “spiritual bread”.  Although, if Jesus was speaking figuratively – why would this saying be “hard” and why would He let many of His disciples walk away?  Wouldn’t it make sense that He would call them back, explaining that He wasn’t speaking literally?  In fact, He did just that when the Apostles misunderstood His reference to the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (“How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread?”) in Mt 16:11.  Therefore, we must assume that Jesus meant exactly what He said.  If that’s true, how is it possible to actually eat His Body?  There must be a missing piece to this puzzle and it’s definitely worth pursuing, since it sure sounds like Jesus is telling us that it’s necessary for salvation!  Stay tuned…

9. Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you (Lk 22:19-20).
Aha!  Now the words about eating His Body make sense and thankfully it has nothing to do with cannibalism!  Our Lord didn’t say that “this REPRESENTS my Body” or “this SYMBOLIZES my Body”.  He said, “This IS my Body”.   Is there a church that believes that Our Lord’s Body can actually exist under the appearance of bread and that follows His command to “do this in memory of me”?  This sounds like the Catholic Mass…and, come to think of it, the Catholic Church fits all of the other scriptural requirements, but it can’t really be “the Church”, can it?  After all, Catholics believe that they can only be saved by faith AND works.  All Christians know that we are saved by faith alone…

10. See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.  Could it be that the teaching of the Catholic Church is actually supported by the Bible?  If that’s the case does anything prevent me from recognizing that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ?
While there are hundreds of Bible passages that support Catholic doctrine, these 10 are among the best.  If you are Catholic, you can take comfort in the fact that our beliefs are totally in harmony with these verses.  If you are not Catholic, I invite you to compare the teachings of your church to God’s Word contained in these Scripture passages.  I urge you to read them over, meditate upon them and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to “the truth”.  A careful and honest study of Scripture has brought many people into the Catholic Church.  If you would like to learn more about becoming Catholic, please contact your local Catholic parish or email me at (Enable Javascript to see the email address) gary@followingthetruth.com.

(© 2011 Gary Zimak)

The Polonia Pearl.....aka.....eddie

What is Personhood?

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!
They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!
This then also begs the question, is every human being a person?
There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity.
If you look up the word "person" in your average dictionary (we'll use Webster's), you'll find something like this: "Person n. A human being."

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons, and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law.
Personhood holds the key to filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission in the Roe v. Wade majority opinion:

In 1973, the science of fetology was not able to prove, as it can now, that a living, fully human, and unique individual exists at the moment of fertilization and continues to grow through various stages of development in a continuum until death.
However, pick up any embryology book today and you will find that your life and every person’s life began at fertilization.

If the Court considers the humanity of the preborn child, it could end this age-based discrimination and restore the legal protections of personhood to the preborn.

For nearly forty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is that, in America, there is a group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. It is truly astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

Throughout history, certain people groups have felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood, and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such horrors possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for preborn Americans.

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the United States today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in this shameful injustice.

What is a person? A person is a human being at every age.

The Polonia Pearl

Jewels Green - A Former Abortion Clinic Worker's Great Story

An abortion worker’s ‘ah-ha’ moment: when a surrogate mother was paid to abort a Down syndrome baby

                    by Jewels Green
Permission to print -
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/an-abortion-workers-ah-ha-moment-when-a-surrogate-mother-was-paid-to-abort

Note: Jewels Green is a former abortion clinic worker who also had an abortion herself. She recently spoke out about her experiences as an abortion clinic worker for the first time.

September 20, 2011 (LiveAction.org) - After supporting abortion my entire life and working in an abortion clinic for years, my Ah-HA moment seemed to come from an unlikely place. I did not have a profound, sudden shift in my worldview. After years of ignoring the little voice inside me questioning the death around me—the nightmares and the regret—the truth snuck up on me.

I was involved in an online discussion of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy with a group of close friends who were all married mothers, and one among us agreed to be a surrogate for a friend of hers who had tragically lost a child to cancer. We were her confidantes as she went through the months of hormonal preparation for her body to accept the implantation of a baby created outside of her womb. She detailed all of the painfully unnatural things done to her body to prepare for this and she also described the IVF process—all those teeny-tiny human beings—being created in a laboratory, then stored in a freezer.

I confess I honestly hadn’t really ever thought about IVF before, but I found the process disturbing. I sought counsel from the two Catholic members of the forum who openly (but always respectfully) disagreed with what she was doing. The more I thought about IVF and the Frankenstein-like process of creating humans in this way, it all finally started making sense to me. This was unnatural, and it was wrong. These were HUMANS. It wasn’t like in the movie Alien where adults made a choice to climb into sleep chambers to willfully enter a state of suspended animation, this was the complete removal of informed consent and the complete antithesis of the maternal instinct (PROTECT BABY AT ALL COSTS). It was just… wrong.

Well, then she went on to describe a woman in her surrogacy support group who underwent prenatal genetic testing on the tiny, helpless, not-genetically-related, innocent baby growing in her body (I think you can guess where this is going.) Down syndrome. I followed the daily posts with increasing horror as she related the story of this surrogate mother who accepted “payment of her contract in full” to abort rather than to carry this baby to term and give birth. One among us pleaded with our friend to tell her about Reece’s Rainbow, that if the genetic parents didn’t want their child, he or she could have a chance of finding an adoptive home through this amazing organization that helps match children with Down syndrome with loving families, and in many cases helps defray the costs of adoption. Nope.

This was my Ah-HA moment: This woman was paid to kill the child. And she did. This is murder. Abortion is murder. I cried. I cried for that (now dead) baby. Then I cried for all of the little cold souls in the IVF freezers around the world. Then, only then, could I cry for all of the babies murdered at the clinic where I worked for so long. How many tissue boxes my small counseling office went through and I walked that pregnant mother back to the procedure room and smiled as I held the door open for her to enter the chamber of death. “You’ll be alright, I’ll come visit you in the recovery room.” My God. What had I done? No, I did not pull the trigger; but I cleaned the gun, readied the ammunition, and loaded it. Sure as the guilt of the killer himself, I was sure of my own guilt as well. The wave of remorse and regret was overwhelming. I prayed. I prayed for peace for the babies. I prayed for forgiveness. I prayed for the strength to become a better person.

All of this played out against the backdrop of a very different public view of the pro-life movement. Gone were the days of outright intimidation and harassment; replaced by a peaceful, prayerful presence outside the clinic doors peopled by compassionate souls ready and willing to assist pregnant mothers in practical, useful, and lasting ways. Only by continuing to offer truth, solace, hope, help, and love to the troubled and misguided can we ever hope to end abortion. Only by continuing to speak the truth about the horror and brutality of abortion can we hope to change minds. One heart, one soul, one mother, one child at a time.
 
Polonia Pearl