Can a Christian Kill the Innocent? Bishop says, "No!"

Recently, two pro-abortion bills were passed by the Illinois Legislature. House Bill 40 became law in 2017. Now, Senate Bill 25, the Illinois Reproductive Health Act has been signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

In response, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield issued a decree:

           "in accord with ... Canon Law that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and 

           Speaker of the House Michael J. Madigan, who facilitated the passage of (the acts]

           are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in the Diocese of Springfield, because 

           they have obstinately persisted in promoting the abominable crime and very grave 

           sin of abortion as evidenced by the influence they exerted in their leadership roles 

           and their repeated votes and obdurate public support for abortion rights over an 

           extended period of time.


          "Moreover, I declare that Catholic legislators of the Illinois General Assembly 

          who have cooperated in evil and committed grave sin by voting for any legislation                                                                                                                                                         

          that promotes abortion are not to present themselves to receive Holy Communion 

          without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church in accord with canon 916 

          of the Code of Canon Law."

In support of his June 2 decree, Paprocki writes, "The church since the first century has affirmed the moral evil of abortion, which teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable, declaring, 'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish' (Didache, 2:2).

"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004 said, 'Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin.' ... Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."


So is Paprocki right or wrong? Are bishops to remain silent and not confront "abominable crime and very grave sin?" What good is a church that will not forcefully speak out to protect the lives of the helpless and the innocent? What about a church that stays silent in the face of mass killing? Thou shall not kill has been the law since Moses. Is abortion not killing?

Christ instructed his disciples, "This is my commandment: love one another as I love you." When Christ was asked, "What is the greatest commandment?" he replied, "Love the Lord your God. ... The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." How does a person love a child while intentionally killing it?

Abortion advocates argue that women who have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy can be depressed or anxious, and after abortion many feel relieved. Respect for the life of the unborn is very important, but must be balanced by respect for the health and life of the mother and the impact on family and community. Madigan justified his actions stating, “I believe it is more important to protect a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions."

But Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood in 2001 conceded only 3% of abortions were related to women's health problems; 1% to rape or incest.

Paprocki bears witness that children are human persons before birth, and certainly after birth. The bishop's actions come at a time when vote-hunting politicians are justifying killing children even after the birth of the child.

Recently, Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor of Virginia, was asked what would happen if a child were born after a failed abortion. He responded, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Paprocki is teaching that killing a baby because pregnancy was unplanned, or because the baby is unwanted, or because the killing would relieve the mother's depression/stress, is grave sin with all that entails. He is teaching that one can't kill the innocent and hold himself out as a Christian. The bishop's historic office is to "teach."

In recent years, the Catholic Church has been properly excoriated for doing little or nothing to protect innocent children from sexual abuse by some clergy. Pius XII has been denounced for not denouncing the Nazi extermination of innocent Jews.

Nobody will be able to say Bishop Paprocki didn't speak out as mothers and their doctors are killing innocent children. And nobody will be able to say he didn't do what he could to confront the Bidens and Madigans complicit in the killings.

My mother always taught me, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

Paprocki is teaching that "a Christian can't kill the innocent!"

Posted: QCOline.com   June 20, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Is Impeachment a Criminal or Political Judgment?

What conduct will render a U.S. president liable to impeachment? Article II of the Constitution answers that question. "The president ... shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So, what constitutes a high crime? A misdemeanor? The phrase has its origins in medieval English impeachment law. (England last used impeachment in 1808. It is now deemed obsolete.)

But in 1970, Republican Rep. Gerald Ford defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives” would vote for. If impeachment is strictly a political question, Ford was absolutely correct.

But if that is what the Constitution means, why didn't the men who wrote it simply write, "a president serves at the pleasure of the House and Senate?"

Impeachment was taken up on three different occasions during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. On June 2, Roger Sherman said "the National Legislature should have power to remove the Executive at pleasure."

George Mason agreed that Congress should have power to impeach, but opposed "removal at pleasure," as "making the executive the mere creature of the Legislature."

On July 20, they focused on whether the executive should or should not be "impeachable while in office." Gouverneur Morris argued, no, it was enough that his accomplices might be punished. George Mason disagreed: "Shall any man be above justice?"

James Madison argued impeachment was indispensable to "defend the community against incapacity, negligence, perfidy or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers." Charles Pinkney did not see "the necessity of impeachments." Pinkney feared the legislature would hold it "as a rod over the executive and ... destroy his independence."

Rufus King thought impeachment of the executive unnecessary, as the electors could remove him at the next election. Morris switched sides. He now argued the executive should also be impeachable for bribery, "treachery; corrupting his electors, and incapacity," as well as abuse of office

On Sept 8, Mason argued that impeachment for treason and bribery alone was inadequate to reach many other "great and dangerous offenses." He suggested adding :"maladministration." Madison objected that the term was so vague as to be equivalent to "at the pleasure of the Senate." Mason then substituted the words "high crimes and misdemeanors."

This substitution was clearly to make impeachment more criminal than political. Yet everybody understood that impeachment could easily become entirely political.

In Federalist Paper 65, Alexander Hamilton set forth his understanding of what constituted an impeachable offense: "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men ... from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Hamilton, however, clearly understood that impeachment could devolve into a political question of partisan politics.

Impeachments, Hamilton wrote, "are of a nature ... POLITICAL ... The prosecution of them ... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other ... there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

A related question: Can a president can be impeached for things done only while in office? Can he also be impeached for things he did before he was elected?

Only Mason discussed that question: "Shall the man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment ... be suffered to escape punishment?" Nobody suggested that a president might be impeached for pre-election adultery, or groping a woman at a teenage beer party.


A second related question: Can a president be impeached for things that he did prior to his election that were essentially known to the voters before they elected him, e.g., if he refused to disclose his tax returns and the voters elect him anyway?

In America, since all men are presumed innocent, and since refusing to publicize one's tax returns is not a criminal offense, the answer should be, no. Senators should say. We cannot find a high crime or misdemeanor has been committed." But politically, if Democrats find 67 votes in the Senate, the answer is, yes.

 In a Senate trial for impeachment, the Senate is the judge of the law and the facts.
The sole safeguards against political abuse are the requirement of 67 votes, and the president's popularity with the American people.


Posted: QCOline.com   June 13, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Social Security, Medicare are fast becoming insolvent, but nobody cares

You're cooking donuts in grease on your stove. The grease catches fire. What do you do first? Extinguish the fire? Mow the lawn?

Every day another Democrat announces he's running for president and, in the same breath, promises a new entitlement program.

Why don’t they first promise to fix Social Security and Medicare? On April 22, the Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report on the long-term financial status of the two Social Security Trust Funds.


The combined asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2035.

the fact the reserves of both funds will be depleted, does not mean that all Social Security payments will cease. Rather, it means that they will come only from current revenues. Those revenues, however, will be sufficient to pay only about 80 percent of scheduled benefits. As such, a person slated to receive an OASI benefit of $1,800 per month will find his benefit reduced to $1,440 -- unless Congress provides the funds additional money.

In 2018, Social Security paid benefits of nearly $989 billion to about 63 million beneficiaries. An estimated 176 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes. The deficit over the next 75 years is projected to be 2.78% per year.


On April 22, 2019 the Medicare Board of Trustees released its combined annual report on the long-term financial status of Medicare. Medicare is the second-largest social insurance program in the U.S., with 59.9 million beneficiaries and total expenditures of $741 billion in 2018.

Since in 2002, there has been one combined report discussing both the Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A) and the Supplementary Medical Insurance Program (Medicare Part B and Prescription Drug Coverage).

The hospital insurance (HI) trust fund, which provides the funding for Medicare Part A hospital and inpatient benefits, is expected to be depleted in 2026. At that time, all benefits will have to be paid from the funds current revenues. Current income will only cover 89% of fund costs, unless Congress provides additional money. Without additional funding, by 2034 current annual income will only cover 77% of current annual costs.

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which covers Parts B & D, will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing from beneficiary premiums plus general treasury revenues each year to meet the next year’s expected costs.However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow steadily from 2.1 percent of GDP in 2018 to 3.7 percent of GDP in 2038. The bottom line is this: The trustees project that total Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow from approximately 3.7 percent of GDP in 2018 to 5.9 percent of GDP by 2038.


So is there a problem? Social Security and Medicare trustees all agree that there is:


"Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."


So what are congressional Republicans doing to fix Social Security and Medicare? Nothing! Every time they try, they hand Democrats a cudgel.

When President George W. Bush broached the subject, the bashing began: "Republicans want to privatize Social Security; undermine Medicare!” Bush's plan was more "roulette than reform!" quoth Sen. Harry Reid.

So, what are the congressional Democrats doing to fix Social Security and Medicare?

During the eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats did absolutely nothing. Now, instead of setting out a fix, they’re trotting out a blizzard of new free entitlement programs:

Tuition for All, $70 billion a year; Employment for All, $400 billion a year; Green New Deal, $600 billion a year; Medicare for All, $3.2 trillion a year; reparations to descendants of deceased slaves, Interned Japanese-Americans, and descendants of Native Americans; and forgiveness of student debt, $640 billion.


Rather than shoring up the two great programs we already have that need it, 20-plus Democrats are bounding about the county as if running to be the next Santa Claus. So, what happens if you ignore a grease fire in your kitchen?

Posted: QCOline.com   June 6, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea