The Truth in Black and White -1
Friday, Nov. 30, 2007
I want to thank Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. for the use of his blog’s name – www.thetruthinblackandwhite.com. It is an excellent source of general religious and political information. “By obedience to the truth you have purified yourselves for a genuine love of your brothers;” 1 Peter 1:22-23
We will begin a series of short commentaries. For us in the pro-life movement, the most powerful weapon we have after prayer is the truth. It is the truth about the culture around us. By pro-life we include the advocates of marriage and family.
The culture of death is at war with all three. Thank you Pope John Paul II for the encyclical The Gospel of Life. There are some who wish to be blind to the Culture of Death and substitute issues like the war in Iraq, immigration and full health insurance. These are prudential issues upon which Catholics can disagree. The Culture of Death issues are intrinsically evil and destructive to family and nation. Let’s repeat them again. They are the two AA’s, the EE’s and the two SS’s. (Abortion, Assisted-Suicide, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem-Cell Research and Same-Sex Marriage)
Now when we think of the enemies of the pro-life movement, like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, let’s fear the temptations we are experiencing like the idea of supporting CINOP Rudy Giuliani for President in the primaries. That is a serious mistake. There are three or four other pro-life candidates in the pro-life party that can defeat the pro-abortion party candidate.
We have assembled in the blog CINOPS BE GONE over 200 articles that the most dangerous politicians in America are the Catholic-in-name-only politicians, like Linda and Loretta Sanchez. The most dangerous organization in America is the ACLU. Talk show host Dennis Prager has called this the age stupidity.
Mother Teresa said do not wait for leaders do it alone person to person.
Judie Brown wrote a book called, Saving Those Damned Catholics, A defense of Catholic Teaching. There is a simple solution. Vote the CINOP out of Office. This would be the best thing for their souls, the authentic Catholic label & our country.
CINOP Giuliani did OK in the debates on Wednesday. However, the dossier prepared by the pro-abortion party on his scandalous marriages will water down support by Catholic and other Christian voters and he will lose. Any pro-life candidate will win. Also, we work for a pro-life vote of 55 to 60% of the Catholics for a pro-life Congress. This is to make up for the misinformed decidedly Catholic vote that elected President Clinton in 1992 and 1996, even though he vetoed the partial-birth abortion laws 3 times.
George H. Kubeck, Posted in the mornings on www.cinopsbegone.blogspot.com
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans # 2 of 2
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans # 2 of 2
Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007
We conclude with Damian Thompson poignant article in the Telegraph.co.uk 16/11/2007
“He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union.”
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers’ conservationism and would rather “dialogue” with Anglicans rather than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the Church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives – even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected – the Bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict’s low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well start here.”
Addendum: LifeSiteNews.com - Wed. Nov. 21, 2007 By Hilary White titled:
Liberal Bishops and Moral Dissenters Ignore Pope Benedict’s Liturgical Instruction
“In response to decades of request and complaints about unauthorized liturgical and doctrinal innovation, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document July 7, called a ‘motu Proprio,’ erasing the restriction of what he called the “extraordinary rite” of the Mass. The document instructs bishops and priests who want to observe the older rite must be allowed to do so without having to ask permission and that congregations must have the Latin Mass if they ask for it….
“One American priest, Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University, is a leading voice of dissent on sexual issues, abortion and marriage and is widely seen as spokesman for the liberal wing of the bishops and clergy who object to the return of the traditional Mass. He wrote in The Tidings, the diocesan newspaper of the archdiocese of Los Angeles, that young Catholics cannot have experienced the old Latin Mass. He wrote, “It is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one has never experienced.” McBrien praised the work of “liturgical scholars” who, he said, “have published articles which carefully pick apart the reasoning behind the papal document.”
Pray for the intentions of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI
George H. Kubeck, www.cinopsbegone.blogspot.com Duplicate into Spanish.
Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007
We conclude with Damian Thompson poignant article in the Telegraph.co.uk 16/11/2007
“He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union.”
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers’ conservationism and would rather “dialogue” with Anglicans rather than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the Church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives – even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected – the Bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict’s low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well start here.”
Addendum: LifeSiteNews.com - Wed. Nov. 21, 2007 By Hilary White titled:
Liberal Bishops and Moral Dissenters Ignore Pope Benedict’s Liturgical Instruction
“In response to decades of request and complaints about unauthorized liturgical and doctrinal innovation, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document July 7, called a ‘motu Proprio,’ erasing the restriction of what he called the “extraordinary rite” of the Mass. The document instructs bishops and priests who want to observe the older rite must be allowed to do so without having to ask permission and that congregations must have the Latin Mass if they ask for it….
“One American priest, Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University, is a leading voice of dissent on sexual issues, abortion and marriage and is widely seen as spokesman for the liberal wing of the bishops and clergy who object to the return of the traditional Mass. He wrote in The Tidings, the diocesan newspaper of the archdiocese of Los Angeles, that young Catholics cannot have experienced the old Latin Mass. He wrote, “It is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one has never experienced.” McBrien praised the work of “liturgical scholars” who, he said, “have published articles which carefully pick apart the reasoning behind the papal document.”
Pray for the intentions of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI
George H. Kubeck, www.cinopsbegone.blogspot.com Duplicate into Spanish.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans # 1 of 2
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans # 1 of 2
Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007
The above is the headline of the Telegraph.co.uk’s studious article written by Damian Thompson. 16/11/2007. He is the editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, in Great Britain.
Two and half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St. Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80 year old pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered protection of the Holy Father if they convert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.
“Pope Benedict is isolated,” I was told when I visited Rome last week. “So many people even in the Vatican oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely.” Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited for a couple of years before taking on the cabinet “wets” sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict’s pontificate moved in to a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.
With the stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass – in effect banned for 40 years – to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced the Archbishop Piero Martini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of Pope John Paul II’s Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a “commentary” on Summorum Pontificum
According to Murphy-O’Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishop’s power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal – who tried to block Benedict issuing the ruling – is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O’Connor “commentary” was modeled on equally dire “guidelines” written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that “bishops and even cardinals” who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were “in rebellion against the Pope.”
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office. Cont’d Tomorrow.
Pray daily for the intentions of the Holy Father.
George H. Kubeck, www.cinopsbegone.blogspot.com Duplicate or translate in Spanish.
Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007
The above is the headline of the Telegraph.co.uk’s studious article written by Damian Thompson. 16/11/2007. He is the editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, in Great Britain.
Two and half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St. Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80 year old pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered protection of the Holy Father if they convert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.
“Pope Benedict is isolated,” I was told when I visited Rome last week. “So many people even in the Vatican oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely.” Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited for a couple of years before taking on the cabinet “wets” sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict’s pontificate moved in to a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.
With the stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass – in effect banned for 40 years – to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced the Archbishop Piero Martini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of Pope John Paul II’s Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a “commentary” on Summorum Pontificum
According to Murphy-O’Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishop’s power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal – who tried to block Benedict issuing the ruling – is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O’Connor “commentary” was modeled on equally dire “guidelines” written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that “bishops and even cardinals” who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were “in rebellion against the Pope.”
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office. Cont’d Tomorrow.
Pray daily for the intentions of the Holy Father.
George H. Kubeck, www.cinopsbegone.blogspot.com Duplicate or translate in Spanish.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Report # 13 on David Carlin's Book
Report # 13 on David Carlin’s Book
Can a Catholic be a Democrat?
Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2007
Chapter 3 – America’s Anti-Christian Party 71-79
It would be a good idea to compare David Carlin’s book with Bill Press’s Book.
“Why is secularism so popular among the higher classes? First, to justify their many social privileges, Second, the higher classes are better educated than the middling classes; … Third, the great social, economic power possessed by the people in the higher classes makes it difficult for them, at least while they are in the prime of life, to feel what serious religious believers constantly feel – namely, that our poor human power is as nothing compared with the omnipotent providence of God. Finally, people with money provides them with an immense menu of choices:...
4. “As a consequence of having alienated non-affluent Christian voters, the Democratic Party has lost its position as America’s number one political party. It will remain number two until it expels or at least marginalized the anti-Christians currently wielding great influence in its ranks.
“… more and more conservative Protestants and orthodox Catholics are defecting from the old party of their parents and grandparents… Christian voters have recognized the new secularist character of the Democratic Party, but a great many haven’t…. But although secularism is stronger now than it has even been, the United States is still predominately religious, indeed predominately Christian. This is to say that these Christians are all of the traditional type, for many Catholics and Protestants have drifted away from orthodoxy intellectually and even morally.
“If the Democratic party wishes to hold on to voters … it will have to persuade its affluent secularists member either to cease pushing their agenda of else to take their agenda and leave the party…. The second-best thing for affluent secularists to remain in the party while abandoning their more ‘offensive’ parts of their agenda… The third-best thing … The secularist element in the party can license Democratic politicians to speak of ‘faith’ in their personal lives, of their belief in ‘values’ of how they would like to lower the rate of abortion in America, of the importance of strong families and so on.
5. Until the party expels or marginalizes its secularist element, it makes little or no sense for Catholics and other traditional Christians to support the Democ. Party.
“Why should I support a party that’s the enemy of my religion?” they ask. Likewise Christians who continue to support today’s Democratic Party increasingly experience feelings of cognitive dissonance, and will discover that one way to eliminate those unpleasant dissonance feelings is by ceasing to vote for Democrats….
“For one, it depends on how ‘Catholic’ a person is. Those who are little more than nominal Catholics, practicing the religion hardly at all and identifying with it only out of habit and family tradition, aren’t greatly offended by the party’s alliance with forces of secularism; for these nominal Catholics are virtually secularists themselves. Neither are liberal Catholics greatly offended, for they regard the defeat of orthodox Catholicism as a gain, a door opening to a new-an-improved brand of Catholicism.”
George H. Kubeck, wwwcinopsbegone.blogspot.com or Cinops Be Gone
Can a Catholic be a Democrat?
Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2007
Chapter 3 – America’s Anti-Christian Party 71-79
It would be a good idea to compare David Carlin’s book with Bill Press’s Book.
“Why is secularism so popular among the higher classes? First, to justify their many social privileges, Second, the higher classes are better educated than the middling classes; … Third, the great social, economic power possessed by the people in the higher classes makes it difficult for them, at least while they are in the prime of life, to feel what serious religious believers constantly feel – namely, that our poor human power is as nothing compared with the omnipotent providence of God. Finally, people with money provides them with an immense menu of choices:...
4. “As a consequence of having alienated non-affluent Christian voters, the Democratic Party has lost its position as America’s number one political party. It will remain number two until it expels or at least marginalized the anti-Christians currently wielding great influence in its ranks.
“… more and more conservative Protestants and orthodox Catholics are defecting from the old party of their parents and grandparents… Christian voters have recognized the new secularist character of the Democratic Party, but a great many haven’t…. But although secularism is stronger now than it has even been, the United States is still predominately religious, indeed predominately Christian. This is to say that these Christians are all of the traditional type, for many Catholics and Protestants have drifted away from orthodoxy intellectually and even morally.
“If the Democratic party wishes to hold on to voters … it will have to persuade its affluent secularists member either to cease pushing their agenda of else to take their agenda and leave the party…. The second-best thing for affluent secularists to remain in the party while abandoning their more ‘offensive’ parts of their agenda… The third-best thing … The secularist element in the party can license Democratic politicians to speak of ‘faith’ in their personal lives, of their belief in ‘values’ of how they would like to lower the rate of abortion in America, of the importance of strong families and so on.
5. Until the party expels or marginalizes its secularist element, it makes little or no sense for Catholics and other traditional Christians to support the Democ. Party.
“Why should I support a party that’s the enemy of my religion?” they ask. Likewise Christians who continue to support today’s Democratic Party increasingly experience feelings of cognitive dissonance, and will discover that one way to eliminate those unpleasant dissonance feelings is by ceasing to vote for Democrats….
“For one, it depends on how ‘Catholic’ a person is. Those who are little more than nominal Catholics, practicing the religion hardly at all and identifying with it only out of habit and family tradition, aren’t greatly offended by the party’s alliance with forces of secularism; for these nominal Catholics are virtually secularists themselves. Neither are liberal Catholics greatly offended, for they regard the defeat of orthodox Catholicism as a gain, a door opening to a new-an-improved brand of Catholicism.”
George H. Kubeck, wwwcinopsbegone.blogspot.com or Cinops Be Gone
Monday, November 26, 2007
Eternity and Death
Eternity and Death
Monday, Nov. 26th, 2007
Remember your four last ends: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.
The following are excerpts from Nov. 11 and Nov. 12th of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s Book Co-Workers of the Truth 1992 Ignatius Press, San Fransisco
Let us dare to believe once more in eternal life, to live for eternal life.
Those who have talked us out of our belief in heaven, or would like to talk us out of it, have not given us the earth in exchange but have made it desolate and empty, have covered it with darkness. We must find once more the courage to believe in eternal life with all our heart.
A present that is only present and has no future has no hope. The nothingness that follows it also pollutes the present and makes it unbearable. Only eternity can unite the present and the future.
Humanity needs eternity; every other hope is too short for it. And it is not true that eternity robs humanity of time, impoverishes it, and makes it unimportant. On the contrary only eternity can give man time. If a person’s death is worthless then his life is worthless too.
There was a time when death was a forbidden topic in our society…. Death has actually become a fashionable topic.
The pressing of all questions: whether our life is to be measured in terms of eternity or is ordered solely to the fleeting moment.
What is obvious in all of them is that man cannot relinquish the struggle to learn about eternity, cannot give it up.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish.
P.S. In death we are born to eternal life.
Monday, Nov. 26th, 2007
Remember your four last ends: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.
The following are excerpts from Nov. 11 and Nov. 12th of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s Book Co-Workers of the Truth 1992 Ignatius Press, San Fransisco
Let us dare to believe once more in eternal life, to live for eternal life.
Those who have talked us out of our belief in heaven, or would like to talk us out of it, have not given us the earth in exchange but have made it desolate and empty, have covered it with darkness. We must find once more the courage to believe in eternal life with all our heart.
A present that is only present and has no future has no hope. The nothingness that follows it also pollutes the present and makes it unbearable. Only eternity can unite the present and the future.
Humanity needs eternity; every other hope is too short for it. And it is not true that eternity robs humanity of time, impoverishes it, and makes it unimportant. On the contrary only eternity can give man time. If a person’s death is worthless then his life is worthless too.
There was a time when death was a forbidden topic in our society…. Death has actually become a fashionable topic.
The pressing of all questions: whether our life is to be measured in terms of eternity or is ordered solely to the fleeting moment.
What is obvious in all of them is that man cannot relinquish the struggle to learn about eternity, cannot give it up.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish.
P.S. In death we are born to eternal life.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Report Card # 16 of 23 on Bill Press'Book
Report Card # 16 on Bill Press’s Book
How the Republicans Stole Christmas
Sunday Morning, November 25, 2007 - Sunday Morning, March 19, 2006
Chapter 4 – Abortion and Stem Cell Research
There seems to be a hidden satisfaction and kind of devilish rebellion in the promotion of abortion on demand, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research by the CINOP (Catholic in Name Only Politician). There are also a number of Republicans in this area. They think they can get away and continue to fool Catholics at election time.
All of the above are absolute evils. They are not the prudential issues which CINOP Bill throws in as a smoke screen to fool you. “Consider moral shortfalls: the execution of innocent people on death row, the white collar crime that emptied the pension funds belonging to millions of workers, the latent racism that still denies many opportunities to African and Hispanic-Americans, or the fact that we citizens of the wealthiest nation on earth look the other way while 36 million Americans live below the poverty line.” (122)
As a starter, I would like to gather information and participate in a tentative court case of fraud and false advertisement for any CINOP in office or running for office in the political arena. In Orange County, the CINOP really does not represent any district. Maybe, they could in San Francisco because that is what we have. It is a dirty joke, an obnoxious scandal and the promotion of a false Catholic religion.
Fellow Christian Baptists and Evangelicals would not put up with members with this kind of hogwash politicians. Why should faithful Catholics be like sheep and be quiet about it? In Orange County, the CINOP includes the Congresswoman, one State Senator, two State Assemblymen, and one Supervisor. We will be focusing on the values voters.
Here is the “Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life” by the U.S. Bishops’ conference. Washington, D.C., March 12, 2006 http://www.zenit.org
“A recent public statement by 55 Catholic and Democratic members of the House of Representatives offers an opportunity to address several important points about the responsibilities of Catholics in public life….Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the representatives’ statement cites, declares: The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination …. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death, and in every condition, whether healthy or sick. whole or handicapped, rich or poor. (38)… it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles… all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the Church… Through dialogue, between Catholic political leaders & their own bishops, we hope to promote a better understanding of how the Church’s teaching on human life & dignity challenges us all.”
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate into Spanish
How the Republicans Stole Christmas
Sunday Morning, November 25, 2007 - Sunday Morning, March 19, 2006
Chapter 4 – Abortion and Stem Cell Research
There seems to be a hidden satisfaction and kind of devilish rebellion in the promotion of abortion on demand, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research by the CINOP (Catholic in Name Only Politician). There are also a number of Republicans in this area. They think they can get away and continue to fool Catholics at election time.
All of the above are absolute evils. They are not the prudential issues which CINOP Bill throws in as a smoke screen to fool you. “Consider moral shortfalls: the execution of innocent people on death row, the white collar crime that emptied the pension funds belonging to millions of workers, the latent racism that still denies many opportunities to African and Hispanic-Americans, or the fact that we citizens of the wealthiest nation on earth look the other way while 36 million Americans live below the poverty line.” (122)
As a starter, I would like to gather information and participate in a tentative court case of fraud and false advertisement for any CINOP in office or running for office in the political arena. In Orange County, the CINOP really does not represent any district. Maybe, they could in San Francisco because that is what we have. It is a dirty joke, an obnoxious scandal and the promotion of a false Catholic religion.
Fellow Christian Baptists and Evangelicals would not put up with members with this kind of hogwash politicians. Why should faithful Catholics be like sheep and be quiet about it? In Orange County, the CINOP includes the Congresswoman, one State Senator, two State Assemblymen, and one Supervisor. We will be focusing on the values voters.
Here is the “Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life” by the U.S. Bishops’ conference. Washington, D.C., March 12, 2006 http://www.zenit.org
“A recent public statement by 55 Catholic and Democratic members of the House of Representatives offers an opportunity to address several important points about the responsibilities of Catholics in public life….Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the representatives’ statement cites, declares: The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination …. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death, and in every condition, whether healthy or sick. whole or handicapped, rich or poor. (38)… it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles… all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the Church… Through dialogue, between Catholic political leaders & their own bishops, we hope to promote a better understanding of how the Church’s teaching on human life & dignity challenges us all.”
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate into Spanish
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Report Card # 15 on Bill Press's Book
Report Card # 15 on Bill Press’s Book
How the Republicans stole Christmas
Saturday, November 24, 2007 -March 11, 2006
Chapter 3 – The Death Penalty
There are many pro-life Democrats in the State Legislatures throughout the country. Why are there none in California? We continue with a brief review of this chapter. Our purpose is to explore the mind and heart of a Catholic in Name only Politician and to make the derivative CINOP as common as U.N. or RINO – Republican in Name Only. Note that the CINOP is a true believer in the social gospel issues, but seemingly blind and uncaring about the life and family issues. We have on the one hand, the prudential decisions and on the other hand the absolute evil decisions. There is also a hope and prayer to bring the CINOP back to over-all Catholic Values.
In this part of Bill’s brain (the Death Penalty); his thoughts make a lot of sense. “In recent years, no group has been more out front opposing the death penalty than the Catholic Church. And this represents a big change. As seen above, church fathers like Augustine and Aquinas originally steered the church in favor of executions as a legitimate function of the state….At least the Catholic Church is consistent. Its official position – based on reverence for life – is against abortion, in all cases, and against the death penalty, in all cases….There is simply no way that the death penalty can be uniformly and fairly applied, nationwide….Life in prison without parole is the proven, reliable, humane alternative to the death penalty.” 108, 110- 112.
Prior to the above, Bill Press is very much annoyed with St. Paul. “In their lust to justify killing their fellow men and women conservative Christians practically leap with joy whenever they stumble upon St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, believes that St. Paul in Romans 13:4 gives the state all the authority it needs to kill… Religious conservatives follow St. Paul only selectively. They embrace the death penalty, yet they are also the first ones to start complaining about paying their taxes….But more seriously, is there anyone living in the twenty-first century who actually takes St. Paul at his word?” 101-2 To prove his point, Bill quotes St. Paul.
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord…. Slaves obey your earthly masters in everything that you do: Colossians 3:18, 22
Unfortunately, Bill Press quoted Mario Cuomo who is an outspoken death penalty opponent. As governor of New York in the 1980’s he begged the Vatican: “Please, please, please speak on this subject.” Readers need to be informed that Cuomo via his writings is the Patron Saint of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In the process Mario muddied the waters of Catholic thinking and had a bad influence on the U.S. Bishops.
In hindsight, decades ago, the bishop should have talked to the CINOP. Please attend Mass on Sundays, but don’t receive Holy Communion. It would also have been the best for our Catholic Faith and for the viability and survival of the Democratic Party which has many Catholics registered as Democrats.
A Common Sense Pro-Life Dispatch, George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish
How the Republicans stole Christmas
Saturday, November 24, 2007 -March 11, 2006
Chapter 3 – The Death Penalty
There are many pro-life Democrats in the State Legislatures throughout the country. Why are there none in California? We continue with a brief review of this chapter. Our purpose is to explore the mind and heart of a Catholic in Name only Politician and to make the derivative CINOP as common as U.N. or RINO – Republican in Name Only. Note that the CINOP is a true believer in the social gospel issues, but seemingly blind and uncaring about the life and family issues. We have on the one hand, the prudential decisions and on the other hand the absolute evil decisions. There is also a hope and prayer to bring the CINOP back to over-all Catholic Values.
In this part of Bill’s brain (the Death Penalty); his thoughts make a lot of sense. “In recent years, no group has been more out front opposing the death penalty than the Catholic Church. And this represents a big change. As seen above, church fathers like Augustine and Aquinas originally steered the church in favor of executions as a legitimate function of the state….At least the Catholic Church is consistent. Its official position – based on reverence for life – is against abortion, in all cases, and against the death penalty, in all cases….There is simply no way that the death penalty can be uniformly and fairly applied, nationwide….Life in prison without parole is the proven, reliable, humane alternative to the death penalty.” 108, 110- 112.
Prior to the above, Bill Press is very much annoyed with St. Paul. “In their lust to justify killing their fellow men and women conservative Christians practically leap with joy whenever they stumble upon St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, believes that St. Paul in Romans 13:4 gives the state all the authority it needs to kill… Religious conservatives follow St. Paul only selectively. They embrace the death penalty, yet they are also the first ones to start complaining about paying their taxes….But more seriously, is there anyone living in the twenty-first century who actually takes St. Paul at his word?” 101-2 To prove his point, Bill quotes St. Paul.
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord…. Slaves obey your earthly masters in everything that you do: Colossians 3:18, 22
Unfortunately, Bill Press quoted Mario Cuomo who is an outspoken death penalty opponent. As governor of New York in the 1980’s he begged the Vatican: “Please, please, please speak on this subject.” Readers need to be informed that Cuomo via his writings is the Patron Saint of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In the process Mario muddied the waters of Catholic thinking and had a bad influence on the U.S. Bishops.
In hindsight, decades ago, the bishop should have talked to the CINOP. Please attend Mass on Sundays, but don’t receive Holy Communion. It would also have been the best for our Catholic Faith and for the viability and survival of the Democratic Party which has many Catholics registered as Democrats.
A Common Sense Pro-Life Dispatch, George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)