A federal judge has ruled that a law that don’t permit abortion after a heartbeat can be detected is unconstitutional. We should hardly be surprised. Legislatures are the only branch of government no longer allowed to make laws; they only make suggestions for judges to consider when crafting a law.
Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber must believe that the legitimate interests of the state stop where the agendas of judges begin. She ruled that the bill that made abortions illegal after a heartbeat can be detected is unconstitutional. She clearly believes “unconstitutional” means “I don’t like it.”
March 18, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Absolutely 100% agree!! This too … the secular forces who stand against the Divine Will own every mode of messaging – The media, Hollywood, TV,
universities, public schools, theater, the arts, literature – and so it is absolutely essential that we use this powerful mode – the internet – to counter those messages with Truth.
March 18, 2014 at 5:27 pm
The newly begotten sovereign person's will to live is the states' right to life.Roe v. Wade discarded the science of DNA, the science of reproduction, the science of doing unto others as you have been done unto as in having been born. But most of all, Roe v. Wade discarded the human soul of the child in the womb. Innocent and virgin, the child's soul is the standard of Justice and the compelling interest of the state. So, here one has the proof of there being no Justice in the USA
March 18, 2014 at 6:44 pm
The federal judiciary and the President appear to permit each other to exercise unconstitutional powers. While there are many good senators and representatives, congress as a whole seems to be a collection of harmless Merovingians. The balance of powers is decidedly unbalanced.
But then, when I voted in the primaries last month the experience was a lonely one. The people, bless them, complain on the 'net, but they don't vote. There is much optimism for change this November, but the reality is that Democrats vote (more than once?), while Republicans stay home and sulk.
March 18, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Unfortunately, the Internet also makes it easy to surround oneself with an amen chorus. It seems to me that society in general, and the Church in particular, have become even more polarized after the growth of the Internet.
March 19, 2014 at 12:25 am
Don't just look at the potential for minimizing mistakes. What about the enhancement of mistakes. We see plenty of that. And the " majority opinion therefore makes it right or true" nonsense may have had even more weight. My only question would be. Why V2 at all?
March 19, 2014 at 4:26 am
it wasn't until the Internet hit maturity that I discovered there were alternatives to the NO, such as the SSPX, FSSP, etc. My point is that if the Internet had been around back then, so many of us would not have felt we had no choice except shut up and accept the changes for the sake of meeting our Sunday and holy days obligations. Voting with our feet may have at least slowed down the liberal changes.
March 19, 2014 at 4:26 am
Fr. Richard, I love listening to you on The Inner Life. You have a lot of things going on in your parishes and you come up with some great ideas! Keep up the good work. 🙂
March 19, 2014 at 5:18 am
We're already finished as a country! There is no "fixing" errant judges. When one "judge" can overturn, not once, but twice the majority will of the people in a state. Then I consider the Republic is "over"!
The "judge" forgot that fairness and equality are relative terms. Nulifying my vote made me and the majority others, "nons"! Living under totalitarian dictatorship and I can see I wasn't disappointed by the unethical, morally bankrupt, power grabbing judiciary. They have seized the day!
March 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm
I am sympathetic to your view that the internet can aid in keeping wayward clerics and their crazy agendas in check, but this doesn't match the power of the pope to do this job and do it correctly and no matter if there is an internet or not, the pope has the authority and mandate to monitor, discipline and restore the church.
The fact remains the same since V2, the popes just don't want to do this.
March 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm
This polarization is due to Catholics who ignore the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition' in lieu of their own personal opinons (which can be heretical or schismatic by Church definition.)
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg 5)
Many Bishops (and their Priests) in the USA have done little to encourage the study of the CCC at home by the literate.
“….the CATECHISM has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)
March 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Maybe the problem is that so many people who vote Republican are not actually registered, and so in many places can't vote inthe primary. This is my case, I'm a registered independent, but the last 6 years have only voted Republican.
March 22, 2014 at 3:00 pm
What stands out in reading original documents from the 1960s is just how incredibly poorly catechized not only the laity were, but many clergy as well. Yes, everyone could parrot back the Baltimore Catechism, but few had an understanding of what the faith meant. Pope Francis has discussed how poor priestly formation was in the 1950s and the effects of this can be seen in the post-councilor years.
Clergy had a lot of incorrect beliefs about the faith that they unwittingly passed on to the laity. The laity were taught to "pray, pay, and obey" which led to a feeling among many the Church teaching was arbitrary. And if it was arbitrary, then why NOT change things?
March 22, 2014 at 3:01 pm
So polarization is the other guys' fault. Got it. #headdesk
March 22, 2014 at 3:09 pm
All Catholics are required to adhere to the CCC in entirety.
If they do not, they are Catholic heretics and/or schismatics per Church definition (CCC #2089).
Not sure what you mean the 'other guy'.
Do you mean Popes Francis, Benedict, and John Paul II against someone else ?
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more, by reading and meditating on the Scriptures, studying the Catechism, steadily approaching the Sacraments.” Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
March 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Seeing as the CCC wasn't written until 1997, how could one adhere "to the CCC in entirety" before that? The polarization existed long before the catechism.
March 22, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Prior to 1997, the only Catechism for the world- wide Church was the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" written in the mid 1500's. People had to rely on others to accurately teach them the Faith when there were additional Magisterium teachings. We could not find the teachings of the Doctrine of the Faith in one book, but in maby separate Church documents.
The Magisterium saw the need for accurate Church teaching to be available to everyone, not only those who officially teach the Faith but everyone – including non-Christians.
The CCC in the footnotes reference the Bible and Church documents for those who wish to know where the teachings came from.
Here is a web site with quotes about the CCC from our most recent 3 Popes, and a short video from Dr. Scott Hahn.
"What Catholic REALLY Believe SOURCE"
After reviewing, please get back to me with any questions you may have.
The CCC contains the 'Doctrine of the Faith'.
There are no errors in the CCC regarding any Church teaching.
March 22, 2014 at 6:36 pm
I've yet to hear a convincing argument for the calling of V2. A recent EWTN special featured a bunch of catholic talking heads who found it so amusing that when pope john XXIII called for a council and all his bishop were flummoxed & taken by surprise (maybe they realized it was completely unnecessary and would be botched in its implementation?)