Is The Death Penalty Intrinsically Evil?
And what exactly does "intrinsically evil" mean?

The Church has always defined intrinsically evil as something that has no redeeming qualities; under no circumstances is it ever authorized; it's never justified and no good can ever become of it. When you get right down to it, intrinsically evil is quite simply... evil. End of story.

I'm sure many of you have heard of the famous Five Non-Negotiables.
For those who have forgotten, they're:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual “Marriage”Did you notice that the death penalty wasn't listed?

What prompted this posting, was I just read an article from Spero News concerning a criminal who will be executed next month for the sexual assault and murder of a three-year old. That's right... I said a three-year old.

I've consistently made no bones about it. I'm in favor of the death penalty under certain circumstances. And you know what? Under certain circumstances, so is The Church, as seen in this Declaration of the Holy See regarding the death penalty. And more of my posts citing the specific Church Teachings concerning the DP can be found here.

But anyhow, The Church simply can never declare the death penalty intrinsically evil any more than She could ever declare abortion to be moral.

I realize that the anti-DP crowd doesn't want to hear this... but that's really too bad. The truth is the truth.

The Main Reason I Won't Vote For John McCain
"Suffer the little children"

When Jesus said the above quote, I'm fairly sure He meant ALL of the little children.

I'll wholeheartedly agree that the Obamanation is a first class baby-butcher. After all, in regards to children who survived the abortion procedure, he's the same guy who did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

All that aside, it's time for an integrity check... there's no getting around it - John McCain is also in favor of murdering children.

Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis mine) McCain Takes Obama to Task on Abortion, Still Defends Embryo Destroying Research

McCain brought up his pro-life record on abortion at the meeting on Thursday, after a discussion about the problem of sexually graphic material on the internet.

"I also would like to say one other thing very quickly to you - that is, I am proud of my record of protecting and advocating the rights of the unborn. I believe this is also an important issue..."

"Life means the rights of the born and the unborn," McCain continued. "You can count on my active advocacy for the rights of the unborn."

The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that McCain continues to stand by his support for embryonic stem cell research.

McCain told his Union Station audience, "At the moment I support stem cell research [because of] the potential it has for curing some of the most terrible diseases that afflict mankind."

McCain's staunch position on embryonic research is puzzling pro-life voters, however, since to date no therapies have been developed from ESCR, while scientists have indicated that embryonic stem cells have a significant risk of growing into tumours or being rejected by the patient as foreign tissue. On the other hand, adult stem-cell research, which does not involve the destruction of human embryos, has made historic leaps forward in regenerative medicine, yielding numerous therapeutic successes in just the past few years.

In a conference call with journalists, Frank Donatelli, deputy chair of the Republican National Committee, was asked to explain McCain's ignorance of these major scientific and medical advances of adult research and his continued support for embryonic research.

According to Donatelli, McCain is watching very carefully the scientific developments on the matter so that "we won't have to go there."Well, thanks a lot, grrl frayun'! What the hell kind of answer is that? "Won't have to go there"... Good Lord. Did Donatelli snap his fingers as he said that?

Anyhow, unless McCain fully, sincerely and substantially renounces his stance on ESCR, there simply is no way I can vote for him. We all know what the five non-negotiables are. We can't pick-and-choose. We either abide by them all, or throw them all out the window. Period, end of story.

And I know that I'm not the only Catholic who feels this way. McCain's style of killing children is a quieter, not as messy, more subtle form of slaughter. If mass murder could ever be described as antiseptic, this is it.

It's time to cut through the bullshit - when we face the reality of when it comes down to the business of killing the absolutely most vulnerable, John McCain is nothing more than a kinder, gentler Barack Obama.

Every Time I Feel That I Should Support McCain...
He reminds me why I shouldn't

Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis mine) McCain, Obama Defend Embryonic Stem Cell Research
McCain's support more qualified, expressed concern about violation of "ethical principles"

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a Monday interview with Science Debate 2008, presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama reiterated their individual positions on the embryonic stem cell (ESC) research debate, with both candidates again stating that they support ESC research.

"While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress," said McCain.

"Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic," he continued, citing other stem cell research that does not require the destruction of embryos.
Senator McCain, it's real simple... in light of the "recent scientific breakthroughs" that you spoke of, just have the courage to come out and renounce ESCR. Yes, it really is that simple.

And for those who've forgotten what the Five Non-Negotiables are --

1. Abortion

2. Euthanasia

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Human Cloning

5. Homosexual “Marriage”

Draw what conclusions you may from my opinion, but I'll stand by what I've said in the past - much like the 10 Commandments, violating just one sends you to hell.

The Bishop Plays Football
Yep, another end-run around Church Teaching

Just when I thought that things were turning around in my old hometown diocese of San Diego... I read the fine print. Looks like Bishop Brom is up to his old tricks of bait and switch.

As I was reading this article from The California Catholic Daily, I was actually heartened about what I was reading. Believe it or not, I was going to do a glowing post on what Bishop Brom has ordered. That is, like I said, until I read the fine print.

Here's some of the article; (emphasis mine) Candidates we cannot “take seriously”
San Diego diocese’s voter’s guide gives little leeway in voting for candidates who support “intrinsic evils”

The Office for Social Ministry of the diocese of San Diego came out with a voter’s guide this month. The guide, "As a Catholic … How Do I Decide?" says it “does not tell an individual how to vote,” but helps “users form their consciences so that they can make sound moral choices.” The guide has several sections, each dealing with a different area of political and social concern: “Protecting Human Life,” “Marriage and Family,” “Protecting Immigrants and Refugees,” (I wonder if 2241 of the Catechism was even mentioned? You know, the section that says that a nation has the right to control immigration, and that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of their new nation. No, it wasn't.) “Protecting Workers and Working Poor Families,” “Promoting Health Care,” “Safe and Affordable Housing,” “Protecting Families from the Harm of Pornography,” and “Promoting Global Solidarity. ("Global Solidarity"? Will everyone join me in a rousing chorus of L'Internationale?)

“Protecting Human Life” is by far the longest section of the guide. To the question, “Can a Catholic vote for a candidate who supports abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research, that are clearly intrinsic evils?” the guide first responds with the November U.S. bishops’ document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship -- but then itself gives a more uncompromising explanation of it. “A candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support,” said the bishops. Immediately following this statement, the San Diego diocesan guide adds, “Put simply, protecting human life is paramount in the political arena, and some evils are so profound and egregious that a reasonable person can not take seriously the candidacy of a person who allows or fosters them.” (I sure was impressed by what I had read so far. Until I read the next paragraph...)

The guide gives the example of a candidate “that was right on every issue except for one. Let’s say, because a candidate was so focused on the safety of constituents, that he or she supported and would work for the use of capital punishment for anyone over the age of 16 that was involved in gang membership or gang criminal activity. “Would or could a voter take seriously a politician supporting this position no matter how ‘right’ he or she was on a host of other issues? Obviously not,” says the guide.
Anyone remember Five Non-Negotiables? In case anyone forgot, they're:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual “Marriage”

And no, you don't have to do a double-take. The death penalty isn't listed, no matter what the Office of Social Ministry of San Diego says. Why do they have to do this collusion... this purposeful heavy dose of authentic Catholic teaching, and insert an outright falsehood giving it the impression that it IS authentic Catholic teaching? Please... stop trying to equate helpless unborn children with sadistic killers.

By the way... how many millions has Bishop Brom had to pay out for protecting rapists? And no, I'm not denying the legitimacy nor the validity of Bishop Brom's episcopacy. I just think he's pissed away any and all credibility he ever had. If Bp. Brom REALLY wanted to bring back any credibility to the teaching authority emanating from the Diocese of San Diego... he's step down and allow another to clean-up the disaster he's created.

He's legitimate, just not credible. Kinda like Arius until he finally went off the deep end.

So Close...
But why doesn't he just come out and say it?

Like many of you, I watched the Saddleback Forum last night. I gotta tell ya... I don't know what planet the Obamaniacs are on, but on what do they base their observations that The Obamanation was "concise", "eloquent" and "thoughtful"?

In the words of my dear old departed father; "you gotta be shittin' me". Barry stumbled, fumbled and mumbled his way through that particular interview. Did anyone else notice how he slowly but surely broke eye contact as the questions got tougher? And how about when he was asked "not to give your stump speech" on a certain topic, how physically irritated he got? Ol' Barry doesn't like to have the heat turned up, do he?

And how about when he was asked “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” His response: "answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade". How gutless.

McCain, on the other hand, gave answers that left little doubt that he meant what he said. Mostly...

He ducked the Embryonic Stem Cell Research question by tap dancing around it and saying that he is "wildly optimistic" that skin cell research "will make this debate an academic one."

Well, if you're so freakin' "wildly optimistic", then just come out and make this debate academic. Senator McCain, you need to clearly and unequivocally renounce ESCR. No nuancing... no tap dancing. Just damn say it.

That way you will no longer be in violation of one of the 5 Non-Negotiables, and then I (and thousands of others who take the protection of all innocent human life seriously) can support and vote for you.

One thing I will say; I believe the most telling moments were when they were asked what their most "gut-wrenching decision" ever was. The Obamination's bullshit answer how he "agonized" over being an favor of the war in Iraq. THAT is the most gut wrenching decision he's ever made!? Golly gee... he "agonized" that he might lose the election. What a vapid, lukewarm sorry excuse for a human being.

And I'll be honest, McCain's retelling how he turned down early release from a North Vietnamese POW camp because he had an obligation to abide by the Code of Conduct... that was real, touching and brought a lump to my throat. Especially when he said "But not only the toughest decision I ever made but I'm most happy about that decision than any decision I've ever made in my life."

But anyhow, the bottom line concerning last nights forum --- McCain administered an ass-whippin' of Biblical proportions. .

The USCCB, The Pope, And The Security Of Nuclear Weapons
Is there any wonder why so many Catholics think it's perfectly fine to vote for a baby-butcher?

First, some of the article from Inside Catholic, then my explanation as to why the title of this post all ties together. (Emphasis mine.)
The Trenton Times Gets It Wrong on Catholics and Voting
by Deal W. Hudson

There will be much media mischief aimed at Catholic voters between now and November 4. Perhaps the best example thus far appeared in the Trenton Times on July 30.

The headline of reporter Jeff Trently's article tells you all you need to know about his intentions: "U.S. Bishops: Vote your conscience, Catholics urged to weigh stands on all issues."

But Trently's version of the erroneous conscience-is-king argument is notable for several reasons: First, his bias is more obvious than usual; secondly, he puts the worst possible spin on a controversial line from "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" published by the USCCB. Finally, he misinterprets quotations from Bishop John Smith of Trenton, the bishop's communications director, Ravenne Bennett, and the director of the Office of Social Concerns, Rev. Ronald Cioffi.

Trently begins his report with a declaration: "Single-issue voting, like simply choosing the anti-abortion candidate, is out." In other words, the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the non-negotiable life issues is no longer more important than other issues. Did I miss an encyclical or a change in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

According to Trently, all issues now carry equal weight. Catholic voters may weigh "each candidate's view on the entire spectrum of social issues -- including the war in Iraq, health care, housing, the plight of immigrants, as well as abortion."

What is Trently's evidence for this momentous change in Church teaching regarding political participation? He cites one line from "Forming Consciences" and supports his interpretation with quotes from the chancery of the Diocese of Trenton.

Here is the passage, from section 34 of "Forming Consciences": A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position [emphasis in original article]. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

But this isn't what the bishops said at all. The document states that it is possible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate only if the voter's intent is not to support that position. Weighing the spectrum of issues is not the decisive factor, and any fair reading of "Forming Consciences" leads directly to the conclusion that the bishops did not publish section 34 as a loophole for Catholics to support pro-abortion politicians like Obama.

In fact, the bishops go so far as to quote the passage from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's 2002 "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" that was such a stumbling block for John Kerry in 2004: It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals (no. 4).

The U.S. bishops echo Pope Benedict XVI's rejection of false moral equivalence: Not all moral issues are equal; these ten goals address matters of different moral weight and urgency. Some involve matters of intrinsic evil that can never be supported (section 90).Now with all that said, some may believe that Section 34 is still a green light to vote for one candidate that "isn't as much of a baby-killer as the other".

But anyhow, how does the title of this post tie together? Simple... the USCCB isn't magisterial. Period. But like I've said, there are those that will bleat "but the USCCB says it's OK!!", even though the USCCB never said any such thing.

What then Cardinal Ratzinger and current Pope Benedict have stated on the issue isn't new either. It's what Catholicism has taught all along.

So what does any of this have to do with the security of nuclear weapons? Well, many a year ago, I was assigned to nuke security duty. Every so often, we would come up with a situation where there were conflicting orders from the 3 source documents we used (Marine, Navy and finally Air Force Standard Operating Procedures). So which of the three did we adhere to in any given seeming conflict of direction?

Exceedingly simple. Whichever of the three was the strictest.

By the way, anyone who thinks of adding a comment trying to convince me that it's somehow correct to vote for any candidate who is in favor of any of the 5 Non-Negotiables... don't waste your time. Any such postings will never see the light of day on this blog.

When Many Blacks Conveniently Forget...
And, of course, certain Whites who want to keep them psychologically enslaved

As I watched the alleged news that CNN aired concerning "how even African-American members of the GOP are torn when it comes to voting for Barack Obama". Oh, really? Well... yes. Really.

I'm not naive enough to disbelieve that there's a lot of truth to the disgusting number (some say as high as 15%) being thrown about concerning the number of Whites who won't vote for Obama simply because he's Black. I'm also not that naive to realize that there's a sizable percentage of Blacks who'll be voting for Barack Obama simply because he's Black.

Anyone else recall this quote?I have dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.Doesn't this apply to everyone... Blacks as well as Whites?

Being objectively color-blind is a lot like The Ten Commandments or The Five Non-Negotiables; you either abide by it all, or none of 'em are worth the paper their written on.

But in all fairness... just like abortion, many Blacks have been lied to about this for decades, to the point of being brainwashed. And the names of those liars are Kennedy, Pelosi and Biden, et al.

Knights Of Columbus Opens Their Own Cafeteria
And what an expanded menu they have

I'm a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus. I haven't been active in The Knights for years now. I've been toying with the idea of possibly getting back with the K of C... but after finding out a few things, I think I'll happily remain on the inactive file.

You see, I found at my parish a copy of Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics put out by Catholic Answers. Per usual, Catholic Answers uses only the official teaching of The Church. With that said, they've stated that the "Five Non-Negotiables for Catholic Voters" are as follows;
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
Period.

Unfortunately, Knights of Columbus has taken it upon themselves to add onto the list.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that we will continue to speak out to our elected representatives about our continued opposition to the death penalty.

As I've made abundantly clear on this blog many, many times... Catholics most certainly can be in favor of the death penalty in cases of extreme gravity. That's the official teaching of The Church.

I for one, don't need the K of C telling me that "we" must continue to be opposed to something that the official teaching of the Church has always allowed.