Monday, May 31, 2010
Fr. Capodanno "the grunt padre" was a posthumous recipent of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Wikipedia describes Fr. Capodanno's final actions on this earth:
"At 4:30 am, September 4, 1967, during Operation Swift in the Thang Binh District of the Que Son Valley, elements of the 1st Battalion 5th Marines encountered a large North Vietnamese unit of approximately 2500 men near the village of Dong Son. The outnumbered and disorganized Company D was in need of reinforcements. By 9:14 am, twenty-six Marines were confirmed dead and another company of Marines was committed to the battle. At 9:25 am, the commander of 1st Battalion 5th Marine requested further reinforcements.
Father Capodanno went among the wounded and dying, giving last rites and taking care of his Marines. Wounded once in the face and having his hand almost severed, he went to help a wounded corpsman only yards from an enemy machinegun and was killed. His body was recovered and interred in his family's plot in Saint Peters Cemetery, West New Brighton, Staten Island, New York.
On December 27, 1968, then Secretary of the Navy Paul Ignatius notified the Capodanno family that Lieutenant Capodanno would posthumously be awarded the Medal of Honor in recognition of his selfless sacrifice. The official ceremony was held January 7, 1969."
The Wikipedia article also says that the Bachelor Officers Quarters at the Naval Shipyard (right here in San Francisco) is "Vincent Capodanno Hall." The hall was dedicated in 1969. Fr. Capodanno's cause for Canonization is ongoing. He was declared a "Servant of God" on May 21, 2006.
Below is a "Soldier's Bible" from 1941, with a dedication on the frontspiece from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Click on the image for a larger version.
May Father Capodanno watch over our men and women in the military this day and every day.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
"Obamacare taking on water
As they followed one another off the political cliff in voting for the health-care overhaul, Democratic senators and representatives comforted themselves with their own self-created myth that, although ObamaCare was horribly unpopular as a bill, it would prove to be quite fetching as a law. Furthermore, this transformation, this change they could believe in, would take place sooner rather than later — as voters would reward rather than punish them for passing ObamaCare in clear and open defiance of popular will....
Unfortunately (from the perspective of ObamaCare supporters), a steady stream of revelations of previously undiscovered horrors buried in the bowels of ObamaCare appears to have more than negated any gains that the administration might otherwise have made."
Each claim Mr. Anderson makes below (with the exception of item 10) has a link to the relevant source in his original article.
1) "Since passage, reports have revealed that ObamaCare would cost over $1 trillion by any standard, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), not “merely” $940 billion as previously reported (while its total costs in its real first decade, 2014 to 2023, would continue to be well over $2 trillion);
2) that ObamaCare has prompted major corporations to discuss dropping their employer-provided health-care plans;
3) that businesses would have to file 1099s not only for every person to whom they pay $600 in wages but for every vendor with whom they do $600 in business, thereby imposing a paperwork nightmare and incentivizing companies to avoid doing business with a myriad of small firms rather than a handful of big ones;
4) that ObamaCare would create 159 new federal agencies, offices, or programs;
5) that the Obama administration’s Medicare Chief Actuary says ObamaCare would raise U.S. health costs by $311 billion in relation to current law and would shift about 14 million people off of employer-provided insurance — and some of them onto Medicaid;
6) that ObamaCare’s would discourage employment, as — for example — hiring a 25th worker would cost a business $5,600 in addition to wages and benefits;
7 [I had not heard of this before]) that ObamaCare would impose a severe marriage penalty, offering additional subsidies as high as $10,425 a year if couples merely avoid marriage;
8) that a lone provision in ObamaCare, which would penalize employers if their employees spend more than 9.5 percent of their household income on insurance premiums, would cut the net income of businesses like White Castle by more than half;
9) that even though ObamaCare was supposed to get people out of emergency rooms and into doctors’ offices, those who build emergency rooms say the effect will be just the opposite and that they are gearing up for increased business;
10) that doctors shortages are looming and would be accentuated by ObamaCare, both because more people would seek care (otherwise, what would the $2 trillion be buying?) and because fewer people would likely enter a demanding profession that would now promise greater restrictions and lower pay;
11) and that President Obama’s nominee to head Medicare and Medicaid under ObamaCare is an open advocate of the British National Health Services’ NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) and its methods of rationing care."
Mr. Anderson continues:
"These revelations appear to have taken a toll. Together, they seem to have made a notoriously unpopular law significantly less popular.
In its May poll (conducted from May 11-16), Kaiser Health detected a noticeable decline in ObamaCare’s popularity. Almost alone among the polls, the monthly Kaiser poll had never showed ObamaCare facing a public-opinion deficit at any time this year. This is partly because Kaiser polls all Americans — not merely registered or likely voters — and ObamaCare polls better among the politically disengaged.
In April, Kaiser showed that the gap between ObamaCare’s supporters and its opponents was 3 percentage points — in ObamaCare’s favor. Now, in May, it shows that gap to be 6 percentage points in the other direction — a 9-point swing in just one month. (In a poll of likely voters, released in May but not in April, Kaiser shows ObamaCare to be facing a 10-point deficit.) Movement from last month has been even greater among those with strong sentiments, as the gap between those who strongly support the overhaul and those who strongly oppose it has widened from 7 points (30 to 23 percent) to 18 points (32 to 14 percent). Furthermore, only 44 percent now say they are “confused” by the law, compared to 55 percent last month. To know ObamaCare is apparently not to love ObamaCare."
He also links to a long column by Mr. Peter J. Hansen, suggesting a number of common-sense approaches to reforming health care.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Visit the DSPT Summer Schedule to learn more.
From the current issue of First Things comes this article on a subject that has been troubling me for some time: the pornographic influence of the internet-- especially on children and young adults:
The Weight of Smut
But while we’re on the subject of bad habits that can turn unwitting kids into unhappy adults, how about that other epidemic out there that is far more likely to make their future lives miserable than carrying those extra pounds ever will? That would be the emerging social phenomenon of what can appropriately be called “sexual obesity”: the widespread gorging on pornographic imagery that is also deleterious and unhealthy, though far less remarked on than that other epidemic—and nowhere near an object of universal public concern.
That complacency may now be changing. The term sexual obesity comes from Mary Ann Layden, a psychiatrist who runs the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania. She sees the victims of Internet-pornography consumption in her practice, day in and day out. She also knows what most do not: Quietly, patiently, and irrefutably, an empirical record of the harms of sexual obesity is being assembled piecemeal via the combined efforts of psychologists, sociologists, addiction specialists, psychiatrists, and other authorities.
Young people who have been exposed to pornography are more likely to have multiple lifetime sexual partners, more likely to have had more than one sexual partner in the last three months, more likely to have used alcohol or other substances at their last sexual encounter, and—no surprise here—more likely to have scored higher on a “sexual permissiveness” test. They are also more likely to have tried risky forms of sex. They are also more likely to engage in forced sex and more likely to be sexual offenders…
Thursday, May 27, 2010
In his New York Times column this month, Nicholas Kristof wrote about "A Church Mary Can Love." If you didn't read the column, you might not be shocked to learn its contents: He's not that into the Vatican, and he doesn't think the Blessed Virgin would be either. He's more into a priest who reportedly told him that he "would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives."
However, Kristof also wrote something sensible: "I've come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns." Amen. And in the following interview with Sister Mary Prudence Allen, I think you'll begin to see why. Sister Prudence is with the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Mich., an order with a special focus on health care. Sister Prudence is also a philosophy professor and a published author.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: During the recent health-care debate, we heard a lot about some Catholic religious sisters – the Network – who supported the president's health-care legislation, despite abortion-funding issues. Were they representative of the Catholic Church or Catholic religious sisters? Sister Prudence Allen, R.S.M.: This question should be more fully answered by a theologian whose area of specialization is ecclesiology. However, as a Christian philosopher, I see two obvious contradictions that could be initially noted. The first contradiction relates to the meaning of "Catholic."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#830-831) states, "The Church is catholic in a double sense:" First, because the whole Christ, head and body, subsists in her, and second because Christ sends the Church out on a mission to the whole human race. By comparing the statements of the Network religious sisters on health care with the statements of Cardinal George and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on health care, it is clear that there are fundamental contradictions between them. Thus, the Network religious sisters have separated themselves from the head, and therefore cannot be included in the meaning of "catholic." Therefore, they are not representative of the Catholic Church.
The second contradiction relates to claims about numbers of religious sisters. Network's letter stated that "we represent 59,000 Catholic Sisters in the United States." The director of media relations for the USCCB challenged them to do the math. The letter had "55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons." Since there are several hundred communities of women religious in the U.S., the most that could be claimed is that the Network sisters represent a much smaller portion of women religious sisters, more likely a few thousand. Network's claim that their position in favor of the health-care bill "is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholic are all for it" needs to be assessed by Catholic physicians and health-care personnel to determine the truth of its claims…
Sunday, May 23, 2010
"Since final passage of the legislation, we have been disturbed and disappointed by reactions inside and outside the Church that have sought to marginalize or dismiss legitimate concerns that were presented in a serious manner by us. Our clear and consistent position has been misrepresented, misunderstood and misused for political and other purposes. Our right to speak in the public forum has been questioned. Our teaching role within the Catholic Church and even our responsibility to lead the Church have come under criticism. All of us must be open to different points of view and recognize the legitimacy of serious criticism. However, whether from within or without the Catholic community, very often these critics lacked an understanding of these particular issues or of the moral framework that motivated our positions. Others did grasp the seriousness of the issues we were attempting to address. Yet other priorities, in our judgment, led them to accept an inaccurate reading of the proposed legislation. They gave credence to analyses by those who were likewise dedicated to minimizing important concerns so as to pass the legislation."
In other words, lying about what the legislation is. Sister Keehan, for instance, not only gave (and continues to give) credence to the fallacious analysis, she promoted (and continues to promote) it. At the recent "Washington Briefing" conference sponsored by the National Catholic Reporter, Keehan said "There is no justification for abortion and we would not ever have supported this bill if we thought it funded abortion.” That statement is susceptible of two interpretations: is she still claiming the bill does not fund abortion, or is she already attempting to create an out for herself--saying that she was duped? Neither are true.
Back to the paragraph from the Bishops' statement:
"In the end, they made a judgment that the moral problems in the new law – for example, the fact that the federal government, for the first time in decades, will now force Americans to pay for other people’s elective abortions – simply are not serious enough to oppose a particular health care reform bill."
In other words, a willingness to accept the publicly funded killing of the unborn as the necessary price to be paid for the passage of the bill.
We regret that this approach carried the day, as some overlooked the clear evidence or dismissed careful analysis and teaching on the morality of these matters. But making such moral judgments, and providing guidance to Catholics on whether an action by government is moral or immoral, is first of all the task of the bishops, not of any other group or individual. As Bishops, we disagree that the divergence between the Catholic Conference and Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association, represents merely a difference of analysis or strategy (Catholic Health World, April 15, 2010, “Now That Reform Has Passed”). Rather, for whatever good will was intended, it represented a fundamental disagreement, not just with our staff as some maintain, but with the Bishops themselves. As such it has resulted in confusion and a wound to Catholic unity."
"This morning it was announced that His Holiness Benedict XVI has appointed me a Referendarius (Referendary) of the Apostolic Signatura. As one of some dozen international consultants to the Church's highest administrative tribunal, it will be my privilege and responsibility to advise*, on an as-needed basis, the officials of that dicastery regarding matters impacting the administration of law and justice within the Church"
We read Dr. Peters column often, and this seems like good news. Here's an excerpt from a March 25, 2010 post "One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi":
"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."
Our friend Nyna Pais-Caputi has won first prize in the 2010 Oregon Right to Life short film contest. Nyna's entry was a short version of her current project "Petals in the Dust" which documents sex-selective abortion and infanticide in India.
You can watch the Oregon version here.
To visit the "Petals in the Dust" website, go here.
Congratulations, Nyna and Gino!
On a related note, the famous Somalian activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out against the American Academy of Pediatrics' new guidelines that would give U. S. Doctors "permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or 'nick' on girls born into communities that practice female genital mutilation." The story was originally covered in the New York Times, and we posted on this issue back on May 10. Let's hope Ms. Ali's statement does more to move this issue into the public conciousness.
Friday, May 21, 2010
According to the homosexualist publication the Bay Area Reporter, “Emcees for the event will be current District 8 Supervisor Bevan Dufty and Sister Roma of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.”
This marks the “Sisters” first public return to Most Holy Redeemer since October 7, 2007, when the Sisters embarrassed His Excellency George Niederauer by presenting themselves for communion in their conventional attire. The blasphemy drew international attention and outrage. In the media firestorm that followed, MHR took the side of the Sisters against the Archdiocese. In the week following the blasphemy, the MHR even published a letter in their parish bulletin from one of the offending “Sisters,” thanking the parish for their welcome.
The Wikipedia entry for Sister Roma says he is “an American drag performer, social rights activist, and art director of gay pornography….Roma is the art director at gay pornography studio Hot House Entertainment and co-hosts an online live-format talk show about the adult pornography industry.”
In addition to being a professional pornography director, “Sister Roma” has MC’d the horrific Folsom Street Fair. In 2008, he posed as “Mary Magdalene” in the notorious poster for the 2008 Folsom Street Fair. The poster was a take-off of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” with men and women in leather attire posed as the apostles, and various whips and BDSM restraint devices scattered around the table. The poster caused outrage among Christians all over the country. Sister Roma has also acted as Emcee at the SPI’s “Hunky Jesus” contest. The “Hunky Jesus” contest is an annual San Francisco event that takes place on Easter Sunday. It is a mockery of the Crucifixion. Men dress up as what they think Jesus looked like, and prizes are awarded for what is considered to be the best costume. The 2010 “winner” was “Junky Jesus,” who wore a loincloth covered with syringes.
The relationship between the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Most Holy Redeemer goes back many years:
“When I spoke with Sr. (Cleta Harold) about entering RCIA, I was clearly not about to compromise anything regarding my sexuality. I didn’t go into a lot of details, but I showed up in my Levis and leather jacket and talked about my background as a Gay activist, clearly not about to change that…I talked about my background with witchcraft and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and my disagreements with certain points of the catechism. Sister never batted an eyelash, but asked if I could show up Sunday mornings at 8.” --Jack Fertig (aka “Sister Boom Boom” of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) "Gays and Grays" by Fr. Donal Godfrey, p 42.
Fr. Godfrey says the episode described above happened “some years” after 1982. Apparently, Sr. Cleta’s instruction did not take—in 2001, Mr. Fertig converted to Islam, and currently works as an astrologer. In 2006, the SPI hosted “Revival Bingo” at Most Holy Redeemer, where prizes included dildos, etc. Outrage expressed at the time caused the Archdiocese to force MHR to discontinue the events.
Sunday’s event is scheduled to be keynoted by the Consul General of Chile Alex Geiger. It is possible that Senor Geiger does not know with whom he will be sharing the stage. If you would like to express your thoughts to him, here is his contact information:
If you would like to express your opinion about the propriety of having a person who has repeatedly and publicly mocked the Catholic Sisters and the Crucifixion acting as MC for an event in a Catholic Church, please contact:
The Most Reverend George Niederauer
Archbishop, the Archdiocese of San Francisco
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, May 20, 2010
"As you might know, St. Paul School in Hingham has been at the center of a matter that was widely reported on recently, involving a child of same sex parents who wanted their child to attend the school. One of the very unfortunate results of the public reporting on the issue was undue criticism of Father James Rafferty who is pastor at St. Paul Parish, and who I consider one of our finest pastors. He made a decision about the admission of the child to St. Paul School based on his pastoral concern for the child. I can attest personally that Father Rafferty would never exclude a child to sanction the child’s parents. After consulting with the school principal, exercising his rights as pastor, he made a decision based on an assessment of what he felt would be in the best interests of the child. I have great admiration for Fr. Rafferty; he has my full confidence and support.
While His Eminence supports Fr. Rafferty, he does not say, yet, that he will support Rafferty's decision:
In Boston we are beginning to formulate policies and practices to deal with these complex pastoral matters. In all of our decision making, our first concern is the welfare of the children involved. With that in mind, the essence of what we are looking at is the question of how do we make Catholic schools available to children who come from diverse, often unconventional households, while ensuring the moral theology and teachings of the Church are not compromised?"
The Cardinal also said this about the identical situation in Denver:
"The Archdiocese of Denver has formulated a policy that calls into question the appropriateness of admitting the children of same-sex couples. It is clear that all of their school policies are intended to foster the welfare of the children and fidelity to the mission of the Church. Their positions and rationale must be seriously considered."
His Excellency Archbishop Charles Chaput has shown himself to be a leader who will make a tough decision. Cardinal O'Malley made a similarly tough decision when he caused Catholic Charities of Boston to close their adoption service rather than be forced to place children in same-sex households. He is going to have to make a tough decision here, too. As we mentioned in our last post on this subject:
"The Catholic Schools Foundation, an independent funding group that provides $60 million in support for Boston's parochial schools, has announced that it will cut scholarship aid to any school that denies equal treatment for same-sex couples."
Years ago, some one asked Fr. Malloy what he would do in a similar situation. The question, and his response are here, about halfway down the post.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, May 17, 2010
"Marquette University has seen much controversy erupt over its retraction of a job offer last week to sociologist Jodi O'Brien over her sexually explicit writings. But according to Christopher Wolfe, emeritus professor at Marquette University and director of Thomas International Center, the uproar has been over the wrong thing.
"The question that should be asked is not why Marquette President Father Robert A. Wild backed off the hiring," Wolfe writes, "but how in heaven did the hiring ever occur in the first place?"
"The premise of her writing on sexuality," writes Wolfe, "is that sex is 'socially constructed' and cybersex is especially fluid, since people can try on many different sexual personae." But the problem with theories of social construction that "assume that there are no fixed 'natures' of things that determine what they are," he continues, "is that they are self-contradictory."
"If everything is socially constructed, then the theory of social construction is socially constructed - we have no reason to think it says anything about reality itself," he said.
And this, Wolfe says, means that hiring O'Brien as dean would not merely conflict with Marquette University's commitment to the Catholic Church; it also would conflict with Marquette's commitment to reason.
Bingo. Is reality given or self-created? If the latter, what can the purpose of a university be? Not the search for truth, but the creation of new "realities." The new Bishop of Orlando, Thomas Wenski, has spoken beautifully about this.
Professor Wolfe continued: "Many people (understandably) will be up in arms about the fact that Marquette even considered hiring someone whose fundamental personal and scholarly commitments are so completely at odds with Catholic doctrine," writes the professor. "But an equally important question is why Marquette would consider hiring someone whose ideas are so ungrounded in reason."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, May 16, 2010
"Our goal is to hold an annual “Celebrate All Life” Walk and Festival in Southern California with a participation rate of 5,000 people. We stand united against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research. We invite people from all beliefs and backgrounds who believe that human life is sacred and worthy of protection -- from conception to natural death -- to join us as we celebrate the life God gave each of us and speak for those who are most vulnerable in our society."
Co-founders Rhonda Freeson and Susan Riedley and their associates have lots of attractions lined up, besides the Walk itself. Great speakers and topics will include:
PASTOR "MANNY" MANUEL OLIVAS, lead pastor of Calvary Chapel Skyline in Thousand Oaks. He will speak on the dignity of people born with disabilities. Learn more about Pastor Manny from the CalvarySkyline.org website.
FATHER PETER WEST of internationally reknowned Priests For Life, will speak on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Learn more about Father West on the PriestsForLife.org website.
JAMES O'KEEFE is an investigative journalist with a track record of motivating the nation into action. Get inspired to celebrate, educate, speak up and walk for Life.
JESSE ROMERO, former kickboxing champion and current Southern California radio show host will speak on Abortion. Learn more about Jesse on his website: JesseRomero.com
DR. TIMOTHY J. McNICOLL, M.D. Dr. McNicoll has spent the last 25 years practicing both Geriatric & Family Medicine in the Conejo Valley. He will speak on Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Not to mention plenty of music!
The Walk will also feature a CPC Mobile Ultrasound Bus (one of only eight in the US), provided by the Community Pregnancy Clinic. Now there's a great idea!
Even if we can't go, we can help them by donating, and of course by prayer. You can donate to Celebrate All Life by going here. And go here for their homepage.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The story concerns two lesbian "parents" of a little boy. They wanted to enroll him in St. Paul's Elementary School. When the pastor and principal of St. Paul's found out that the boy's "parents" were two lesbians, they refused to allow the boy to be enrolled. Their reasoning is probably the same as that so lucidly expressed by Archbishop Chaput in the Boulder, Colorado case:
“Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced,” said Chaput. “That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents.”
“That isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community."
First question: why is this news? It’s news because somebody informed the AP. Who and why?
“The Associated Press, which first reported the story yesterday, (that would be May 12) said the Hingham student’s parents had planned to send him to third grade in the fall. One of the boy’s mothers, who was granted anonymity because of their concerns that publicity would harm their child, told the AP they knew of the church’s opposition to homosexual relationships but wrote both their names on the admission forms.
“We weren’t hiding,’’ she said.
“One of the boy’s mothers who was granted anonymity because of their concerns that publicity would harm their child…”
If that’s the case, why go public at all? Why inform the AP? Why not just enroll the boy in another school? Repeat again:
“…they knew of the church’s opposition to homosexual relationships but wrote both their names on the admission forms.
‘We weren’t hiding,’’ she said.”
You sure aren’t! This is another example of homosexualists using children to further their cause.
And Cardinal O'Malley and the Archdiocese of Boston either fell for it or jumped on cue.
Catholic World News reports:
"The Boston archdiocese has announced that a child who was denied admission to a parochial school because her parents are lesbians will be placed in another Catholic school.
And it gets worse:
The Catholic Schools Foundation, an independent funding group that provides $60 million in support for Boston's parochial schools, has announced that it will cut scholarship aid to any school that denies equal treatment for same-sex couples."
So now a foundation is telling the Archdiocese of Boston what will be taught in "Catholic" schools. By the way, Cardinal O'Malley is the Chairman of the Catholic Schools Foundation.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The Most Transparently Irresponsible Administration in American History
How could the Attorney General of the United States malign a state law as raising profound constitutional questions, imply that the lawmakers who drafted it are racists, and direct a Justice Department review of the law without having read the law?
If you thought Mr. Holder's stubborn refusal to speak the words 'radical Islam' was bad during yesterday's House testimony, get this one: 'I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the [Arizona immigration] law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.'
Mr. McCarthy goes on to point out that SB 1070 is only 17 pages long, and that the provisions about which controversy has been stoked run only a few short paragraphs. Surely the Attorney General could have bothered to read it before shooting off his mouth.
Meanwhile, the two men arrested in connection with the Times Square bombing plot are (you guessed it) illegal immigrants. From Times Online:
"Two Pakistani men arrested in raids in Massachusetts yesterday have a direct connection to the Times Square bomb plot suspect, officials said. The men, held on immigration charges during one of a series of FBI raids, are alleged to have provided funds to Faisal Shahzad through the hawala system of Islamic money transfer.
Officials said that a third man was taken into custody on suspicion of immigration violations during raids believed to be the result of the questioning of Mr Shahzad, who was arrested last week when he attempted to fly to Dubai.
The two men were seized in a dawn raid on a house in Watertown in the Boston suburbs. One had overstayed his visa and the other was already the subject of deportation proceedings."
Posted by Gibbons J.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson nixed the trip, because it “would not be aligned” with the school's “beliefs and values.” Those values include requiring ninth-graders to attend a “'freshman advisory'” class at which same-sex attracted shared stories of their high school experiences." The attending students were also asked to sign a statement promising not to tell others -- including their parents -- about what was said in class.
But apparently those "beliefs and values" do not include extending the rule of law to illegal immigrants.
However, America's best known female basketball player, Sarah Palin, heard about it, and has weighed in:
"This has-been ball player/Wasilla Warrior would like to send a shout out of support to the Highland Park High School Giants Girls Basketball Team in Illinois. These girls have been working, having bake sales, and saving money for months in order play in a hoop tournament in Arizona. They’ve won their school’s first conference title in 26 years, but now because a school bureaucrat – an assistant superintendent – wants to play politics, they’re not allowed to play ball.
Keeping girls off the court for political reasons? As I said last night in Illinois: “Them’s fightin’ words.”
A Facebook page has been created for the team. Hopefully it will have a donation function up soon.
"As the shepherd of the Archdiocese of Newark, I am responsible for maintaining the Catholic identity of all Church institutions and organizations within the Archdiocese, and for ensuring authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching in all educational institutions and parishes," stated the archbishop. That responsibility extends to our Catholic elementary and high schools, to our parish religious education programs for both adults and children, and to the Catholic colleges and university operating within my jurisdiction."
His Excellency was responding to proposed course on same-sex "marriage" to be offered at Seton Hall University by a homosexualist professor. The course claimed to examine marriage from an "academic" perspective.
This week it is Bishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee, and Marquette University President Robert Wild. LifeSiteNews reports:
"An uproar among homosexualist forces has ensued after Marquette University President Father Robert Wild withdrew a job offered to an openly lesbian professor, citing her academic writings' sexually explicit content as out of line with Catholic teaching. According to some reports, Milwaukee Archboshop Jerome Listecki's input on the matter was a key influence his decision to withdraw the offer.
Jodi O'Brien, who is currently a Sociology professor at Seattle University, which is also a Jesuit Catholic Institution, had been offered the job of Dean of the Marquette College of Arts and Sciences, before Marquette University rescinded the offer Thursday....
One professor, speaking to Milwaukee Magazine on condition of anonymity, said that Fr. Wild told the faculty that Archbishop Listecki had expressed an opinion on the matter that had a bearing on his decision."
I bloody well hope so! Tom Peters at American Papist provides this helpful suggestion:
"So please, if you have a moment, write a brief note to Rev. Wild expressing your thanks and encouragement. His email is email@example.com. It would be good if all the subject lines read “THANK YOU FOR BEING FAITHFUL.” After all the hate mail he has probably received, I’m sure it would be nice for him to open up an inbox full of these messages.
If you are feeling especially active, you can also copy the email to Most Rev. Jerome Listecki at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I believe the Catholic community is best when we publicly support brave defenders of our Catholic faith and values like Rev. Wild and Bishop Listecki. The light of our faith is nothing if we hide it under a basket. "
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
From Jack Smith at The Catholic Key. More photos at his website.
Monday, May 10, 2010
From the New York Times:
"In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.
The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week, said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to undergo mutilation...
A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context...."
“If we just told parents, ‘No, this is wrong,’ our concern is they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass,” she said. “A just-say-no policy may end up alienating these families, who are going to then find an alternative that will do more harm than good.”
MORE HARM THAN GOOD? What possible good can she be referring to? What possible good can come from female genital mutilation?
The American Academy of Pediatrics was not so concerned about "cultural sensitivity" when it comes to abortion, though. Here their position on parental notification laws:
"Legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care...[M]inors should not be compelled or required to involve their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions, although they should be encouraged to discuss their pregnancies with their parents and other responsible adults." -The Adolescent's Right to Confidential Care When Considering Abortion," Pediatrics, Vol. 97, # 5 (1996-MAY), Page 746.
Ms. Kagan is "an ardent abortion supporter" according to Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life. Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage, said "A vote for Kagan is a vote against marriage."
Today's press release from the "Human Rights Campaign", the largest homosexualist lobbying group in the country, bolsters Gallagher's point:
Human Rights Campaign Praises President Obama’s Nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court
"We are confident that Elena Kagan has a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans" said HRC President Joe Solmonese...
Issues that are critical to the LGBT community may reach the Supreme Court in the next few years, including issues related to marriage equality, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the new federal hate crimes law. When issues like these come to the Supreme Court, it is vital that we have fair-minded judges to rule on these cases."
Kagan seems dishonest as well. When questioned by Senator Jon Cornyn on February 10, 2009, during her Solicitor General confirmation hearings, she appeared to deliberately camouflage her position on counterfeit marriage. The Senator asked her:
"'Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?'
Answer: 'There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.' "
But many legal experts have pointed out that her answer pertains to the Constitution as currently understood, not as it would be interpreted by, say, Justice Elena Kagan, when ruling on a case, say Perry v. Schwarzenegger, where the question actually comes up.
Kagan's answer even temporarily fooled the honest Professor William Jacobsen. But he is already rethinking his position, based on Kagan's letter to Senator Arlen Spector of March 18, 2009, where she wrote:
"Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
But that is not a single "measure." Kagan has introduced three things that may well be in tension: "interpreted by courts" vs. "understood by the nation's citizenry" vs. understood by "its elected representatives." We know that in Maine and California the citizens asserted their rights to self-government in opposition to the interpretation of the courts and elected representatives. In Massachusetts the elected representatives refused to even let the citizens, their masters, vote on the issue. The question of same-sex "marriage" is subsumed under the larger issue of the American people's right to self-government.
It should also be noted that Kagan was approved on March 19, one day after the above letter was written, so I think it is safe to say she knew the confirmation was in the bag, and felt free to be a little more honest.
Kagan's horrific record on abortion is public record.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life women's group Susan B. Anthony List told LifeNews.com, "In the past Kagan has been a strong supporter of the pro-abortion agenda. She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers."
As Tom Peters said yesterday: "Again, Catholics helped elect this President who is systematically entrenching an ideology which holds responsibility for the deaths of millions of babies. Elections do matter."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, May 9, 2010
"How does the Phoenix Suns organization ensure that not just anybody gets into their games?
Well, they issue tickets. Tickets ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) are an identification that people have paid the price for entry into their arena.
How do they enforce ticket collections?
Well, their arena acts as a closed-in border wall with guarded doors being the only way people with tickets ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) can enter.
Isn’t it funny how borders and proper id ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) matters to THEIR bottom line, but not America’s."
h/t American Thinker
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, May 7, 2010
From Fox News:
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication is," said Pelosi, who is Catholic, speaking at the Nation's Catholic Community conference sponsored by Trinity Washington University and the National Catholic Reporter.
"The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels," she said.
She had some other observations at the event:
'Thank God for the Nuns' Who Helped Pass a 'Life-Affirming' Health Care Bill
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) on Thursday thanked God for Roman Catholic nuns who helped pass a “life-affirming” health care reform bill that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed on the grounds that it funded abortion.
"We believe that the health care initiative was respecting the dignity and worth of every person," Pelosi, a Catholic, told the Catholic Community Conference Thursday on Capitol Hill. "I thank so many of you who helped get that passed. Thank God for the nuns. Thank God for the nuns.”
On March 25, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters wrote:
"If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Yuval Levin writing in the Corner on May 6:
Finding Out What's In It
"In pressing for passage of the Democrats’ massive and unpopular health-care bill earlier this spring, Nancy Pelosi made the unorthodox argument that 'we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy...'
Consider two items that have emerged in just the past two days. First, it turns out that several major corporations are drawing up plans to end their employee health benefits once Obamacare gets up and running. They’ve done the math and figured out that the penalty they would have to pay for dropping their workers would be much lower than the costs of continuing to insure them, and now there will be a new taxpayer-subsidized option for those workers to turn to in state exchanges, so why not cut them off? Of course, as Fortune’s Shawn Tully points out, that will mean far higher costs to the public than those projected by the Congressional Budget Office and far more disruption and instability than voters were promised: Remember 'if you like your plan you can keep it'? Well, not if your employer is given a strong incentive to end it....
And in an extra bit of irony, the corporate memos outlining all this became public because Henry Waxman ordered the companies to turn over their internal health-care memos in preparation for a hearing at which he was going to berate them for reporting the added costs that Obamacare would impose on them. Once his staff actually saw the memos, the hearing was cancelled.
Second, it turns out that the massive bill contained a hidden change in the tax law that will require companies to submit IRS 1099 forms not only for contract workers (as is the case now) but also for any individual or company from which they purchase more than $600 in goods or services in a year. (!) That’s millions of new forms to file and send to vendors and the IRS, and lots of work and expense gathering names and taxpayer ID numbers from every vendor and store a business deals with.
As the fog clears, the case for repeal gets stronger and stronger."
All emphases added.
Why this should surprise anyone is a mystery to me. Back in 2007, the government was trying to push through what they called "Comprehensive immigration reform." It was supported by President Bush, members of both political parties in both houses of congress, the media, the universities, etc., etc. But a New York Times/CBS News poll taken back in May, 2007 found that:
". . . 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ""keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country." And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation's borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it's very important for the United States to "improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration."
In 2007 the only group that was opposed to so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" was the American people, and our voice prevailed. Has anything changed since then? Well, here's the Arizona question from the May4-5 Fox News poll:
36. Do you think Arizona was right to take action by passing its new immigration law and not waiting any longer for the federal government to act, or do you think securing the border with Mexico is the responsibility of the federal government and Arizona should have waited for the federal government to take action on immigration?
61% of all polled said Arizona was right to take action, 27% said they should have waited and 12% weren't sure. Among Democrats the results were 43%, 41%, and 15%. Among Republicans 77%, 14%, and 9%. Among Independents 72%, 21, and 7%.
The full poll is here.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
This week's Catholic San Francisco summarized some of her findings:
-- Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s abortion market share grew from 12% in 1997 to nearly 25% in 2008.
-- “PPFA presents a comprehensive case study on how business evolves to capitalize on changes in the law and the prevailing culture": During the 1990 through 2008 election cycles, the abortion industry made political contributions of $15.76 million. Of this amount, $12.61 million, or 80%, went to abortion-supportive Democrats running for office.
The party of death.
-- The predominant industries engaged in fetal tissue research are part of the emerging life-science industry: the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and biologics sectors. Commercial use of fetal tissue has historically revolved around the production of childhood vaccines but is now expanding into vaccines to treat flu, HIV and more.
-- The cosmetics industry, particularly the anti-aging market segment, is a beneficiary of the growth of abortion. From miracle creams and emulsions developed using fetal-cell technologies, to face lifts and cosmetic procedures injecting aborted fetal tissue to promote youth and vitality, this business sector has an “enormous and increasing demand” for fetal cells and organs."
-- A fetal parts industry could not have developed without a legal and protected abortion structure. Millions of fetuses that are by-products of abortion cannot technically be bought and sold, but a market does exist.
Evans is a CPA, and is using her expertise to "follow the money."
“I wanted to come up with a body of knowledge that nobody else had thought of before,” she told Catholic San Francisco. “In following the money and seeing who gets paid for what and how much they get paid, and how unregulated these areas are, I found a lot of facts that a lot of people wouldn’t have noticed or wouldn’t have thought to look for.”
I certainly hope the full paper becomes available.
UPDATE: Ms. Evans' paper is available. Right click to download.
"He's a quintessential Australian," a friend of George Pell's once observed. "He loves to shock."Over the years, the Sydney cardinal's launched his unique, prolific brand of broadside on environmentalists, Islam, and the ecclesial and political Left... to name but a few.Yet soon, barring the unforeseen, a new target -- for "Big George," the biggest one yet -- appears set to present itself....The Global Bench, all 5,000 members of it.Sure, the formal word might've been absent from this morning's dispatches. Lest anyone wasn't banking it before, however, you can bank it now -- early today, the leading Italian "court scribe," Il Giornale's Andrea Tornielli, blogged the following, here translated from the original:
In the last few days Benedict XVI again received in audience Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sydney, making official his appointment as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. Pell subsequently had a long conversation with his predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. The announcement of the move will be given over the coming weeks, but before the first of summer.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key" has an interesting post on the colonizers of San Francisco:
"The massive immigration in the 1950s to the 1970s of rootless individuals from other states seeking to find themselves or lose themselves in San Francisco has turned a once great, and once very Catholic, city into an embarrassing freak show. From the transsexual sex toy salesman Theresa Sparks (Kansas City) to the abortion queens Barbara Boxer (Brooklyn) and Nancy Pelosi (Baltimore) to psychopaths like Jim Jones (Indiana) to the intolerant gay narcissists Tom Ammiano (New Jersey) and Mark Leno (Milwaukee), nearly every kind of nut in California shares in common being a white, native born American from another state (Mayor Gavin Newson, admittedly, is a native San Franciscan)."
Speaking as a born-and-raised, I say, Amen!
Good Jesuit Bad Jesuit has a post about the abuse scandal at Loyola Academy, with some very interesting comments from a Jesuit seminarian who left:
"Abuse in the formation process was far too common in the 90's. Too many men were made to feel outcast because they identified with more conservative & traditional schools of theological thought.
More insidious was the not so subtle attraction some men had to the younger scholastics. Fr. Reuter had his favorites among the scholastics at Loyola Chicago. Having the rector of the community make eyes at you over the dinner table was disconcerting - at best."
Damien Thompson says Cardinal Pell is the next Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops:
"That will give him a significant degree of authority over the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops. He will be able to “nudge” them – for example, to observe the conservative liturgical reforms for which he is partly responsible, such as the new English translation of the Missal."
LifeSiteNews has a story on the Tennessee legislatures' "opt-out" of the Obamacare abortion mandate:
"According to TRTL (Tennessee Right to Life) , the passage of the “abortion opt out” bill was the crowning jewel of other easily-passed pro-life bills. These include bills that removed priority status from abortion-provider Planned Parenthood, redirected family planning funds to local health departments which do not perform abortions, and required posting of the state's non-coercion policy in private offices and facilities which perform abortions."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Our dear friends at Belomasan Films have done it again.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, May 2, 2010
"In a statement released Friday, Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark slammed a proposed course on same-sex "marriage" to be offered at Seton Hall University by a homosexualist professor. Myers says that the course is "not in synch" with Catholic teaching, and that the university's Board of Trustees have urged officials "to take whatever action is required under the law to protect the Catholicity of this university.
The university newspaper The Setonian reported earlier this month that W. King Mott, an open homosexual who was once demoted by the university for speaking out against Catholic teaching on marriage, would be offering a course that he claims would teach about homosexual 'marriage' 'from an academic perspective.'
"That responsibility extends to our Catholic elementary and high schools, to our parish religious education programs for both adults and children, and to the Catholic colleges and university operating within my jurisdiction."
Good work, Archbishop Myers. May your fellow shepherds follow your example!
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Here are some pictures from today's march in San Francisco opposing SB 1070:
Photos: Lacy Atkins / San Francisco Chronicle
Today, May 1, also happens to be "Victims of Communism Day," which commemorates the 80 to 100 million people murdered by Communist regimes in the 20th Century.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney