The shortest distance between a problem and a solution is the distance between your knees and the floor.
Lord, teach me to pray.
But prayer without works is dead.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
March 29 Health Care Wrap-up
AP: Expect 17% Premium Increase for Young Adults
Public Opposes Obamacare 50.8 to 40.7% (Real Clear Politics Average)
Bishop Vasa calls Obamacare "Positively Evil"
Obama Donor Arrested for Threatening to Kill Pro-Life Congressman (& family)
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Public Opposes Obamacare 50.8 to 40.7% (Real Clear Politics Average)
Bishop Vasa calls Obamacare "Positively Evil"
Obama Donor Arrested for Threatening to Kill Pro-Life Congressman (& family)
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Poll: Americans Have More Confidence in Tea Party Movement than Congress
Common sense from the American people.
From Instapundit:
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.”
From Instapundit:
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.”
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Canada's Largest Catholic Newspaper takes on Development and Peace
About time. We've reported on the D & P scandal here and here.
From LifeSiteNews:
"TORONTO, March 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Register, published out of Canada’s largest diocese, has denounced Development and Peace for its document, revealed by LifeSiteNews on March 17, that disparaged LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) and the international pro-life movement in general. The Register also published a report by Deborah Gyapong in the same edition that included comments by D&P executive director Michael Casey confirming that D&P did in fact send to D&P stakeholders the harshly worded document that Casey said was "regrettably, unfortunately" made public.
The Register lead editorial, titled "Poor Judgement" and dated March 25 on its website, states, "D&P seems to have lost its way. How else to explain its bizarre document recently leaked to the public that is rife with misrepresentation and distortion as it disparages the respected Catholic pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition."
Read the full LSN article here.
The Register editorial, while welcome, is pretty weak. It says:
"D&P clearly is still smarting from year-old allegations that some of its overseas partners had ties to organizations that support abortion."
As we wrote last year, what LifeSiteNews reported were not allegations or accusations but simple facts. One example of many: The Mexican group "Comaletzin" received $32,000 from D & P in the 2007-2008 year. On April 22, 2009 LSN reported:
"Comaletzin's General Coordinator, Ofelia Pastrana Moreno, told LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview yesterday that the organization promotes the use of artificial birth control and 'sexual and reproductive health' services. If contraceptives fail, said Pastrana, Comaletzin seeks to make abortion available to women who don't want what she called the 'product' of conception, meaning the unborn child."
That's not an allegation or accusation but simply the report of a conversation with the coordinator of a group that receives $32,000 from D & P. If what LifeSiteNews has written is untrue, D & P and/or Ms. Pastrana should sue them for libel.
The Register editorial also says:
"Last summer, a bishop’s report on those allegations — a report woefully bereft of detail — exonerated D&P of wrongdoing. Regrettably, though, the bishops failed to explicitly address evidence that raised worrisome questions about five specific D&P partners in Mexico. Therefore, in many minds, the issue was unresolved. Since then more unsettling claims about D&P partners in other countries have surfaced."
When we saw the Canadian bishops two-and-a-half-page report back in June 2009 we asked "Can a Whitewash Be Transparent?" The Register editorial notices the same thing--the Bishops who wrote it never "explicitly address evidence" yet they "exonerated" D&P anyway.
From LifeSiteNews:
"TORONTO, March 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Register, published out of Canada’s largest diocese, has denounced Development and Peace for its document, revealed by LifeSiteNews on March 17, that disparaged LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) and the international pro-life movement in general. The Register also published a report by Deborah Gyapong in the same edition that included comments by D&P executive director Michael Casey confirming that D&P did in fact send to D&P stakeholders the harshly worded document that Casey said was "regrettably, unfortunately" made public.
The Register lead editorial, titled "Poor Judgement" and dated March 25 on its website, states, "D&P seems to have lost its way. How else to explain its bizarre document recently leaked to the public that is rife with misrepresentation and distortion as it disparages the respected Catholic pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition."
Read the full LSN article here.
The Register editorial, while welcome, is pretty weak. It says:
"D&P clearly is still smarting from year-old allegations that some of its overseas partners had ties to organizations that support abortion."
As we wrote last year, what LifeSiteNews reported were not allegations or accusations but simple facts. One example of many: The Mexican group "Comaletzin" received $32,000 from D & P in the 2007-2008 year. On April 22, 2009 LSN reported:
"Comaletzin's General Coordinator, Ofelia Pastrana Moreno, told LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview yesterday that the organization promotes the use of artificial birth control and 'sexual and reproductive health' services. If contraceptives fail, said Pastrana, Comaletzin seeks to make abortion available to women who don't want what she called the 'product' of conception, meaning the unborn child."
That's not an allegation or accusation but simply the report of a conversation with the coordinator of a group that receives $32,000 from D & P. If what LifeSiteNews has written is untrue, D & P and/or Ms. Pastrana should sue them for libel.
The Register editorial also says:
"Last summer, a bishop’s report on those allegations — a report woefully bereft of detail — exonerated D&P of wrongdoing. Regrettably, though, the bishops failed to explicitly address evidence that raised worrisome questions about five specific D&P partners in Mexico. Therefore, in many minds, the issue was unresolved. Since then more unsettling claims about D&P partners in other countries have surfaced."
When we saw the Canadian bishops two-and-a-half-page report back in June 2009 we asked "Can a Whitewash Be Transparent?" The Register editorial notices the same thing--the Bishops who wrote it never "explicitly address evidence" yet they "exonerated" D&P anyway.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Pelosi: "Obstinent Perseverance in Manifest Grave Sin"
Excerpts from yesterday's column "One Canon 915 Case at a Time: Nancy Pelosi" by noted Canon Lawyer Dr. Ed Peters:
"Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise inclined to invoke the law to hesitate doing so.
I understand their concern, and have argued elsewhere that enforcement of Canon 915 is not as simple as some seem to believe. But, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good, I am convinced that one has to start what one might call the 'national application'* of Canon 915 somewhere, and that the best case to start with is that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (emphasis added).
Before proceeding, let's be very clear about something: verification of the conditions described in Canon 915 does not merely authorize ministers to withhold holy Communion from those 'obstinently preserving in manifest grave sin'; it requires ministers to withhold holy Communion in such cases, this, upon pain of dereliction of their sacred office (1983 CIC 128, 1389).
Now, I suggest that there is no US Catholic politician whose conduct at the national level is more stridently and widely pro-abortion (to name just one area in which Pelosi's machinations are gravely objectionable) and whose scandalous rhetoric is more overtly Catholic (many of her bizarre assertions the bishops have had to stop and refute) than is Nancy Pelosi's. If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin." (emphasis added).
_____________________________________________________
I reprint below the closing paragraph of Fr. Malloy's January 2007 "Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi." Who knows how different the lanscape might be today had his example been followed by those with a greater degree of authority.
"Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise inclined to invoke the law to hesitate doing so.
I understand their concern, and have argued elsewhere that enforcement of Canon 915 is not as simple as some seem to believe. But, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good, I am convinced that one has to start what one might call the 'national application'* of Canon 915 somewhere, and that the best case to start with is that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (emphasis added).
Before proceeding, let's be very clear about something: verification of the conditions described in Canon 915 does not merely authorize ministers to withhold holy Communion from those 'obstinently preserving in manifest grave sin'; it requires ministers to withhold holy Communion in such cases, this, upon pain of dereliction of their sacred office (1983 CIC 128, 1389).
Now, I suggest that there is no US Catholic politician whose conduct at the national level is more stridently and widely pro-abortion (to name just one area in which Pelosi's machinations are gravely objectionable) and whose scandalous rhetoric is more overtly Catholic (many of her bizarre assertions the bishops have had to stop and refute) than is Nancy Pelosi's. If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin." (emphasis added).
_____________________________________________________
I reprint below the closing paragraph of Fr. Malloy's January 2007 "Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi." Who knows how different the lanscape might be today had his example been followed by those with a greater degree of authority.
"Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Major Companies to Drop Presciption Drug Benefits Under Obamacare?
From the AP:
"The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.
In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future."
________________________________________________________
"Generally, retirees would prefer to stay with prescription drug coverage provided by their companies as opposed to enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan, said Marilyn Moon, a health care economist with the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research.
She said most of the company-sponsored plans are more generous and almost none have the coverage gap that comes with Part D plans."
UPDATE: Ed Morrisey at Hot Air elaborates:
"Over the past year, I’ve repeatedly warned about the dangers of static tax analysis. That process considers changes in tax policy without considering its impact on behavior. The closure of this 'loophole,' as Robert Gibbs called it yesterday, is a perfect example of this stunted thinking.
The Democrats in Congress argued that they would gain $5.4 billion in revenue by eliminating the tax break enacted in the 2003 Medicare Part D program as an incentive for businesses to keep their retirees out of the Medicare system. Instead, they have given businesses a reason to dump their retirees out of the private networks and into the Part D system now. Not only will the expected tax revenues never appear, but now we will have to spend a lot more money covering those prescriptions out of public funds. The seniors in these programs will suffer most of all, as the Part D coverage is vastly inferior to the private plans offered by businesses in the private sector."
"The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.
In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future."
________________________________________________________
"Generally, retirees would prefer to stay with prescription drug coverage provided by their companies as opposed to enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan, said Marilyn Moon, a health care economist with the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research.
She said most of the company-sponsored plans are more generous and almost none have the coverage gap that comes with Part D plans."
UPDATE: Ed Morrisey at Hot Air elaborates:
"Over the past year, I’ve repeatedly warned about the dangers of static tax analysis. That process considers changes in tax policy without considering its impact on behavior. The closure of this 'loophole,' as Robert Gibbs called it yesterday, is a perfect example of this stunted thinking.
The Democrats in Congress argued that they would gain $5.4 billion in revenue by eliminating the tax break enacted in the 2003 Medicare Part D program as an incentive for businesses to keep their retirees out of the Medicare system. Instead, they have given businesses a reason to dump their retirees out of the private networks and into the Part D system now. Not only will the expected tax revenues never appear, but now we will have to spend a lot more money covering those prescriptions out of public funds. The seniors in these programs will suffer most of all, as the Part D coverage is vastly inferior to the private plans offered by businesses in the private sector."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
CCHD, Show Some Gratitude
The CCHD ought to be thanking the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM), et al, for their work in exposing some of the groups that the CCHD was improperly funding with parishioners money.
The latest unworthy grantee to be defunded is Homeless Voices for Justice (HVJ), an advocacy program run by Portland-based Preble Street. Preble Street has been funded by the CCHD for 13 years. LifeSiteNews reports:
"Homeless Voices for Justice (HVJ), an advocacy program run by Portland-based Preble Street, had received funding from the CCHD for 13 years. But Preble Street joined a “No on 1” coalition in the fall, which fought to uphold the state's recognition of same-sex “marriage.” Maine voters overturned the law on November 3, but Preble Street's support for it prompted the Portland diocese and Bishop Richard Malone to revoke their $2,400 grant in December.
"We regret the collaboration must end at this time," wrote Sandra Thompson of Catholic Charities Maine, according to Portland Press Herald. "Accountability to the Catholic community requires this."
CCHD national director Ralph McCloud then wrote to the group on January 27th, advising them they had disqualified themselves from CCHD grants and would not receive the remaining half of this year's $30,000 grant. McCloud also asked them to return any unspent funds from the first $15,000, though he was later informed that there weren't any."
The BVM alerted the CCHD to potential problems with Preble Street back in November 2009. They informed the CCHD that Preble Street was offering "family planning services" through a shelter. Rob Gasper of the BVM requested that the CCHD investigate the group to determine if Preble Street met the CCHD's funding criteria. It turns out they did not.
It would be proper for the officials at the CCHD to thank the BVM for doing what is the CCHD's job, but I would be surprised.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The latest unworthy grantee to be defunded is Homeless Voices for Justice (HVJ), an advocacy program run by Portland-based Preble Street. Preble Street has been funded by the CCHD for 13 years. LifeSiteNews reports:
"Homeless Voices for Justice (HVJ), an advocacy program run by Portland-based Preble Street, had received funding from the CCHD for 13 years. But Preble Street joined a “No on 1” coalition in the fall, which fought to uphold the state's recognition of same-sex “marriage.” Maine voters overturned the law on November 3, but Preble Street's support for it prompted the Portland diocese and Bishop Richard Malone to revoke their $2,400 grant in December.
"We regret the collaboration must end at this time," wrote Sandra Thompson of Catholic Charities Maine, according to Portland Press Herald. "Accountability to the Catholic community requires this."
CCHD national director Ralph McCloud then wrote to the group on January 27th, advising them they had disqualified themselves from CCHD grants and would not receive the remaining half of this year's $30,000 grant. McCloud also asked them to return any unspent funds from the first $15,000, though he was later informed that there weren't any."
The BVM alerted the CCHD to potential problems with Preble Street back in November 2009. They informed the CCHD that Preble Street was offering "family planning services" through a shelter. Rob Gasper of the BVM requested that the CCHD investigate the group to determine if Preble Street met the CCHD's funding criteria. It turns out they did not.
It would be proper for the officials at the CCHD to thank the BVM for doing what is the CCHD's job, but I would be surprised.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Americans Want Republicans to Keep Fighting Obamacare
From a CBS News Poll of March 24:
"The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges....
Most see the bill as an important achievement for the president."
That's true, but Pearl Harbor was an important achievement for the Japanese, too. It didn't turn out so well ....
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges....
Most see the bill as an important achievement for the president."
That's true, but Pearl Harbor was an important achievement for the Japanese, too. It didn't turn out so well ....
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
George Wesolek and Michael Voris on "Unity" and the Church
Below is a letter to the editor of Catholic San Francisco (PDF) by George Wesolek, Director of the Office of Public Policy & Social Concerns at the Archdiocese of San Francisco, followed by a video on the same subject by Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.
Mr. Wesolek's letter was also covered in the Catholic Key and Catholic News Agency.
"Fissure within Church
The American Catholic Church is fractured and splintering with a deep ideological divide separating the camps. This is not news. But what had been common knowledge in Church circles in private conversations is now in the headlines of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
This has come about because of the intense national debate about health care reform. The American Catholic bishops don’t like the bill (the Senate version) in its present form because it expands abortion coverage, does not cover immigrants, and does not offer enough conscience protections.
Recently, the Catholic Health Association (CHA) and the Leadership Conference of Women
Religious (LCWR) both came out publicly in support of the Senate version of the bill. Some of their comments even went so far as to characterize the bishops’ stand, especially on abortion, as “false.” So now we have some nuns accusing the bishops of lying about abortion. Are you shocked? Don’t be because this has been going on for a long time.
For years, most of the leadership of the LCWR and the Catholic hospitals (most of which are owned by these very same LCWR leaders) have been advancing a view of Catholic social teaching that reflects a vision that they learned in the 60s and 70s – a tired feminism that distorts the role of women and has at its center the freedom of women to “choose” to kill the infants in their womb if they so desire.
This view rightly offers deep concern for justice for the poor and vulnerable, but like so many in this age-group, minimizes or trivializes the unborn. “Network,” the Washington, D.C. lobbying arm of the LCWR does not include pro-life legislation as part of its work. If it does at all, it distorts the term “pro-life” to be so ambiguous and far-reaching that it includes everything.
Thus, the sisters can say with a straight face that the current health care legislation is “life-affirming.” They ignore or claim as “false” what the bishops and every pro-life institution in the country has recognized as a flawed bill that will advance abortion.
Some have said that the sisters are taking this position because they have deep economic interests because of their hospitals. I disagree. Their rationale is ideological. I believe that they truly believe in health care reform…so much so that they are willing to trivialize the abortion issue and throw in their lot with the Obama administration.
There is a value in having this private tension now public. Like an angry boil, it is better to break open than to keep festering and growing.
Fortunately, as pointed out by Mercy Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Director of Media Relations for the USCCB, the group of sisters making these statements is relatively small in comparison to the number of sisters and communities of women religious in the U.S. Read Sister Walsh’s comments here:
http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/ and-then-there-were-nun.html.
The 103 other sister communities came out with a statement in alliance with the bishops: http://o.b5z.net/i/ u/10060511/f/march_19.pdf.
George Wesolek
Director, Office of Public Policy & Social Concerns
Archdiocese of San Francisco
____________________________________________________
Mr. Micheal Voris at Real Catholic TV takes the argument a step further, noting that when 127 out of 136 Catholic members of Congress vote for taxpayer-funded abortion, our Bishops, as a whole, have failed:
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Mr. Wesolek's letter was also covered in the Catholic Key and Catholic News Agency.
"Fissure within Church
The American Catholic Church is fractured and splintering with a deep ideological divide separating the camps. This is not news. But what had been common knowledge in Church circles in private conversations is now in the headlines of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
This has come about because of the intense national debate about health care reform. The American Catholic bishops don’t like the bill (the Senate version) in its present form because it expands abortion coverage, does not cover immigrants, and does not offer enough conscience protections.
Recently, the Catholic Health Association (CHA) and the Leadership Conference of Women
Religious (LCWR) both came out publicly in support of the Senate version of the bill. Some of their comments even went so far as to characterize the bishops’ stand, especially on abortion, as “false.” So now we have some nuns accusing the bishops of lying about abortion. Are you shocked? Don’t be because this has been going on for a long time.
For years, most of the leadership of the LCWR and the Catholic hospitals (most of which are owned by these very same LCWR leaders) have been advancing a view of Catholic social teaching that reflects a vision that they learned in the 60s and 70s – a tired feminism that distorts the role of women and has at its center the freedom of women to “choose” to kill the infants in their womb if they so desire.
This view rightly offers deep concern for justice for the poor and vulnerable, but like so many in this age-group, minimizes or trivializes the unborn. “Network,” the Washington, D.C. lobbying arm of the LCWR does not include pro-life legislation as part of its work. If it does at all, it distorts the term “pro-life” to be so ambiguous and far-reaching that it includes everything.
Thus, the sisters can say with a straight face that the current health care legislation is “life-affirming.” They ignore or claim as “false” what the bishops and every pro-life institution in the country has recognized as a flawed bill that will advance abortion.
Some have said that the sisters are taking this position because they have deep economic interests because of their hospitals. I disagree. Their rationale is ideological. I believe that they truly believe in health care reform…so much so that they are willing to trivialize the abortion issue and throw in their lot with the Obama administration.
There is a value in having this private tension now public. Like an angry boil, it is better to break open than to keep festering and growing.
Fortunately, as pointed out by Mercy Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Director of Media Relations for the USCCB, the group of sisters making these statements is relatively small in comparison to the number of sisters and communities of women religious in the U.S. Read Sister Walsh’s comments here:
http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/ and-then-there-were-nun.html.
The 103 other sister communities came out with a statement in alliance with the bishops: http://o.b5z.net/i/ u/10060511/f/march_19.pdf.
George Wesolek
Director, Office of Public Policy & Social Concerns
Archdiocese of San Francisco
____________________________________________________
Mr. Micheal Voris at Real Catholic TV takes the argument a step further, noting that when 127 out of 136 Catholic members of Congress vote for taxpayer-funded abortion, our Bishops, as a whole, have failed:
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obamacare in England
Physician Theodore Dalrymple, writing in City Journal, warns us what we have to look forward to if Obamacare is not repealed.
"Americans would do well to ponder a recent admission by a former British minister in the Blair government. On March 2, the Guardian reported that the ex-minister, now Lord Warner, said that while spending on Britain’s National Health Service had increased by 60 percent under the Labour government, its output had decreased by 4 percent. No doubt the spending of a Soviet-style organization like the NHS is more easily measurable than its output, but the former minister’s remark certainly accords with the experiences of many citizens, who see no dramatic improvement in the service as a result of such vastly increased outlays. On the contrary, while the service has taken on 400,000 new staff members—that is to say, one-fifth of all new jobs created in Britain during the period—continuity of medical care has been all but extinguished. Nobody now expects to see the same doctor on successive occasions, in the hospital or anywhere else."
For more, just google NHS Left to die
"Americans would do well to ponder a recent admission by a former British minister in the Blair government. On March 2, the Guardian reported that the ex-minister, now Lord Warner, said that while spending on Britain’s National Health Service had increased by 60 percent under the Labour government, its output had decreased by 4 percent. No doubt the spending of a Soviet-style organization like the NHS is more easily measurable than its output, but the former minister’s remark certainly accords with the experiences of many citizens, who see no dramatic improvement in the service as a result of such vastly increased outlays. On the contrary, while the service has taken on 400,000 new staff members—that is to say, one-fifth of all new jobs created in Britain during the period—continuity of medical care has been all but extinguished. Nobody now expects to see the same doctor on successive occasions, in the hospital or anywhere else."
For more, just google NHS Left to die
Help LifeSiteNews!
The excellent pro-life news website can use our help.
LifeSiteNews' exposure of the Canadian Conference of Bishop's "Development and Peace" scandal has earned it some powerful enemies. LSN's case was compelling enough to cause the Archbishop of Toronto, Canada's largest Archdiocese, to withhold funding from D & P, but other Canadian Bishops, for reasons of their own, were unmoved. After looking into it, we wrote about the issue here and here.
To learn more, go here, and go here to donate.
The great Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International said of LSN:
"LifeSiteNews is literally the best and most reliable source of information on the Church as it engages in mortal combat with the culture of death."
LifeSiteNews' exposure of the Canadian Conference of Bishop's "Development and Peace" scandal has earned it some powerful enemies. LSN's case was compelling enough to cause the Archbishop of Toronto, Canada's largest Archdiocese, to withhold funding from D & P, but other Canadian Bishops, for reasons of their own, were unmoved. After looking into it, we wrote about the issue here and here.
To learn more, go here, and go here to donate.
The great Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International said of LSN:
"LifeSiteNews is literally the best and most reliable source of information on the Church as it engages in mortal combat with the culture of death."
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Party of Life v. the Party of Death
Every single one of the 178 house Republicans voted against federal funding for abortion
224 Democrats voted for federal funding for abortion.
Party of Life versus the Party of Death. Any real "pro-life" Democrat has to leave the party.
224 Democrats voted for federal funding for abortion.
Party of Life versus the Party of Death. Any real "pro-life" Democrat has to leave the party.
Stupak's Opponent Dr. Dan Benishek
has what may be the fastest growing Facebook page in history.
About 1200, (oops 1,300, oops 1,500 and counting) people from all over the country are begging him to get an online donation button up. Would not want to be in Congressman Stupak's shoes.
UPDATE: Dr. Benishek's Facebook page has cracked 2,000 members. Sample comment:
"I live in Hawaii but I'm sending you my check today. Stupak must go. Please help us take back our beloved country."
UPDATE II (501: PST): The Benishek Facbook page now has gone over 5,000 members. Prediction: when they get a "donate" function up, Stupak's opponent will pick up $500,000-$1,000,000 right away.
UPDATE III (5:54 PST): Dr. Benishek says a donation link will be up tomorrow. His Facebook page now has over 6,400 members. OpenSecrets.org says Stupak only raised $602,000 for the 2009-10 campaign season. Benishek will top that in 24 hours.
About 1200, (oops 1,300, oops 1,500 and counting) people from all over the country are begging him to get an online donation button up. Would not want to be in Congressman Stupak's shoes.
UPDATE: Dr. Benishek's Facebook page has cracked 2,000 members. Sample comment:
"I live in Hawaii but I'm sending you my check today. Stupak must go. Please help us take back our beloved country."
UPDATE II (501: PST): The Benishek Facbook page now has gone over 5,000 members. Prediction: when they get a "donate" function up, Stupak's opponent will pick up $500,000-$1,000,000 right away.
UPDATE III (5:54 PST): Dr. Benishek says a donation link will be up tomorrow. His Facebook page now has over 6,400 members. OpenSecrets.org says Stupak only raised $602,000 for the 2009-10 campaign season. Benishek will top that in 24 hours.
"Selling Out the Pro-Life Cause"
The phony Executive Order the "pro-life" Democrats are using as cover to vote for Obamacare has been debunked all over the web, but Andy McCarthy is pretty succinct:
"So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause."
More here, here, and here.
"So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause."
More here, here, and here.
Never Forget...
Speaking of San Francisco women who helped pass Obamacare, with publicly-funded abortion:
Patricia Anne Cloherty, PBVM
Leadership Team, Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco
Pam Chiesa, PBVM
President
Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco
Gloria Inés Loya
Leadership Team
Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco
Full letter of support is here.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Patricia Anne Cloherty, PBVM
Leadership Team, Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco
Pam Chiesa, PBVM
President
Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco
Gloria Inés Loya
Leadership Team
Sisters of the Presentation, San Francisco
Full letter of support is here.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, March 19, 2010
Nancy Pelosi "prays' to St. Joseph for Public Funding for Slaughter of Innocents
Tom Peters has the story, plus lots of other news. A commenter pointed out that Pelosi does not even know today is the Solemnity of Joseph, the Husband of Mary--she thinks it's the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Archbishop Niederauer, beloved Excellency, you are my shepherd--and Nancy's. How can you be silent?
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Archbishop Niederauer, beloved Excellency, you are my shepherd--and Nancy's. How can you be silent?
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, March 18, 2010
"Call to Arms" from "Pope John Paul II" actor Jon Voight
He played Pope John Paul in the movie--maybe it rubbed off. From BigGovernment.com:
"Join Me in DC Saturday to Stop ObamaCare
by Jon Voight
I am calling to all of you freedom-loving Americans to come once again to Washington D.C. to gather on the Capitol steps on Saturday, at 12 o’clock noon.
We must come by the thousands.
Speaker Pelosi will stop at nothing to fulfill her corrupt conquests. She will bring all of the corrupt ACORN liars to try to bully all the Democrats that may be having pangs of guilt knowing quite surely what their votes can and will do. If they’re bullied into saying “yes,” it will destroy America.
Join me and Rep. Michele Bachmann in Washington DC at 12 noon EST so we can give all the Democrats who know what the end result will be the courage to say: “No, do not pass this destructive bill.”
I’ll see you there."
“Yes” on Obamacare Last Time but Might Want to Switch:
Gabrielle Giffords, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2542
Ann Kirkpatrick, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2315
Harry Mitchell, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2190
Vic Snyder, (D., Ariz.) (S)—202-225-2506
Marion Berry, (D., Ark.) (S)—202-225-4076
John Salazar, (D., Colo.) (S)—202-225-4761
Melissa Bean, (D., Ill.) —202-225-3711
Bill Foster, (D., Ill.) —202-225-2976
Joe Donnelly, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-3915
Brad Ellsworth, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-4636
Baron Hill, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-5315
Bart Stupak, (D., Mich.) (S) —202-225-4735
Michael Arcuri, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3665
Tim Bishop, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3826
Bob Etheridge, (D., N.C.) (S) —202-225-4531
Earl Pomeroy, (D., N.D.) (S) —202-225-2611
Steve Driehaus, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-2216
Zach Space, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-6265
Charlie Wilson, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-5705
Chris Carney, (D., Pa.) (S) —202-225-3731
Kathleen Dahlkemper, (D., Pa.) (S) —202-225-5406
John Spratt, (D., S.C.) (S) —202-225-5501
Ciro Rodriguez, (D., Texas) (S) —202-225-4511
Solomon Ortiz, (D., Texas) (S) —202-225-7742
Tom Perriello, (D., Va.) (S) —202-225-4711
Alan Mollohan, (D., W.Va.) (S) —202-225-4172
Nick Rahall, (D., W.Va.) (S) —202-225-3452
“No” on Obamacare Last Time but Might Need Encouragement:
Mike Ross, (D., Ark.) (S) —202-225-3772
Betsy Markey, (D., Colo.) —202-225-4676
Allen Boyd, (D., Fla.) —202-225-5235
Suzanne Kosmas, (D., Fla.) —202-225-2706
John Barrow, (D., Ga.) (S) —202-225-2823
John Adler, (D., N.J.) —202-225-4765
Michael McMahon, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3371
Scott Murphy, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-5614
Larry Kissell, (D., N.C.) —202-225-3715
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"Join Me in DC Saturday to Stop ObamaCare
by Jon Voight
I am calling to all of you freedom-loving Americans to come once again to Washington D.C. to gather on the Capitol steps on Saturday, at 12 o’clock noon.
We must come by the thousands.
Speaker Pelosi will stop at nothing to fulfill her corrupt conquests. She will bring all of the corrupt ACORN liars to try to bully all the Democrats that may be having pangs of guilt knowing quite surely what their votes can and will do. If they’re bullied into saying “yes,” it will destroy America.
Join me and Rep. Michele Bachmann in Washington DC at 12 noon EST so we can give all the Democrats who know what the end result will be the courage to say: “No, do not pass this destructive bill.”
I’ll see you there."
UPDATE: Ed Whelan at National Review compiled this list of Congressmen who must be contacted in order to prevent this montrosity from passing.
“Yes” on Obamacare Last Time but Might Want to Switch:
Gabrielle Giffords, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2542
Ann Kirkpatrick, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2315
Harry Mitchell, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2190
Vic Snyder, (D., Ariz.) (S)—202-225-2506
Marion Berry, (D., Ark.) (S)—202-225-4076
John Salazar, (D., Colo.) (S)—202-225-4761
Melissa Bean, (D., Ill.) —202-225-3711
Bill Foster, (D., Ill.) —202-225-2976
Joe Donnelly, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-3915
Brad Ellsworth, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-4636
Baron Hill, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-5315
Bart Stupak, (D., Mich.) (S) —202-225-4735
Michael Arcuri, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3665
Tim Bishop, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3826
Bob Etheridge, (D., N.C.) (S) —202-225-4531
Earl Pomeroy, (D., N.D.) (S) —202-225-2611
Steve Driehaus, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-2216
Zach Space, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-6265
Charlie Wilson, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-5705
Chris Carney, (D., Pa.) (S) —202-225-3731
Kathleen Dahlkemper, (D., Pa.) (S) —202-225-5406
John Spratt, (D., S.C.) (S) —202-225-5501
Ciro Rodriguez, (D., Texas) (S) —202-225-4511
Solomon Ortiz, (D., Texas) (S) —202-225-7742
Tom Perriello, (D., Va.) (S) —202-225-4711
Alan Mollohan, (D., W.Va.) (S) —202-225-4172
Nick Rahall, (D., W.Va.) (S) —202-225-3452
“No” on Obamacare Last Time but Might Need Encouragement:
Mike Ross, (D., Ark.) (S) —202-225-3772
Betsy Markey, (D., Colo.) —202-225-4676
Allen Boyd, (D., Fla.) —202-225-5235
Suzanne Kosmas, (D., Fla.) —202-225-2706
John Barrow, (D., Ga.) (S) —202-225-2823
John Adler, (D., N.J.) —202-225-4765
Michael McMahon, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3371
Scott Murphy, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-5614
Larry Kissell, (D., N.C.) —202-225-3715
John Boccieri, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-3876
John Tanner, (D., Tenn.) (S) —202-225-4714
Glenn Nye, (D., Va.) —202-225-4215
Brian Baird, (D., Wash.) —202-225-3536
John Tanner, (D., Tenn.) (S) —202-225-4714
Glenn Nye, (D., Va.) —202-225-4215
Brian Baird, (D., Wash.) —202-225-3536
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Massachusetts Treasurer: Obamacare Already a Disaster in State
From Boston.com:
"State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.
"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office."
Treasurer Cahill also said the only way universal coverage in Massacusetts is being sustained is with federal aid, and asks:
"Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?"
UPDATE: Turns out the Wall Street Journal also had an article today about the Massachusetts system. Emphases added.
"The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a 'critical shortage' of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.
Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.
As Dr. Sandra Schneider, the vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Boston Globe last April, "Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you."
The difficulties in getting primary care have led to an increasing number of patients who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical services. Emergency room visits jumped 7% between 2005 and 2007. Officials have determined that half of those added ER visits didn't actually require immediate treatment and could have been dealt with at a doctor's office—if patients could have found one."
"State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.
"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office."
Treasurer Cahill also said the only way universal coverage in Massacusetts is being sustained is with federal aid, and asks:
"Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?"
UPDATE: Turns out the Wall Street Journal also had an article today about the Massachusetts system. Emphases added.
"The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a 'critical shortage' of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.
Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.
As Dr. Sandra Schneider, the vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Boston Globe last April, "Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you."
The difficulties in getting primary care have led to an increasing number of patients who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical services. Emergency room visits jumped 7% between 2005 and 2007. Officials have determined that half of those added ER visits didn't actually require immediate treatment and could have been dealt with at a doctor's office—if patients could have found one."
Proposition 8 Trial Arguments "Simply Ludicrous"
That's the conclusion of constitutional scholar Calvin Massey of Hastings Law School at UC Berkeley. Professor Massey was speaking at USF's February 26 (heavily stacked) same-sex "marriage" seminar. He was referring to the argument of the plaintiffs in the recently concluded Proposition 8 case that those who voted to pass Prop. 8 were motiviated by bigotry.
The Professor also said he expects Judge Vaughn Walker to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but also that it "does not matter a lot what Judge Walker does" because the case will be decided by appeal anyway. You can watch Professor Massey's interesting speech in the video below. His segment begins at about 1:48:00 (about halfway) into the clip. Note: the clip loads slowly.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The Professor also said he expects Judge Vaughn Walker to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but also that it "does not matter a lot what Judge Walker does" because the case will be decided by appeal anyway. You can watch Professor Massey's interesting speech in the video below. His segment begins at about 1:48:00 (about halfway) into the clip. Note: the clip loads slowly.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, March 15, 2010
Achbishop Chaput: Obamacare a defective and dangerous mistake
He also responds to the Catholic Healthcare Association's support for the Senate bill.
Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes from the Archbishop of Denver's letter (to be released to the public later this morning:
"Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as 'Catholic' or 'prolife' that endorse the Senate version — whatever their intentions — are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation....
The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health-care debate is now in its last days. Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.
Do not be misled. The Senate version of health-care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House — despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns — is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not 'reform.' Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it....
...the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics. Nor is it now. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.” Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically. To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans. But God, or the devil, is in the details — and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.
Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes from the Archbishop of Denver's letter (to be released to the public later this morning:
"Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as 'Catholic' or 'prolife' that endorse the Senate version — whatever their intentions — are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation....
The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health-care debate is now in its last days. Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.
Do not be misled. The Senate version of health-care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House — despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns — is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not 'reform.' Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it....
...the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics. Nor is it now. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.” Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically. To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans. But God, or the devil, is in the details — and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
CHA Come out in Favor of Publicly Funded Abortion
About the only good thing about Obamacare is that it is forcing people to show their hands.
From the AP:
"A group representing Catholic hospitals is rallying behind President Barack Obama's health care bill.
Support from the Catholic Health Association could help persuade anti-abortion lawmakers to provide critical votes in the House for the overhaul.
The group's chief executive, Carol Keehan, writes on the association's Web site that the legislation isn't perfect, but is 'a major first step' toward covering all Americans and would make 'great improvements' for millions of people."
Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops are asking Catholics to oppose the bill. Here is a portion of their statement of March 12:
“I am pleased that the House health care bill maintains the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion. On the other hand, the provisions on abortion funding in the current un-amended Senate health care bill are seriously deficient and unacceptable. I urge you to work to uphold essential provisions against abortion funding, to include full conscience protection and to ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met.”
UPDATE: Plenty more about Sr. Keehan/ the CHA around the web. Here's Steve Ertelt over at LifeNews.
From the AP:
"A group representing Catholic hospitals is rallying behind President Barack Obama's health care bill.
Support from the Catholic Health Association could help persuade anti-abortion lawmakers to provide critical votes in the House for the overhaul.
The group's chief executive, Carol Keehan, writes on the association's Web site that the legislation isn't perfect, but is 'a major first step' toward covering all Americans and would make 'great improvements' for millions of people."
Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops are asking Catholics to oppose the bill. Here is a portion of their statement of March 12:
“I am pleased that the House health care bill maintains the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion. On the other hand, the provisions on abortion funding in the current un-amended Senate health care bill are seriously deficient and unacceptable. I urge you to work to uphold essential provisions against abortion funding, to include full conscience protection and to ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met.”
UPDATE: Plenty more about Sr. Keehan/ the CHA around the web. Here's Steve Ertelt over at LifeNews.
Friday, March 12, 2010
“We need to create a global movement to bring the world’s attention to this horrific situation.”
The first "Walk for India's Missing Girls" took place last weekend. Below are excerpts from a New American Media article covering the event:
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – Nearly one hundred people marched from this city’s fabled Golden Gate Park to the Indian Consulate on Mar. 6, ahead of International Women’s Day, to highlight the issue of female infanticide in India.
Similar rallies, titled “The Walk for India’s Missing Girls,” were held in India on the same day in the cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Jamshedpur and Pondi. The walk was also held in Kuwait and Australia...
(Here's an article about the Calcutta march.)
Nyna Pais-Caputi, a San Francisco Bay Area resident who spearheaded the walk in various cities, primarily through online social networking sites, told India-West that throughout the world, 2,500 women marched together on Mar. 6.
“My goal is to eventually have every city in India participate in this walk until India decides to start enforcing its laws,” said Pais-Caputi. “We need to create a global movement to bring the world’s attention to this horrific situation.”
Similar rallies, titled “The Walk for India’s Missing Girls,” were held in India on the same day in the cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Jamshedpur and Pondi. The walk was also held in Kuwait and Australia...
(Here's an article about the Calcutta march.)
Nyna Pais-Caputi, a San Francisco Bay Area resident who spearheaded the walk in various cities, primarily through online social networking sites, told India-West that throughout the world, 2,500 women marched together on Mar. 6.
“My goal is to eventually have every city in India participate in this walk until India decides to start enforcing its laws,” said Pais-Caputi. “We need to create a global movement to bring the world’s attention to this horrific situation.”
Here are some photos from the San Francisco "March for India's Missing Girls,"
courtesy of Kelly Connelly:
The March began by the Conservatory of Flowers in Golden Gate Park.
That's the March's organizer, filmmaker Nyna Pais-Caputi, at left.
Women stand with their sisters in India.
Men, too. Michael Marcheschi with the Reverend Walter Hoye.
The March proceeded to the Indian Embassy on Arguello Boulevard.
For more information, visit Petals in the Dust or the "Walk for India's Missing Girls" Facebook page.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
New Hampshire Votes to Defend Marriage
UPDATE II: The Manchester Union Leader is now reporting: "Granite State voters on Tuesday signaled a desire to vote on same-sex marriage, according to results of town meetings from across the state. Ballot articles calling for a statewide referendum passed in at least 42 towns..."
UPDATE: More info at the "Let New Hampshire Vote" website. They are showing the resolution has passed in 32 towns, failed in only 5.
Today, New Hampsherites held "Town Meeting" for 2010. This is an opportunity for the citizens of New Hampshire townships to vote on various issues. One of the issues this year is same-sex "marriage," which was imposed on the state by the legislature. Today 130 towns voted on a non-binding resolution asking the legislature to bring the definition of marriage to a popular vote. Here's the reolution:
"Resolved: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines marriage."
The resolution itself has no legal force, but a resolution passed by citizens asking for the right to self-government has great moral force.
Partial results below are from the Manchester Union-Leader. The first number is those who have voted to bring the question of same-sex "marriage" before the people of the state. The second number is those opposed. It's heartening for those who believe in the people's right to self-goverment.
Dunbarton 77-58
Windham 1,428-832
Epsom 422-225
Bedford 2,783-1,040
Hampstead 1,190-499
Allenstown 383-198
Wakefield 504-242
Swanzey 524-422
Plaistow 627 yes, 339 no
Of the towns so far reporting, only Northumberland voted against the measure: 57-104.
The Union-Leader reports Auburn “voted in favor” but no numbers were given, that Nelson "voted not to vote," and that Sugar Hill voters “passed over the measure.”
In Windham, State Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, reports that two North Country towns have backed the reolution:
“As far as the marriage amendment, the good weather and decent turnout benefits us," he said. "The whole thing that has driven this petition initiative is that most people are not in favor of the law as it was changed by the governor and the legislature. If people just have the opportunity to have their voices heard, I think that's going to show most people aren't in favor and they want the opportunity to vote on it."
h/t Maggie Gallagher
UPDATE: More info at the "Let New Hampshire Vote" website. They are showing the resolution has passed in 32 towns, failed in only 5.
Today, New Hampsherites held "Town Meeting" for 2010. This is an opportunity for the citizens of New Hampshire townships to vote on various issues. One of the issues this year is same-sex "marriage," which was imposed on the state by the legislature. Today 130 towns voted on a non-binding resolution asking the legislature to bring the definition of marriage to a popular vote. Here's the reolution:
"Resolved: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines marriage."
The resolution itself has no legal force, but a resolution passed by citizens asking for the right to self-government has great moral force.
Partial results below are from the Manchester Union-Leader. The first number is those who have voted to bring the question of same-sex "marriage" before the people of the state. The second number is those opposed. It's heartening for those who believe in the people's right to self-goverment.
Dunbarton 77-58
Windham 1,428-832
Epsom 422-225
Bedford 2,783-1,040
Hampstead 1,190-499
Allenstown 383-198
Wakefield 504-242
Swanzey 524-422
Plaistow 627 yes, 339 no
Of the towns so far reporting, only Northumberland voted against the measure: 57-104.
The Union-Leader reports Auburn “voted in favor” but no numbers were given, that Nelson "voted not to vote," and that Sugar Hill voters “passed over the measure.”
In Windham, State Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, reports that two North Country towns have backed the reolution:
“As far as the marriage amendment, the good weather and decent turnout benefits us," he said. "The whole thing that has driven this petition initiative is that most people are not in favor of the law as it was changed by the governor and the legislature. If people just have the opportunity to have their voices heard, I think that's going to show most people aren't in favor and they want the opportunity to vote on it."
h/t Maggie Gallagher
Monday, March 8, 2010
UPDATE: Archbishop Chaput of Denver Weighs In on Boulder Situation
Unsurprisingly, His Excellency stands with Father Breslin.
"Catholic schools: Partners in faith with parents
Denver news media have reported in recent days on the case of two children of a lesbian couple in Boulder. The couple was informed by Sacred Heart of Jesus parish school that the older child, whom they were enrolling in kindergarten for next year, would be allowed to attend kindergarten but would not be able to continue into first grade the year after. Their younger child would be welcome to finish preschool, but not continue into kindergarten. Many have wondered why. Sacred Heart of Jesus parish has borne the difficult publicity surrounding this issue, but archdiocesan policy was followed faithfully in this matter, and the policy applies to all Archdiocese of Denver schools.
Some background is important. Then we’ll turn to the human realities involved."
Read the whole column here.
"Catholic schools: Partners in faith with parents
Denver news media have reported in recent days on the case of two children of a lesbian couple in Boulder. The couple was informed by Sacred Heart of Jesus parish school that the older child, whom they were enrolling in kindergarten for next year, would be allowed to attend kindergarten but would not be able to continue into first grade the year after. Their younger child would be welcome to finish preschool, but not continue into kindergarten. Many have wondered why. Sacred Heart of Jesus parish has borne the difficult publicity surrounding this issue, but archdiocesan policy was followed faithfully in this matter, and the policy applies to all Archdiocese of Denver schools.
Some background is important. Then we’ll turn to the human realities involved."
Read the whole column here.
Fr. Breslin Stands Up!
Some excerpts (red the whole thing) from the blog of Father William Breslin, the Boulder, Colorado priest who is being criticized for refusing to allow a child with two lesbian "parents" to attend his parish school:
"I chose to protect the faith over doing what would have looked like the loving thing to do. Perhaps some of you parents have been in the position to make a decision for your family that looked like the opposite of love, but was the right decision anyway.
My brothers and sisters, our school is a Catholic school and our teaching on the sanctity of marriage is as clear as a bell. So, the decision I made was based on my conviction that we needed to rest on the side of backing our beliefs and our values. We need to fight for our Catholic values because here in Boulder it seems, no one else is....
I’m the one who made this decision. If you want to blame, blame me, your Catholic priest for being – Catholic!"
Fr. Breslin's answer reminded me of an answer Fr. Malloy gave to a question that came into the "Ask the Fathers" page of our website back in 2005, when he was pastor at Saints Peter and Paul. The question itself is good, because it unfolds the issues that will inevitably occur should Fr. Breslin allow the child to attend his school. Here's the question, with Father's response:
"Dear Fathers:
You have probably heard of St. John the Baptist Church in Costa Mesa, which was recently in the news because some parents and members are concerned about the scandal of the male same-sex "couple" who have enrolled their two adopted children in the parish school.
The concerns center on the high visability of the two men who attend all school functions and Holy Mass as a "family" with their four adopted children.
It has been learned that the men belong to a "gay" activist group, "Family Pride Coalition", take their children to social events where everyone has two "daddies" or two "mommies" and that one of the men was featured in an article in the New York Times titled "Two Fathers, One Happy to Stay Home." The two men are listed as "father" and "father" of the two children in the school directory. "Family Pride Coalition" is primarily concerned with supporting "families" headed by same-sex couples, helping them integrate into communities and schools and the organization advocates for same-sex "marriage." In fact the Executive Director has appeared before Congress to advocate for it.
Those who have raised the issue are primarily concerned with the scandal portrayed by the situation wherein the same-sex "family" appears simply as one of many "kinds of families." In fact when our daughter posed the question "what will you tell a child who asks "how come 'johnny' has two daddies?" to the first grade teacher of our two grandchildren, her response was that she would tell "johnny" that there are all kinds of families.
My concern is that the other children will come to believe that same-sex couples are fine and that their "marriage" is equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman. Not only that, will they not believe that is what their Church believes since the men are so nice and welcomed by many other parents, the teachers and the Principal?
Some have said, "but they are such wonderful parents." The school principal has expressed the opinion that the children have been rescued. On the contrary, they are being indoctrinated into a destructive and dangerous lifestyle. I pray for them and the other children as well as the two men every day.
This is a difficult pastoral issue. What are your thoughts on it?
Sincerely,
SJB Parishoner
Fr. Malloy responded:
Dear SJB Parishioner,
You do present a difficult pastoral issue. One can seem so callous answering this loaded question.
You ask my thoughts.
My thoughts may appear radical. I would not accept same-sex families in a Catholic school, much as I might sympathizes with the children in such “families” The reason to me seems obvious: scandal. Such a life style is contrary to the Catholic Church. The implication that all unions are OK is contrary to Catholic teaching. In no way should we promote it, and particularly at this time when same sex marriages are being touted on all sides.
The Costa Mesa superintendent of Catholic Schools has said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned. It would be wonderful if that were the case in all Catholic Schools—all parents: Catholic to the core!
But the cases are very different. Divorce, birth control or marriages outside the church are not “showcased” in Catholic schools, “Two dads; two moms” would be. The scandal involved is quite different, because the notoriety is quite different.
Family Pride Coalition would like nothing better that to infiltrate the Catholic Church. The Costa Mesa way is opening the door to the enemy of Marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Fr. John J. Malloy, S.D.B."
Fr. Z has an excellent post on the Boulder situation. He shows how the "parents" and the protestors supporting them are using the child as a tool--and he links to a poll where you can express your support (or otherwise) for Fr. Breslin.
"I chose to protect the faith over doing what would have looked like the loving thing to do. Perhaps some of you parents have been in the position to make a decision for your family that looked like the opposite of love, but was the right decision anyway.
My brothers and sisters, our school is a Catholic school and our teaching on the sanctity of marriage is as clear as a bell. So, the decision I made was based on my conviction that we needed to rest on the side of backing our beliefs and our values. We need to fight for our Catholic values because here in Boulder it seems, no one else is....
I’m the one who made this decision. If you want to blame, blame me, your Catholic priest for being – Catholic!"
Fr. Breslin's answer reminded me of an answer Fr. Malloy gave to a question that came into the "Ask the Fathers" page of our website back in 2005, when he was pastor at Saints Peter and Paul. The question itself is good, because it unfolds the issues that will inevitably occur should Fr. Breslin allow the child to attend his school. Here's the question, with Father's response:
"Dear Fathers:
You have probably heard of St. John the Baptist Church in Costa Mesa, which was recently in the news because some parents and members are concerned about the scandal of the male same-sex "couple" who have enrolled their two adopted children in the parish school.
The concerns center on the high visability of the two men who attend all school functions and Holy Mass as a "family" with their four adopted children.
It has been learned that the men belong to a "gay" activist group, "Family Pride Coalition", take their children to social events where everyone has two "daddies" or two "mommies" and that one of the men was featured in an article in the New York Times titled "Two Fathers, One Happy to Stay Home." The two men are listed as "father" and "father" of the two children in the school directory. "Family Pride Coalition" is primarily concerned with supporting "families" headed by same-sex couples, helping them integrate into communities and schools and the organization advocates for same-sex "marriage." In fact the Executive Director has appeared before Congress to advocate for it.
Those who have raised the issue are primarily concerned with the scandal portrayed by the situation wherein the same-sex "family" appears simply as one of many "kinds of families." In fact when our daughter posed the question "what will you tell a child who asks "how come 'johnny' has two daddies?" to the first grade teacher of our two grandchildren, her response was that she would tell "johnny" that there are all kinds of families.
My concern is that the other children will come to believe that same-sex couples are fine and that their "marriage" is equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman. Not only that, will they not believe that is what their Church believes since the men are so nice and welcomed by many other parents, the teachers and the Principal?
Some have said, "but they are such wonderful parents." The school principal has expressed the opinion that the children have been rescued. On the contrary, they are being indoctrinated into a destructive and dangerous lifestyle. I pray for them and the other children as well as the two men every day.
This is a difficult pastoral issue. What are your thoughts on it?
Sincerely,
SJB Parishoner
Fr. Malloy responded:
Dear SJB Parishioner,
You do present a difficult pastoral issue. One can seem so callous answering this loaded question.
You ask my thoughts.
My thoughts may appear radical. I would not accept same-sex families in a Catholic school, much as I might sympathizes with the children in such “families” The reason to me seems obvious: scandal. Such a life style is contrary to the Catholic Church. The implication that all unions are OK is contrary to Catholic teaching. In no way should we promote it, and particularly at this time when same sex marriages are being touted on all sides.
The Costa Mesa superintendent of Catholic Schools has said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned. It would be wonderful if that were the case in all Catholic Schools—all parents: Catholic to the core!
But the cases are very different. Divorce, birth control or marriages outside the church are not “showcased” in Catholic schools, “Two dads; two moms” would be. The scandal involved is quite different, because the notoriety is quite different.
Family Pride Coalition would like nothing better that to infiltrate the Catholic Church. The Costa Mesa way is opening the door to the enemy of Marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Fr. John J. Malloy, S.D.B."
Fr. Z has an excellent post on the Boulder situation. He shows how the "parents" and the protestors supporting them are using the child as a tool--and he links to a poll where you can express your support (or otherwise) for Fr. Breslin.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, March 7, 2010
California Strangled by Its Government
Many have commented on the stranglehold the California government has on the taxpayers of the state. The repected political columnist Michael Barone writes today about California and Texas moving in opposite directions:
"They are lessons that are particularly vivid when you contrast Texas, the nation's second most populous state, with the most populous, California. Both were once Mexican territory, secured for the United States in the 1840s. Both have grown prodigiously over the past half-century. Both have populations that today are about one-third Hispanic.
But they differ vividly in public policy and in their economic progress -- or lack of it -- over the last decade. California has gone in for big government in a big way. Democrats hold big margins in the legislature largely because affluent voters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area favor their liberal positions on cultural issues.
Those Democratic majorities have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million -- all originally extracted from taxpayers -- into effective TV ads.
Californians have responded by leaving the state. From 2000 to 2009, the Census Bureau estimates, there has been a domestic outflow of 1,509,000 people from California -- almost as many as the number of immigrants coming in. Population growth has not been above the national average and, for the first time in history, it appears that California will gain no House seats or electoral votes from the reapportionment following the 2010 census."
I had not known that, but considering most of our Representatives, one must say "good!"
"Texas is a different story. Texas has low taxes -- and no state income taxes -- and a much smaller government. Its legislature meets for only 90 days every two years, compared with California's year-round legislature. Its fiscal condition is sound. Public employee unions are weak or nonexistent.
But Texas seems to be delivering superior services. Its teachers are paid less than California's. But its test scores -- and with a demographically similar school population -- are higher. California's once fabled freeways are crumbling and crowded. Texas has built gleaming new highways in metro Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.
In the meantime, Texas' economy has been booming. Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than a decade, as companies small and large generate new jobs."
Mr. Barone also notes that Texas is expected to gain 4 additional house seats following the 2010 reapportionment.
"They are lessons that are particularly vivid when you contrast Texas, the nation's second most populous state, with the most populous, California. Both were once Mexican territory, secured for the United States in the 1840s. Both have grown prodigiously over the past half-century. Both have populations that today are about one-third Hispanic.
But they differ vividly in public policy and in their economic progress -- or lack of it -- over the last decade. California has gone in for big government in a big way. Democrats hold big margins in the legislature largely because affluent voters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area favor their liberal positions on cultural issues.
Those Democratic majorities have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million -- all originally extracted from taxpayers -- into effective TV ads.
Californians have responded by leaving the state. From 2000 to 2009, the Census Bureau estimates, there has been a domestic outflow of 1,509,000 people from California -- almost as many as the number of immigrants coming in. Population growth has not been above the national average and, for the first time in history, it appears that California will gain no House seats or electoral votes from the reapportionment following the 2010 census."
I had not known that, but considering most of our Representatives, one must say "good!"
"Texas is a different story. Texas has low taxes -- and no state income taxes -- and a much smaller government. Its legislature meets for only 90 days every two years, compared with California's year-round legislature. Its fiscal condition is sound. Public employee unions are weak or nonexistent.
But Texas seems to be delivering superior services. Its teachers are paid less than California's. But its test scores -- and with a demographically similar school population -- are higher. California's once fabled freeways are crumbling and crowded. Texas has built gleaming new highways in metro Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.
In the meantime, Texas' economy has been booming. Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than a decade, as companies small and large generate new jobs."
Mr. Barone also notes that Texas is expected to gain 4 additional house seats following the 2010 reapportionment.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Professor Rice's Unacceptable Column
Back on March 2, we posted on the great smackdown delivered by Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame to Mr. Matt Gamber, Editor of the Notre Dame Observer. Mr Gamber had refused to publish the Professor's regular bi-weekly column, which dealt with the subject of homosexuality. Here is the rejected column:
"Right or Wrong?
March 1, 2010
A big issue at Notre Dame a few weeks ago was "sexual orientation" and the status of the Notre Dame Gay/ Lesbian/ Bisexual/ Transgender (GLBT) community. Enough time has passed to make it useful to review some of the governing principles as found in the teaching of the Catholic Church. That teaching includes four pertinent elements:
1. Homosexual acts are always objectively wrong. The starting point is the Catechism: 'Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.' No. 2357.
Homosexual acts are doubly wrong. They are not only contrary to nature. They are wrong also because they are extra-marital. The Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, issued in 1986 with the approval of John Paul II, said, 'It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals of the Creator’s sexual design.' No 7.
2. Since homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered,' the inclination toward those acts is disordered. An inclination to commit any morally disordered act, whether theft, fornication or whatever, is a disordered inclination. 'The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies,' says the Catechism, 'is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.' No. 2358. That inclination, however, is not in itself a sin.
3. '[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies,' says the Catechism, 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.' No. 2358. In a culture which tends to marginalize and disrespect those with physical or psychological disorders, it will be useful to recall the admonition of the 1986 Letter that 'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.... Today the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she...insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.' No. 16. The prohibition of 'unjust' discrimination, however, does not rule out the making of reasonable and just distinctions with respect to military service, the wording of university nondiscrimination policies and other matters including admission to seminaries. As the Congregation for Catholic Education said in its 2005 Instruction on the subject, 'the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'' No. 2.
4. '[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.... are called to fulfill God's will in their lives, and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition…. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.' Catechism, nos. 2358, 2359.
The positive, hopeful teaching of the Church on marriage, the family and the transmission of life is founded on the dignity of the person as a creature made in the image and likeness of God. The 'gay rights' movement is, instead, a predictable consequence of the now-dominant contraceptive ethic. Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Catholic Church continues to affirm the traditional Christian position that contraception is intrinsically an objective evil.
Contraception, said Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968, is wrong because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act. If, sex has no intrinsic relation to procreation and if, through contraception, it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any such relation, how can one deny legitimacy to sexual acts between two men or between two women? The contraceptive society cannot deny that legitimacy without denying itself. Further, if individual choice prevails without regard to limits of nature, how can the choice be limited to two persons? Polygamy (one man, multiple women), polyandry (one woman, multiple men), polyamory (sexual relations between or among multiple persons of one or both sexes) and other possible arrangements, involving the animal kingdom as well, would derive legitimacy from the same contraceptive premise that justifies one-on-one homosexual relations.
It would be a mistake to view the homosexual issue as simply a question of individual rights. The militant 'gay rights' movement seeks a cultural and legal redefinition of marriage and the family, contrary to the reality rooted in reason as well as faith. Marriage, a union of man and woman, is the creation not of the state but of God himself as seen in Genesis. Sacramento coadjutor bishop Jaime Soto, on Sept. 26, 2008, said: 'Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.' Space limits preclude discussion here of the 'same-sex marriage' issue, which we defer to a later column."
"Right or Wrong?
March 1, 2010
A big issue at Notre Dame a few weeks ago was "sexual orientation" and the status of the Notre Dame Gay/ Lesbian/ Bisexual/ Transgender (GLBT) community. Enough time has passed to make it useful to review some of the governing principles as found in the teaching of the Catholic Church. That teaching includes four pertinent elements:
1. Homosexual acts are always objectively wrong. The starting point is the Catechism: 'Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.' No. 2357.
Homosexual acts are doubly wrong. They are not only contrary to nature. They are wrong also because they are extra-marital. The Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, issued in 1986 with the approval of John Paul II, said, 'It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals of the Creator’s sexual design.' No 7.
2. Since homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered,' the inclination toward those acts is disordered. An inclination to commit any morally disordered act, whether theft, fornication or whatever, is a disordered inclination. 'The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies,' says the Catechism, 'is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.' No. 2358. That inclination, however, is not in itself a sin.
3. '[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies,' says the Catechism, 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.' No. 2358. In a culture which tends to marginalize and disrespect those with physical or psychological disorders, it will be useful to recall the admonition of the 1986 Letter that 'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.... Today the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she...insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.' No. 16. The prohibition of 'unjust' discrimination, however, does not rule out the making of reasonable and just distinctions with respect to military service, the wording of university nondiscrimination policies and other matters including admission to seminaries. As the Congregation for Catholic Education said in its 2005 Instruction on the subject, 'the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'' No. 2.
4. '[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.... are called to fulfill God's will in their lives, and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition…. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.' Catechism, nos. 2358, 2359.
The positive, hopeful teaching of the Church on marriage, the family and the transmission of life is founded on the dignity of the person as a creature made in the image and likeness of God. The 'gay rights' movement is, instead, a predictable consequence of the now-dominant contraceptive ethic. Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Catholic Church continues to affirm the traditional Christian position that contraception is intrinsically an objective evil.
Contraception, said Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968, is wrong because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act. If, sex has no intrinsic relation to procreation and if, through contraception, it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any such relation, how can one deny legitimacy to sexual acts between two men or between two women? The contraceptive society cannot deny that legitimacy without denying itself. Further, if individual choice prevails without regard to limits of nature, how can the choice be limited to two persons? Polygamy (one man, multiple women), polyandry (one woman, multiple men), polyamory (sexual relations between or among multiple persons of one or both sexes) and other possible arrangements, involving the animal kingdom as well, would derive legitimacy from the same contraceptive premise that justifies one-on-one homosexual relations.
It would be a mistake to view the homosexual issue as simply a question of individual rights. The militant 'gay rights' movement seeks a cultural and legal redefinition of marriage and the family, contrary to the reality rooted in reason as well as faith. Marriage, a union of man and woman, is the creation not of the state but of God himself as seen in Genesis. Sacramento coadjutor bishop Jaime Soto, on Sept. 26, 2008, said: 'Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.' Space limits preclude discussion here of the 'same-sex marriage' issue, which we defer to a later column."
Peace Prize
THE REAL WINNER OFTHE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!
Wouldn't it be fitting if this went completely around the world!... John Gebhardt's wife, Mindy, said that this little girl's entire family was executed. The insurgents intended to execute the little girl also, and shot her in the head...but they failed to kill her. She was cared for in John's hospital and is healing up, but continues to cry and moan. The nurses said John is the only one who seems to calm her down, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both slept in that chair. The girl is coming along with her healing.
He is a real Star of the war, and the hero of peace.This, my friends, is worth sharing. Go for it!! You'll never see things like this in the news. Please keep this going. Every person can make a difference in the life of someone even if it is one little girl.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Rep. Stupak on Obamacare: "We're prepared to take responsibility" for killing It.
The Congressman was on "Good Morning America" today.
From Reuters:
"A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday.
'Yes. We're prepared to take responsibility," Stupak said on ABC's 'Good Morning America' when asked if he and his 11 Democratic allies were willing to accept the consequences for bringing down healthcare reform over abortion."
From Reuters:
"A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday.
'Yes. We're prepared to take responsibility," Stupak said on ABC's 'Good Morning America' when asked if he and his 11 Democratic allies were willing to accept the consequences for bringing down healthcare reform over abortion."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
"Doesn't Get Much Clearer Than That"
So says Michael Voris, and he's right.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Zing!
Great smackdown in a letter from Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School to Mr. Matt Gambler, Editor of the Notre Dame Observer. Background: Mr. Gambler refused to publish Professor Rice's most recent bi-weekly column, which was on the subject of homosexuality:
"The rejected column accurately presented relevant teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. I understand why you are concerned over the content of the column."
That's Notre Dame's problem in a nutshell.
Full story at Curt Jester.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"The rejected column accurately presented relevant teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. I understand why you are concerned over the content of the column."
That's Notre Dame's problem in a nutshell.
Full story at Curt Jester.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"NHS Didn't Pay For It- Why? Because it works?"
That was our friend Don Margolis' response to the amazing adult stem-cell treatment that more or less rebuilt the leg of 53 year-old Englishman Andrew Kent.
What with one thing and another, we have neglected Don's blog of late, which is always a mistake. Because although we say "amazing" the treatments with adult-stem cells have quickly redefined the word.
From the story:
"A man's own stem cells have saved his crushed leg from amputation in England. Andrew Kent, 53, of Kent has had his leg saved by adult stem cells after a huge boulder landed on it, shattering his bones in his leg.
After the accident, Andrew had 3 surgeries on his leg attempting to save it. None of them worked. His doctors told Andrew that he was facing amputation.
Surgeons told Mr Kent he could lose his leg unless they tried the new stem cell technique.
He said: “I was given two choices. I asked what the surgeon thought was best and he said he wanted to try the stem cells. I was the first in the country at that time.”
Orthopaedic surgeon Anan Shetty removed stem cells from bone marrow in Mr Kent’s hip. These were mixed with a new collagen gel called Cartifill to make a paste, which was smeared into the fractures.
They finally fixed his leg in a metal cage to gently press the bones together. The cage was finally removed six months after the procedure.
Mr Shetty said: “He’s really surprised us. This is an amazing technique. Mr Kent won’t be able to run for about a year, but after 18 months his bones will have healed completely. I’m sure he’ll be able to go back to rock climbing.”
Cartifill was invented by an orthopaedic surgeon from South Korea, Professor Seok Jung Kim, who has helped Mr Shetty pioneer a series of procedures. Prof Kim was present to watch the operation.
Cartifill has also been used in combination with stem cells to repair torn knee cartilage. The gel holds the stem cells against the bone, where they form a new layer of cartilage. Ten patients have been treated so far in Britain, with an 80 per cent success rate.
Cost is always a factor in medicine, but this technique only costs a few hundred pounds.
Prof Kim said: “Many people who have problems with knee injuries can now get effective, low-cost treatment.”
What with one thing and another, we have neglected Don's blog of late, which is always a mistake. Because although we say "amazing" the treatments with adult-stem cells have quickly redefined the word.
From the story:
"A man's own stem cells have saved his crushed leg from amputation in England. Andrew Kent, 53, of Kent has had his leg saved by adult stem cells after a huge boulder landed on it, shattering his bones in his leg.
After the accident, Andrew had 3 surgeries on his leg attempting to save it. None of them worked. His doctors told Andrew that he was facing amputation.
Surgeons told Mr Kent he could lose his leg unless they tried the new stem cell technique.
He said: “I was given two choices. I asked what the surgeon thought was best and he said he wanted to try the stem cells. I was the first in the country at that time.”
Orthopaedic surgeon Anan Shetty removed stem cells from bone marrow in Mr Kent’s hip. These were mixed with a new collagen gel called Cartifill to make a paste, which was smeared into the fractures.
They finally fixed his leg in a metal cage to gently press the bones together. The cage was finally removed six months after the procedure.
Mr Shetty said: “He’s really surprised us. This is an amazing technique. Mr Kent won’t be able to run for about a year, but after 18 months his bones will have healed completely. I’m sure he’ll be able to go back to rock climbing.”
Cartifill was invented by an orthopaedic surgeon from South Korea, Professor Seok Jung Kim, who has helped Mr Shetty pioneer a series of procedures. Prof Kim was present to watch the operation.
Cartifill has also been used in combination with stem cells to repair torn knee cartilage. The gel holds the stem cells against the bone, where they form a new layer of cartilage. Ten patients have been treated so far in Britain, with an 80 per cent success rate.
Cost is always a factor in medicine, but this technique only costs a few hundred pounds.
Prof Kim said: “Many people who have problems with knee injuries can now get effective, low-cost treatment.”
Monday, March 1, 2010
Catholic (?) College!
“Four decades ago Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen recommended that his
family and friends ‘send their children to secular colleges and
universities where they will be forced to defend their faith, rather than
to Catholic ones, where their faith will be taken from them.’”
--David Gibson, ‘Catholic Colleges and Tests of
Faith’ (Wall Street Journal, 2/12/2010)
On January 31, 2010 CARA released its study of ‘Catholicism on Campus,’
admitting that ‘Catholic higher education simply cannot bear all the weight of
passing on the faith.
(courtesy Fr. Larry Lorenzoni, SDB)
family and friends ‘send their children to secular colleges and
universities where they will be forced to defend their faith, rather than
to Catholic ones, where their faith will be taken from them.’”
--David Gibson, ‘Catholic Colleges and Tests of
Faith’ (Wall Street Journal, 2/12/2010)
On January 31, 2010 CARA released its study of ‘Catholicism on Campus,’
admitting that ‘Catholic higher education simply cannot bear all the weight of
passing on the faith.
(courtesy Fr. Larry Lorenzoni, SDB)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
