For all the rhetoric that we need meaningful dialogue, I have not received one reply to these emails regarding the Notre Dame Scandal:

To: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Rogge
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:49 PM
To: 'info@catholicsinalliance.org'
Subject: RE: Stand up for Notre Dame and for Civil Dialogue!


To Whom this may concern,
 
I'm so tired of hearing the "civil dialogue" rhetoric.  Honoring the most Pro-Abortion President in American history; I would like to ask you a question - for which Presidential accomplishment do you believe we should be honoring him? 
 
Where do you find dialogue in honoring him with an honorary doctor of law degree and asking him to pontificate on his anti-life policies?  Wouldn't you agree this is just another photo op for a President who uses dissenting Catholics as props to prove his policies are "morally" acceptable?
 
If you desire dialogue - I welcome you to have a debate with Fr. Frank Pavone, Fr. Thomas Eutenuer, Dr. Janet Smith, or any of the many Pro-life Catholics faithful to Catholic teachings and the Magisterium - would you welcome an open debate and true dialogue?
 
My opinion is Fr. Jenkins is totally out of line and ignoring the clear teaching of the USCCB.
 
I look forward to hearing your response to my questions.
 
May the peace and grace of Jesus be with you,
Scott Rogge

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Rogge
Sent: Wed 4/1/2009 12:23 PM
To: Scott Rogge; info@catholicsinalliance.org
Subject: RE: Stand up for Notre Dame and for Civil Dialogue!


To Whom this may concern,
 
I was just reading your website and it brought up a few more questions in regards to President Obama's accomplishments which you feel are worthy of overlooking his anti-life politics.
 
Under "The role of government and Subsidiary"
How does the federal government taking control of nationwide health care, a major portion of the US auto industry, and of the economy  serve the principles of subsidiarity?
 
Personally, I have lived an worked in Sweden, Holland, Canada, and the UK - and experienced healthcare in three of the four countries; believe me - whether nationalizing these things - especially healthcare is good for everyone and most especially the poor is very debatable.  The UK, and for all practical purposes Canada (they outsource to the US), have both a private and a public healthcare system - which helps relieve major burden from NHS as the middle class and "the rich" can participate in private insurance schemes like BUPA.
 
For all his (President Obama's) rhetoric about the "Bush Deficit", how does tripling that deficit and enriching his campaign donors serve the poor?
 
Whether nationalizing industry and the economy truly serves the poor is debatable.  Removing the conscience clause for Catholic physicians (please explain how this is a good thing), using tax dollars to fund abortion both in the US and in foreign countries, using tax dollars to support research which kills human embryos - and at the same time removing financial incentives for researchers to perform on adult and Induced Pluropotent Stem (IPS) cells - these things would appear to be un-debatable from Catholic moral teaching.
 
Would you be able to provide a reason why you believe these are good things - or worthy of honoring the President Obama at a Catholic institution?
 
Pax Domini Christi,
Scott
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To Father Jenkins and the board at Notre Dame:

From:     Scott Rogge 
Sent:    Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:02 PM
To:    'president@nd.edu'
Subject:    Notre Dame Scandal

Dear Father Jenkins,

I believe it is a complete scandal that a so called "Catholic" University would honor President Obama with an honorary degree.  His position on Embryonic Stem cell research, the right to die, and abortion are contrary to natural moral law and Church teaching.  I find your rhetoric about "dialogue" unconvincing.  This is nothing more than another photo-op for a President who continuously uses dissenting Catholics as a prop in his propaganda war on our society to prove that you can be Catholic and support anti-life issues.

If you want a dialogue, ask him to return at another time and have him participate in a real dialogue with Father Pavone, Sister Diane Carroll, or some other Pro-life speaker, but please do not honor him with an honorary degree and call it a dialogue.

When our Lord and Master wanted a dialogue with sinners - and we should - He went to their house.  He did not invite them to his, and the purpose of his visit was not to honor them and their actions - but to convert their hearts.  And, while I pray for the conversion of President Obama's heart daily; I don't think honoring him with a degree is the proper way to soften a heart that is hardened with death.  His actions speak of his character.  The man lied about his record in the Illinois state senate where he voted four times to kill the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, he then not only lied about this record - he defamed and slandered two Pro-life women who exposed the details of the lie.  His first 50 days in office have spoke towards his devotion to death.  I listened very carefully to Dr. Martin Luther King - and I believe we all should - when he says - "Judge a man by the content of his character".  The content of President Obama's character is overly apparent - and I do not believe a so called "Catholic" institution should be honoring him for any reason.

I pray the Holy Spirit will endow you with the wisdom and courage to handle this matter accordingly.

May the Peace and Love of Christ Jesus our Savior be with you,
Scott Rogge
McKinney, TX

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To a single Catholic Dissenter, Mike:
--- On Sat, 3/28/09, M&M Koeth .. wrote:

From: M&M Koeth ..
Subject: RE: Notre Dame: Fr. Tyson's Statement
Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 10:11 AM


What’s the bad news. A responsible university hears, discusses and debates all issues. If not, they are not fulfilling their role as a bastion of upper education. I commend Notre Dame for their stance. And any Jesuit university would have done the same thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
 
What is the bad news?  It is completely irresponsible.  First - there is no dialogue or debate - the University is "honoring" the President for either his policies and actions thus far or - for apparently racist reasons - because he is the first African American President.  Fr. Jenkins explanation to move away from the first seemed to suggest the second.  And, it smacks in the face of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King who suggested we should judge a man by the content of their character and NOT the color of their skin.
 
Please explain to me where the debate or the dialogue exists in presenting the President an honorary law degree and allowing him to give another teleprompter speech?
 
Secondly, the USCCB 2004 document specifically prohibits a "Catholic" university from honoring politicians who promote intrinsic evil - and as abortion is always an intrinsic evil - much less infanticide which President Obama supported four times when he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a state Senator, then lied and defamed the pro-life women who brought to light the facts behind his votes.
 
"By their fruits you will know them"  I guess if what you say is true - it says an awful lot about the state of our Catholic Universities in America, but it doesn't surprise me considering the descent of the Jesuits (although not all) in America concerning Humane Vitae.
 
You see Mike - the problem isn't "dialogue", it is the rhetoric that we need dialogue when there is no real dialogue planned.  In fact, when the facts don't support the rhetoric - those who tend to support these issues (abortion) stifle the dialogue by saying - "it has already been established".
 
If the President (Jenkins) wants dialogue - perhaps he should invite President Obama to debate someone from the school's various Pro-life groups or maybe Priests for Life or HLI.  Why wouldn't he do that?  Because President Obama wouldn't accept that invitation. 
 
Wouldn't you agree this (invitation to give Obama an honorary degree) is nothing more than another prestigious photo opportunity for a President who uses dissenting Catholics as props to promote his culture of death?  If you are being intellectually honest - I think you would.
 
May the peace and grace of Christ Jesus be with you,
Scott

 

Should the government takeover - err - I mean bailout "Wall Street"?

This is a complex problem and a lot of people (experts) do not even know the complete complexity of it.  This being the case, doesn't it seem prudent to take a step back and analyze the problem further rather than rushing forward to have the government take over such a large portion of our economy. 

This problem was 32 years in the making as this video points out, 32 years in the making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8

Do you think a government "bail out" is going to fix it over night?

I might point out - enriching their cronies in business at the same time.

Is what Pope Pelosi wants to give us a "bail out" or the government taking over a large portion of our economy?  As George Bailey says in "It's a Wonderful life", "Potter (the richest man in town) isn't selling - he's buying." 
The government is buying loans for pennies on the dollar - wait for the redistribution of this wealth - and don't think for one minute the Democrats are giving it back to you.

I would like to make one quick point.  The news media keep saying the Republicans blocked this deal.  This simply is a lie and needs to be corrected, as the video pointed out - haven't watched it yet - here it is again. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8

The Republicans do not have enough votes to block this deal, there are 435 representatives in the house, there are only 199 Rebulicans vs. 235 Democrats and one vacant seat.  The problem is more Democrats voted against this bill than Republicans for it.  40% - 95 of the 235 Democrats vote against the Pelosi/Frank bill.

I was watching World Over Live Friday Night with Raymond Arroyo, one of his guests was Rick Santorum, he was describing how the Republicans were trying to tighten the reigns and regulate this market more in 2005 - he was met with stiff oposition from Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and others in the Democratic Party.

(I wrote this email before I watched the video).
Researching the issue further - it seems it (the problem) goes back all the way to the seventies, but staying with more modern congresses - I found a NY Times article from 1992 praising the Democrats for "loosening" - I suppose that is another word for "deregulating" the market - making housing more available. President Clinton pushed to further deregulate this market in 1996 - when the Republicans were the majority of both the House and Senate with razor thin margins.

The problem seems to be dropping the virtue of prudence in an attempt to "help the poor", however, I may be giving the Democrats too much credit - I somehow doubt the party that votes consistently to kill children - has any true concern for the poor.  Basically the banks were forced by our government to make bad loans, and now the MSM and the Democrats - Pope Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank - not to mention Senator Obama - are trying to blame Wall Street Greed and of all people - the Republican Party and George Bush who had warned about the problem some 28 times beginning in April 2001. 

I'm not sure why the truth is being thrown under the bus by the MSM - thank God there is the internet.

I like the song "Let Nothing Trouble you" by Bob Rice, the prayer of St. Theresa.  You can download it or listen to it for free from his website - http://www.bob-rice.com

With all that said - doesn't it seem the MSM is using the issue to drive Presidential Politics?  Unfortunately - if the truth were told - Obama would be dust, therefore the MSM is throwing the truth under the bus to promote Democrats and Obama again.

You cannot turn on the TV, the radio, or pickup a news paper without finding some new titilating story about Governor Sarah Palin - something new that would "dis-qualify" her for office.  I'm not talking about the Enquirer - we're talking Main Stream Media.  The gloves are off and so is any pretense of their fair and balanced reporting.

I guess until this election they didn't have something called "free Press" in Alaska.  If we are to believe everything the MSM and the liberal blogs are trying to sell us - Palin is the most dangerous person in the world.  This woman is the Anti-Christ - well I guess you have to believe in God first before she can be the anti-Christ, but I digress.

Didn't they have the internet there (in Alaska) two years ago?  Why didn't all of this come out when she ran for governor?  I mean if we are to believe all this stuff - where was the major news media and the liberal bloggers two years ago.
 
Why are they so frightened?  Palin snipers going to kill them, little black helicopters coming to get them?   Are we to believe her political opponents were that politically inept that they couldn't have slung this mud at her three years ago and defeated super mom, sending her back to the kitchen where she belongs (at least according to her critics).
 
For the press she is a burden - their messiah is losing in the polls and the trend - especially among women - is trending more and more towards Palin/McCain.  What's the difference between Governor Sarah Palin (who according to these same liberals should be home taking care of her family - how ironically misogynistic) and Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan?  Two children and Granholm's staunch Pro-Abortion stance.
 
NARAL, NOW, and PP have now declared and defined what they mean by "Feminism" - a person who has a staunch Pro-Abortion stance. 
 
If we examine Sarah Palin - she is from a middle class working family, she is a union member, she has promoted equal work for equal pay, a woman's right to vote, promoted women in the work place, balancing life and work - womn in politics - EVERYTHING we're told feminism supports - EXCEPT the unfettered right of a woman to kill her baby.  Therefore - the only ISSUE between Sarah Palin and the whole litany of other feminists - is ABORTION - and they say "Pro-Lifer's" - well THEY would never call us "Pro-Life" - are "Single Issue Voters".
 
We're not single issue voters - we just recognize the hierarchy of rights and and an importance of issues.  Let me elaborate with an example.  Suppose my wife and I are "vetting" (don't you love the words our media use) new baby sitters for our children.  A candidate comes to us and says - I have a masters degree in Child psychology, three teaching degrees, with specialties in reading, math, music and art.  And I like to do charitable work - therefore I will only charge $5 per hour.
 
You think - wow - we've hit the jackpot!  High fives all around... Then the candidate says - oh - one last thing - I'm also a convicted pedophile.....I'm not a single issue parent - I mean - reading, writing, math music - art - are all important to me - but the last item disqualifies the candidate.
 
Back to single issue voters - for the MSM, NARAL, NOW, and PP people - the single issue - being "Pro-Life" disqualifies the candidate - even if the candidate is a woman.
 
Now many people in the MSM, and society in general, feel Abortion is a woman's choice and we shouldn't "force" religion on society - I believe that is what Joe Biden recently said too.  But I'm not talking about religion - I'm talking about science both biological and philosophical sciences.
 
At the moment of conception one of 2,000,000 sperm and one of 100,000's of ovum's come together, two separate cells, join together and form a one cell Human Zygote, and through empiric reasoning we can determine this zygote is a person - how can something that is going to be human - not be human already?  The Sperm cell is not a unique individual and neither is the ovum (egg), but when the two join - they become a unique new person.  Present at this time are the complete traits of a new unique human being.  Everything that this person will be genetically is already present.  This person is self programmed - their DNA is never going to change, their unique genetic compliment will stay the same forever - even if certain traits may be turned on or off.  This person is self directing - everything this person does comes directly from it's DNA.  They are self actuating and self-effecting - they trigger all the processes in cell division and organ development and how they will develop - all these LIVING things occur in and of this person themselves without outside intervention.  All this person needs is the proper environment and proper nourishment for it to grow and develop into it's further stages.
 
Now if everyone stops and thinks about it and is honest with themselves - this same truth applies to human beings at every stage of life, zygote to embryo, embryo to fetus, fetus to new born baby, adolescent, teenager, adult in their old age.
 
Now some will say - isn't one of the characteristics that  human can reason and is self-aware?  That is true - however - when we are asleep - we are not reasoning and we are not self-aware.  If a person is in a coma for any period of time - a week - a month - a year - they are not always able to reason and are not always self aware.  We don't have the science to measure this precisely.  We don't say a person is not a person because they are asleep or in a coma.  An anesthesiologist could put a person so far under, they have no awareness or rational thought - would this then deprive a person of their personhood and give the doctor a right to terminate the person's life?  Descartes got it backwards - it isn't "I think, therefore I am".  In reality - it is "I am, therefore I think (most of the time)".
 
The second line of reasoning is that there is a natural hierarchy to our God given rights:
The right to life - liberty - and the pursuit of happiness appear in that order in our Declaration of Independence for a purpose - one cannot experience the liberty without first having life.  The second principle that we should be quite aware of from the "Dred Scott" decision - a person's right to own property cannot supersede another person's right to liberty. 
 
A reasonable person of good will should, with their reason, be able to understand (naturally) this mix of science and philosophy (or a line of reasoning) and this is called - Natural Moral Law.
 
Therefore it logically stands - a woman's right to choose (which is NOT found in the constitution and was spun out of whole cloth and not found in any other legal precedent) cannot precede the new life's (in a woman's womb) legitimate right to life declared in the Declaration and found in the constitution.
 
 Now that I have given the "purely" scientific reasoning against abortion - I can add to it Judeao-Christian reasons - Romans 1:19-21 - Natural Moral Law.
 
Now for any bible Christian to say they are "Pro-choice"  that is "Pro-Abortion" - I would ask them to explain the following bible verses to me:
Psalms 139:13-16
Isaiah 49:1, 5
Jeremiah 1:5
Matthew 1:18
Luke 1:36, 44-45
Galatians 1:15
 
(and this is not a comprehensive list by any means)
 
Because I do not see much wriggle room for a "bible Christian" to say they believe (the Greek word used in the NT conveys the meaning "obedience") the bible but they cannot impose that belief on others.   Arch Bishop Charles Chaput took Senator Joe Biden to task for this poor line of reasoning this weekend when he made the same defense on public TV.  If you want to read a very good book explaining Christian responsibility in a secular society - I cannot recommend Bishop Chaput's book - "Render Unto Caesar" highly enough.  Ironically enough - yesterday it was one spot higher than Biden's book on the NY time Best sellers list.
 
Let's be completely honest - we all know John McCain very well, and though it has been hard - we are getting snippets of the "real" Obama.  This whole election boils down to Supreme Court Justices or if the Democrats win the House, Senate , and the Presidency - Supreme Court Justices AND Abortion - as they have written into their planks and promises a roll back of all the abortion laws passed in the last eight years that limit abortion - no matter how reasonable.  And "President Obama has promised us Federal Justices in the ilk of the California Supreme court - who will uphold Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton no matter what, and uphold decisions like the one coming out of California earlier this year.
 

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you

and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if

he does not listen, take ONE or TWO (my emphasis) others along with you,

that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of TWO or THREE (my

emphasis) witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the

church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as

a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on

earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be

loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about

anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For

where TWO or THREE are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of

them."

I am annoyed with the Main Stream Media (MSM).  Barry* (Barrack Obama) preaches a message of "Healing and Harmony" - but he practices a very divisive theology - one would believe this inconsistency in his life is a news worthy item - so why is the mainstream media hiding it?

*Rather than talk about a theology he has been practicing for 20 plus years, NBC did a news cast about his childhood friends from Jakarta, Indonesia, a story which began and ended with a picture of Obama’s classmates in front of huge "Good Luck Barry!"

The MSM tell us they are delivering "objective news" - but media bias is so apparent - why do they pretend it doesn’t exist?  They should just declare themselves a 527 for the Democratic Party.

Friday’s NBC Nightly News devoted 22 seconds to the controversy srurrounding Barry’s church (spinning it to make it sound like an isolated comment about Hillary) and three minutes on a celebratory piece about how excited Obama’s childhood friends in Indonesia are about his candidacy. In a story which began and ended with a picture of Obama’s classmates in front of huge "Good Luck Barry!"

Here is the web site. http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

The website says:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

The quote below is from - Dr. James Cone’s book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone

Dr. Cone has explained the his theology as follows

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

All of it is very disturbing, but let’s highlight a few things:

Second sentence - God is a murder if he is not against "white people"  -  This isn’t in the least bit divisive - is it?

Third sentence - the only acceptable love of God is that which participates in the destruction of "the white enemy"  - This thought certainly brings harmony right into my soul.

Second to Last sentence - We need divine love expressed in "the power of black people to destroy their oppressors" - correct me if I’m wrong - but this does not sound like the message of peace, love, and forgiveness that Jesus preached?

Pastor Wright, Barry’s friend and mentor accepts and preaches this theology at TUCC - Barry (Barrack) has been listening and discipling himself to this message for 20 years - do you think it has had no effect? 

We’re not talking about an isolated sermon, but a systematic theology he has embraced for 20 years - go to youtube and search for Jeremiah Wright - there are plenty of his sermons available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbBC5909lK8&feature=related

Now you can argue that I am taking this out of context, I ask you - please provide a context that would make any of this acceptable - and harmonious - rather than divisive and hate filled.  This stuff is as bad as anything I’ve heard come from the white supremacist theology of the KKK.  I find both repugnant and unacceptable.

The days leading up to the Texas Primary, I received several calls from Obama’s campaign.  I finally had the opportunity to talk to them.   Here is a transcript of our conversation:
 
Campaign worker - "Sir CAN I ask you if you are supporting Obama?"

Me - "MAY I ask you a question?"

Campaign worker - "Sure"

Me - "Does Obama still support Partial Birth Abortion?  You know - the procedure where a doctor induces labor of a woman five to nine months pregnant - turns the baby to the breach position, delivers the child’s body, but before extracting the baby’s head - the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the skull - scrambles the brains - killing the baby - sucks the brains out with a vacuum collapsing the skull - then completes the delivery of the now dead infant - does he really support that?"
 
silence
 
Me - "Are you there?"
Dial Tone.....
 
Of course I could ask the same of Hillary - who’s husband vetoed a bill - twice - that would make the procedure illegal.

I am a bit disturbed by everystudent.com's deceptive tactics on Myspace.  They post a link Catholic vs. Protestant, then when you go to the site they change the title to "Is there a difference between being Catholic and being a Christian?" The implication of course being - Are Catholics Christian?

They begin their question with: 

There are many denominations, types of churches that would be classified "Christian," such as Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran and so on. But obviously there are members in each one who genuinely have a relationship with Christ, and those who don't.

So, the real issue isn't what church a person belongs to, but whether the person individually has Jesus Christ living inside of him or her...if they really have a personal relationship with God.

In a real sense the answer is true - what truly matters is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.  But where should a Christian worship - does that matter?

It most obviously does.  Are all non-Catholic or Protestant denominations the same?  Again, the the obvious answer is: no!  There are over 30,000 Christian denominations.  You will often hear them say, "We agree on the essentials and disagree on the non-essentials", but I've been in "non-denominational" and even denominational bible studies - and the truth is, they cannot even agree on what is to be considered essential.

They say they agree on Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) and Sola Fide (Faith Alone).  But they disagree on how these two tenets of the Protestant Reformation should be defined.  Those disagreements were many and large in just a few short years after the Protestant Reformation began.  Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were divided over many aspects of faith.

Catholic's and Protestant's do agree on a few essentials, even our doctrines of Justification are not that far divided - we both agree on Sola Gracia - Salvation by Grace alone, but like the divisions between protestants, Catholics disagree on how God's grace is made manifest in our lives.  Many of the problems are the misunderstanding on how each side defines certain terms.  I would recommend Jimmy Akin's Salvation Controversy if you want an excellent description of both sides of the teaching on Justification.

The closer you get to a true interpretation of the bible, the better off you will be.  There is only ONE church that claims the Authority and the Ability to infallibly interpret the Word of God.  Read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, every paragraph is full of scripture references, early Church Fathers, and Early Church Councils.  You see God's teaching from his written word, and in the Apostolic tradition explained by the Early Church.

What is the most intimate relationship you can have with Jesus?  Check out my blog on the Eucharist.

God bless you all,
Scott