"Stay calm Marine, someone will be here to help, God is with all of us this day!"

The Catholic Caveman has a very moving Memorial Day post about the Venerable Father Vincent Capodanno, a Chaplain who served in the Navy Chaplain Corps.

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.

ObamaCare Roundup

A very nice and comprehensive article by Jeffrey Anderson in The Examiner.

"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.

Attn: Bay Area Readers. Good Summer Classes

Our friends over at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley are offering a fine summer program of interesting classes including “Icon: Sacred Image”; “Introduction to Icon Painting”; and “Re-Visioning Society” parts I and II.

Visit the DSPT Summer Schedule to learn more.

Parents beware!

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

As the impressively depressing cover story “America the Obese” in the May issue of The Atlantic serves to remind us all, the weight-gain epidemic in the United States and the rest of the West is indeed widespread, deleterious, and unhealthy—which is why it is so frequently remarked on, and an object of such universal public concern.

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…
Mary Eberstadt

Sisters vs Healthcare

From an article by KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ : Nun Sense: Women in the Catholic Church

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…

Bishops: We were "Misrepresented, misunderstood, and misused" on Obamacare

On Friday, the United States Conference of Catholic released a very clear statement on the passage of Obamacare. Here are two paragraphs from the statement (emphasis added):

"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."

Good News: Dr. Ed Peters Appointed "Referendarius of the Apostolic Signatura"

From the blog of Canon Lawyer Ed Peters (h/t Ignatius Insight):

"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."

"Petals in the Dust" Wins First Prize!

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.

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Return to Most Holy Redeemer

On Sunday, May 23, 2010 Most Holy Redeemer Church will host the “Great District 8 Chili Cook-Off” to help raise funds to rebuild an orphanage that was destroyed in the Chilean earthquake. The event is organized by the Rainbow World Fund. District 8 is the political district where Most Holy Redeemer is located, hence the name.

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.

"Sr. Roma" (right) officiating at "Hunky Jesus" contest.
Photo credit: Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

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:

Cónsul General: Sr. Alex Geiger
Canciller (Chancellor): Sra. Amelia Campos
Telephone: (415) 982-7662
Fax: (415) 982-2384
E-mail address: cgsfchile@sbcglobal.net; acampos@chileanconsulatesfo.org

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
415-614-5500

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Cardinal O'Malley Supports Pastor...Kind Of

Boston's Sean Cardinal O' Malley has come out in support of Father Rafferty of St. Paul's Church in Hingham, MA. From the blog of His Eminence:

"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

Bishop Listecki/ Marquette UPDATE: "How in heaven did the hiring ever occur in the first place?"

That's the question Professor Christopher Wolfe of Marquette is asking. We've posted on this issue before, and are happy to see the professor getting down to the underlying issue. From LifeSiteNews:

"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

Solemn Profession in in Kansas City

Praise the Lord!

For other pictures of the Solemn Profession of the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, in Kansas City, and the full story, visit Father Z.