Rosie O'donnell and the Supremes

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled on a case that upheld the law passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States outlawing partial birth abortions (THIS LINK IS TO A PICTURE OF A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, VERY VERY GRAPHIC AND MONSTROUS). For those of you not familiar with how the United States government is designed to operate, this is a fine example of all branches of the government doing exactly, and only what their job description calls for.

Some people are upset about the ruling of the Court. The court was split with the decision being only a 5-4 majority. All five of the justices in the majority happen to be Catholic. Here is an article that discusses the decision through a legal lense. Unfortunately, the second page of the article is missing.

The point I would like to make is this; Catholic politicians who support the pro-abortion movement are all sophists. It's easy for us to determine the truth not by what's defended as being authentically Catholic, but by what's never attacked based on it being authentically Catholic.

Here are examples to illuminate my point;

The Supreme Court ruled that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President wasn't unconstitutuional. Enemies of the decision rightly recognize that the authentic Catholic moral teaching is that abortion is wrong. The five Supreme Court justices who were in the majority had an opinion that was consistant with authentic Catholic moral teaching. The Justices and their decision are being attacked based on the "Establishment Clause" of the Second Ammendment, AKA "The seperation of Church and State".
Everybody recognized the actions of the subjects (S.C. Justices) to be consistant with authentic Catholic Church teaching.

Congress doesn't pass a law (June 8, 1999 HR 1906) that would have prohibited the FDA from using federal funds for the testing, development, or approval . . . of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion" (such as the RU-486 abortion pill). Nancy Pelosi (among many other Catholic (D's) vote against this. You heard no uproar decrying the vote of Madame Pelosi and other Catholics who voted with her as some type of violation of the "separation of Church and State".
Because everyone recognizes that their votes were totally inconsistant with authentic Catholic moral teaching.

What's my point? Well, I have two...
1. The only time people get upset about Catholic moral teaching is when it stands in opposition to the sinful lifestyle they want to lead, e.g. legalizing the murder of babies in the mothers womb, not paying workers a just wage or giving them reasonably safe working conditions, using artificial contraception to limit family size with no valid moral imperative, engaging in a homosexual lifestyle...

2. "Big Tent Catholics" or those Catholics who submit that their actions are justifiable because there is more than one valid Catholic position on certain moral issues are nothing but grown children trying to validate and excuse their misbehavior. Then they present themselves for Communion as if they are "worthy to receive..." and are incredulous when it's suggested they should be denied communion because of their actions for which they are unrepentant. All the while professing to be faithful Catholics. The fact that nobody attacks them for being Catholic or for allowing their Catholic beliefs to overly influence their public actions when they do things such as vote against banning partial birth abortions speaks volumes. The silence is deafening.

Pyro