"Devout Catholics" and the Scandal They Bring

America’s founding fathers, after successfully fighting a war to free our newly formed nation from the chains of tyranny, were adamant that we the people would not replace one tyrannical regent with an equally tyrannical federal government over our nascent nation.  Out of that legitimate concern, the brilliant United States Constitution was written to limit the role of what the federal government could and should do and to further enshrine in our Bill of Rights what our rights were that the government was sworn to protect under this new constitution.

One of our 1^st amendment rights as Americans is the “right of the people peaceably to assemble”.  As such, America has many such groups, clubs, professional societies, service organizations, and institutions of faith where like-minded people are free to assemble in furtherance of their intended causes.  Many of these groups and faith organizations have developed their own by-laws and codes of conduct in order to be a member in good standing with that said group. 

The Roman Catholic Church is one such group.  Indeed, the very church built on the rock of Peter by Jesus Christ himself has long established such rules and codes that a Christian is to live by if he or she is to remain faithful to God and His teachings.  These teachings are encoded in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church for anyone to read. 

One of these teachings regards the mortal sin of abortion.  The Catechism specifically states the following,

“2270  Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which in the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.’  (Jer 1:5)     

‘My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.’ (Ps 139.15)

2271  Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

‘You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’  (Didache 2,2)

‘God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.  Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.’ GS 51 3

2272  Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.  ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ ‘by the very commission of the offense’ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.  The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273  The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.  These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.  Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.’  CDF Donum vitae III

‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.  When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.’  Donum vitae III

So, what are we to make of public figures such as Joe Biden and Speaker Pelosi who insist that they are being good, devout Catholics, while giving support and indeed even promotion and tax-payer dollars to what their faith describes as a mortal sin?  Further, that mortal sin that they have committed unrepentantly has not only brought great scandal upon the Catholic Church as it can and has given permission to those Catholics that are less well-versed in their faith, scripture, and catechization, to support this grave and mortal sin.  Catholicism teaches that in order to partake of the Eucharist, Holy Communion, one must not be in a state of mortal sin.  To partake anyway in such an unworthy fashion is to commit another grievous sin. 

And yet, many of our Catholic leaders still insist upon their own piety.  They disregard the very rules of the Church of which they profess to be members.  If they deny the sacredness of life from conception to natural death, then perhaps Catholicism is not a compatible faith for them.  Perhaps they should look for salvation elsewhere accordingly if they are invincibly ignorant in their steadfast support of abortion.

They certainly should not be propping themselves up as spokespeople for the Church when they are clearly and obstinately not abiding by its core tenets.  There are many bishops, including Nancy Pelosi’s own Archbishop Cordileone, that have instructed their dioceses not to distribute Holy Communion to such transgressors. 

Luckily, the sacrament of reconciliation offers Christ’s mercy to reestablish communion with the church for these transgressors, but they must truly be repentant for the support of this grave evil and work to not fall back into such sin.  In the meantime, it brings great shame and scandal to the church for such high-profile politicians to proclaim their Catholicity while blatantly ignoring its teachings. 

If Mitt Romney, as a Mormon were to be a heavy drinker and smoker and promote such things, he would likewise bring scandal to his church.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would similarly be greatly dismayed as such intractable behavior that goes against their church laws.  Certainly one can understand that a group can establish its own rules.  Churches in particular have a right and obligation to do so.  Membership in such suggests that one is willing to abide by those organization's rules.  This becomes of the utmost importance when the rules are dictated by God himself!

Renowned Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin recently wrote,

“…someone who still professes to be Catholic—even unfaithfully—remains so, even if it is purely in a “bodily” way and not “in his heart.”

Although there is no doubt that public figures—as well as private individuals—gravely compromise their communion with the Church when they reject key Catholic teachings and values, this doesn’t mean that they literally cease to be Catholics.

Bad Catholics are still Catholics. And that just makes their betrayal of the Faith worse.”

Indeed, and that is why Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi may view themselves as devout, but their sins and hypocrisy is clear for all who know to see this.  Prayers for their conversions of heart is greatly needed from the truly devout accordingly.

 

A Catholic View of Marriage

I have become rather distressed by some conversations in which I have shared recently, particularly with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ’s own Catholic Church.  Unfortunately, it would seem that many of my Catholic friends have a misplaced sense of justice regarding the recent Supreme Court rulings when it comes to the oxymoronic term “gay marriage”. 

This is not simply my opinion, but rather that of the Catholic Church as taught by the Magisterium for over two millennia of its history that marriage is an institution and indeed one of the seven sacraments that was created by God and is only between a man and a woman.  Support for any other iteration of a union is not a marriage and is contrary to what God and his universal church clearly states. 

God gives us free will, but for one to be fully in communion with the Catholic Church, one must use that INFORMED free will and thus abide by the Church’s dogmatic and doctrinal teachings, even when one finds them to be difficult.  (Indeed, this is especially true when one finds them to be difficult.)

I am further distressed that many folks ascribe such horrible labels of “bigot” and “hateful” at me for following God’s teachings.  I am writing these things not out of hate for our gay brothers and sisters, but rather out of love for God and what he teaches us is right.  I have no malice or hatred towards any of my fellow men and women who have same sex attractions.  I have friends and even family members who are homosexual, and I love them dearly.  My purpose is not to condemn anyone, as that is not my place to do so.  I simply wish to educate my fellow Christians what their church has to say on this issue, so that they cannot claim ignorance going forward, or think that their is no difference in the conjugal love of a gay couple and that of a man and woman joined in a sacramental marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states the following:

2392    “Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being” (FC 11).

2393    By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.

2394    Christ is the model of chastity. Every baptized person is called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state of life.

2395    Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396    Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2397    The covenant which spouses have freely entered into entails faithful love. It imposes on them the obligation to keep their marriage indissoluble.

 

Further, the CCC states:

2357    Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

2358    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359    Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)

 

And lastly:

III. The Love of Husband and Wife

2360    Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament. (1601)

2361    “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”143 (1643, 2332, 1611)

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144

2362    “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:  The Creator himself... established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363    The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

 

To have a valid marriage, one must be open to the sacrament and its unitive and procreative aspects of the union between a man and a woman.  Nature, and nature’s God has precluded this sacrament from members of the same sex, as the procreative aspects of the conjugal embrace are not possible in such a union.  The same sex couple acts contrary to nature’s design and God’s purpose of total and potentially life-creating giving of one spouse to another.    

Friends, if you are a Christian, especially a Catholic Christian, I urge you to pray upon this with an open and loving heart.  If you still choose to support gay marriage, just know that you are not in communion with your Church, which Christ himself established.  Yes, we should and absolutely must love and treat with dignity our gay brothers and sisters, just as we should strive to do with all people.  That does not mean we should be tolerant or supportive of actions that God and his church has clearly told us is wrong.  Indeed, as God’s word tells us in Isaiah 5:20, “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.”  Let’s pray for each other and for God to grant us wisdom, love, mercy, and forgiveness as regards this exceptionally difficult issue.

Christ tells us that the greatest two commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor.  And indeed we must always strive to do so, but are we really loving our neighbor if we support them when they do something that God has said is wrong? 

Christianity and the Creation of Science

In our ever-increasingly secularized world today it has seemingly become rather hip to run down or mock people of faith as being unenlightened, backwards, willfully ignorant, or just plain dumb.  Our new modern age culture teaches us that science (and progressive politics) should guide us in our lives.  Anyone that still believes in an omnipotent divine creator is a curiosity at best.  Today they are often looked down upon with sadness and a slow back-and-forth nodding of the head as one might do when a not-particularly-bright child trys to stick a fork into the electrical outlet.  Either that, or with outright sneering and scorn.  Indeed, these foolish Christians that believe in such myths and fabrications of an all-powerful and loving deity must be dragged from their pews and into the new millennium for their own good, whether they want to do so or not.

The truly amusing thing is that irony abounds in the fact that today many atheists and agnostics are championing Science as their god.  Unfortunately for them, Science as we know it today would never have developed without the Catholic Church.  Indeed, it was the Catholic Church that developed the scientific method in the High Middle Ages via the Bishop of Lincoln,  Robert Grosseteste.   It was Bishop Grosseteste that was the very first man credited with formalizing the Scientific Method, under the concept of “composition and resolution” using Christian, Islamic and Aristotelean texts. His ideas were translated into the Scientific Method we know today by Roger Bacon, a Franciscan friar who used terms like “observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent verification” for the first time.  Indeed, even the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a priest, as was our modern theory of genetics.

This must be very confounding, if not outright vexing, to our atheist friends today.  How can it be that the Catholic Church and Christian Western Civilization developed the Scientific Method and empirical science in general?  How come it was not developed by the Chinese or in India or other advanced cultures of those days?  For that matter, how come ancient Greece or Rome did not formulate the Scientific Method?

The answer will further confound and vex my atheist and agnostic friends, but I would submit that it lies in two simple words: Monotheistic Religion.

 

“WHAT?!”, you say!  “How can that possibly be?” 

Well, quite easily, actually.  History show us that the fragments of intellectualism that remained after the collapse of the Roman Empire were salvaged by Christianity.  Further, that same Christianity provided the philosophy on which the Scientific Method was founded.  Now Christianity has as one of its core tenets of belief that the Universe was created by a magnificent and supremely rational God.  Logic would thus dictate that the Universe He created must therefore also be rational.  This rational Universe that God created abides by very specific laws;  Laws regarding physics, gravity, thermodynamics and entropy and so forth.

At least through the 18^th century, discovering the laws of nature and how they worked would be the same as discovering how God ordained that events and the Universe should unfold. Without that guiding philosophy and rationalism, it leaves only a conception of nature and the Universe as a succession of different events that just happen to show patterns and regularities.  To the atheist, it could be said that it is just one damn thing after another, accordingly.  Tom Bethell of The American Spectator and author many books and essays regarding science said it best, “Christianity elevated the faculty of human reason and fostered a spirit of inquiry.  Without it, there would never have been a scientific revolution.”

Atheism not only had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Science but it could NOT have ever created Science.  To an atheist who thinks that life and the creation of the Universe happened as a matter of random chance coming to fruition over billions of years, this seems to be in direct conflict with an ordered universe.  “That’s just how things are” is hardly the basis for sound scientific thought, let alone the creation of the Scientific Method.

If, however, the very laws of nature and the Universe come from a supreme lawgiver, and we as mankind are made in the image of that lawgiver, then indeed the Universe absolutely explodes with possibility.  Everything is a subject for observation and rational study accordingly.

So the irony is supremely rich: The New-World Atheist claims that Science — created and promoted by religion, and indeed made possible by religion — invalidates the need for religion.  It seems to me that the religion of atheism requires a far greater leap of faith than does the rationality of Christianity accordingly.

Defending the Faith

I am annoyed.  It seems that I keep finding conversations, blog posts, Facebook comments, news stories, political pundit diatribes, and most alarmingly even devout members of my own faith who are manipulating Christianity to fit in with their personal viewpoints and agendas lately.  (Disclaimer:  I have been guilty of this in the past too, largely due to my own ignorance.)

I am sorry to have to tell all of you good folks, and indeed many of you are wonderful and loving people, but you are NOT the arbiter of the Christian faith.  You cannot dictate what the tenets of Christianity are.  You cannot modify Christian doctrine or eliminate those parts that are inconvenient to your way of thinking, or to justify your lifestyle.  You cannot re-interpret or modify what Christ and His Apostles meant because it will make for a stronger point in an argument for you.  You cannot decide which parts of the moral law or catechism are no longer relevant. 

If you are Catholic, you cannot modify the Nicene Creed to meet your new enlightened world view.  If you are Protestant, you cannot personally interpret scripture to tell us what you are certain Christ really meant.  If you are a secularist, you cannot morph Jesus into some less than Divine, but still all-around-good-guy-philosopher-new-age guru and still call it Christianity.

You simply do not have that right or authority.

And neither do I.

It was Christ himself, the second person of the Holy Trinity, that established His church on earth.  Christ was the one who taught what the tenets of the faith were in His culmination and fulfillment of Jewish Old Testament prophecies.  It was our Lord Christ who bequeathed the power and authority to His apostles to keep and teach that Christian faith that He established.  Indeed, in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ emphatically stated to his apostle Peter the following:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  -Matthew 16: 18-19

Christianity is a revealed religion.  It has been handed down from Christ to Peter and His apostles in an unbroken line of apostolic succession of popes over these last two millennia.  The authentic Christian faith is not open to interpretation.  Not by Arius, Luther, or Smith, and certainly not by politicians such as Obama, Bush, Romney, or Pelosi.

One has to either accept, or reject, the full Deposit of Faith as handed down from Christ through his apostles and their successors.  If that is not satisfactory, you may start your own church based on your own interpretations and beliefs, but don’t assume that it is also an authentic Christian church.

Now that is not to say that there aren’t many churches which do wonderful good deeds and have very loving and holy people within their congregations that try very hard to live their lives and faith as they THINK Christ would want them to do.  The problem is that often times these “Christian churches” practice their faith based on the erroneous interpretation of some pastor instead of what Christ actually revealed to us.

It is not for ANY of us to interpret what Christ meant.  That authority was given from God in the person of Christ to the very first pope, Peter.  That authority was given to His church in its Magisterium.  In other words, that authority to bind and loose and teach what Christ revealed to us lies with our current Pope Benedict XVI and his bishops.  This teaching authority of what constitutes Christianity resides within the Magisterium of the Church that Christ established on earth.  That authority does not reside with ANYONE ELSE, and it certainly doesn’t reside with me.   

The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, protects the Deposit of Faith from any deviation, addition, subtraction, reversal, contradiction, distortion, or destruction offered by those who wish Church teaching to be something it is not.   Again, not even the gates of the netherworld will prevail against Christ’s own Church.  The Holy Spirit will defend God’s Church and its teachings accordingly. 

When told something about Christianity by a well-meaning person, or sadly sometimes by a not-so-well-meaning person, that happens to be contradictory to what Christ has taught, it is incumbent upon Christians to politely but firmly point out the truth.  Truth about Christianity is not open to their interpretation or my interpretation of the faith, but rather it must come ultimately from Christ himself.  To make sure that we follow His truth, logic would suggest that we follow what His Magisterium teaches on his behalf.  Relying on any other person, no matter how well-meaning or holy, will only lead us astray accordingly.

The Five Non-Negotiable Issues for Catholic Voters

I was listening to our local Catholic radio station on the way home from work yesterday and heard a discussion regarding the upcoming mid-term election and the moral responsibilities of Catholics to cast their votes while keeping in mind the "five non-negotiable issues".  Basically what was said is that for the Catholic voter there are five major issues that concern actions that are intrinsically evil and therefore must never be promoted or supported by law.  Catholics are thus instructed to vote against any law or candidate that would support these five issues accordingly. 

These issues are abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage.

The Catholic voter's guide on this states that, "These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables."

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES


1. Abortion


The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.


The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.


2. Euthanasia


Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.


In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).


3. Fetal Stem Cell Research


Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).


Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.


4. Human Cloning


"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).


Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.


5. Homosexual "Marriage"


True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.


"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

For me, these five non-negotiable issues are something with which I am in complete agreement with my church and will not have a problem supporting and voting according to church doctrine.  It is my fervent prayer that all Catholics, and indeed all Christians and good people of all or no faiths also see the moral good in opposing these five non-negotiable issues.  Supporting the dignity of life is always the right choice!

George Washington's Letter to Catholics

As some of my regular readers may know, I am a member of The Knights of Columbus, which is a fraternity of Catholic gentlemen whose purpose it is to defend the faith, country, community, and family.  It is a fantastic organization which has done innumerable good acts of charity for all people the world over.

Anyway, I received an interesting email from the Knights of Columbus' state advocate that I thought was worthy of sharing.  I have reprinted it in full below:

Brother Knights,


I found this and thought is might interest you as well. If you have read "Parish Priest," the biography of our order's founder, Fr Michael J. McGivney, you will know that in many colonies, then states, members of our faith were not given equal rights. The warmth with which our first president writes this letter gives some clue that such treatment was not his idea.  - Andy

=============

[March 15], 1790

Gentlemen:

While I now receive with much satisfaction your congratulations on my being called, by an unanimous vote, to the first station in my country; I cannot but duly notice your politeness in offering an apology for the unavoidable delay. As that delay has given you an opportunity of realizing, instead of anticipating, the benefits of the general government, you will do me the justice to believe, that your testimony of the increase of the public prosperity, enhances the pleasure which I should otherwise have experienced from your affectionate address.

I feel that my conduct, in war and in peace, has met with more general approbation than could reasonably have been expected and I find myself disposed to consider that fortunate circumstance, in a great degree, resulting from the able support and extraordinary candor of my fellow-citizens of all denominations.

The prospect of national prosperity now before us is truly animating, and ought to excite the exertions of all good men to establish and secure the happiness of their country, in the permanent duration of its freedom and independence. America, under the smiles of a Divine Providence, the protection of a good government, and the cultivation of manners, morals, and piety, cannot fail of attaining an uncommon degree of eminence, in literature, commerce, agriculture, improvements at home and respectability abroad.

As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. And I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.

I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind concern for me. While my life and my health shall continue, in whatever situation I may be, it shall be my constant endeavor to justify the favorable sentiments which you are pleased to express of my conduct. And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.

G. Washington
=============

Harry Knox; Anti-Catholic Bigot

I saw this story reported on the evening news last Friday and thought how very sad that President Obama would choose to have a gentleman that held such bigoted views against Catholicism and the Pope as a key member of his Faith-based Advisory Council.

My understanding is that this council is supposed to be a ecumenical council used to facilitate understanding and cooperation between the various faiths of our nation so that they can better serve the national community at large.

Somehow having Harry Knox in his current position does not strike me as the best way to achieve that goal, as his repeated anti-Catholic comments, including the latest one further described in the story below, would seem to alienate one of the largest Christian segments of the American population.

With that being the case, I agree with Congressman John Boehner that President Obama should call for Mr. Knox to resign. I strongly suspect he won't do that though, unless there develops sufficient uproar from Catholics and other people of faith to make keeping Harry Knox in this position a political liability for Obama. That seems to be one thing that our President does understand.

Boehner Says We Can't Have 'Anti-Catholic Bigot' in White House, Calls for Obama Adviser to Resign

Thursday, February 04, 2010
By Karen Schuberg

(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) said today that Harry Knox, who serves on President Barack Obama’s faith-based advisory council, appears to be an “anti-Catholic bigot” and should resign as a White House adviser.

Earlier this week, Knox said he stood by a statement he made last year that Pope Benedict XVI is “hurting people in the name of Jesus” because the pope does not support promoting the use of condoms as a means to stem the spread of HIV.

Knox, who is director of the Human Rights Campaign's religion and faith program, has made other controversial comments about the Catholic Church in the past. For example, in 2007 he was quoted in a statement from the Human Rights Campaign saying that the Catholic Church had committed an act that was “immoral and insulting to Jesus” when it denied communion to a lesbian couple in Wyoming who had promoted same-sex marriage. “In this holy Lenten season, it is immoral and insulting to Jesus to use the body and blood of Christ the reconciler as a weapon to silence free speech and demean the love of a committed, legally married couple,” said Knox.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) describes itself as the nation's "largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization." President Obama was the keynote speaker at the HRC's annual national dinner in October.

St. Michael Society, a Catholic organization, started an online petition calling for Knox to resign from his position on President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

CNSNews.com asked Boehner at his press briefing Thursday whether he believed that Knox should resign.

“He should resign. And I have agreed to sign a letter,” said Boehner. “We can’t have in the White House an anti-Catholic bigot, and that’s what this gentleman appears to be.”

Boehner is a Roman Catholic.

At the National Press Club on Tuesday, CNSNews.com had asked Knox: “You put out a statement saying Pope Benedict XVI was—quote—‘hurting people in the name of Jesus’ because he did not support promoting the use of condoms as a means to control the spread of HIV. And I was wondering, do you still believe the pope’s position on condoms is ‘hurting people in the name of Jesus’?”

Knox answered, “I—I do.”

Knox had originally said the Pope was “hurting people in the name of Jesus” in March 2009, shortly before he became a member of President Obama’s advisory council.

On March 17, 2009, Pope Benedict had flown to Africa to visit Cameroon and Angola. During the flight, the Pope answered several questions from reporters, including one concerning AIDS in Africa: Given that the Catholic Church’s position in fighting AIDS “is often considered unrealistic and ineffective,” would the pope “address this theme during the journey?”

The Pope responded by detailing many of the Church’s humanitarian efforts to help people with AIDS in Africa. “I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is,” he said. “If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.”

On the same day as the pope's remarks, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued the statement that quoted Harry Knox as follows: “The Pope’s statement that condoms don't help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Knox in the statement. “The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”

Harry Knox spoke with CNSNews.com at a press conference about the “American Prayer Hour,” a new, multi-city event designed to "affirm inclusive values and call on all nations, including Uganda, to decriminalize the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."