Category Archives: Enemies of the Catholic Church

Catholic Campaign on Human Development: The American Life League Report on links to abortion groups

Catholic Campaign on Human Development: The American Life League Report on links to abortion groups

By Stephanie Block

In a long and lengthening list of frustrations over the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), one certainly has to be its response to criticism.  For 40 years, this “charity” has – deliberately on the part of some folks – hidden its primary objectives and misrepresented its critics.  Then, when public outcry has grown too strident, it has staged mock “reforms.”

The most recent of these “reforms” came last year, with the release of “Review and Renewal of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development as Accepted and Affirmed by the USCCB Administrative Committee.”   It was a surly retort to protest over its several funding scandals.

The first scandal concerned decades of CCHD support to ACORN, an Alinskyianorganizing network that was aggressively engaged in progressive (translation: aborted babies) politics and had been over the years been caught in embezzlement schemes, voter fraud, and a host of other scurrilous activities.  CCHD was publicly informed that ACORN had serious problems in 1997. [ii]   Its “reform” then was to tack “Catholic” onto its name and give its grant guidelines token tweaks…but the funding patterns continued exactly as before, with ACORN still receiving approximately 5% of the CCHD pie.

The second scandal engaged the pro-life community, which was particularly aroused over the life-relevant issues that CCHD’s progressive political bias exposed.  As they began digging deeper, scores of grantees with direct ties to abortion promotion (and other problematic moral positions) were unearthed.   It was unfathomable that a collection of groups with such ties was working – is working – under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

“Review and Renewal” acknowledged that five groups – out of the many exposed – “violated CCHD requirements and lost all CCHD funding because they acted in conflict with Catholic teaching.”[iii]  That left a long list of grantees whose anti-Catholic actions were somehow acceptable to CCHD.

And it took a long time to release the next round of grantees in order to, ostensibly, assure that the “substantially revised CCHD Grant Agreement” was indeed “used for all pending and future funding allocations and grants.”[iv]  That meant that groups selected under earlier CCHD guidelines signed the new Grant Agreement in order to receive CCHD funds. In other words, the selection process places the onus of determining which organizations are in compliance with Catholic moral principles on the organizations themselves – which, often, are not administered by Catholics.

CCHD hoped these actions would reassure Catholics that CCHD was awarding its grants in conformity with the newly refined, more Catholic principles.

Sadly, it isn’t so.

The American Life League Report[i]

The American Life League looked closely at the latest crop of grants[v] and what it found is appalling.

They discovered that CCHD’s most recent grant awards included:
·        *   $35,000 to Centro Campesino, which received funding from the Minnesota Department of Health to expand its Community HIV Health and Education Risk Initiative – an initiative that includes the distribution of condoms.[vi]   (After being informed of this, CCHD said it would defund Centro Campesino.)

·        *   $45,000 to Somos un Pueblo Unido, which is part of a coalition opposing the Defense of Marriage Act.  Somos un Pueblo Unido also promotes “reproductive justice”[vii] and contraceptive sex education. [viii]
·       *    $30,000 to NYC AIDS Housing Network, which is a member of several pro-abortion, pro-homosexual organizations,[ix] endorsed the Transgender Day of Remembrance, participated in the openly socialist US Social Forum, and distributes condoms.
·         *  $45,000 to the Southwest Organizing Project, the lead “community partner” for one of the Elev8 projects in Chicago.[x]  These partnerships are supported by Atlantic Philanthropies, an international foundation whose Elev8 programs around the country make “comprehensive sex education a requirement for receiving the four-year grant, which totaled $18 million in Chicago.”[xi]   SWOP is a critical component to assure that “comprehensive” – contraceptive – sex-ed programs in Chicago public schools are accepted by the “community.”
·        *   $35,000 to Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM), which regularly participates in Marxist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual forums.[xii]
·        *   $50,000 to United Workers Association, which joined Equality Maryland, promoting same-sex marriage,[xiii] as well as Progressive Maryland – a local affiliate of the Alinskyian organizing network USActionwhich also pushes same-sex marriage.[xiv]
·        *   $28,000 to Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center, which has listed among its “friends and colleagues” the pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW), the International Socialist Organization, and pro-homosexual P-FLAG.[xv]  Current links include the dissident Catholic coalition Call to Action.[xvi]
·        *   $25,000 to Michigan Interfaith Voice, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Alinskyian organizing network.  Michigan Interfaith Voice has also received multiple grants from the Arcus Foundation specifically for the promotion of homosexual “rights.”[xvii]
·        *   $40,000 to Michigan Organizing Project (MOP), an affiliate of the Interfaith Worker Justice Alinskyianorganizing network.  MOP has also received at least seven grants from the Arcus Foundation since 2007, again, specifically for the promotion of homosexual “rights.”[xviii]
·       *    $40,000 to Coalition LA, which produced a voter guide in 2000 calling for a NO vote on Proposition 22, banning same-sex marriage. [xix]
·        *   $40,000 to Women’s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP), which has been an “associate member agency” of Women’s Way[xx] and long-time grant recipient of its “Community Women’s Fund,”[xxi] which only funds pro-abortion, pro-birth control organizations.[xxii]
·         *  $40,000 to Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, which believes that those rights includeuniversal access to abortion, as evidenced by – but not limited to – its membership in the abortion-advocacy groups Healthcare for All coalition,[xxiii] and US Human Rights Network.[xxiv]
·         *  $25,000 to Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York, which was a member of the abortion-advocacy group US Human Rights Network (USHRN).[xxv]  It has also done work, through guidebooks and focus groups, to present current law favoring LGBT individuals to the restaurant industry.
·        *   $25,000 to Philadelphia Unemployment Project which, along with other groups (such as the aggressively homosexual “rights” ACT UP Philadelphia), sponsored a partisan voter guide advocating abortion “rights.”[xxvi]

These organizations, coming from an utterly un-Catholic perspective and actively working for immoral purposes, were supposedly well-vetted and in full compliance with CCHD’s new, more stringent Grant Agreement.  CCHD has given them over half a million dollars this past year.

What a sorry abuse of the laity’s charitable intentions.  This is not “helping the poor.”

Progressive Networking

Unfortunately, the American Life League Report isn’t done.  The problem isn’t simply that a few organizations escaped the CCHD vetting process, were “accidently” funded, and will be weeded out next round.  Rather, these individual instances of regrettable grant awards are a small part of a larger, more serious pattern of supporting the work of progressive networks to push a “culture of death” via their CCHD-funded affiliates.

Ironically, this is exactly what CCHD stated it would be very careful not to do.  Last year, it wrote that CCHD“will not fund groups that are members of coalitions which have as their organizational purpose or coalition agenda, positions or actions that contradict fundamental Catholic moral and social teaching.” [xxvii] However, many of the above-mentioned organizations are members of exactly that sort of coalition – coalitions that are fundamentally working against Catholic moral and social teaching.

Those aren’t the only ones, though.  The American Life League Report lists scores of additional CCHD-fundedorganizations that belong to coalitions with pro-abortion and/or homosexual “rights” agendas.  This past year alone, after its “careful” vetting process, CCHD awarded over a million dollars to organizations working in consort with anti-Catholic coalitions.

If ALL researchers can uncover the abortion and homosexual “rights” activities of so many CCHD-fundedgroups, how is it that CCHD staff is incapable of uncovering the same information?  Either CCHD lacks the ability or it lacks the will to discern between advocacy that is in harmony with fundamental moral principles and advocacy that contradicts those principles.

CCHD has demonstrated, again and again, that its political prejudices leave little room for concern over baby killing.

 Stephanie Block is a Spero columnist and the editor of the New Mexico-based Los Pequenos newspaper. She is a member of the Catholic Media Coalition.
[i] American Life League, “Investigative Report on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development’s Grants for the year 2010-2011,” 10-3-11: www.reformcchdnow.com
[ii] Wanderer Forum Foundation Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development, 1997.  A copy was sent to every bishop in the United States who headed a diocese.
[iii] “Review and Renewal of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development as Accepted and Affirmed by theUSCCB Administrative Committee,” p. 3.
[iv] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, “The Truth About CCHD: Promoting Catholic Values – 7. Why was CCHD delayed in publishing its grants for 2010?” undated but @ 2010-2011 old.usccb.org/cchd/PROMOTING-CATHOLIC-VALUES[1].pdf
[v] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website, Department of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, 2010 Grantee List: www.usccb.org/about/catholic-campaign-for-human-development/grants/upload/cchd-grantees-2010.pdf
[vi] Minnesota AIDS Project: www.mnaidsproject.org/resource-guide/detail.php?i=606
[vii] Somos un Pueblo Unido website: www.nmcf.org/new/impact/womens-lives/somos-un-pueblo-unido
[viii] Tides Foundation 2009 Grants Report: www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pdf/Tides-RJ-Fund-2009-Public-Docket.pdf
[ix] NYCAHN is a member of the Ney York City Human Rights Initiative (NYCHRI which has a mission to assure full implementation of the pro-abortion Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.NYCHRI also promotes pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activism.  NYCAHN also belongs to the Center for Community Change which has, among other things, worked for continued federal funding of the abortion-provider Planned Parenthood.
[x] Southwest Organizing Project website: www.swopchicago.org/display.aspx?pointer=6002
[xi] LISC/Chicago: www.lisc-chicago.org/display.aspx?pointer=7425.  LISC/Chicago (Local Initiatives Support Corporation) is an intermediate organization “for channeling corporate and philanthropic resources into localinitiatives.”  Around 2008, “Atlantic Philanthropies provided LISC/Chicago with a grant to create a program that would partner NCP lead agencies with schools and community-based health centers in CPS middle schools …” “Renewed Funding—and New Achievements—for Elev8,” 9-1-11, www.lisc-chicago.org/news/1430.
[xii] DRUM was a sponsoring organization for the 2007 “Trans Day of Action for Social and Economic Justice,” as part of the Transgender Day of Remembrance: charlotteaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/3rd-annual-trans-day-of-action-for.html; it participated in the Marxist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual 2010US Social Forum:organize.ussf2010.org/org/drum-desis-rising-moving; DRUM’s co-founder, Monami Maulik was a speaker at the 2011 Left Forum: leftforum.org/files/left-forum-2011-Program-Guide-web.pdf  The Left Forum is openly socialist and supports abortion and homosexual “rights.”
[xiii] Equality Maryland listing of “organizations [that] oppose any amendment to the Maryland Constitution that would ban civil marriage and its vital protections for same-sex couples:”replay.waybackmachine.org/20080906110713/http://equalitymaryland.org/issues/marriage/organizations.htm
[xiv] Progressive America affiliate list: progressivemaryland.org/page.php?id=2480
[xv] IJPC no longer refers to these links as “friends and colleagues” but now says: “The listing of an organization does not suggest IJPC endorsement.”  The organizations cited in the American Life League report have been removed.
[xvi] ijpc-cincinnati.org/resources/national.  Call to Action “reform” demands to the Catholic Church include acceptance of abortion, contraception, and homosexuality as “normal” and ethically acceptable.
[xvii] Arcus Foundation, social justice awards category: www.arcusfoundation.org/socialjustice/grants/awarded
[xviii] Arcus Foundation, social justice awards category:www.arcusfoundation.org/socialjustice/grants/awarded
[xix] The American Life League report states that the CCHD was informed of the Coalition Voter Guide in 2009 and that not only did CCHD never address the concern, it gave Coalition LA another grant in 2010.  Coalition LA is also a partner of the Center for Community Change, which has, among other things, worked for continued federal funding of the abortion-provider Planned Parenthood.
[xx] Women’s Way no longer lists WCRP as a member agency. Nora Lichtash, WCRP Executive Director, was on the Advisory Board of “A Change of Pace,” Women’s Way 2008-updated signature research report in support of “reproductive rights.”
[xxi] Women’s Way, “Community Women’s Fund Grantee in the News,” www.womensway.org/index.asp
[xxii] Women’s Way, “Community Women’s Fund Information,”www.womensway.org/resources-community-fund-general.asp; The American Life League report states that in 2009 the CCHD was informed of WCRP’smembership in Women Vote PA, a pro-abortion coalition. Shortly after, WCRP was removed from Women Vote PA’s coalition list and was awarded a CCHD grant the following year.
[xxiii] Healthcare for All coalition members list: healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/who_we_are
[xxiv] US Human Rights Network coalition members list: www.ushrnetwork.org (as of 9-11, this website address was inactive and no other web address was available for the organization.)  GLAHR is also a member institution of Atlanta Jobs with Justice, a local affiliate of Jobs for Justice, which actively promotes abortion, homosexual rights and Marxism.  The American Life League Report documents these assertions with photocopies from pertinent webpages.
[xxv] US Human Rights Network coalition members list: www.ushrnetwork.org (as of 9-11, this website address was inactive and no other web address was available for the organization.)
[xxvi] The Philadelphia Coalition for Essential Services and Philly Neighborhood Networks with [others],“Non-partisan Voters Guide: COMMUNITY FORUM FOR THE NEXT GOVERNOR,” 2010:
phillyces.org/Documents/gubernatorial%20forum%202010%20-%20voters%27%20guide.pdf
[xxvii] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Review and Renewal of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development as Accepted and Affirmed by the USCCB Administrative Committee,” 9-15-10, p. 3.

Advertisements

The Pillars of Unbelief: Six modern thinkers who’ve harmed the Christian mind — Part I: Niccolo Machiavelli (1496-1527)

SOURCE(1) The Pillars of Unbelief – Machiavelli 

By Dr Peter Kreeft

Machiavelli – inventor of “the new morality”

We need to talk about “enemies” of the faith because the life of faith is a real war. So say all the prophets, Apostles, martyrs and our Lord Himself.

Yet, we try to avoid talking about enemies. Why?

Partly because of our fear of confusing spiritual with material enemies; of hating the sinner along with the sin; of forgetting that “our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens” (Eph. 6:12).

But that fear is more unfounded today than ever in the past. No age has been more suspicious of militarism, more terrified of the horrors of physical war, than ours. And no age has been more prone to confuse the sin with the sinner, not by hating the sinner along with the sin but by loving the sin along with the sinner. We often use “compassion” as an equivalent for moral relativism.

We’re also soft. We don’t like to fight because fighting means suffering and sacrifice. War may not quite be hell, but it’s damned uncomfortable. And anyway, we’re not sure there’s anything worth fighting for. Perhaps we lack courage because we lack a reason for courage.

This is how we think as moderns, but not as Catholics. As Catholics we know life is spiritual warfare and that there are spiritual enemies. Once we admit that, the next step follows inevitably. It is essential in warfare to know your enemy. Otherwise, his spies pass by undetected. So this series is devoted to knowing our spiritual enemies in the struggle for the modern heart. We’ll discuss six modern thinkers who’ve had an enormous impact on our everyday life. They have also done great harm to the Christian mind.

Their names: Machiavelli, the inventor of “the new morality”; Kant, the subjectivizer of Truth; Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed “Anti-Christ”; Freud, the founder of the “sexual revolution”; Marx, the false Moses for the masses; and Sartre, the apostle of absurdity.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1496-1527) was the founder of modern political and social philosophy, and seldom in the history of thought has there been a more total revolution. Machiavelli knew how radical he was. He compared his work to Columbus’ as the discoverer of a new world, and to Moses’ as the leader of a new chosen people who would exit the slavery of moral ideas into a new promised land of power and practicality.

Machiavelli’s revolution can be summarized in six points.

For all previous social thinkers, the goal of political life was virtue. A good society was conceived as one in which people are good. There was no “double standard” between individual and social goodness-until Machiavelli. With him, politics became no longer the art of the good but the art of the possible. His influence on this point was enormous. All major social and political philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Dewey) subsequently rejected the goal of virtue, just as Machiavelli lowered the standard and nearly everyone began to salute the newly masted flag.

Machiavelli’s argument was that traditional morals were like the stars; beautiful but too distant to cast any useful light on our earthly path. We need instead man-made lanterns; in other words, attainable goals. We must take our bearings from the earth, not from the heavens; from what men and societies actually do, not from what they ought to do.

The essence of Machiavelli’s revolution was to judge the ideal by the actual rather than the actual by the ideal. An ideal is good for him, only if it is practical; thus, Machiavelli is the father of pragmatism. Not only does “the end justify the means” — any means that work — but the means even justify the end, in the sense that an end is worth pursuing only if there are practical means to attain it. In other words, the new summum bonum, or greatest good is success. (Machiavelli sounds like not only the first pragmatist but the first American pragmatist!)

Machiavelli didn’t just lower the moral standards; he abolished them. More than a pragmatist, he was an anti-moralist. The only relevance he saw morality having to success was to stand in its way. He taught that it was necessary for a successful prince “to learn how not to be good (“The Prince, ch. 15), how to break promises, to lie and cheat and steal (ch. 18).

Because of such shameless views, some of Machiavelli’s contemporaries saw “The Prince” as a book literally inspired by the devil. But modern scholars usually see it as drawn from science. They defend Machiavelli by claiming that he did not deny morality, but simply wrote a book about another subject, about what is rather than about what ought to be. They even praise him for his lack of hypocrisy, implying that moralism equals hypocrisy.

This is the common, modern misunderstanding of hypocrisy as not practicing what you preach. In that sense all men are hypocrites unless they stop preaching. Matthew Arnold defined hypocrisy as “the tribute vice pays to virtue.” Machiavelli was the first to refuse to pay even that tribute. He overcame hypocrisy not by raising practice to the level of preaching but of lowering preaching to the level of practice, by conforming the ideal to the real rather than the real to the ideal.

In fact, he really preaches: “Poppa, don’t preach!”-like the recent rock song. Can you imagine Moses saying, “Poppa, don’t preach!” to God on Mount Sinai? Or Mary to the angel? Or Christ in Gethsemane, instead of “Father, not my will but thine be done”? If you can, you are imagining hell, because our hope of heaven depends on those people having said to God, “Poppa, do preach!”

Actually, we have misdefined “hypocrisy.” Hypocrisy is not the failure to practice what you preach but the failure to believe it. Hypocrisy is propaganda.

By this definition Machiavelli was almost the inventor of hypocrisy, for he was almost the inventor of propaganda. He was the first philosopher who hoped to convert the whole world through propaganda.

He saw his life as a spiritual warfare against the Church and its propaganda. He believed that every religion was a piece of propaganda whose influence lasted between 1,666 and 3,000 years. And he thought Christianity would end long before the world did, probably around the year 1666, destroyed either by barbarian invasions from the East (what is now Russia) or by a softening and weakening of the Christian West from within, or both. His allies were all lukewarm Christians who loved their earthly fatherland more than heaven, Caesar more than Christ, social success more than virtue. To them he addressed his propaganda. Total candor about his ends would have been unworkable, and confessed atheism fatal, so he was careful to avoid explicit heresy. But his was the destruction of “the Catholic fake” and his means was aggressive secularist propaganda. (One might argue, perhaps peevishly, that he was the father of the modern media establishment.)

He discovered that two tools were needed to command men’s behavior and thus to control human history: the pen and the sword, propaganda and arms. Thus both minds and bodies could be dominated, and domination was his goal. He saw all of human life and history as determined by only two forces: virtu (force) and fortuna (chance). The simple formula for success was the maximization of virtu and the minimization of fortuna. He ends “The Prince” with this shocking image: “Fortune is a woman, and if she is to be submissive it is necessary to beat and coerce her” (ch. 25). In other words, the secret of success is a kind of rape.

For the goal of control, arms are needed as well as propaganda, and Machiavelli is a hawk. He believed that “you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow” (ch. 12). In other words justice “comes out of a barrel of a gun,” to adapt Mao Tse-tung’s phrase. Machiavelli believed that “all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed prophets have come to grief” (ch. 6). Moses, then, must have used arms which, the Bible failed to report; Jesus, the supreme unarmed prophet, came to grief; He was crucified and not resurrected. But His message conquered the world through propaganda, through intellectual arms. This was the war Machiavelli set out to fight.

Social relativism also emerged from Machiavelli’s philosophy. He recognized no laws above those of different societies and since these laws and societies originated in force rather than morality, the consequence is that morality is based on immorality. The argument went like this: Morality can only come from society, since there is no God and no God-given universal natural moral law. But every society originated in some revolution or violence. Roman society, e.g., the origin of Roman law, itself originated with Romulus’ murder of his brother Remus. All human history begins with Cain’s murder of Abel. Therefore, the foundation of law is lawlessness. The foundation of morality is immorality.

The argument is only as strong as its first premise, which-like all sociological relativism, including that which dominates the minds of writers and readers of nearly all sociology textbooks today-is really implicit atheism.

Machiavelli criticized Christian and classical ideals of charity by a similar argument. He asked: How do you get the goods you give away? By selfish competition. All goods are gotten at another’s expense: If my slice of the pie is so much more, others’ must be that much less. Thus unselfishness depends on selfishness.

The argument presupposes materialism, for spiritual goods do not diminish when shared or given away, and do not deprive another when I acquire them. The more money I get, the less you have and the more I give away, the less I have. But love, truth, friendship and wisdom increase rather than decrease when shared. The materialist simply does not see this, or care about it.

Machiavelli believed we are all inherently selfish. There was for him no such thing as an innate conscience or moral instinct. So the only way to make men behave morally was by force, in fact totalitarian force, to compel them to act contrary to their nature. The origins of modern totalitarianism also go back to Machiavelli.

If a man is inherently selfish, then only fear and not love can effectively move him. Thus Machiavelli wrote, “It is far better to be feared than loved…[for] men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so, but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective” (ch. 17).

The most amazing thing about this brutal philosophy is that it won the modern mind, though only by watering down or covering up its darker aspects. Machiavelli’s successors toned down his attack on morality and religion, but they did not return to the idea of a personal God or objective and absolute morality as the foundation of society. Machiavelli’s narrowing down came to appear as a widening out. He simply lopped off the top story of the building of life; no God, only man; no soul, only body; no spirit, only matter; no ought, only is. Yet this squashed building appeared (through propaganda) as a Tower of Babel, this confinement appeared as a liberation from the “confinements” of traditional morality, like taking your belt out a notch.

Satan is not fairy tale; he is a brilliant strategist and psychologist and he is utterly real. Machiavelli’s line of argument is one of Satan’s most successful lies to this day. Whenever we are tempted, he is using this lie to make evil appear as good and desirable; to make his slavery appear as freedom and “the glorious freedom of the sons of God” appear as slavery. The “Father of Lies” loves to tell not little lies but The Big Lie, to turn the truth upside down. And he gets away with it-unless we blow the cover of the Enemy’s spies.

Wall Street: Occupying the Minds of Useful Idiots — Big Ideas for Violent Government…

Well, at least this UCSC student actually “gets it.”

Hard to understand why exactly the Occupy Wall Street crowd is protesting money interests while simultaneously calling for the re-election of Barack Obama? Wall Street was a key contributor to Obama’s election campaign back in 2008, and the One-Term Prez was again prancing about various Wall Street fundraiser’s in New York just last week. Socialist ideologue Michael Moore probably has a better handle on what’s going on with the OWS crowd with his calls to abolish Capitalism… My guess is that 99% of the young students protesting the “1%’s” on Wall Street have no actual idea that their own minds have been occupied by various philosophies and  false ideologies the world has had to endure previously, namely, Atheistic Communism. The reality here me thinks is they are actually “Useful Idiots” for powerful Socialist forces seeking to further destabilize authentic free market systems that would never be caught dead in bed with the Federal Government, as is the case with Wall Street… The following video confirms that at least one of these “Useful Students” is okay with the idea of Government using violence for the cause, so I thought it might be beneficial to reveal the game plan from U. of M(arxism) coach, Saul Alinsky… Video follows the drivel…

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”  S. Alinsky

***

Enough said, eh?… Do you, like me, get the sense that these kids really don’t actually understand why the hell their at the protest to begin with? I sure don’t.

I’ll leave you with two realistic views of the future if this supposed non-violent movement would somehow actually come to fruition as envisioned by their masters. The first, from Vic Biorseth on how pseudo “Power To The People” movements like this one gravitates from representative government towards Socialism; and the second, a video revealing the true evil of Socialism as told by victims…

“As a society moves from representative government, or any form of government, toward Socialism there is a steady and relentless migration of political and economic power from the citizenry up to the central government. When total Socialism is achieved, the central government holds all political and economic power, and the people hold none.

The “Communist dream” promises to eliminate world hunger and poverty; it is a false dream, feeding a false ideology. Existing history proves that all Socialism has ever done is to kill many tens of millions of people, perhaps even hundreds of millions, and bring poverty, cruelty and brutality to whole nations and vast territories.”

Now, here’s the human cost:

END OF POST/ BEGINNING OF HOPE (THAT YOU’LL NEVER SEE THE DAY…)

Hat/Tip Adam Kokesh

Same-Sex Marriage: A Novel Notion of Justice

Gay. But happy?

SOURCE: I~ARI Same-Sex Marriage: A Novel Notion of Justice.

By ROBERT R. REILLY

The extent to which people will go to advance their rationalizations for sexual misbehavior grows ever more amusing and ambitious, with consequences, however, that are less jolly. The ultimate level of absurdity has now been reached by the claim that justice requires the legalization of same-sex marriage. Consider the following two protestations.

Celebrating the recent passage of such a law in New York, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote: “I am the brother of a woman in a longtime same-sex relationship… This is a cause whose justness has long been apparent to me. The opponents have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice.”

And when Edwin O’Brien, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore, attempted to remonstrate with Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a Catholic, over his sponsorship of a same sex marriage bill, the Governor responded that: “When shortcomings in our laws bring about a result that is unjust, I have a public obligation to try to change that injustice.”

So now it is no longer tolerance, but the demands of justice that seem to require legally equating homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, something no other civilization in recorded history has done.

One does not get to make up what things are. If that were the case, then justice could be anything that one said it was.

But before justice can be enlisted on behalf of this cause, we should ask ourselves: what is justice? The classical answer to this question is that justice is giving to things what is their due according to what they are. In other words, to act justly, one must first know what things are. When one knows what something is, one then understands what it is for. The purpose of the thing then determines whether our actions toward it are a use or an abuse. This is where the matter of justice comes in.

One does not get to make up what things are. If that were the case, then justice could be anything that one said it was. That is what tyrants do. This would be arbitrary, and what is arbitrary is by definition tyrannical. It is based upon pure will, unguided by reason. Those who wish to base their freedom upon the supposed purposelessness of things should face the consequences of this view. What seems unmitigated freedom is, in fact, the foundation of tyranny.

Unfortunately, this solipsistic view of reality has reached high places. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey ruling, the Supreme Court opined that, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Well, actually not. The universe is already here. It has already been defined for us; otherwise, it would not be in existence. Our choice is not to make up the meaning of the universe, but to discern its meaning and then either conform ourselves to it, or revolt against it. The choice today is revolt. Igor Stravinsky once wrote, “The old original sin was one of knowledge, the new original sin is one of non-acknowledgment.” It is the refusal to acknowledge anything outside the operation of the human will — most especially “the good” toward which the soul is ordered. “The good” is what ultimately informs human justice.

The modern premise, so evident in the campaign for same-sex marriage, is that any pre-existing rational end constitutes a limitation on human freedom. Therefore, “freedom” requires the denial that rational ends inhere in things. Things are tabula rasa, blank slates upon which we can write anything we desire. Things, being purposeless themselves, only have the ends we give them by our will and choice. They serve whatever purpose we wish. This is a very dangerous teaching, especially as it affects the issue of justice.

As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to apprehend things as they are in order to act justly. A simple example suffices. If one does not know the difference between a man and a dog, one may end up treating a man as if he were a dog. This would be acting unjustly. Justice in no way pertains to how we feel about things but rather to what they are. In our anthropomorphic enthusiasm, we may feel that our pet dog is human. However, it would be absurd to pass legislation requiring the dog’s consent to its owner’s rule, because the dog is not human and is incapable of giving its consent. Dogs do not have free will. It is therefore just for men to rule over dogs.

Likewise, no feeling can justify the enslavement of another human being, because a human being has the inalienable right to consent in his or her rule. This, of course, was the problem with slavery. Only the understanding of what a human being is allows one to make this vital distinction between the human and the nonhuman. It is something one knows, or does not (or refuses to acknowledge), with huge consequences. It is precisely the loss of this distinction upon which the practice of abortion is based.

Once we know what something is, we can know what it is for. Its purpose is within it. How does this pertain to the issue of the justice of same-sex marriage? It has to do with the procreative and unitive powers of our sexual organs. What are they for? Today, we seem to know what every other part of our body is for, except our genitals. This is a case of selective epistemological amnesia.

Sex has a natural purpose

In using or treating any part of our body, the critical question is: what are the ends to which the nature of the thing directs it, and is the action outside of, or within those ends? For instance, our lungs are for breathing. Breathing oxygenates our blood through the alveoli. If anyone suggested that our lungs are for imbibing water, they would be set straight in short order and informed that water in the lungs would lead to drowning and death. If they nonetheless insisted that water is good for the lungs and applied this teaching to themselves, they would soon be asphyxiated.

No one has really been tempted to do this. However, people have found a great deal of pleasure in smoking cigarettes. This has been shown to be a misuse of the lungs, because the tars and nicotine from the tobacco smoke cause lung cancer. Therefore, we can say with some confidence that the end or purpose of the lungs is not pleasure from smoking. The purpose of a thing cannot be fulfilled in an action which leads to its destruction. On the basis of this, the government has taken vigorous steps to dissuade people from smoking. Laws have been passed prohibiting young people from buying cigarettes and requiring the labeling of cigarettes as injurious to health.

However, no one today can publicly suggest that our genitals are not made for sodomy or even, without becoming the objects of obloquy, point out the health consequences of this unclean practice. Well before HIV/AIDS arrived on the scene, the life expectancy of practicing homosexuals was substantially below that of the heterosexual male population because of the deleterious health effects of this behavior. What things are have a way of fighting back against those who deny what they are and who act in such a way as if they weren’t.

So what is sex for? The purpose of sex is to make “one flesh.” Two becoming “one flesh” encompasses both the generative and unitive nature of sex. By nature, only men and women are physically capable of becoming “one flesh.” (Otherwise, the pieces don’t fit.) The end of sex is not simply pleasure; otherwise, any kind of sex that produces pleasure would be “natural.” That something occurs, or can occur, does not make it “natural.” Cancer occurs, but one would not say, by that fact, that cancer is therefore natural to, say, the lungs. Why not? Because we know that lungs are for breathing, and that cancer impedes and eventually prevents breathing.

A great deal of human ingenuity has gone into finding other uses for sex that go directly against its unitive and generative nature. Those who misuse its powers perversely are saying, in effect: We will take the pleasure, but not the thing toward which the pleasure is directed: the imago Dei. As Fr. James Schall has written (CRISISSense & Nonsense, March 1995), “Whenever we seek pleasure without it being grounded in what is right in the action in which it exists, we isolate the pleasure, the act, from reality.” Every act of coition presupposes the unitive and the commitment within which it must take place. And when it is not there, it is felt as a betrayal, a lie. It is followed by emptiness. There is something inherently false about sexual acts outside of marriage.

Only marital love can tame erotic passion

However, sex is a very strong passion, and it is difficult for anyone to contain. The only thing that can tame Eros and direct it to an end that can satisfy the sexual passion is love, which leads Eros away from death and, quite literally, toward new life. When a specific person is the object of love, no substitute will do. Love demands exclusivity, and receives it in marriage. The desire for oneness in marital union is also a thirst for fecundity. The wild and complete abandon of the marital act is a joyful affirmation of the possibility of more — in children.

In their souls, what people truly love is goodness. And when they love goodness, it is what they seek to serve. This is true with sex, also. Sex is directed to goodness by love. Love sublimates lust and restores the original innocence of sex. It is no longer self-seeking, self consuming, but self-giving and life-generating. It seeks the unity that is only available in “one flesh.” So it seems spousal love requires becoming “one flesh.”

This is not a matter of “who says,” but of how we are constituted by nature. Anything else is counterfeit. To make the counterfeit official, as in legal same-sex marriage, is to substitute the unreal for the real. If you cannot become “one flesh” with the person whom you love, that is nature’s way of telling you that the character of your love is not spousal, but something else.

Love has its proper expression according to its subject and object – sisterly love, parental love, conjugal love, the love of friendship are each distinct and are expressed accordingly. A child does not love its father with parental love, because the child is not the parent of its father. It may seem silly to state something so obvious, but this is what must be done when reality is being contested. It is just as necessary and obvious to say that two men, or two women, cannot become husband and wife because that relationship requires a person of the other gender. No matter how many times homosexual advocates say it, two flesh of the same kind is not, and cannot become, “one flesh.” Homosexual marriage is not, as some have suggested, “inclusive,” simply making room for another kind of marriage. Its legalization requires the denial of the true nature of marriage. Militant homosexuals are trying to conform reality to themselves, rather than conforming themselves to reality. They will say, no doubt, that their reality is that they are homosexuals. But that is no more persuasive than an alcoholic acknowledging the reality of his condition.

Abnormality and normality

Many who think that homosexuality is a genetic condition believe that this, in and of itself, justifies homosexual marriage. That is why a great deal has been invested in the argument over whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or learned behavior. This issue, however, is immaterial to the morality of homosexual acts. The same kind of argument could be made over alcoholism. There appears to be a missing chromosome – the Y chromosome – that predisposes certain people to alcoholism; others seem to acquire alcoholism through their behavior. In either case, drunkenness is no less evil because of an inherent predisposition to it. Likewise, sodomy.

Of course, it is very hard to live with such predispositions, and profound sympathy and assistance is due to those who suffer from them. The worst disservice that could be done in either case, however, would be to encourage or participate in the celebration of the afflictions, as in “Gay Pride Day.” Why is “Gay Pride Day” any less absurd than an “Alcoholic Pride Day” would be? Both conditions exist as aberrations, as abnormalities in the light of what is normal by nature. To substitute an abnormality for normality destroys the distinction between the two, and closes off the path to recovery.

In moral terms, this would be analogous to substituting a cancerous lung for a healthy lung on the basis that we cannot tell the difference between them. Such a claim would obviously subvert medical care and would represent a huge injustice to cancer patients. Sodomy is the cancer version of coition. Substituting it for spousal intercourse on the basis that there is no difference between them is an act of injustice that will subvert marriage and the soul of the society that accepts it.

This makes richly ironic Richard Cohen’s and Governor O’Malley’s invocation of justice to advance a cause based upon the denial of the nature of marriage. They are, in fact, complicit in perpetrating fraud. “Thinking against nature,” wrote Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD), “you will become foolish. And if you persist you will fall into insanity.” No one can say we were not warned. The path ahead to the asylum is clear, but in this case the asylum will be the entire society.

This article originally appears in MercatorNet.

Bill Donohue: Lying About Priests

LYING ABOUT PRIESTS

September 9, 2011

Catholic League president Bill Donohue notes recent lies about priests:
***
It has been said that Fr. Mychal Judge, the first of the First Responders to die on 9/11, was gay. Not everyone agrees. No matter, even those who allege that Judge was gay say he kept his sexual orientation private, disclosing it to only a few friends. Fr. Brian Jordan, for instance, said of his fellow Franciscan in 2002 that “I knew him for 25 years and I didn’t know that he was gay until after he died.”
***
It really shouldn’t matter whether Judge was gay or straight, but unfortunately some in gay circles, as well as in liberal quarters generally, are turning this issue into a national spectacle. Worse, some are lying. In the August 19 edition of a dissident Catholic newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, it says, “Judge was a Catholic priest who publicly acknowledged that he was a celibate gay man.” After reading this, I asked Jeff Field, our communications director, to e-mail Tom Fox, editor of the newspaper, asking him for the evidence that Judge publicly declared that he was gay. That was yesterday, and Fox has not replied. It is a lie.
***
SNAP Wisconsin, the Wisconsin branch of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, posted an article on September 7 about a Philadelphia priest who has never been convicted of anything, but will go on trial next year for allegedly covering up a crime. The title of the article reads, “The Crimes of Monsignor William J. Lynn.” Field contacted the SNAP chapter yesterday asking them to correct the record. “You know very well that Monsignor Lynn has only been accused and hasn’t been convicted of any crimes,” Field said. There has been no response.
***
Lying is bad enough, but when it is done for political purposes, it is obscene. That priests are the primary victims these days is indisputable.
***
Contact Tom Fox: tfox@ncronline.org
Contact the SNAP author, John Pilmaier: pilmaier@milwpc.com

Berlin, Germany: Foiled bomb terror plot, was pope target?

“suspicion of preparing a major violent crime against the state.”

Following previous threats to Pope Benedict XVI by Islamic extremists [here, here] authorities are unsure if the most recent foiled bomb plot was related to either the pope’s visit this month or to the September 11 anniversary…

SOURCE: The Muslim News

Germany: Police arrest two men in alleged foiled bomb terror plot

09-09-2011

Two men have been arrested in Berlin in connection with plotting to carry out a bomb attack. Police had been watching the men for several months, ever since they bought a suspicious amount of chemicals.

Police in Berlin are holding a 24-year-old German man with a Lebanese background and a 28-year-old man from the Gaza Strip on “suspicion of planning a serious act of violence.”

According to police, the two men were planning a bomb attack and had ordered chemicals which could have been used to make an explosive device.

As part of the investigation, which police said has been underway for some time, a mosque, an Islamic cultural center and the apartments of the two suspects were searched.

The mosque and cultural center were searched because the two men had spent significant time there, sometimes spending the night in the mosque. However, police were clear to state that the mosque and cultural center were not a part of the ongoing investigation.

‘No specific targets’

Police spokesman Martin Otte said the probe began when the firms where the chemicals were ordered reported the suspicious purchases to police. The men had not yet started building a bomb.

Otte declined to comment on a possible link to the September 11 anniversary, or the upcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Germany.

“For the moment, our investigation hasn’t produced any evidence that an attack was planned to take place at either of the two events,” said Otte.

According to the Federal Criminal Police Agency, this is the 10th terror attempt in Germany since the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001.

Wolfgang Bosbach, domestic security expert in Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s Christian Democrat party, said the new attempt is no reason to be overly alarmed.

“We know that Germany is a target for terrorists, and that terror suspects from this country have been travelling to the Afghan-Pakistan border region for training. So this is worrying, but no reason to panic,” he said.

The security level in Germany remains unchanged and it’s thought the two men do not have links to any known terror groups.

Author: Matt Zuvela, Catherine Bolsover (dpa, dapd, AFP)
Editor: Martin Kuebler

GET YOUR FREE CALL TO ACTION T-SHIRT HERE!

Oh, those libertine catholic hordes! Sometimes the universe just magickly opens up for them…

On Friday last, CTA announced on there Facebook page that they are seeking slogans for Call To Action T-shirts, and If they choose yours, you’ll get one free! Here’s one they’ve probably yet to notice, from a store front door in Germany protesting Benedict XVI visit there on September 22…

NOT WELCOME.

Nice.

I’m sure you have your own suggestions, and who knows? You just might get a T for free…

END OF POST