But the big political news of the week isn't Mr. Romney's gaffe, or even his victory in Florida. The big story took place in Washington. That's where a bomb went off that not many in the political class heard, or understood. But President Obama just may have lost the election.
The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.
In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.
I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.
There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.
If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
"Get Over it, or Get Over Church Teachings": Hugh Hewitt's Open Letter to America's Bishops
"To the Members of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops:
It may have taken a few days to sink in, but by now you should all have realized that President Obama has opened a massive assault on the Roman Catholic Church in America the likes of which none of you have ever experienced and for which few of you have prepared.
My guess is only a handful of you believed it could come to this. This is America, after all, where the "first freedom" listed in the First Amendment is religious freedom. When next you gather you might usefully conduct a poll as to how many really believed such a thing could happen.
Most of you are good men, and some extremely good men, but you have never been in a struggle with the government the likes of which your brothers in other places have endured. The American government has always been at least an ally of the Church's social teachings, right? Sure, there is the problem of some Democrats pushing for late-term abortions, and of some academics arguing that the tax exempt status of all churches is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion."
But you just laughed off the idea that the government could actually threaten your very existence...."
Read the whole thing, which includes an excerpt of Mr. Hewitt's interview with Senator Rick Santorum.
It may have taken a few days to sink in, but by now you should all have realized that President Obama has opened a massive assault on the Roman Catholic Church in America the likes of which none of you have ever experienced and for which few of you have prepared.
My guess is only a handful of you believed it could come to this. This is America, after all, where the "first freedom" listed in the First Amendment is religious freedom. When next you gather you might usefully conduct a poll as to how many really believed such a thing could happen.
Most of you are good men, and some extremely good men, but you have never been in a struggle with the government the likes of which your brothers in other places have endured. The American government has always been at least an ally of the Church's social teachings, right? Sure, there is the problem of some Democrats pushing for late-term abortions, and of some academics arguing that the tax exempt status of all churches is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion."
But you just laughed off the idea that the government could actually threaten your very existence...."
Read the whole thing, which includes an excerpt of Mr. Hewitt's interview with Senator Rick Santorum.
Komen Caves To Democrat/Planned Parenthood Pressure
We're back to where we were a few days ago with Komen.
But the light of truth has shone upon that organization, upon Planned Parenthood, and their allies in the culture of death--the Democratic Party. More than 20 Senators, all members of the Democratic Party, wrote to Komen, protesting their plan to cut off funding to the abortion business.
But it's still a good sign. If you have to lose a battle, it is a lot better to lose it on the enemy's turf than on your own.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
But the light of truth has shone upon that organization, upon Planned Parenthood, and their allies in the culture of death--the Democratic Party. More than 20 Senators, all members of the Democratic Party, wrote to Komen, protesting their plan to cut off funding to the abortion business.
But it's still a good sign. If you have to lose a battle, it is a lot better to lose it on the enemy's turf than on your own.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 Videos: Judge Walker Lied, Abused Discretion
So ruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today.
"The record clearly shows that Chief Judge Walker did make a commitment not to permit the public broadcast of the recording," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a three-judge panel."
Following his "commitment" he played a clip of the videos during a lecture at the University of Arizona! Following this, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware (the same one who ruled that Walker did not need to recuse himself for not disclosing he was in a long-term partnership with anther homosexual man) ruled the videos were public record. What a pair. Prop 8 backers appealed to the Ninth Circuit, resulting in today's ruling:
"The 9th Circuit agreed Thursday that Walker had abused his discretion in playing the tape, overturning Ware's ruling to unseal the recordings."
To the extent that Chief Judge Ware did believe that his predecessor's decisions were solemn commitments to the parties, but concluded nonetheless that they did not bind him, his abuse of discretion was even more serious: he failed to appreciate the importance of preserving the integrity of the judicial system..."
I repeat: what a pair. The great Ed Whelan weighed in on the decision:
"As I’ve said before, in the grand scheme of things Walker’s shenanigans on the video recording pale in comparison to his outlandish decision on the merits. But they are part and parcel of Walker’s broader course of misconduct in what deserves to be recognized as the most egregious performance ever by a federal district judge.
Alas, given the fact that Reinhardt and his fellow arch-liberal Michael Hawkins are two of the three judges on the panel, there is zero reason to imagine that this ruling offers any sign of hope for Prop 8 proponents on the other two appeals."
That's right. Reinhardt, who should have recused himself (see here, here, and here), and the others will almost certainly uphold Walker's ruling. Then, on to the Supreme Court!
"The record clearly shows that Chief Judge Walker did make a commitment not to permit the public broadcast of the recording," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a three-judge panel."
Following his "commitment" he played a clip of the videos during a lecture at the University of Arizona! Following this, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware (the same one who ruled that Walker did not need to recuse himself for not disclosing he was in a long-term partnership with anther homosexual man) ruled the videos were public record. What a pair. Prop 8 backers appealed to the Ninth Circuit, resulting in today's ruling:
"The 9th Circuit agreed Thursday that Walker had abused his discretion in playing the tape, overturning Ware's ruling to unseal the recordings."
To the extent that Chief Judge Ware did believe that his predecessor's decisions were solemn commitments to the parties, but concluded nonetheless that they did not bind him, his abuse of discretion was even more serious: he failed to appreciate the importance of preserving the integrity of the judicial system..."
I repeat: what a pair. The great Ed Whelan weighed in on the decision:
"As I’ve said before, in the grand scheme of things Walker’s shenanigans on the video recording pale in comparison to his outlandish decision on the merits. But they are part and parcel of Walker’s broader course of misconduct in what deserves to be recognized as the most egregious performance ever by a federal district judge.
Alas, given the fact that Reinhardt and his fellow arch-liberal Michael Hawkins are two of the three judges on the panel, there is zero reason to imagine that this ruling offers any sign of hope for Prop 8 proponents on the other two appeals."
That's right. Reinhardt, who should have recused himself (see here, here, and here), and the others will almost certainly uphold Walker's ruling. Then, on to the Supreme Court!
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Lila Rose Looking a Little Bit Like Joan of Arc
Komen cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood. Why? Congressional investigations. Why were there Congressional investigations? Lila Rose.
From the Washington Post:
"The Associated Press reports that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, will cut off its funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates, where the foundation has traditionally paid for preventive screening services.
According to the AP, the move will mean “a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.”Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter.
Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding...."
We love Lila and her young associates. That's why we have a permanent link to Live Action in the right sidebar.
"The Gravest Threat to Freedom in American Life Today"
Yuval Levin, writing in National Review, has an excellent column about the Obama Admisinstration's HHS mandate. He begins by observing the across-the-board outrage to the mandate:
"When even E.J. Dionne can’t quite bring himself to defend the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty, you know the president must have a real problem...."
Mr. Levin then explains why the Catholic Church is especially vulnerable, given the United States' particular tradition of religious toleration:
"The English common law tradition of religious toleration, which we inherited, has always had a problem with religious institutions that are not houses of worship—i.e. that are geared to ends other than the practice of religion itself. To (vastly) oversimplify for a moment, that tradition began (in the 16th century, and in some respects even earlier) with the aim of protecting Protestant dissenters and Jews but (very intentionally) not protecting Catholics. And the way it took shape over the centuries in an effort to sustain that distinction was by drawing a line between individual religious practice (in which the government could not interfere) and an institutional religious presence (which was given far less protection). Because Catholicism is a uniquely institutional religion—with large numbers of massive institutions for providing social services, educating children and adults, and the like, all of which are more or less parts of a single hierarchy—this meant Catholics were simply not granted the same protection as others. Obviously the intent to treat Catholics differently has for the most part fallen away since then, but the evolved legal tradition is very much with us, and it is not a coincidence that it always seems to be the Catholic Church that gets caught up in these situations when the government overreaches...."
Finally, he observes the totalitarian nature of Obama's approach--the attempt to remove all intermediate institutions between the government and the people, and notes that the HHS mandate is just one incident in this takeover:
"In this sense, what is at issue in the controversy over the administration’s rule is not just the question of religious liberty but the question of non-governmental institutions in a free society. Does civil society consist of a set of institutions that help the government achieve its purposes as it defines them when their doing so might be more efficient or convenient than the state’s doing so itself, or does civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is it an extension of the state or of the community? In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state, and to clear out civil society—clearing out the mediating layers between the individual and the state—when it seems to stand in the way of achieving the president’s agenda..."
The Church has always been the champion of those "mediating layers"--subsidiarity. Mr. Levin concludes:
"This approach is especially noxious and pernicious when it is directed at religiously affiliated institutions—both because they deserve special standing and because they do some of the hardest and most needful work of charity and care in our society. We should use every available means to protect those institutions from this mortal danger, and that certainly includes resorting to the language of conscience and exemption. But as we do so, we should not forget that we are dealing with an instance of a larger and deeper danger, and we should do what we can to combat that danger in its own terms. It is perhaps the gravest threat to freedom in American life today."
"When even E.J. Dionne can’t quite bring himself to defend the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty, you know the president must have a real problem...."
Mr. Levin then explains why the Catholic Church is especially vulnerable, given the United States' particular tradition of religious toleration:
"The English common law tradition of religious toleration, which we inherited, has always had a problem with religious institutions that are not houses of worship—i.e. that are geared to ends other than the practice of religion itself. To (vastly) oversimplify for a moment, that tradition began (in the 16th century, and in some respects even earlier) with the aim of protecting Protestant dissenters and Jews but (very intentionally) not protecting Catholics. And the way it took shape over the centuries in an effort to sustain that distinction was by drawing a line between individual religious practice (in which the government could not interfere) and an institutional religious presence (which was given far less protection). Because Catholicism is a uniquely institutional religion—with large numbers of massive institutions for providing social services, educating children and adults, and the like, all of which are more or less parts of a single hierarchy—this meant Catholics were simply not granted the same protection as others. Obviously the intent to treat Catholics differently has for the most part fallen away since then, but the evolved legal tradition is very much with us, and it is not a coincidence that it always seems to be the Catholic Church that gets caught up in these situations when the government overreaches...."
Finally, he observes the totalitarian nature of Obama's approach--the attempt to remove all intermediate institutions between the government and the people, and notes that the HHS mandate is just one incident in this takeover:
"In this sense, what is at issue in the controversy over the administration’s rule is not just the question of religious liberty but the question of non-governmental institutions in a free society. Does civil society consist of a set of institutions that help the government achieve its purposes as it defines them when their doing so might be more efficient or convenient than the state’s doing so itself, or does civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is it an extension of the state or of the community? In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state, and to clear out civil society—clearing out the mediating layers between the individual and the state—when it seems to stand in the way of achieving the president’s agenda..."
The Church has always been the champion of those "mediating layers"--subsidiarity. Mr. Levin concludes:
"This approach is especially noxious and pernicious when it is directed at religiously affiliated institutions—both because they deserve special standing and because they do some of the hardest and most needful work of charity and care in our society. We should use every available means to protect those institutions from this mortal danger, and that certainly includes resorting to the language of conscience and exemption. But as we do so, we should not forget that we are dealing with an instance of a larger and deeper danger, and we should do what we can to combat that danger in its own terms. It is perhaps the gravest threat to freedom in American life today."
ABORTIFACIENT MANDATE
The Obama administration's abortifacient and contraception mandate is appalling, but I cannot claim to be surprised by it. In fact, I would have been surprised---indeed stunned---had the administration done anything significant to honor or protect the rights of Catholics and others on whose consciences the mandate will impose.
In every area touching the sanctity of human life and issues of sexual morality, the Obama administration is aggressively prosecuting the agenda its critics predicted and its most ardent left-wing supporters hoped for. Those who are driving the train, including key administration officials who self-identify as members of the Catholic Church, have no regard for the ethical beliefs of Catholics and others when they are in conflict with left-liberal orthodoxy.
Their task, as they perceive it, is to fortify and expand the "right to abortion" and "sexual freedom" wherever they can. They pursue this agenda with a religious zeal because, in fact, the ideology in which abortion is a "right" and "sexual freedom" is a core value is their religion. These beliefs are integral to their worldview. If, like Kathleen Sebelius, they happen to be Catholics, you can be assured that it won't be Catholic teaching, or the Judaeo-Christian ethic, that shapes their policies on issues of life and death and marriage and sexual morality; it will be liberal ideology---pure and simple---that does the shaping....
Pro-life citizens, including many Catholics, who in 2008 allowed themselves to be persuaded that Obama wouldn't, as his critics warned, push abortion hard and run roughshod over the religious liberty and rights of conscience of Catholics and other pro-life citizens and their institutions, have now gotten a rude awakening. ... In 2012, it is no longer possible to sustain illusions about what Obama and his people mean to do to us. They are already doing it. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."...
Posted by Robert George on MIRROR OF JUSTICE BLOG
In every area touching the sanctity of human life and issues of sexual morality, the Obama administration is aggressively prosecuting the agenda its critics predicted and its most ardent left-wing supporters hoped for. Those who are driving the train, including key administration officials who self-identify as members of the Catholic Church, have no regard for the ethical beliefs of Catholics and others when they are in conflict with left-liberal orthodoxy.
Their task, as they perceive it, is to fortify and expand the "right to abortion" and "sexual freedom" wherever they can. They pursue this agenda with a religious zeal because, in fact, the ideology in which abortion is a "right" and "sexual freedom" is a core value is their religion. These beliefs are integral to their worldview. If, like Kathleen Sebelius, they happen to be Catholics, you can be assured that it won't be Catholic teaching, or the Judaeo-Christian ethic, that shapes their policies on issues of life and death and marriage and sexual morality; it will be liberal ideology---pure and simple---that does the shaping....
Pro-life citizens, including many Catholics, who in 2008 allowed themselves to be persuaded that Obama wouldn't, as his critics warned, push abortion hard and run roughshod over the religious liberty and rights of conscience of Catholics and other pro-life citizens and their institutions, have now gotten a rude awakening. ... In 2012, it is no longer possible to sustain illusions about what Obama and his people mean to do to us. They are already doing it. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."...
Posted by Robert George on MIRROR OF JUSTICE BLOG
Monday, January 30, 2012
Iraqi War Vets Honored in St. Louis
God Bless them! The people of St. Louis hosted the first ever "Welcome Home" parade for returning veterans from the Iraq war and it brought out an estimated 100,000 people!
Just give the people a chance to honor our troops and they pour onto the streets. Wonderful!
Full story in the Kansas City Star. Photo: Jeff Roberson.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Statue of Our Lady of Lepanto Resurfaces!
This is surely providential! Our Lady of Lepanto, Our Lady of Victory!
Fr. Z has the story:
"An alert reader sent me to an interesting article in Spanish at ABC about the original statue of Our Lady given by Venice to don Juan de Austria that was on the quarterdeck of his flagship (more properly “lantern galley”) at Lepanto.
Apparently it had been lost for years but was recently rediscovered and is undergoing restoration at the Spanish Navy Museum:
Fr. Z has the story:
"An alert reader sent me to an interesting article in Spanish at ABC about the original statue of Our Lady given by Venice to don Juan de Austria that was on the quarterdeck of his flagship (more properly “lantern galley”) at Lepanto.
Apparently it had been lost for years but was recently rediscovered and is undergoing restoration at the Spanish Navy Museum:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
AB. Nienstedt: This is the Change We Have Been Waiting For!
Not only does the great Archbishop defend the common good of society, he makes clear it is the solemn duty of his priests and deacons to do the same.
WE support Marriage in Minnesota and everywhere! If you'd like to help defend marriage in Minnesota, visit http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/ and click on the "Contribute" link.
Here's his Excellency's letter (emphasis added, but one could just as well emphasize the whole thing):
Dear Fathers and Deacons,
At our recent Clergy Study Day on October 19, I gave the following talk. I offer it here again for those who were not in attendance.
My dear brothers, I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that in this movement to protect and defend the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman we are faced with one of the greatest challenges of our times. None of us can deny that the institution of marriage and family life are unraveling before our very eyes due to no-fault divorce, wide-spread cohabitation and promiscuous sexual activity. The end game of those who oppose the marriage amendment that we support is not just to secure certain benefits for a particular minority, but, I believe, to eliminate the need for marriage altogether. This can only lead to continued destabilizing the family unit itself. Both those realities will happen if marriage is redefined or, perhaps better put, “undefined.” Today we can say with clarity what the natural reality of marriage is. That may not be possible in years to come if we fail to be successful now. As I see it, we have this one chance as Minnesotans to make things right. The stakes could not be higher.
We did not choose this challenge nor do any of us relish the confrontation it will bring, but neither can we remain silent in order to get along. We must witness to the truth so as to realize the common good of our society. While the greatest good is surely life with God in heaven, we must, in truth, seek to foster the good here on earth. And we are not the first to confront this task, our brothers in California, Maine, Hawaii among others, have all taken up this defense and have been successful in doing so.
In doing so, we must never vilify or caricaturize those who argue otherwise. Indeed, we must acknowledge that all men and women are God’s sons and daughters. But it is this very truth and the fact that the truth is one and bears no contradiction that the Church and her ministers must witness here and now.
It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.
I see our united effort as a part of the New Evangelization, that of building a new culture for marriage. You know, this effort to pass a constitutional amendment is not an end in itself. We began a year ago to host 25 seminars across the Archdiocese to explain why marriage is what it is and why we believe in it.
Presently, I have appointed teams of a priest and a married couple to go into each of our Catholic high schools to address the topic of marriage.
I want the focus here to be a positive one — let’s celebrate the reality of what God designed from the beginning as affirmed in the first chapter of Genesis and that Jesus reaffirmed in the 19th chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel.
I am actively raising funds to assist in this educational endeavor. And if you and your parish wish to benefit from these programs, please let me know.
I thank you for your support. I count on your prayer. Be assured you have the same from me. Together, let us turn to our Blessed Mother — mother of all families, Mother of the Church and patroness of the new evangelization. Through her maternal intercession, our Lady will secure for us that which is needed most in these days — protection, wisdom and peace through the grace of her Son and Savior, Jesus Christ.
May God bless us all.
With every good wish, I remain
Fraternally yours in Christ,
The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
“A truth of biology, not theology; a truth of science, not religion.”
Archbishopl Gomez of Los Angeles tells it like it is. From California Catholic Daily:
Writing in the Jan. 20 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper The Tidings, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez says abortion can never play second fiddle to ‘social justice’ as a moral issue for Catholics.
The archbishop said he often hears the questions, “Why does the Church still bother trying to change people’s hearts and minds on abortion? Wouldn’t our time and resources be better spent on pressing issues such as poverty, social justice and peace?”
And he replies: “These are good and sincere questions. For me, the answer is a matter of truth and first principles. The truth is true whether our society acknowledges it or not. And we always want to make sure we are living in the truth and not living a lie or a delusion.”
Read the whole thing at CalCatholic, and you can read His Excellency's full statement here.
Writing in the Jan. 20 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper The Tidings, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez says abortion can never play second fiddle to ‘social justice’ as a moral issue for Catholics.
The archbishop said he often hears the questions, “Why does the Church still bother trying to change people’s hearts and minds on abortion? Wouldn’t our time and resources be better spent on pressing issues such as poverty, social justice and peace?”And he replies: “These are good and sincere questions. For me, the answer is a matter of truth and first principles. The truth is true whether our society acknowledges it or not. And we always want to make sure we are living in the truth and not living a lie or a delusion.”
Read the whole thing at CalCatholic, and you can read His Excellency's full statement here.
Monday, January 23, 2012
This Catholic institution plans to host a notorious pro-abortion promoter
While pro-life Americans attended the March for Life in Washington, D.C. today, the Catholic Jesuit University of Scranton, Pennsylvania, is preparing for something unimaginable. In fact, they have invited an avowed abortion advocate and former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies to give the keynote speech at the University on January 28.
The bishop of Scranton, most Rev. Joseph C. Bambera, asked that the invitation be withdrawn. Unfortunately, his request was rebuffed by university officials. Yes, his request was denied…It’s unbelievable, but I still think that you and I can make a real difference if we peacefully protest and CALL the university today. You can pick up the phone and dial 570-941-7500 right now. Ask for Fr. Kevin Quinn, president of the University of Scranton and politely urge him to cancel the appearance of pro-abortion advocate Marjorie Margolies.
You see, after Ms. Margolies’ congressional career ended, her pro-abortion record only got worse, culminating in her position as Executive Director of the Women’s Campaign Fund, a pro-abortion organization dedicated to “dramatically increasing the number of women in elected office who support reproductive choices and options, from all parties and at all levels of government.
How can a woman with such a pro-abortion record be invited to give not only a lecture, but a keynote address at a Catholic University, an institution that should be a cornerstone in the defense of innocent life?
You are invited to pick up the phone and dial 570-941-7500. Ask for Fr. Kevin Quinn, president of the University of Scranton. And politely urge him to cancel the appearance of pro-abortion advocate Marjorie Margolies.
The bishop of Scranton, most Rev. Joseph C. Bambera, asked that the invitation be withdrawn. Unfortunately, his request was rebuffed by university officials. Yes, his request was denied…It’s unbelievable, but I still think that you and I can make a real difference if we peacefully protest and CALL the university today. You can pick up the phone and dial 570-941-7500 right now. Ask for Fr. Kevin Quinn, president of the University of Scranton and politely urge him to cancel the appearance of pro-abortion advocate Marjorie Margolies.
You see, after Ms. Margolies’ congressional career ended, her pro-abortion record only got worse, culminating in her position as Executive Director of the Women’s Campaign Fund, a pro-abortion organization dedicated to “dramatically increasing the number of women in elected office who support reproductive choices and options, from all parties and at all levels of government.
How can a woman with such a pro-abortion record be invited to give not only a lecture, but a keynote address at a Catholic University, an institution that should be a cornerstone in the defense of innocent life?
You are invited to pick up the phone and dial 570-941-7500. Ask for Fr. Kevin Quinn, president of the University of Scranton. And politely urge him to cancel the appearance of pro-abortion advocate Marjorie Margolies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
