Monday, October 25, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-9, November, 2010

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

November, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 9
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 121
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFC’s, $1000 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.

Prisoners for Christ:
1. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
4. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
5. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
6. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
7. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
8. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
9. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
10. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FMC, Box 4500, Lexington, KY 40572


"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death." David Little

T
his concludes Chapter 3, “The Debate,” of Eric Rudolph’s book on child killing, Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict. It is the best I’ve ever read.

In their wildest dreams the Founders couldn’t have imagined that in 200 years time a value system would evolve in America that looks upon pregnancy as a shackle used to keep women in subjection to men. And in order to break free of the shackle, women need contraception, abortion, and even infanticide. The writers of the Constitution would later witness the birth of these ideas in Jacobin France (1790s). The more responsible among them—Washington, Hamilton—condemned these ideas as incendiary. Thomas Jefferson was initially supportive of the French Revolution, but withdrew his support when it turned bloody. Only a few fools like Thomas Paine, who would actually become a deputy in the French Convention and would almost lose his empty head, supported the French Revolution. But even after witnessing the French Revolution the Founders could never have imagined these Jacobin ideas mutating into a value system that now regards the annual murder of 1.5 million children as a necessary price to pay for women’s liberation. In their day, there was no diversity of opinion on abortion. There were no “pro-choice” delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Transported in a time machine to present day America, the Founders would think that a pack of Baal worshipers had landed on America’s shores and taken over the government. A tour of University of California Berkley’s campus would confirm their supposition.
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” wrote Blackmun. When life begins is a religious-philosophical question that you must answer for yourself. In a diverse society, your view of when life begins must never be imposed on another person who holds a different view. “By adopting one theory of life,” the Texas legislature overrode a woman’s right to an abortion, said Blackmun.57 Justice Stevens emphasized this same approach in Webster v Reproductive Health Services: “The Missouri legislature [which said that life begins at conception] may not inject its endorsement of a particular religious tradition in this debate, for the Establishment Clause does not allow the public to foment such a disagreement.” 58
Let’s take Blackmun’s and Steven’s arguments to their logical end. What if our Baal worshippers set down roots in Arkansas, and according to their “theory of life,” children less than two years of age are not persons. But they do make excellent sacrifices to Baal. If the Court forbade the Baal worshipers from sacrificing their toddlers, but allowed pregnant mothers to abort their unborn children, then the Court would be adopting a “theory of life,” one that says life begins after birth.
And Stevens’ ham-handed attempt to discount the pro-life position merely because it finds some of its philosophical support in the Christian religion is typical leftist tripe. If we discounted all the laws that were also found in the Bible, then murder, rape and robbery would have to be tolerated. As noted earlier, all laws impose a moral perspective. Those who are pro-abortion, for instance, advocate a whole host of laws and social engineering schemes that impose a moral perspective: civil rights, hate crimes laws, income redistribution, environmental laws, universal healthcare, gun control, affirmative action, sex education. The list is endless. Leftist activism always adopts a moralistic stance. Their basic world view is moralistic: According to them, “bad” racist, capitalist, bourgeois, sexist pigs have been hogging all the wealth and power in the world, and it’s only moral that the “good” non-white, poor, proletarians, take it back—“Power to the People!” All their talk about “scientific determinism” cloaks the heart of a world improver. Their “libertarian” “pro-choice” rhetoric disguises egalitarian collectivist morality: They believe women have been kept barefoot and pregnant since the beginning of time; abortion is their only means of escape; denying them abortion is immoral. Ask any NOW member whether it is moral to make abortion illegal and be prepared to wipe the spittle off your face as she screams out moral indignation.
So the pro-abortion lobby is correct when it says that pro-lifers are trying to impose their morality on others. But those who are pro-abortion are also trying to impose their morality on others:
All rights imply obligations on the part of others, and all obligations impose a moral perspective on others, to make them act in a certain way. Thus, the abortion rights advocate, by saying that the pro-lifer is obligated not to interfere with the free choice of the pregnant mother to kill her unborn offspring, is imposing his moral perspective on the pro-lifer who believes it is her duty to rescue the unborn because those beings are fully human and hence deserve, like all human beings, our society’s protection. Therefore, every right, whether it is the right to life or the right to an abortion, imposes some moral perspective on others to either act or not act in a certain way 59

Everything depends on which value system you subscribe to.

Once you get through the camouflaging polemics, what is clear about the abortion debate is that the two positions are irreconcilable. Put simply, those who are pro-abortion are saying, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” But to pro-lifers this sounds like, “If you don’t like murder, don’t commit one.” At that level of the debate, there can be no compromises. This is what happened 150 years ago when half of America was saying, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one.” On such a fundamental question like abortion or slavery there is room for only one position within one system of laws. America will either be all pro-life, or all pro-abortion. Lincoln was smart enough to see the fundamental disjunction over slavery in the 1850s. Unfortunately, conservatives refuse to see the fundamental disjunction over abortion today. The egalitarians are not so blind, or so cowardly. They are making plans for an America without conservatives. Listen to Peter Singer: “During the next thirty-five years the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under the pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing, religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”60 If present trends continue, Singer is exactly correct.

Chapter 3 References

1. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) pp. 465-466
2. George E. Baker, ed. The Works of William H. Seward, 5 vols. (New York, 1853-84) IV, pp. 282-292
3. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, (1690) e.d. (London: J.M. Dent, 1993) pp 116, 117, 226, 227, 158
4. Ibid., p. 194
5. Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 1998) p. 29
6. John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, (Penguin Classics, 1989) pp. 66-69
7. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) Poijman And Beckwith pp. 117-118
8. Ibid., p 119
9. Ibid., p 120
10. Ibid., p 121
11. Ibid., p 121
12. Ibid., p 123
13. Ibid. p. 125
14. Ibid. p.125
15. Ibid., pp 129-130
16. Ibid., p 130
17. Mary Ann Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Michael Tooley, “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
21. Ibid.
22. Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Argument for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) Chapter 7
23. Catherine MacKinnon, “Roe v. Wade: A Study in Male Ideology,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith p.98
24. Ibid., pp 96-97
25. Sally Markowitz, “A Feminist Defense of Abortion,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith, pp. 394-398
26.Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” in The New Republic, 16 Oct 1995
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Mortimer J. Adler, Haves Without Have-Nots: Essays for the 20th Century on Democracy and Socialism, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991) p. 210
30. Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, (Norton, 1992) p.210
31. Ibid.
32. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, (New York, Frederick Fell, Inc. 1983) p. 150
33. Ibid. pp. 150-151
34. Tooley, “A Defense of Abortion and Infanticide”
35. Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
36. Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Women’s Choice, (Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1990) p. 350
37. Stephen Swartz, “Personhood Begins at Conception,” in The Moral Question of Abortion, (Sophia Institute Press, 1990), p. 265
38. Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
39. Don Marquis, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith, p341
40. Ibid., pp. 339-354
41. Constitutional Commentary 2, (Summer 1986) p. 519
42. John T. Noonan, "How to Argue About Abortion," in Morality in Practice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) p. 150
43. Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”, p. 125
44. Cardinal John Henry Newman, Apologia pro vita sua, (1864) in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York, Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
45. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 598-599
46. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 144 (1889)
47. Preface to the Chapter “Due Process,” in Corpus Jurus Secundum
48. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)
49. Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)
50. L. Powell Belanger, Prisoner’s Survival Guide, p. 209 (P.S.I. Publishing, 2001)
51. Roe v. Wade
52. Ibid.
53. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 175
54. Ibid. p. 179
55. Ibid. pp. 179-180
56. Lochner v. New York
57. Roe v. Wade
58. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
59. Francis J. Beckwith, “Pluralism, Tolerance, and Abortion Rights,” in Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments For Abortion Rights, Chapter 5 (1993)
60. National Review, (March 9, 2007)

I’ve now posted the introduction and the first three chapters of this incredible work. I urge you to get copies to reread the posted material and read chapters 4-6. I will get a copy of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict to any PFC who asks for it.

HELLO JOHN i HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM NC AFTER 3 MONTHS WITH FAMILY TO RECEIVE A LETTER FROM ERIC THAT HE WAS ATTACKED BY ANOTHER INMATE AND HE IS IN THE HOLE AWAITING A HEARING THIS INMAE THREW FECES IN HIS FACE WHILE HE WAS ON HIS RECREATIONAL DOG RUN AND TRIED TO BLIND HIM WITH A MAKESHIFT SPEAR WITH A SHARP NAIL ON ONE END AND A STRING ON THE OTHER. ERIC GRABBED THE STRING AND WRESTLED IT FROM HIM AND FINALLY A GUARD BROKE IT UP BUT ERIC IS BEING DISCIPLINED FOR DEFENDING HIMSELF. i HAVE WRITTEN TO THE wZARDEN SINCE U CAN NEVER GET THRU BY PHIONE. I HAVE CALLED REPEATEDLY AND THEY LEA VE U HANGING AD RINGING AND NO ONE ANSWERS. I AM AT MY WITS END SINCE I HAVE NOT TALKED TO ERIC IN 5 MONTHS SINCE THEY REFUSE TO BRING HIM THE PHONE. I DONT KNOW WHO OR WHAT IS GOING ON. I CANNOT GET HIS
EXLAWYERS SINCE MY COMPUTER HAS CRASHED AND THIS IS ONBE I AM USING IN MY COMPLEX OFFICE. PLEASE PASS THIS INFO ON FOR PRAYER AND ANY HELP ANYONE CAN GIVE. PEACE AND BLESSING PATRICIA

Dear God, and others, please help this pro-life giant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And here ends the long letter Peter Knight sent me years ago. Eric tells us what happened and Peter tells us why it happened:

And, that’s the way it is with corrupt people and corrupt governments. They ask you for a finger, and if you’re stupid enough to chop it off and give it to them, they ask you for a hand. Then an arm. Then a leg. And eventually if you’re the sucker so many are, when they ask you for your heart and head, you’ll give that to them too. How could anyone be so bloody stupid as to believe that a bunch of immoral pro-abortion politicians and judges were God’s servants and deserved anything better than total contempt? How could anyone who did believe that they had an obligation to obey pro murder politicians ever think that was the highest law there was? How could they ever think that that overrode the requirement not to participate in murder, their duty not to pay murderers to kill?
People have demonstrated their capacity for selfish uncaring behavior right through history. But nowhere has it been demonstrated near so much and near so clearly as it has in this present age with abortion. Nowhere else has their selfish uncaring behavior brought destruction on such a scale, nowhere else has destruction been directed at victims who were more helpless and defenseless. The weakest the perpetrators could lay their hands on. Nowhere else has their destruction been so widely approved and accepted. Nowhere, and at no time, have there been so many murderers amongst the population. And nowhere, and at no time, have they been opposed by such feeble resistance. My God demands that that response be given. And maybe the problem will eventually sort itself out in 50 years time. Let’s sit back and be patient and gutless and hope that it does.
There is one, and only one, fit and proper response to give to mass murderers when they have been given the support and protection of the government and its agencies. My God demands that that response be given. And maybe the problem will eventually sort itself out in 50 year’ time. The “let’s sit back and be patient and gutless and hope that it does” response is not only entirely inappropriate, has not only been responsible for the slayings of countless millions, but is a response that only will ever be given by someone who really doesn’t give a damn.
When God decides to eradicate abortion, if He does it through the agency of people who have rejected and condemned the only proper response, then God is the god of 4th rate people, not me. Equally, however, if He does it through the agency of a more fit person, one who has given the response they rejected and condemned, then it is clear the God has the same utmost contempt for them and their fake excuses as I do.
There’s no doubt that in some respects my God is a fairly tough God. He doesn’t have an endless supply of mercy and forgiveness. He’s an intelligent God who makes some very serious demands. And I’m glad He does, I’d never want a God who’d accept me if I turned in trash. I’d never want a God who’d accept me if I turned a blind eye to murderers and paid them to do their thing. Seems there’s a far more popular God that’s around on planet earth though. A God who gives his permission for you to abandon helpless victims to their fate. A God who doesn’t just give his permission, but demands that you forsake them, demands that you ignore the victims’ pleas for help. And then calls you a murderer if you don’t. A God that demands that you pay the murderer to do the deed. Now that’s what I call a real tough God. I can only be grateful that I don’t have a God who is that tough. I used to think that only Satan, or only pro-murder politicians, or someone of that kind could be so tough.
Somehow though it’s obvious that people don’t find this sort of God tough. Somehow they can put the victims’ plight right out their mind. When god placed them into a world where these abominations were continually carried out, somehow they believed they were in a real great world, a real great country. Somehow they came to believe that abominable was good. Somehow they came to believe that Satan was God. When the real God steps into the boxing ring, that’s a world and that’s a people who are headed for a very big fall.
It didn’t require an army of millions to put a stop to abortionists. If there had been one person in each million who took their responsibility seriously, it would have been sufficient to do the job. There wasn’t one person in a million who was up to doing their duty. Instead, they preferred to accept the consequences of a 30-year plus delay. They have therefore made themselves responsible for those consequences. All the consequences. Maybe when God gives them the final consequence, then they’ll learn that there’s no such thing as a God who accepts trash.
It takes less than 5 minutes consideration of the issue of abortion to say – “why has there not been the one person in a million that was required to put a stop to abortionists by Paul Hill’s methods? I’ll take the action, the action that says to those worthless creeps, this is what you would have done if you were not totally worthless. This is what you would have done if you even had so much as two cents worth of humanity left in you.
It’s been 15 years since Paul Hill stood up and told the people of North America what their responsibility was. Many people have bad memories and soon forget. Maybe it’s time that another Paul Hill stood up and reminded them what pathetic failures they are.
Always go as strong as you can.

..Peter S. Knight (signed in script. The 22 page text was printed meticulously in tiny caps.)

No other prolifer or killers’ helper attacks us more powerfully than Peter Knight, not us of the “pray and vote-only” variety but we who visit the mills to plead with women to save babies’ lives. I posted Peter’s big argument, the one that has me still upset, in October’s “Abortion is Murder.” Peter there charges us with helping rather than hurting the killer because the mother of the baby we are able to save is the one who would cause him the most grief. She is the woman who would be most likely to attack him emotionally and financially. Here’s how Peter put it:

How much could any abortionist care if someone removed a paltry one percent of his clients? And would he care at all if the few that were removed out of the way were the ones who were far and away most likely to sue him? Once again they’ve only performed a free of charge beneficial service for the abortionist. Once again they’ve only been sucked into doing the abortionist a favour. This is the type of poker machine which hands the abortionists a million dollar jackpot without them needing to put any pennies into it. “Do us the favour suckers.”
If you were an abortionist what better friends and what more helpful friends could you have than these? What better plan could you come up with than to get some of your friends to take over the top positions at so-called anti-abortion organizations; then have them do as much as possible to suck their members into removing from your premises as many of the people as they could who were most likely to sue you.

I have a brilliant friend who disagrees with Peter. I hope he will put his disagreement into writing.
Meanwhile, if you think that Peter’s on to something, two courses of action remain, one of them illegal. Since for me doing something illegal is not an option, I have only one: increase the intensity of the attacks against both killers and their helpers. That means visiting their homes and challenging them in public, and, of course, that means preparing for their visits to us. In other words, we must expand this war between Life and Death from the streets near the mills to all streets. Do you see anything else?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Palin is right, the killing of unborn children should be an essential issue in the 2010 elections. However Palin made one mistake, she should have said, "the killing of unborn children" instead of "abortions."

Why the pro-life candidates continue to say "abortions" is a mystery to me. Is it because they don't want to hurt the feelings of Democrats? That anyone who supports baby killing just might be considered an ogre by the general public.

I just don't get it, especially, since the latest polls find that the percentage of people who are pro-life is greater than those who claim to be pro-choice (to kill unborn children).

Wouldn't it be great if a pro-life Republican candidate would say, "my opponent supports the killing of unborn children. If you want to be a party to the killing of 1.3 million children every year, then vote for him. I support the sanctity of human life and if you do too, than vote for me. Besides, when we all arrive at the 'Pearly Gates,' shouldn't our slates be clean?"
Frank Joseph M.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Picture Bible
By James Kopp

When I was a boy, I had a Bible with beautiful color paintings in the back, about a dozen of them – Jesus heals the leper, Jesus feeds the five thousand, Jesus turns water to wine. There is something about pictures, isn’t there? Worth more than a million words, if you try to explain something to someone who hasn't seen it; otherwise, Our Lord could have just left the whole eye-thing, and just issued us all CD scriptures at birth. But He didn't.

In jail, or if you are confined to a hospital, or, I must add, in our modern world, if you live in an ugly stinking, shrill city surrounded by concrete, or, still, I must add, in our accursed generation, if you spend too much time looking at the Devil's Box . . . it can be hard to see any ting beautiful, to use our eyes for what they were made for.

Jesus said to Thomas, See the wound in My side? He also said, consider the lilies of field. Wait, that's it. Let me stop there, just there. Sometimes it’s just one word that gives the game away.
Jesus said consider the lilies. . . Why didn't He say "Look at the lilies” and let it go at that? Because looking wasn't enough. He wants us to look at the lilies and then think something too, on top of just looking.

The massive marvelous events of the life of Jesus, are just too darn important to only read and then go on.
To dwell, to muse, to ponder, to hold an idea or picture in your mind gently, so it sinks in so deep it becomes a well, a well so fruitful, life giving water can come back out.
I must muse upon your law day and night Psalm 119

There are 15 “pictures” I look at every day, and ponder.
Here they are.
(a little note about location, location, location, the three-most, important points about God's real estate, the backdrop in the pictures in my Bible. Even so, for those fortunate enough to make the Christian hajj, even they have a problem. The holy places ain’t the same as they were. Gotta swap out jets, cars and modern buildings with camels, donkeys, little boats and campfires.
This is why I carry around my bible pictures in my head, a good trick to know, with guards and nurses (if you’re in a hospital ) always clearing away "fire hazards."

Years ago I got tired of looking at the Bible pictures What was it really like? What did the air smel like? What's behind that stable? What's that sound, behind that hill?
I said to myself, wait I can do this. If I can’t go to the Holy Land (except. . . later, you know? DV Upstairs) then, by golly, let's bring the Holy Land here, to a place I know like the back of my hand.

South Pasadena Mojave Desert

It’s not my fault Jesus was born and lived so far away. But He could have just as easily been born where I grew up or where you grew up. Why not? We could have been a little shepherd boy or shepherd girl, growing up in the shadow of the Bethlehem stable, or Mount Calvlary.
So I decided that I did. Jailbirds and hospital patients get special privileges! Yay ! Jello on Wednesdays, and a blessed, sacred slide show every night "in the cool, cool, cool of the evening."
Farmer, on a bleak plain? You too, when the animals are fed and the sun goes down. Commuters? hustling home confined to thin prisons of concrete road, surrounded by Corbusier excretions?
Longsuffering moms, in a cramped suburban space, keeping the kids from running in the street? Factory worker, watching a robot all day? Make him a camel. Boring office? It’s Palestine.
Is there a point here? Please!
In my mind’s eye, during Bible musing time, I “set” the scenes of the Life of Our Lord, right where it takes no imagination at all: the town I grew up in. Then, it all becomes alive and real.
Jesus could’ve been born near where I grew up, just as surely as I could’ve been born near where He grew up. I’ve never to Palestine but I know my hometown my own “Palestine.” You can too. Let’s go!
Jimbo puts tbc (to be continued) here, so I’ll wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jimbo also says to post the Syllabus of Errors, so I’ll continue:

33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions.
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages.

35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority can assume this principle as the basis of its acts.

37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.

38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu."

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.

43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.

49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the 5age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. (tbc)
---------------------------------------------------------------.

40 comments:

John Dunkle said...

Nobody, other than the feds, reads "Abortion is Murder"; so, I comment on three other blogs, all posted by people who help the killers kill. They are thenotsodailyherald (nots), abortion and reproductive rights advocate (aarragh), and the Abortioneers (eers).

John Dunkle said...

10/26 nots

"different from"

John Dunkle said...

10/26 nots

Four, count 'em, 4, posts today since the Tiller one that I commented on above. Course they're just read this, read that stuff. But who does Kate think reads this other than I? Her mother?

John Dunkle said...

10/27 nots

"It’s about time mainstream media news outlets shed some light on the horrors that some very young women endure when older women attempt to access reproductive health care clinics."

Boy, Kate's got that right!

John Dunkle said...

10/27 nots

We go back and forth, don't we. I love it when Kate rewrites her posts after I deal with them.

Poor Frankie Shaeffer. He is absolutely right: if one maintains that people are alive nine months before they are born, of course there will be someone who acts on that premise. He's wrong, though, about the numbers: these heroes come along once every five years, not once every five weeks. And he's poverty-stricken: he has sold his birthright.

John Dunkle said...

10/27 eers

"Or a year. Or longer." How 'bout a lifetime?

When will you folks realize that if you're doing something horrible, like helping to pull apart other people, depression, burn-out, whatever you call it, is the normal state to be in. Those not in that state are truly the sick.

John Dunkle said...

10/27 nots

"If it becomes legal to force a person to allow another access to their body against their will..."

Why couldn't the writer use "her" instead of "their"? Obviously "the person" is a "her" and not a "him" or a "their." Maybe the outlandish grammar is meant to disguise the stupidity of the argument?

John Dunkle said...

10/28 eers

"Abortion provision is certainly a broken system . . ." That's not all I'm getting from reading "The Abortioneers." What I'm getting is that "abortion" provision is hell on earth. When will you folks wake up and realize life is not supposed to be all about injecting poisons, inserting pins and rods, separating the unitive act in any way you can, and then paying someone to torture someone else to death?

John Dunkle said...

10/28 nots

Can't figure Kate out. Go to "Protester." First you see clips of the best prolifers doing their thing. Then you see interviews with women who are devastated because they killed their babies. Is Kate a spy like Kathy, only visa-versa?

John Dunkle said...

1-/29 nots

stupid post, stupid joke, stupid caption

John Dunkle said...

10/31 nots

Aime and Kate are right here. Catholics who believe what they say they believe form a tiny percentage of that group. 99 plus percent are secularists.

John Dunkle said...

10/31 eers

Two points: the only way you will stop mortal conflict here is to convince people that they were not alive nine months before they were born. Point 2: Interesting that BG would be "more than happy" to talk to an opponent on a blog that refuses to post anyone who disagrees with her.

John Dunkle said...

11/1 eers

If this story is true, and I doubt that it is, baby killing is responsible. That operation is so associated with baby killing that I wouldn't be surprised if normal doctors even avoided learning how to do it. I doubt it, but, still, I wouldn't be surprised.

John Dunkle said...

11/1 nots

Being quiet, hateful, and pedantic is not helping women. It is supporting adolescent male "triumph."

John Dunkle said...

11/1 nots

"...the little piece of meat with two eyes..." Who dat? Sounds like Kate's description of a young person she's helping to kill!

John Dunkle said...

11/2 nots

hardly worth it

John Dunkle said...

11/2 eers

DOW after three martinis

John Dunkle said...

11/3 mpts

The only thing I did, Kate, was laugh when Sharon toted her Sestak sign -- he's a loser," I'd say.

But please don't use those killers' words, "abortion and fetuses." Tell the truth, "child killing and young people."

John Dunkle said...

11/3 eers

Three of AA's sisters were murdered, but she's happy about it. Are all of you this sick? Why otherwise would you post something like this?

John Dunkle said...

11/3 nots

And Kate, every woman, female, girl, cutie, babe, honey, young lady, sweetheart, call her what you will, was once a fetus. How can someone be subordinated to herself! The nonsense never ends.

John Dunkle said...

11/4 eers

Dizzy being dizzy as usual: "I even call a 9-week fetus a baby . . . It's all about the intention . . ." and if someone wanted to call Dizzy herself a turkey, could he then roast her?

John Dunkle said...

11/4 nots

Ah, the Commander got to Kate, again. I love it when she gets tied up like this. Why can't I be young and smart so I could do it.

John Dunkle said...

11/7 nots

If the conference was anything like Carlin's presentation, it was a meeting of low-lifes.

Carlin did bring up the point of self-immolation which, with media cooperation, did indeed prevent us from winning the Vietnam War. But Catholics may not do that. We may shoot the enemy but never ourselves.

John Dunkle said...

11/8 nots

Maybe I can make that.

John Dunkle said...

11/8 eers

Best thing she ever wrote.

John Dunkle said...

11/8 eers

Talk about three strikes! VV's got at least five against her.

John Dunkle said...

11/10 nots

Kate, don't let Jimmy see this. He'll s top drinking Bud Light and you won't get any shopping done.

John Dunkle said...

11/10 eers

"I felt proud that children could have a beautiful place to be . . ." No you didn't, AA, you felt rapacious. You try to disguise that hunger with all the pretty, pretty as you help track down the little girl who is about to be tortured to death.

John Dunkle said...

11/10 nots

Kate champions all aspects of sexual perversion. Poor Jimmy.

John Dunkle said...

11/10 nots

too many words, baby killers don't read that well

John Dunkle said...

11/11 aarragh

Could you print addresses with these names, Pat?

John Dunkle said...

11/11 nots

She's back -- Kate, Kate, filled with hate.

John Dunkle said...

11/11 eers

"Someone talk to me about this! Who is making this work??" Well, PS, substitute "legal baby killing" for "abortion" in paragraph 1 and the answer is obvious -- Satan.

John Dunkle said...

11/11 nots

"1) Dr Charles Benjamin & Cherry Hill Women's Center in New Jersey paid a settlement to a 17 yr old patient for failing to disclose abortion-breast-cancer-risk."

Thanks, Commander, I'll spread this around, Sunday, when I visit Chuckles' home in Fort Washington.

John Dunkle said...

11/12 nots

"I have a hodge podge for my readers today . . ." I'd say.

John Dunkle said...

11/13 nots

Oh comon, Kate, you can do better than that.

John Dunkle said...

11/14 nots

Next lesson, Kate: mixed metaphors, because your last sentence contains a doozy. Before I'm through, I might make you literate. Then we'll really have to watch out.

John Dunkle said...

11/14 nots

Sure the Guttmacher Institute is nonpartisan, and I'm Kate Ranieri. And why would you want to join an organization that wants to keep it legal to kill innocent people, and wants you to have healthy, satisfying sexual relationships when another institution offers you a powerful and profound one.

John Dunkle said...

11/14 nots

OK, first let's see if we can get you to talk clearly, Kate; then we can argue -- "Kathy claims that both sides have used inflammatory language. I’d add that they continue to use inflammatory language."
Your second sentence up there is redundant because the first means that they continue. If Kathy said they "had used," then your second sentence would make sense.
You might say I'm being picayune, but I want to keep it simple for obvious reasons. I could have pointed out ten others weaknesses. I'll repeat my offer of editing.

John Dunkle said...

11/15 nots

If you had written thoughtless, irresponsible, and untrustworthy this post would at least have been true, if still boring.