Is Cain Pro-Life?

Herman Cain seems to be floating some odd logic lately when queried on his stance against abortion.

He starts out by saying he believes that life begins at conception, and that he supports "abortion under no circumstances." When Morgan presses him on the government's role in enforcing that belief -- an exchange that at least begins with a hypothetical question about a rape exception -- Cain begins to sound a lot like a "personally opposed to abortion, but still pro-choice" candidate.

But it’s worth mentioning that, as I noted the other day, Cain chose not to run for Senate in 1998 partially because he was unsure his views on abortion would be compatible with the most ardent pro-life voters. ”[W]ith the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing,” Cain told Nation’s Restaurant News, adding that he was “not a social-issue crusader” but a “free-enterprise crusader.” However, whatever his concerns were in 1998, he did run as pro-life (no exceptions in cases of rape and incest — the only exception he ran on was for the mother’s life) in the 2004 Georgia senate race, and won an endorsement from Georgia Right to Life that election cycle.

Links of interest:
Whoa: Is Herman Cain Pro-Choice on Abortion?
Herman Cain Might Actually Be Pro-Choice and Not Know It
Herman Cain’s Muddled Abortion Logic

Purpose of Parents

On occasion, a parent finds themselves in a situation where children must be taken care of without the help of the other parent. Sickness, family visits, work, etc... are common reasons. This time at home certainly is different as each spouse does not serve the exact same role as the other. Parents are not redundant or interchangeable in a family structure, they are complementary. The way a father runs a house is different that the way a mother runs the house, God has intended it this way for a reason.

Economic Classes...

Christopher Blosser has a great post over at The American Catholic. Here is a preview:

Sacred Scripture

Every part of Sacred Scripture is given to us by the divine spirit of God. The men who wrote Sacred Scripture were inspired by the divine spirit of God. Sacred scripture is only to be interpreted by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Sacred Scripture cannot be properly expounded by private judgment or personal insight.

2 Peter 1:19-21

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

A moral solution for Peoria?

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith."

It seems that the Diocese of Peoria has given up the fight and walked off course in regards to the State of Illinois adoption fiasco. It has been reported that the Diocese of Peoria has dropped the legal challenge to a state law requiring equal treatment for same-sex couples in adoption and foster-care services. The Diocese instead has come up with what they feel is a solution [emphasis mine]:

The Peoria office of Catholic Charities, which faced the loss of government contracts [so what?] because it would not comply with the new state law, has chosen to set up a new organization, without formal ties to the Catholic Church, to handle adoption and foster-care cases. The staff of Catholic Charities will join the new organization, which will abide by the new regulations.

This false solution was simply to remove "Catholic" from the name of the organization. The fact that the diocese is still responsible for setting up an organization that performs a function incompatible with the Catholic Faith is disappointing.

"I have a responsibility to assure that Catholic Charities operates consistently with the teachings and values of the Church," said Peoria’s Bishop Daniel Jenky in explaining the decision to drop the legal case. The newly established office will not follow the precepts of the Church, but it will not operate under the "Catholic" label.

Bishop Jenky, thank you for continuing Catholic Charities in some capacity, and withholding the "Catholic label" from the organization that certainly is not Catholic. However, responsibility does not simply end at appearances. How is this non-catholic private adoption organization an example of fighting the fight? Where is the perseverance that some of the other Illinois Dioceses are showing?

Dr. Jeff Mirus writes:

The good news is that Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky is aware of his responsibility “to assure that Catholic Charities operates consistently with the teachings and values of the Church.” Thus Catholic Charities will divest itself of its State adoption/foster care contracts. Indeed, the Chicago Tribune reports that Catholic Charities will gradually give up all State contracts, which now total some $23 million, and will soon rely exclusively on private funding. That is a highly moral stance, and it also takes at least one diocesan Catholic Charities system in a direction from which it should never have deviated in the first place.

But the bad news is truly troubling. While Bishop Jenky recognizes his responsibility for the moral character of Catholic Charities, nothing has been reported to indicate that he is equally aware of his responsibility for the moral conduct of the persons who make up the staff of Catholic Charities.

The Church is not required to vacate her adoption and foster care role in Peoria because she has some peculiar disciplinary requirement concerning her formal institutional role. Rather, she is required to vacate this role because it is immoral for any person to place adoptive and foster care children with gay couples. Not only does it place such children at increased risk, but it directly participates in the mythology of gay marriage, which is based on a deep denial of reality with serious and inescapable moral consequences.

[...]

Contrary to what is apparently a widespread belief, moral behavior is not required of us only when we happen to work for official Catholic agencies which are actively seeking (as is not always the case) to maintain a specifically Catholic reputation. Moral behavior is required of all of us all of the time.

October 7th: Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary

Today marks a feast day in the Catholic Church in honor of the Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary. Numerous popes and saints have written about the efficacy of the Holy Rosary. Pope Leo XII wrote:

O Venerable Brethren, We desire that, this year, this prayer should be offered with such greater fervor of heart as is demanded by the increased urgency of the need. We well know the Rosary's powerful efficacy to obtain the maternal aid of the Virgin. By no means is there only one way to pray to obtain this aid. However, We consider the Holy Rosary the most convenient and most fruitful means, as is clearly suggested by the very origin of this practice, heavenly rather than human, and by its nature. What prayers are better adapted and more beautiful than the Lord's prayer and the angelic salutation, which are the flowers with which this mystical crown is formed? With meditation of the Sacred Mysteries added to the vocal prayers, there emerges another very great advantage, so that all, even the most simple and least educated, have in this a prompt and easy way to nourish and preserve their own faith.

Also of interest this day is the reason that feast day was set. In the late 1500's the Battle of Lepanto was fought. The details of the battle from a historic standpoint are something of interest. The victory came by the intersession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the use of the Rosary... thus the reason for the feast day being set.

The Battle of Vienna should also be of interest. Again, the success of the battle is attributed to our Blessed Mother, and by it the feast of the Holy Name of Mary was set. The Polish King and leader of the Hussars sought the intercession of Our Lady of Czestochowa before entering into battle. The dates of the battle should look familiar, as they tie into a modern day retaliatory attack. (I do not believe the date similarity to be coincidental.)

If you regretfully have no devotion or very little devotion to the Holy Rosary, I encourage you to persevere.

I also advise you to become familiar with these two historic battles. Without the success of Christendom in these battles, historians believe that our world would look very different today. Western Civilization would have stagnated while the Ottoman Empire went on to rule the world.

As usual Audio Sancto has a few sermons on these topics that should be of great interest:
There Is No Problem That Cannot Be Overcome By The Rosary
Why Can the Muslims Take Over Europe?
Our Lady of Czestochowa and How To Get The Most Grace From The Rosary

2010-2011 CCHD Update

The 2010-2011 list of CCHD grantees was released in January of this year. The review (PDF) produced by the American Life League produced some disappointing facts.

From the findings of the review:

• 218 organizations funded
• 14 are directly involved in activities contrary to the Church
• 40 are actively involved in coalitions with activities contrary to the Church

Almost a quarter of the groups funded by CCHD are involved in work contrary to Holy Mother Church. The reforms the CCHD attempted to put in place in recent years are not adequate.

Dangerous Ambiguity

What does the Church teach on the death penalty? Have the times changed such that the teachings of Christ's Church are no longer relevant?

The NCR seems to think so... in fact the NCR seems to have completly re-written what the Church teaches on capital punishment. I guess it should not come as a surprise.

Here is another view on the topic. "The Purposes of Punishment" by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L.

"Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe."

St. Aquinas also has quite a bit to say on the subject. For starters:

"The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, and therefore appertains to him alone who has charge of the community. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to rulers having public authority; and therefore to them is it lawful to slay evil-doers, not to private individuals."

If a Serpent Bite in Silence...

St. Thomas Aquinas says:

"Just as one man injures another by deed in two ways--openly, as by robbery or by doing him any kind of violence--and secretly, as by theft, or by a crafty blow, so again one man injures another by words in two ways--in one way, openly, and this is done by reviling him, as stated above (Question 72, Article 1)--and in another way secretly, and this is done by backbiting. ..."

In recent weeks Audio Sancto has provided two Catholic sermons on the topic of backbiting. "Backbiting destroys three classes of people. Those who are guilty of it, those who listen to it, and those who are slandered."

There are times when speaking of the faults of another may not be considered backbiting. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

There are times, nevertheless, when one may lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered. If a person's misdoing is public in the sense that sentence has been passed by the competent legal tribunal or that it is already notorious, for instance, in a city, then in the first case it may licitly be referred to in any place; in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten. When, however, knowledge of the happening is possessed only by the members of a particular community or society, such as a college or monastery and the like, it would not be lawful to publish the fact to others than those belonging to such a body. Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

The employment of this teaching, however, is limited by a twofold restriction.

• The damage which one may soberly apprehend as emerging from the failure to reveal another's sin or vicious propensity must be a notable one as contrasted with the evil of defamation.
• No more in the way of exposure should be done than is required, and even a fraternal admonition ought rather to be substituted if it can be discerned to adequately meet the needs of the situation.