Economy, environment and rights are connected

It is too bad that the responses to Frank Pavone's comments evolved (degenerated)
into name calling and pointless, futile argument. I found most of Pavone's comments somewhat shallow or at least incomplete, BUT several would have made for inteersting discussion.

FOR EXAMPLE: PAVONE SAID, "They (governments) do not grant or define human rights. Neither can they edit or delete them." Pavone also said, "if a government is trampling upon those rights, it becomes an immediate matter of priority to correct that abuse."

Now, either of these statements could elicit excellent, even civil discussion.

Too bad.

There we have it, "..his usual beef with the church."

Dismissive.

Is or is not your Church still hiding suspected criminals from civil law?

Did you think you had paid off all the victims to shut up and go away?

Has your religion led you to be that delusional?

Answer yes or no for the church (IN LESS THAN 900 WORDS)

Answer as if your obedience to the Ninth Commandment demands it.

Then I'll leave with my "usual beef about the Church")

The poster who goes by the name areyousaying as usual is acting very disagreeably. Obviously he likes the attention he is getting even though has does not have much of anything constructive to say except for his usual beef with the church. Just like the spam I get in my email, I'm learning to ignore his comments. Maybe one of these days he'll decide being a loser is not to his advantage.

Posted by: whawell
---------------------------

...my you can whaaaaaaaaaaaa well

The poster who goes by the name areyousaying as usual is acting very disagreeably. Obviously he likes the attention he is getting even though has does not have much of anything constructive to say except for his usual beef with the church. Just like the spam I get in my email, I'm learning to ignore his comments. Maybe one of these days he'll decide being a loser is not to his advantage.

IRT:

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Yawn

You have revealed yourself as liar (Obama is a Muslim), a racist (55% of Blacks get abortions) and an anti-Semite (the Jews murdered Jesus).

You're dismissed now - move along.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING
POSTED JANUARY 20, 2011 9:25 AM
“CHERRY PICKING?”

IRT:
“Posting his cherry-picked scriptures and links to the Catholic League is just as sadly delusional as teabaggers cherry-picking Leviticus and referencing Fox News and the Rasmussen poll.”

ANS:
Still blinded by your bizarre outré statements. It’s evident you're not thinking for yourself, but are resorting to the sophist and demagogues who are leading you into paranoic oblivion. Further, your only defense against the truth is an attempt to rant and attack the credibility of the couriers and the internuncios.

It’s not Leviticus, of which all the gay-sex advocates like to refer to, but Romans1: 22cf. and you might also try Galatians 5: 19cf. Cherry picking is another of your hallucinations. There’s no need to cherry-pick; the Scriptures are all in consonance, and don’t contradict themselves in their moral counsel and admonitions. Of course, you wouldn’t know that; you’re unfortunately on the outside of Scripture looking in.

I don’t believe Rasmussen polls, that are the most accurate polls to date, were referenced. Apparently, Rasmussen came to mind because you don’t like him either. Rasmussen is generally correct and correctness isn’t a virtue you’re endeared to, since you’re wrong most all the time. Again, you are a product of your lack of awareness and comprehension. Your hallucinations and fabrications are depleting any creditability you might have had, if you ever had any at all.

IRT:
‘They somehow believe all of these have credibility and authority over the rest of us.”

ANS:
Are you assuming everyone should have confidence in your credibility? Everything you've posted is incorrect. First, it’s not "teabaggers," they are gay activists and an insult; it’s called Tea Party, in reference to the Boston Tea Party. Nor is it Leviticus but Romans 1, and you're wrong about Rasmussen being a reference. There’s an old baseball adage which depicts your dilemma, viz. “Three strikes and you’re out.”

I used to think TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 is Bill Donohue but now there's a possibility he's actually Rick Santorum

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/rick-santorum-invokes-obamas-r.html

Sad to say, you had me agreeing at first, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1. Too bad you had to go and spoil it with inflammatory rhetoric. Fr. Frank was reiterating what the Founding Fathers said. Oddly enough, they had it right. You sir, do not.

“SHOULD DISCUSSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BE ON PAR WITH ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES”

“An issue is an issue to begin with only because people matter and government leaders have to discuss these issues precisely because as public servants, they are supposed to serve and safeguard the rights of the people. A fundamental duty, in fact, of government officials is to understand the nature, and limits, of their own authority. They do not grant or define human rights. Neither can they edit or delete them.”—Fr. Pavone. Fr. Pavone has said nothing new than what the Founding Fathers (FF) said when they wrote the “Declaration,” and our “Bill of Rights.”

Contrary, to Secular refusenicks who deny the authority of the Natural & Moral Law (N&ML), man does have inalienable rights and that authority rest on the existence of a transcendental authority that by fiat protects them.

So the question to all the Philistines, Iconoclasts, Atheists, Secularists and Agnostics is,”Does government have a fundamental duty to protect human life? If not, why would it matter if the economy and environment matter? Why would the economy and environment matter to a dead person, or to those living in a Communist regime? Why even care if man cannot own property, and if the environment isn’t concerned with enhancing the lives of those who inhabit it why care about it?

The FF thought inviolable rights mattered. The Bill of Rights and the Declaration do not mention the environment or the economy because it is self-evident that to pursue happiness requires the economy and environment to succor to the spiritual, moral, and physical exigencies of mankind. That is the reason laws governing finance and environment exist. They are subservient to human nature.

Moreover, all wars that occur are caused by an encroachment upon the inalienable rights of man. Today, America, in a lesser degree, "de jure,” and "de facto," has become no different than the suppressive Communist nations who dictate what man’s rights are.

When the Court redefined human nature by fiat in Roe v. Wade, and concluded the "conceived" was not a human, they, in effect, abolished the inviolable rights of all Americans by making them all violable.

Hence, the Court became the arbiter of the Natural & Moral Law (N&ML), and the sanctity of not only human life has been put in peril, but the sanctity of the Family is under the assault by the Court’s intrusion into the N&ML of Marriage.

This presents a major problem for America in pontificating to the Chinese about human rights, when America has murdered over 52 million unborn itself, and is attempting to destroy the Family it attenuates its ability to negotiate any rights.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 posting his cherry-picked scriptures and links to the Catholic League is just as sadly delusional as teabaggers cherry-picking Leviticus and referencing Fox News and the Rasmussen poll. They somehow believe all of these have credibility and authority over the rest of us.

Why does everything that a good priest ever says evoke comments about homosexual, pedophile priests?

Because to pontificate to the rest of us about abortion while ignoring civil justice for pervert priests, bashing gays and demonizing the victims as "gold diggers" causes the good Father to lack any credibility at all.

It's a public forum. If you don't like it, go read a censored Catholic one where you can all drink your own bathwater together.

To the contrary, a "lazy brain parrot" is one who says Obama is a Muslim, 55% of Blacks have abortions and the Jews murdered Jesus.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING
“THE SMOKING GUN”

When a lazy brain parrots the first thing he sees because it suits his bent predispositions, and never checks out the context and veracity of the statement, you get the incredulous misinformation and incongruity evident in the statements proffered by the iconoclast and philistines, whose mission is to detract rather than inform. Of course they always detract, but what they detract is their own character personified in their lack of credibility and scholarship.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2063

A LETTER TO THE BISHOPS
"A 1997 letter by the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland to the Irish bishops has surfaced wherein the bishops were advised not to contravene canon law when dealing with cases of alleged sexual abuse of minors. Many critics have focused on the sentence that reads, "In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature."

Jeffrey Lena, the attorney who represents the Vatican on these matters, pointedly said that the letter "nowhere instructed Irish Bishops to disregard civil law reporting requirements." Instead, the letter was aimed at cautioning the Irish bishops not to proceed in a manner that compromised disciplining miscreant priests on procedural grounds.

Though the letter does not spell out what the “moral and canonical” concerns were, a Vatican spokesperson initially suggested the fear was that such policies might intrude on the seal of the confessional. Yet a reference to the 1997 letter in the government-commissioned "Murphy Report" suggests the concern was the broader issue of a priest's right to protect his "good name."

In any event, it's not clear that the judgment of the Congregation for Clergy by itself could be considered binding Vatican policy. When the American sex abuse norms came up for Vatican approval in 2002, several different departments were involved, and ultimately the objections voiced by the Congregation for Clergy did not prevail.

Last month, several media outlets ran a story on how a rabbinical court in Brooklyn ordered its 10,000 members not to report crimes to the police. Not among those reporting on it was the New York Times. Moreover, this same newspaper has consistently opposed a law in New York State mandating that crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors be reported to the police if the law applies equally to public, as well as private, institutions; it only backs mandatory reporting for private institutions.

The reason there is no mandatory reporting about these crimes in New York State is because the New York Civil Liberties Union and Family Planning Advocates (the lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood) have successfully killed such legislation. So who wants mandatory reporting for everyone? The Catholic bishops want it—it's the liberal media.

You're correct once again, Father.
This reminds me also of when it's so aptly said: Without the right to life, there are no other rights.
We can't separate these rights; they are, in effect, part of the whole 'puzzle.'

Why does everything that a good priest ever says evoke comments about homosexual, pedophile priests? @areyousaying, please become better informed by reading and reading some more then keep your comments to the topic at hand. Children in the womb are the most abused of all.

Father, thank you so much for reminding us that no government can give us rights or take them away when they are given to us by our Creator, God Almighty: the right to life, right to liberty, and the right to pursuit of happiness. (and happiness does not mean hedonism.)

Areyousaying -

Your comment only has merit first if the Church somehow approved of the abuse that occurred, which is not the case since it has been condemned. In other words, the Church agrees that children have the right to grow up in a safe environment where they are not preyed upon. In the case of the particular article that you cite, it would be best if you fully informed yourself on the matter at hand and read the letters in question for yourself, don't you think? Luckily, they are available.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/vatican-warned-bishops-not-to-report-child-abuse/

As to Fr. Pavone's article, I completely agree. Fundamental human rights belong to all of us simply by virtue of being human - they do not need to be granted by any agency or for any particular ability. If we remove basic rights from any human, it means rights can potentially be removed from all humans by some arbitrary criteria. Human rights are only sacrosanct if they belong by virtue of being, not doing.

Thus no government has the authority to remove rights in pursuit of any goal, including economic power.

I agree with Father Pavone that the two issues of economics and human rights are linked because both effect people. I hope that President Obama will address human rights with China in a forthright way, and not chicken out because of all the money we owe China.

Thank you Father!

And the rights of children to grow up in innocence protected by civil law?

What of those, Father?

DUBLIN -- A 1997 letter from the Vatican warned Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police - a disclosure that victims' groups described as "the smoking gun" needed to show that the church enforced a worldwide culture of covering up crimes by pedophile priests.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/18/AR2011011801317.html

I was wondering, how come abortion is legal, when one can see on the ultra-sound of a D & E abortion the fetus:

A. moving rapidly away from the inserted knife.
B. In agony as the knife cuts the fetus into removable sized pieces.
C. Visibly screaming the entire period of dismemberment, and as it is suctioned up into the tube as it is being transferred, and even within the disposable unit.

This is all readily seen in every ultrasound instance of a D & E.

And yet, in a free country, with free speech, we have NO VIDEOS out there, that show this, at 3 weeks, 13 weeks, 6 months, to the 9 months late term abortion, where the procedure must be difficult as the larger sized premie struggles for existence.

We are being censored by the very people who defend abortion as a human right for women in crisis pregnancies!!

Bullies always seam to think they're non-violent, because the people they pick on can't fight back. When we defend the actions of bullies, we empower them. When a bully is given more room to operate, they continue bullying, but on a larger scale. Some bullies are even empowered to rule nations when people choose to overlook the week and voiceless that are hurt by their actions.

If the last thing a bully cares about is a baby, they will be much less empathetic to the quality of the environment. It's all connected. Now give that bully a nuke to use in negotiations.
You won't be saving trees.

The Church has an opportunity to resurrect it's reputation of serving innocent youth. These unborn are a part of our environment - and the solution to pressures to increase quality of life for all the living, as they have a vested interest - but it is a birthright. Their mother's need your help. The human mother is perhaps the greatest natural resource, a natural treasure. It is sad that any one would place anything, outside of God, before the gift of their own mother, and the gift their mother gave to them.

For once, I agree with the Father.

When China's Most Favored Nation trade status was being debated 20 years ago, an argument for it was that trade engagement would us bargaining power to campaign for human rights and environmental protections in that country.

How come we never use it?