Donohue: Secularism becoming 'militant'

In a recent interview, Catholic League President Bill Donohue summed up what he believes to be the current state of affairs concerning relations between the Christians and secularists....

"“Secularism has become militant,” ... “Many elites are taking an aggressive secular approach. They have lined up against the Catholic Church and other Christian churches particularly for their stand on moral values.”


Donohue pointed to New York where gay ‘marriage’ was passed without debate or exemptions for clerks who objected to having to grant such licenses. He also noted the closing of Catholic adoption and foster care agencies since they were unable to comply with laws forcing homosexual adoptions.


“The real big one,” he added, “is the [Health and Human Services] of the Obama Administration.” The forcing of abortifacient and contraceptive coverage in private health care plans under penalty of fines was described by the Catholic League President as the Obama Administration “on a full court press to shove its values down the throats of the Catholic Church.”"

In the same article, Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and now the head of the Vatican’s highest court stated "“it is a war” and “critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law.” Should they not, he warned, “secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.”.

Yet further proof that the Christian tolerance that fostered free speech in this country is turned on it's head and used as a wapon against the very institution from which it sprang forth from. In order to support this assertion of mine concerning the origination of freedoms we enjoy here in America, I will quote a transcript from historian Dr. Charles Hull Wolfe...

"As a result of their initial obedience, the Israelites became a free people-the first free people in history. As Moses said, they were to "proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof" (Lev. 25:10)...In God's good time, through Jesus Christ, God not only fulfilled the Old Covenant but confirmed and universaized the Law, and showed men how to obey it better-by receiving Him as their Lord and King . Even more, Christ showed men how to be free-by being governed by Him from within, instead of being tyrannized by men from without! In turn, St. Paul, who knew that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" took the gospel and the principals of the Mosiac Covenant Westwardagain from Israel across the Mediterranean to Greece and to Rome.


Soon other believers took it Westward once more-to England and then to Ireland. In the Year 432 A.D., Patrick-using a Latin document known as "Liber Ex Lege Moisi" i.e. Book of the Law of Moses, in cooperation with the irish leaders whom he had converted, made the Ten Commandments the foundation on which Britons would base their civil law. In 890, King Alfred-the only monarch the english ever called "the Great"- made the Mosaic decalogue and Jesus' Golden Rule the basis of the code of the law for England and the foundation of British freedom.


in 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton, drawing on Britian's heritage of Bibl-based law, framed the Magna Cartra. A forerunner of the U.S. Constitution, it asserted the God-given rights of the English people and the Christian Church and is remembered today for its contribution to freedom under law."

For those truly interested in this subject, a more in-depth explanation is available by clicking here.

The Slippery Slope That Supposedly Does Not Exist

Perhaps the most pivotal accomplishment of radical gay activists in this country was the removal of homosexuality as a serious psychosexual disorder by the American Psychiatric Association on 1973. Never discussed by the Mainstream Media however is that this action was accomplished through lobbying, activism and intimidation rather than any sort of groundbreaking research on the matter. Now another group is seeking to parallel the success of those early pioneers in defining down sexual deviancy...

"If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.



The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.



Researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.



B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality."

Perhaps I am a bit jaded in that very little suprises me these days, but this one caught me completely off guard. Notice how such utter perversion is now attributed to "minor-attracted persons" and how "tolerance" is so strongly encouraged. Apparently they were paying attention and have learned through the tactics of others that nobody wants to be thought of as intolerant and thus they are using that as their parry in an attempt to deflect any type of rational discussion on the matter.

CINO Nonsense in Kentucky‏

It has been reported that the proposed merger of the University of Louisville Hospital with Catholic Health Initiatives has some people feeling uneasy. Chiefly among those who have misgivings about the merger are two Catholic In Name Only state representatives (who are both democrats) named Thomas Burch and Mary Lou Marzian who apparently suffer from self-identity issues. Some excerpts of what passes for persuasive argumentation in the op-ed piece that they jointly submitted to Kentucky.com are as follows...

"Representatives from Jewish Hospital, University Hospital and the University of Louisville have been reassuring patients that reproductive health services will not change after the merger with a Catholic medical institution, St. Mary's Healthcare. Their reassurances have not worked. Several hundred people have signed a statement opposing the move."

Isn't it interesting to see how effortlessly they replace the decidedly violent option of the killings of innocents with such sterile and Orwellian terminology like "reproductive health services"? Who could be against that? If I described the local meth dealer here as an "undocumented pharmacist", that makes him not sound so bad either and I seem like a heavy if I criticize him.

"..an advertisement released by the heads of the three hospitals assured readers "the merger partners are committed to expanding, not limiting, services," including tubal ligations performed at the time of Caesarean sections. We applaud their intentions, but we fear they may be somewhat naive."

If anyone in this discussion is "naive", it is you two. You seem quite content in criticizing the party that places emphasis on how precious human life is without ever examining the Culture of Death that is slowly, yet steadily creeping forward in western society. For instance, I would bet my bottom dollar that neither one of you could tell me what percent of babies that are euthanized in the Netherlands are done so without parental consent. From the cited article..

"It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?



Euthanasia consciousness is catching. The Netherlands' neighbor Belgium decided to jump off the same cliff as the Dutch only two years ago. But already, they have caught up with the Dutch in their freefall into the moral abyss. The very first Belgian euthanasia of a person with multiple sclerosis violated the law; and just as occurs routinely in the Netherlands, the doctor involved faced no consequences. Now Belgium is set to legalize neo-pediatric euthanasia. Two Belgian legislators justify their plan to permit children to ask for their own mercy killing on the basis that young people "have as much right to choose" euthanasia as anyone else. Yet, these same children who are supposedly mature enough to decide to die would be ineligible to obtain a driver's license."

Please explain to me how this can't possibly happen here. Also, would an agency that has Catholic oversight be more or less likely to see such horrific, moral failure?

"At St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Sister Margaret McBride lost her job for approving abortion care that saved a woman's life. Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted had her removed. Do we want local hospital workers to obey an authority that puts anything above the life of the patient?"

Given the nature of doctor/patient confidentiality rules, I doubt that either of you had any greater access to the patient's medical records than the rest of us and you are simply reporting second hand information. Carefully left out of your assertion are the facts that the Catholic Physicians Guild in Phoenix fully supported the bishop in this case and that at least one neonatalogy expert has questioned whether the abortion was really necessary.

Although I'm just some schmuck sitting in his undershirt in Florida, allow me to make a suggestion. Instead of advocating, in your own words, "a full range of reproductive health care", why not side with that the majority of pro-aborts who now agree that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just plain wrong and support life for a change?

Why not try and be a representative of your denomination by following the example of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and pledge to help any pregnant woman in need? Carpe diem!

The Selective Evangelization of the US State Department

Jeff Walton informs us of a growing trend in the Obama/Clinton State Department to selectively cater to certain "soft targets" and ignore the 500 Pound Gorilla In The Room known as radical Islam.

"The State Department's increasing interest in homosexual rights comes as critics -- such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom --have accused the Obama Administration of weakening their commitment to the freedom of religion in favor of a more narrowly defined "freedom of worship." The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter."

Is anyone the least bit suprised here? Providing lip service to what they deem to be a repressed, minority community but doing effectively little to nothing for them is a hallmark of the liberal Left.