Welcome, friend.
        Are you ready for a totally unique internet experience?  Here, you are going to be able to explore ideas that you will find interesting, enlightening and sometimes maybe even inspiring, without ever being assaulted with distractions by way of either donation requests, or of extraneous and most often irrelevant commercials!
        I have only been able to make this possible, from the day I published my first website in 1996 to this day, by paying the full freight of my WWW mission out of my own pocket, rather than expecting my guests to pay those costs through their donations, or third-party business interests to pay them, through the pasting of their commercials all over my web-pages.

Please click on whichever device
that you will be using today
to explore our websites:
OR   ComputerIcon


[ this file's actual name is :]
about/REPLACE.htm [ this file's actual name is :]

Who are YOU (Catholic bishops)
to point your accusing fingers at others?

  1. Aug. 25th statement of His Eminence, Edward Cardinal Egan concerning remarks made by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi on Aug. 24th:

    "Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.
            We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.
            Anyone ( understand any liberal Catholic Democrat) who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being "chooses" to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."
            Edward Cardinal Egan Archbishop of New York


  2. In a statement released on Sept. 6, 2008, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco (Pelosi's own bishop) joined the list of bishops who are questioning Pelosi's right to call herself a Roman Catholic while embracing views contrary to the teaching of her Church.
  3. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, responded the dayafter her public statement stating that her answer "misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion."
  4. A series of statements were released by other bishops across the United States, including Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., Archbishop Charles Chaput and Auxiliary Bishop James Conley of Denver, Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis and Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, North Dakota.

No Catholic bishop, to my knowledge, has spoken on her behalf.
        Just Look
        The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks (5 months). Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully. [ It's been removed from the Catholic site where it was posted.]
        Have you any doubt that it is a human being?
        If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
        If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
        If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest – even insist – that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot – must not – be tolerated.
        But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," "person," "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
        But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a "human being" is and what the implications of someone's wishing to kill it are. The word "incarceration" comes to mind.
        However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled "In the Womb" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled "In the Womb – Multiples" and illustrates in color and motion the development of two innocent human beings – twin boys – within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what "living" means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than innocent and living human beings, (perhaps "mere clusters of tissues," as one national newsmagazine suggests) you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is – forgive me – self-deceit in a most extreme form.
        Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that their subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.
        It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing – and approving – with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."
        One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Decision" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.
        Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
from http://www.cny.org/archive/eg/eg102308.htm

        The deniers of the Catholic Church's complicity in the holocaust are so numerous that there is barely a Roman Catholic in a million, no matter how educated, who is even aware of the atrocities perpetrated in the Roman Catholic country of Croatia in the name and under the leadership of their own Catholic hierarchy, and with the full knowledge and approval of the Vatican during World War II.
        Eleanor Roosevelt was so right when she told the author of a book revealing this shocking history that the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church was such that it could prevent the world from hearing what he had uncovered.  Although Avro Manhattan is the leading authority on the atrocities committed in God's name during World War II, and much of what he has written is available online at www.reformation.org/holocaus.html,  most Catholics know nothing about either Croatia or these scandals.  Although the Church didn't see fit to put Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" on its "Index of Forbidden Books", it made sure that all of Mr. Manhattan's books were on that Index.
        The following is an excerpt from the site http://www.reformation.org/holoc4.html, which highlights some of the writings of Avro Manhattan (1914-1990), whom some consider the world's foremost authority on Roman Catholicism in politics.  A resident of London, during WW II he operated a radio station called "Radio Freedom" broadcasting to occupied Europe.  He was the author of over 20 books, including the best-seller The Vatican in World Politics, which went through 57 editions and was twice Book-of-the-Month.  He was a great Briton who risked his life daily to expose some of the darkest secrets of the Papacy.
        The web site above documents the fact that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia under the leadership of then Archbishop Stepinac was not only complicit with the Nazis, but that their own Catholic version of the Nazis, the "Ustashi", were even more guilty than the Nazis, because they committed atrocities in God's name, with the blessing and assistance of their priests, their bishops and the "Vicar of Christ" !

        "from the days of Pio Nono the Vatican did indeed encourage a distrust of social democracy as a precursor of socialism, and thus of communism." p. 114, Hitler's Pope  

        "As far as democracy and human rights are concerned, God is a recent convert."   Josep Borrell, Spanish Socialist politician and, since 2004, President of the European Parliament.
from the great site http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showsite.php?org_id=843

        The following is an important little online book, No Friend of Democracy, published in 1941 by Edith Moore, trying to warn the world of the complicity of the Roman Catholic Church in the "league of Fascist nations" :

Take it from Stephen;
there is much more where
this came from, at my
ITYS-Banner website ColbertToldUso.gif
If ever you are moved to critique,
support, or enlighten me,
here's the way to do it :

email image contact David@What-would-Jesus-think.info