Pope Francis, Communion, and Abortion

This is a subject into which I’m going to poke my Protestant nose, which may be a symptom of my own sin of arrogance, but there it is.

Pope Francis insists that communion is a gift to all of us, not a prize for the perfect. He also says,

What must the pastor do? Be a pastor; don’t go condemning. Be a pastor, because he is a pastor also for the excommunicated.

He’s right, too, as far as he goes.

He also emphasizes

Whoever has an abortion kills. It is a human life. This human life must be respected—this principle is so clear.

He’s right here, too.

But while communion is for us sinners, including the excommunicated, for us who truly try to do better, who truly try to repent for our past failures, can it really be for those don’t bother, for those who reject the Church’s teachings outright?

It seems to me that those latter have taken themselves out of the church [sic] altogether. It’s not so much that they should be, or are, denied communion; they’ve made themselves ineligible for it.

And so it is for those who claim to be anti-abortion personally but fine with abortion for others. That strikes me as an especially grievous example of a sin of hypocrisy.

Bishop Michael Olson of the Ft Worth, Tx, Diocese:

He [Pope Francis] wants us to be pastors, and we also want to be pastors. But a pastor is not just a mascot for one’s private point of view.

“Unfortunately”

Our Surgeon General has let the cat out of the bag. Again, regarding the cat.

Centering his remarks on vaccination against the Wuhan Virus and President Joe Biden’s (D) edict that we must all take the vaccine—because it’s not about freedom or personal choice—Vivek Murthy had this to say regarding exemptions to that edict:

Unfortunately, as a country, we have experience in dealing with exemptions….

Because what Progressive-Democrats want in their all-governing, heavily intrusive reign is one-size-fits-all rule, no exceptions. Ever.

Breathtaking Ignorance

Attorney General Merrick Garland is suing Texas over its heartbeat abortion law, and he’s basing it on Constitutional grounds. Garland justified his suit with this:

This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear[.]

And

The obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible[.]

It’s a good thing Garland wasn’t approved for the Supreme Court; his ignorance of our Constitution is breathtaking (and it makes him unfit to sit as AG).

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion; there are only Supreme Court rulings to that effect. Supreme Court rulings have the force of law unless and until they’re overruled, but those rulings do not amend our Constitution, even when they purport to interpret a clause in our Constitution–only We the People can do that.

Garland may or may not have a legal case to make, but he has no Constitutional case to make.

It’s a Start

In acknowledgment of the fiasco associated with 2020’s voting machine accessibility from/to the Internet, the Election Assistance Commission, an independent Federal Government facility (and unaffiliated with the Federal Election Commission), has moved to bar any connection with the Internet by a voting machine.

Going forward, vote systems cannot be connected to any digital networks, and wireless technology must be disabled too.

And

The new requirements provide a much more draconian ban on external access to the Internet or other computer networks, a security provision otherwise known as an “air gap.” The commission specifically cited the potential threat posed by foreign adversaries to meddle in elections.

It’s a good start, but it’s insufficient. That air gap can be penetrated, also, by any party interested enough to do so. Computers—any electronic device—emits electromagnetic radiation, particularly radio frequency radiation, and those signals can be received and read. For this reason, our National Security Agency has developed TEMPEST requirements to prevent these signals to be receivable by our foreign adversaries. Of interest here, TEMPEST requires electronic equipment containing or processing information of sufficient security interest to be enclosed inside glorified Faraday cages, which block those electromagnetic signals from escaping the equipment facility.

For the most part, such requirements would seem overkill for a voting center—except for that bit about foreign adversaries looking to meddle in an election. That risk is potentiated by the existence of a potentially highly contentious election, which gives one or another party an interest in…influencing…an election’s votes.

Our voting centers need to address that air gap vulnerability, also.

 

The EAC’s new requirements, in their entirety, can be read here.

How Far

…has Australia fallen. The once proudly free nation is stooping to this.

The government of South Australia has implemented a new policy requiring Australians to use an app with facial recognition software and geolocation to prove that they are abiding by a 14-day quarantine for travel within the country.

It’s just one state in the nation, but Australia’s central government, with its silence on this move, seems not far behind. Neither will this Big Government Overwatch be limited to quarantine from the Wuhan Virus.

This is a government surveillance regime that would make the Communist Party of China blush.