Category: Pro-life


These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is the Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, and faithful.  Rev 17:14

Just who are these “elect”?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the “elect” are theologically equivalent to “chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favor, as set apart for eternal life.”  In the Old Testament, these are the Hebrews, the “chosen people”; in the New Testament, the elect are members of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ.

Lest we forget–and prosperity Gospel preachers notwithstanding–Rev Tevye reminds us that to be Chosen ain’t always a bed of roses:

Among Alaskans, Catholics are underrepresented; even the Catholic Anchor’s most generous 2015 estimate puts Catholics at 14 percent of the state’s population.

And yet, we have two Catholics for U.S. Senators: Dan Sullivan and Lisa “I Stand With Planned Parenthood and Archbishops” Murkowski.


Today’s statewide election features another two Catholics running for Governor: Mike Dunleavy and Mark Begich.

Dunleavy states that the most  important constitutional right “is the right to life, because if this right is not sacred, all other enumerated rights are meaningless.  Being pro-life is at the very center of my understanding of constitutional rights.”  Alaska Right to Life endorsed Dunleavy.




Begich, on the other hand, states that Alaska was “ahead of the curve” when it legalized abortion in 1970, and that, “as the only pro-choice candidate running for Governor, I will continue my record of fighting for women to have . . . the right to make their own health care decisions.”  Planned Parenthood endorsed Begich.

Guess which candidate spoke at a Catholic Church this past Sunday?

It is unclear to me whether Begich was merely speaking WITHIN the Sanctuary of St. Andrew Kim’s, or WITHIN AND DURING the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself.  It appears, however, that there are altar girls standing behind him.  These girls appear similar to the altar girls who assisted during Archbishop Etienne’s celebration of the Holy Sacrifice depicted on the Archdiocesan website:

Begich’s political appearance at St. Andrew Kim’s is scandalous on a number of levels.  First, Begich has very publicly, and very steadfastly, adhered to a pro-abortion position.  This contradicts the inalienable right to life, as enumerated in CCC 2273.  “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.”  Such public support for abortion is, arguably, “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

Second, per Canon 915, those persons who have obstinately persevered in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.  Whether Mr. Begich is one of these unfortunates is left to the judgment of the local ordinary.  Please pray for Begich, and for our local ordinary to intervene for the salvation of Mr. Begich’s soul.  [NB: Of course, in our enlightened, antinomial ecclesial epoch–now unburdened from disordered attachments such as doctrine, tradition, and other unsavory accretions–canon law no longer guarantees what will happen, what ought to happen, or even what formerly happened; rather, it exists to execute the arbitrary will of its wielders.]

Third, if–I say IF–Mr. Begich was speaking WITHIN AND DURING the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and I dearly hope that he was not, for the sake of all involved), there are likely additional consequences, which I plan to address in another post.


Please also consider respectfully asking Archbishop Etienne to look into Mr. Begich’s untoward appearance in the sanctuary of a Catholic Church.



Sen. Murkowski must hear from Alaskans on Supreme Court vote

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski may well become a center of national attention as debate heats up over the next justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Justice Anthony Kennedy stepping down after 30 years on the bench, there is now an opportunity for President Trump to appoint a solidly pro-life justice to the high court, a move that would give the conservative block a clear majority. Kennedy was long considered a “swing” vote as he often sided with decisions in favor of gay marriage and abortion. His replacement could allow the court to finally roll back key aspects of Roe vs. Wade, the court ruling that ensured legal abortion throughout the nation.

With Republicans holding a extremely narrow majority in the U.S. Senate Murkowski has emerged as a critical vote in confirming a new Supreme Court justice as activists from both sides of the abortion debate lobby legislators. A self-identified Catholic, Murkowski is also a supporter of abortion rights who has shown a willingness to disregard Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life in the womb and the right to life of unborn babies.

National reports this week indicate that Murkowski will be under immense pressure from both sides when she deliberates how to vote on the next Supreme Court nominee.

This is no time to sit on the sidelines or quietly hope for the best. Each and every pro-life Alaskan needs to contact Murkowski and respectfully but forcefully reiterate that we want her to vote for a conservative judicial nominee who will uphold the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

The pro-abortion side will most certainly make a strong effort to influence Murkowski. We cannot let our voice go unheard. Please contact Murkowski through letters, phone calls and emails. The more correspondence the better. She must be made aware of the fact that most Alaskans are pro-life, we are counting on her vote and we are watching closely to see how she votes.

Click here to contact Murkowski.

Lisa Murkowski, Abortion, and Holy Communion

A fine plea for human life was recently made by Alaska’s most prominent cleric, Archbishop Etienne, on his blog:

How many couples get married today already having decided how many children they will have? How many decide they do not even want children? Or, sadly, how many couples when they conceive a child decide it is ‘inconvenient’ and do not accept this gift of new life? Without judging any of those particular situations, I simply beg the questions: Can we not be more open to God? to God’s plan? Do we have the faith and love to accept God’s will in our lives, even when it ‘blows up’ our plans and trust that God’s plan is better than our own?

Regrettably, these questions do not seem to affect Alaska’s most prominent lay Catholic, who has taken to the state’s most prominent public forum to share that she doesn’t “adhere to all the tenets of my faith,” “I’m not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current,” and that “if you don’t like abortion, the best way to deal with it is . . . through contraception“?

Here’s what Evangelium Vitae states:

“Be Not Afraid!”

Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.


As pointed out by Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute, here’s how Cardinal Ratzinger would have responded to a politician who “does not adhere” to the Church’s teaching on abortion or euthanasia:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.


In contrast, here’s how Cardinal McCarrick would have responded:

“Based on our consultation process –said  Cardinal McCarrick,- there is significant concern about the perception that the sacred nature of the Eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground.”

“Expecting a minister of Holy Communion to make these judgments would create great pastoral difficulties. We do not want to encourage confrontations at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in our hands. This could create unmanageable burdens for our priests and those who assist them and could turn the Eucharist into a perceived source of political combat,” the interim  report added.

The Washington Cardinal also said that denial of Holy Communion “could further divide our Church and that it could have serious unintended consequences. For example, it could be more difficult for faithful Catholics to serve in public life because they might be seen not as standing up for principle, but as under pressure from the hierarchy.”

“We also fear it could push many people farther away from the Church and its  teaching, rather than bringing them closer.”

“In light of these and other concerns, the task force urges for the most part renewed efforts and persuasion, not penalties,” Cardinal McCarrick’s report also said.

And here is Deuteronomy:

I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live!

St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén