A horrific story out of Canada.
From the Toronto Sun:
"A court appeal to stop doctors from removing a 13-month-old baby boy's breathing tube was denied Thursday, ending a Windsor couple's tragic fight to take their son home to die.
The parents accept that, barring a miracle, it as almost certain the little boy will die.
Joseph Maraachli, who's been in the London Health Science Centre's pediatric critical care unit since last fall, suffers from a terminal respiratory and neurological disorder.
Ontario's consent and capacity board recently agreed with doctors last month the boy's breathing tube be removed.
His parents, who lost a daughter to the same disorder eight years ago, had hoped to have a tracheotomy inserted and be allowed to take the child home to die peacefully.
Again, the parents accept that, barring a miracle, it as almost certain the little boy will die. They simply want to bring their own son to their own home, so he can die surrounded by those who love him. A government is denying them this right.
In her decision, an emotional Superior Court Justice Helen Rady said it was "a sad and difficult case" and praised the child's parents, Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader, for their dedication.
That "praise" is simply adding insult to injury.
But she said the baby has no brain stem reflex and is in a permanent vegetative state.
A deadline to take the baby off life support had been set for Friday, but Rady ordered the family to comply by Monday at 10 a.m., "to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes."
That's sounds just like a movie villain telling his victim "say your prayers" before shooting him.
Out side of court, the boy's father broke down in tears and called doctors "killers."
Which certainly makes sense.
Patrick Craine at LifeSiteNews has more, including contact emails.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
THE LORD'S PRAYER
I think you will enjoy this. It is very well done. How often have we prayed and not really known what we have asked for? Have a blessed day.
-THE-LORD'S PRAYER
and GOD (in red type) in response.
*********
Our Father Who Art In Heaven.
Yes?
Don't interrupt me. I'm praying.
But -- you called ME!
Called you?No, I didn't call you.I'm praying.Our Father who art in Heaven.
But -- you called ME!
Called you?No, I didn't call you.I'm praying.Our Father who art in Heaven.
There -- you did it again!
Did what?
Called ME.You said,"Our Father who art in Heaven"Well, here I am..What's on your mind?
But I didn't mean anything by it. I was, you know, just saying my prayers for the day.I always say the Lord's Prayer.It makes me feel good,kind of like fulfilling a duty.Well, all right.
Go on.
Okay, Hallowed be thy name .
Hold it right there.What do you mean by that?
By what?
By "Hallowed be thy name"?
It means, it means . . good grief, I don't know what it means.How in the world should I know?It's just a part of the prayer.By the way, what does it mean?
It means honored, holy, wonderful.
It means honored, holy, wonderful.
Hey, that makes sense.. I never thought about what 'hallowed' meant before.
Thanks...
Thy Kingdom come,Thy will be done,on earth as it is in Heaven.
Do you really mean that?
Sure, why not?
What are you doing about it?
Thy Kingdom come,Thy will be done,on earth as it is in Heaven.
Do you really mean that?
Sure, why not?
What are you doing about it?
Doing? Why, nothing, I guess.
I just think it would be kind of neat if you got
control,of everything down here like you have up
there..We're kinda in a mess down here you know.
Yes, I know; but, have I got control of you?
Well, I go to church.
That isn't what I asked you.What about your bad temper?You've really got a problem there, you know.And then there's the way you spend your money -- all on yourself.And what about the kind of books you read ?
I just think it would be kind of neat if you got
control,of everything down here like you have up
there..We're kinda in a mess down here you know.
Yes, I know; but, have I got control of you?
Well, I go to church.
That isn't what I asked you.What about your bad temper?You've really got a problem there, you know.And then there's the way you spend your money -- all on yourself.And what about the kind of books you read ?
Now hold on just a minute!Stop picking on me!I'm just as good as some of the rest
of those people at church!
Excuse ME..I thought you were prayingfor my will to be done.If that is to happen,it will have to start with the oneswho are praying for it.Like you -- for example ....
Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups.Now that you mention it,I could probably name some others.
So could I.
I haven't thought about it very much until now,but I really would like to cut out some of those things.I would like to, you know, be really free.
of those people at church!
Excuse ME..I thought you were prayingfor my will to be done.If that is to happen,it will have to start with the oneswho are praying for it.Like you -- for example ....
Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups.Now that you mention it,I could probably name some others.
So could I.
I haven't thought about it very much until now,but I really would like to cut out some of those things.I would like to, you know, be really free.
Good.Now we're getting somewhere.
We'll work together -- You and ME.I'm proud of You.
Look, Lord, if you don't mind,I need to finish up here.This is taking a lot longer than it usually does.Give us this day, our daily bread.
You need to cut out the bread..You're overweight as it is.
Hey, wait a minute! What is this?Here I was doing my religious duty,and all of a sudden you break in and remind me of all my hang-ups.
Praying is a dangerous thing...You just might get what you ask for.Remember, you called ME -- and here I am.It's too late to stop now. Keep praying. ( pause ... . )Well, go on.
We'll work together -- You and ME.I'm proud of You.
Look, Lord, if you don't mind,I need to finish up here.This is taking a lot longer than it usually does.Give us this day, our daily bread.
You need to cut out the bread..You're overweight as it is.
Hey, wait a minute! What is this?Here I was doing my religious duty,and all of a sudden you break in and remind me of all my hang-ups.
Praying is a dangerous thing...You just might get what you ask for.Remember, you called ME -- and here I am.It's too late to stop now. Keep praying. ( pause ... . )Well, go on.
I'm scared to.
Scared? Of what?
Scared? Of what?
I know what you'll say.
Try ME.
Try ME.
Forgive us our sins,
as we forgive those who sin against us.
What about Ann?
See? I knew it!I knew you would bring her up!Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories.She never paid back the money she owes me.I've sworn to get even with her!
But -- your prayer --What about your prayer?
I didn't -- mean it...
as we forgive those who sin against us.
What about Ann?
See? I knew it!I knew you would bring her up!Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories.She never paid back the money she owes me.I've sworn to get even with her!
But -- your prayer --What about your prayer?
I didn't -- mean it...
Well, at least you're honest.But, it's quite a load carrying around all that
bitterness and resentment isn't it?
Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her.Boy, have I got some plans for her.She'll wish she had never been born.
bitterness and resentment isn't it?
Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her.Boy, have I got some plans for her.She'll wish she had never been born.
No, you won't feel any better.You'll feel worse.Revenge isn't sweet.You know how unhappy you are -- Well, I can change that.
You can? How?
Forgive Ann. Then, I'll forgive you; And the hate and the sin, will be Ann's problem -- not yours.
You can? How?
Forgive Ann. Then, I'll forgive you; And the hate and the sin, will be Ann's problem -- not yours.
You will have settled the problems far as you are concerned.
Oh, you know, you're right. You always are. And more than I want revenge, I want to be right with You . . (sigh).All right, all right . ...I forgive her.
There now! Wonderful! How do you feel?
Hmmmm. Well, not bad.Not bad at all!In fact, I feel pretty great!You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight. I haven't been getting much rest, you know.
Oh, you know, you're right. You always are. And more than I want revenge, I want to be right with You . . (sigh).All right, all right . ...I forgive her.
There now! Wonderful! How do you feel?
Hmmmm. Well, not bad.Not bad at all!In fact, I feel pretty great!You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight. I haven't been getting much rest, you know.
Yeah, I know.But, you're not through with your prayer, are you?
Go on.
Go on.
Oh, all right. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Good! Good! I'll do that.Just don't put yourself in a place where you can be tempted.
What do you mean by that?
You know what I mean.
Yeah. I know.
Okay. Go ahead. Finish your prayer.
For Thine is the kingdom,and the power,and the glory forever.Amen.
Good! Good! I'll do that.Just don't put yourself in a place where you can be tempted.
What do you mean by that?
You know what I mean.
Yeah. I know.
Okay. Go ahead. Finish your prayer.
For Thine is the kingdom,and the power,and the glory forever.Amen.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A Busy Day: CA Supreme Court to Rule on Prop 8 "Standing" Question
California Catholic Daily has the court's press release. It reads, in part:
The California Supreme Court shortened the normal briefing schedule to expedite consideration and resolution of the issues in the matter and to accommodate oral argument as early as September 2011.
The briefing schedule set by the court follows:
• The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.
• A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.
• Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011.
• Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011.
The order states, “The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines.”
Meanwhile, over at "The Volokh Conspiracy" law blog, Professor Dale Carpenter, a respectable supporter of counterfeit "marriage," examines possibilities, and makes this observation:
"Whatever the outcome in the state court and the 9th Circuit on the standing issue, the final resolution of the Prop 8 case has likely been delayed well into 2012 and beyond. That has one immediate consequence. It makes any effort to repeal Prop 8 very unlikely in November 2012. Donors, already hesitant to fund a repeal drive while Perry moves forward, will be even less likely to do so while there is so much legal flux and no resolution in time to put a ballot effort together. That means that if Prop 8 is to be eradicated before at least November 2014 it must be by judicial decision."
The California Supreme Court shortened the normal briefing schedule to expedite consideration and resolution of the issues in the matter and to accommodate oral argument as early as September 2011.
The briefing schedule set by the court follows:
• The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.
• A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.
• Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011.
• Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011.
The order states, “The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines.”
Meanwhile, over at "The Volokh Conspiracy" law blog, Professor Dale Carpenter, a respectable supporter of counterfeit "marriage," examines possibilities, and makes this observation:
"Whatever the outcome in the state court and the 9th Circuit on the standing issue, the final resolution of the Prop 8 case has likely been delayed well into 2012 and beyond. That has one immediate consequence. It makes any effort to repeal Prop 8 very unlikely in November 2012. Donors, already hesitant to fund a repeal drive while Perry moves forward, will be even less likely to do so while there is so much legal flux and no resolution in time to put a ballot effort together. That means that if Prop 8 is to be eradicated before at least November 2014 it must be by judicial decision."
First SF, Now NY. Another Abortion Activist out in Financial Scandal
Last year, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's long-time Director Dian Harrison was fired in the midst of a financial scandal. Now it's an even bigger fish, NARAL Pro-Choice New York's ex-President Kelli Conlin.
Steve Ertelt at Life News describes Conlin:
"Kelli Conlin was the pro-abortion giant of New York — essentially running the pro-abortion movement in the Empire State. That is, until she was forced to quit recently after allegations related to massive financial misconduct."
On Tuesday, as the story developed, the New York Times reported a statement from two NARAL spokesmen:
“No conclusions have been reached based on the information gathered thus far, and there has been no determination as to whether there was any wrongdoing that would require the notification of the legal or regulatory authorities,” Ms. Howard and Ms. Steck said in their statement.
But today's New York Post reported that the "legal or regulatory" authorities aren't waiting for any notification from NARAL:
"ALBANY – Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance launched a criminal probe today into wild overspending by an influential pro-choice charity that counts the state attorney general’s father as its treasurer.
The investigation came on the heels of a bombshell internal audit that found ex-NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin siphoned more than $100,000 from the abortion rights group to support her own lavish lifestyle.
The leaked audit, which was first detailed Tuesday night on the State of Politics blog, questioned the longtime NARAL chief’s spending on meals, high-end clothing, a summer rental in the Hamptons and more than $100,000 on a car service she ordered to chauffeur her kids to school.
The Post story also noted that in New York, just like in California, the Democratic Party and abortion activists are pretty much interchangable:
"The allegations against one of New York’s most high-profile Democrat-allied activist groups could have far-reaching political implications, particularly for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman, whose office regulates charities, received the abortion-rights group’s potent endorsement during last year’s contentious Democratic attorney general primary.
The attorney general’s father, Irwin Schneiderman, was NARAL’s treasurer during the period covered by the audit.
Schneiderman’s office, after promising comment for hours to respond, issued a statement late today afternoon pledging to name special counsel to handle 'any potential investigation or agency action' into NARAL.
'Because of the nature of his father’s association with the organization, Attorney General Schneiderman will recuse himself from any investigation into the matter,' Schneiderman Danny Kanner said.
Meanwhile, Vance was already "actively investigating" the charity, according to a source familiar with the probe."
Steve Ertelt at Life News describes Conlin:
"Kelli Conlin was the pro-abortion giant of New York — essentially running the pro-abortion movement in the Empire State. That is, until she was forced to quit recently after allegations related to massive financial misconduct."
On Tuesday, as the story developed, the New York Times reported a statement from two NARAL spokesmen:
“No conclusions have been reached based on the information gathered thus far, and there has been no determination as to whether there was any wrongdoing that would require the notification of the legal or regulatory authorities,” Ms. Howard and Ms. Steck said in their statement.
But today's New York Post reported that the "legal or regulatory" authorities aren't waiting for any notification from NARAL:
"ALBANY – Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance launched a criminal probe today into wild overspending by an influential pro-choice charity that counts the state attorney general’s father as its treasurer.
The investigation came on the heels of a bombshell internal audit that found ex-NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin siphoned more than $100,000 from the abortion rights group to support her own lavish lifestyle.
The leaked audit, which was first detailed Tuesday night on the State of Politics blog, questioned the longtime NARAL chief’s spending on meals, high-end clothing, a summer rental in the Hamptons and more than $100,000 on a car service she ordered to chauffeur her kids to school.
The Post story also noted that in New York, just like in California, the Democratic Party and abortion activists are pretty much interchangable:
"The allegations against one of New York’s most high-profile Democrat-allied activist groups could have far-reaching political implications, particularly for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman, whose office regulates charities, received the abortion-rights group’s potent endorsement during last year’s contentious Democratic attorney general primary.
The attorney general’s father, Irwin Schneiderman, was NARAL’s treasurer during the period covered by the audit.
Schneiderman’s office, after promising comment for hours to respond, issued a statement late today afternoon pledging to name special counsel to handle 'any potential investigation or agency action' into NARAL.
'Because of the nature of his father’s association with the organization, Attorney General Schneiderman will recuse himself from any investigation into the matter,' Schneiderman Danny Kanner said.
Meanwhile, Vance was already "actively investigating" the charity, according to a source familiar with the probe."
US Supreme Court Asked to Review "Catholic League v. San Francisco"
Thomas More Law Center Goes to Supreme Court
On Tuesday, February 15, The Thomas More Law Center filed a petition (read here) with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it reverse a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of October 22, 2010, which upheld San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ virulently anti-Catholic resolution 168-06. Adopted unanimously on March 21, 2006, resolution 168-06 refers, among other things, to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans, ” “hateful, ” “insulting and callous, ” “defamatory, ” “absolutely unacceptable, ” “insensitive and ignorant.”
The case has its genesis in the decision of at least two separate branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco) to facilitate the adoption of children by same-sex households. Those actions compelled the Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to reiterate its 2003 statement, and instruct Catholic adoption agencies to stop placing children in same-sex households. On March 13, 2006, Cardinal William Levada wrote “The reasons given in the (2003)document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the church's magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies." The Cardinal’s response to the actions of Catholic Charities resulted, a week later, in the issuance of Resolution 168-06, which in its turn resulted in the lawsuit of the two San Francisco Catholics and the Catholic League.
Today's TMLC press release announcing the appeal described the Ninth Circuit's October, 2010:
“This past October, in a fractured, eleven judge opinion in which 3 judges concluded that TMLC should prevail, 3 judges concluded that the City should prevail, and 5 judges concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the lower court.
As Circuit Judge Kleinfeld appropriately observed in his opinion, which, unfortunately, received only two additional votes:
The 'message' in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful,' 'defamatory,' 'insulting,' 'callous,' and 'discriminatory,' 'showing 'insensitivity and ignorance,' the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco’s affairs, the Catholic Church ought to 'withdraw' its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior’s directive. This is indeed a 'message of . . . disapproval.' And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional.”
Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, noted an apparent incongruity in the court’s juruisprudence:
“The Ninth Circuit prohibits a government display of the passive symbol of the war memorial cross on Mt. Soledad, yet it expressly approves of the government’s explicit condemnation of Catholic religious beliefs. This outrageous double standard is made possible by the Supreme Court’s flawed tests by which it interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—an interpretation that is hostile toward religion.”
On Tuesday, February 15, The Thomas More Law Center filed a petition (read here) with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it reverse a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of October 22, 2010, which upheld San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ virulently anti-Catholic resolution 168-06. Adopted unanimously on March 21, 2006, resolution 168-06 refers, among other things, to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans, ” “hateful, ” “insulting and callous, ” “defamatory, ” “absolutely unacceptable, ” “insensitive and ignorant.”
The case has its genesis in the decision of at least two separate branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco) to facilitate the adoption of children by same-sex households. Those actions compelled the Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to reiterate its 2003 statement, and instruct Catholic adoption agencies to stop placing children in same-sex households. On March 13, 2006, Cardinal William Levada wrote “The reasons given in the (2003)document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the church's magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies." The Cardinal’s response to the actions of Catholic Charities resulted, a week later, in the issuance of Resolution 168-06, which in its turn resulted in the lawsuit of the two San Francisco Catholics and the Catholic League.
Today's TMLC press release announcing the appeal described the Ninth Circuit's October, 2010:
“This past October, in a fractured, eleven judge opinion in which 3 judges concluded that TMLC should prevail, 3 judges concluded that the City should prevail, and 5 judges concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the lower court.
As Circuit Judge Kleinfeld appropriately observed in his opinion, which, unfortunately, received only two additional votes:
The 'message' in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful,' 'defamatory,' 'insulting,' 'callous,' and 'discriminatory,' 'showing 'insensitivity and ignorance,' the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco’s affairs, the Catholic Church ought to 'withdraw' its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior’s directive. This is indeed a 'message of . . . disapproval.' And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional.”
Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, noted an apparent incongruity in the court’s juruisprudence:
“The Ninth Circuit prohibits a government display of the passive symbol of the war memorial cross on Mt. Soledad, yet it expressly approves of the government’s explicit condemnation of Catholic religious beliefs. This outrageous double standard is made possible by the Supreme Court’s flawed tests by which it interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—an interpretation that is hostile toward religion.”
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Free Said Musa!
Said Musa is an Afghani Christian who is in prison and sentenced to death in Afghanistan. That's him helping the little boy. Here's his story, and their are links at the bottom of the page with ways we can try to help.Matthew Archbold reports:
"An Afghanistan Christian and father of six, is imprisoned and scheduled to die. His crime? He believes Christ is his Savior. And he is scheduled to die because of it. No defense lawyer will take his case for fear of retribution. And he has been told that if he renounces Christ things would go easier. But he doesn’t. He won’t.
Said Musa, who lost his leg from a landmine in the 1990’s and has worked since then as a medical worker for the Red Cross fitting children with prosthetics, has been in jail for eight months. According to a public letter written by him and addressed to our President and the world community, he has been brutally tortured and abused in every way possible, both by guards and inmates.
As of yet the media and the world seem to have taken little notice of Said Musa. There are currently less than 100 mentions of Musa in the news and most of them are not considered part of the mainstream media, other than the Wall Street Journal.
Musa wrote a public letter which I will excerpt here, courtesy of The Barnabus Fund. The English is rough but I think you’ll understand what he’s saying:
“To the international church of world and to the President Brother Barak Obama President of the United States and to the head of ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] in Afghanistan!
“My name is Said Musa 45 years old. I have been working since 15 years as a Physiotherapist in I-C-R-C [International Committee of the Red Cross] orthopaedic centre in Kabul, Afghanistan. About four and a half months before by security force of Afghanistan I [was] captured, due to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world.
...Since that time I am in jail. The authority and prisoners in jail did many bad behaviour with me about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, they did sexual things with me, beat me by wood, by hands, by legs, put some things on my head, mocked me ‘He’s Jesus Christ’, spat on me, nobody let me for sleep night and day. Every person spat on me and beat me. Also the prosecutor wrote something wrong against me. He told from himself something wrong against me on my file.
“He is stimulating every day the prisoners against me, ‘He is also in jail due to spy for Iran country’, to reveal the church in Kabul. I’m in a very and very bad condition in the jail.
“I agree with long imprisonment about my faith even for long life. Because I’m the sinnest person in the world. Because sometimes they treated for died I refuse my faith due to died. Sometimes I tolerate the persecution but immediately I acknowledge my sin before Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Don’t refuse me before your holy angels and before your Father.’ Because I am very very weak and sinful man…
I am alone between 400 handlers of terrible values in the jail like a sheep. Please, please, for the sake of Lord Jesus Christ help me. Please send a person who should supervise my document and my file, what I said in it. My prosecutor has told something wrong to the judge because he asked [for] money but I refused his request. Please, please you should transfer me from this jail to a jail that supervises the believers. I also agree with died on cross of my pride. I also agree with the sacrifice [of] my life in public, I will tell the faith in Lord Jesus Christ son of God and other believers will take courage and be strong in their faith. Hundred percent I am stable to my word. I have family of seven - one wife, three daughters and three sons. My big son [is] about eight years old. One of my daughters can’t speak, she has some mental problems.
“This is a request from me to all over the world, people please help me. I could not have any person to help. For [the] sake [of] Lord Jesus Christ please pray and immediately help me and rescue me from this jail. Otherwise, they will kill me, because I know they’re very very very cruel and hard hearted!
“Your destitute brother in the world.
“Please my English writing is not enough good. If I did some mistake please forgive me! From Kabul Provincial jail.”
Persecution.org offers some ways for us to help:
Go here to sign the petition asking for freedom for Said Musa as well as another imprisoned Afghani Christian named Shoib Assadullah:
https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/InternationalChristianConcer/OnlineSignupTwo.html?petitionSigned=Free Afghans
Go here to download a PDF petition that you can ask others to sign:
http://www.persecution.org/pdf/2010-12Afghanistan.pdf
Wacky Ex-Male Hooker Turned Catholic Priest Sues LifeSiteNews
LifeSiteNews is being sued by Canadian Priest, Fr. Raymond Gravel. I've never heard of the guy, but he sounds like a real piece of work.
Wikipedia reports:
"Gravel had an eventful youth during which he worked in bars in Montreal’s Gay Village; he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during that time.[1] He entered the seminary in 1982 and became a priest. Gravel is controversial among the Catholic clergy and laity for his support of abortion and same-sex marriage — two issues officially opposed by the Church. He is currently the priest at St-Joachim de la Plaine Church in La Plaine, Quebec."
Details of the lawsuit aren't yet public, except for the fact that Fr. Wacky wants $500,000, but Life Site News reports they and Gravel have quite a history:
"The very fact that Fr. Gravel feels he has to sue LSN is proof-positive of just how much LSN is needed. Writing about LifeSiteNews.com in Le Devoir on April 20, 2009, Fr. Gravel said that when his bishop received a letter from the Vatican 'which forced me to retire from political life,' attached to the letter 'was a file almost exclusively in English (Fr. Gravel is apparently one of those Anglophobe Quebecers--that's the significance of the "exclusively in English" remark) made up of negative comments about me … which came from those ultra-conservative media.' He even complained about LifeSiteNews during a speech on the floor of the House of Commons!
And then, more recently, Fr. Gravel was removed from a position as a chief catechist for his diocese. In his motion Fr. Gravel suggests that the articles by LSN caused him to lose this responsibility."
If it's true that LifeSiteNews got a guy like that dismissed as chief cathechist, they deserve canonization, not a lawsuit. The Thomas More Society will help LSN, but they will need Canadian lawyers, too, apparently.
US and International donors can go here to support LifeSiteNews:
https://secure.lifesitenews.com/np/clients/lifesitenews_us/donation.jsp?campaign=27
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wikipedia reports:
"Gravel had an eventful youth during which he worked in bars in Montreal’s Gay Village; he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during that time.[1] He entered the seminary in 1982 and became a priest. Gravel is controversial among the Catholic clergy and laity for his support of abortion and same-sex marriage — two issues officially opposed by the Church. He is currently the priest at St-Joachim de la Plaine Church in La Plaine, Quebec."
Details of the lawsuit aren't yet public, except for the fact that Fr. Wacky wants $500,000, but Life Site News reports they and Gravel have quite a history:
"The very fact that Fr. Gravel feels he has to sue LSN is proof-positive of just how much LSN is needed. Writing about LifeSiteNews.com in Le Devoir on April 20, 2009, Fr. Gravel said that when his bishop received a letter from the Vatican 'which forced me to retire from political life,' attached to the letter 'was a file almost exclusively in English (Fr. Gravel is apparently one of those Anglophobe Quebecers--that's the significance of the "exclusively in English" remark) made up of negative comments about me … which came from those ultra-conservative media.' He even complained about LifeSiteNews during a speech on the floor of the House of Commons!
And then, more recently, Fr. Gravel was removed from a position as a chief catechist for his diocese. In his motion Fr. Gravel suggests that the articles by LSN caused him to lose this responsibility."
If it's true that LifeSiteNews got a guy like that dismissed as chief cathechist, they deserve canonization, not a lawsuit. The Thomas More Society will help LSN, but they will need Canadian lawyers, too, apparently.
US and International donors can go here to support LifeSiteNews:
https://secure.lifesitenews.com/np/clients/lifesitenews_us/donation.jsp?campaign=27
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 14, 2011
Vigil for Victims at Planned Parenthood TODAY
Steve Ertelt reports at Life News:
Pro-Life Groups Promote Monday Vigils at Planned Parenthood
A collection of national pro-life organizations are promoting vigils at Planned Parenthood abortion centers across the nation in response to the series of videos showing staff at the abortion business aiding sexual traffickers.
The Expose Planned Parenthood Coalition features groups ranging from the Susan B. Anthony List and Students for Life of America to Americans United for Life, CWA, Catholics Advocate, 40 Days for Life and state pro-life groups. Live Action, the sponsor of the investigative series of undercover videos is a member of the coalition as is LifeNews.com.
The goal is to encourage pro-life advocates to hold vigils at Planned Parenthood offices at noon on Monday across the country to highlight the videos and the massive taxpayer funding Planned Parenthood receives.
“Are you sick and tired of Planned Parenthood getting $363 million of taxpayer funding a year — while aiding and abetting illegal underage sex trafficking?” the groups say on the Expose Planned Parenthood web site promoting the vigils. “Take a public stand Monday and tell Congress ‘No more tax funding for Planned Parenthood.”
To find the location of Planned Parenthood's new San Francisco business, go here:
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Wise Words from Father Gregory Coiro, O.F.M. Cap.
Father Coiro serves at the National Shrine of St. Francis of Assisi in San Francisco. This is an excerpt from his bulletin message for this week:
Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him.
The Lord is telling us, not that we can create our own reality, as many steeped in New Age thinking profess, but that we can choose the reality we want in our lives. To many, this might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the fact is that there is a difference, albeit a subtle one.
If we think that we can create our own reality, we will fall into the error farthest from reality: subjectivism. People who embrace this way of thinking are the ones you hear saying things like,“You have your truth but this is my truth.” A good example of this kind of subjectivism is found among those who consider themselves “pro-choice” with regard to abortion.
According to them, the reality of the unborn child in the womb--the objective truth--is not the issue. Rather, the issue for them is whether or not a woman should have absolute freedom not to be pregnant. Nothing shows this more explicitly than the seemingly schizophrenic nature of the law regarding killing the unborn.
Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child, Conner. Yet, had Laci Peterson chosen to have Conner killed by a professional, there would have been no crime. How can this be? The answer is that subjectivism trumped reality: if a mother determines to kill her unborn child, the child is not a human being whose life is protected by the law. There is no homicide, as far as the law is concerned.
But if someone else kills that child—even the child’s own father—against the mother’s will, then the law treats it as a homicide. In other words, the reality of the child’s humanness is predicated on a subjective belief rather than on an objective fact.
Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him.
The Lord is telling us, not that we can create our own reality, as many steeped in New Age thinking profess, but that we can choose the reality we want in our lives. To many, this might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the fact is that there is a difference, albeit a subtle one.
If we think that we can create our own reality, we will fall into the error farthest from reality: subjectivism. People who embrace this way of thinking are the ones you hear saying things like,“You have your truth but this is my truth.” A good example of this kind of subjectivism is found among those who consider themselves “pro-choice” with regard to abortion.
According to them, the reality of the unborn child in the womb--the objective truth--is not the issue. Rather, the issue for them is whether or not a woman should have absolute freedom not to be pregnant. Nothing shows this more explicitly than the seemingly schizophrenic nature of the law regarding killing the unborn.
Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child, Conner. Yet, had Laci Peterson chosen to have Conner killed by a professional, there would have been no crime. How can this be? The answer is that subjectivism trumped reality: if a mother determines to kill her unborn child, the child is not a human being whose life is protected by the law. There is no homicide, as far as the law is concerned.
But if someone else kills that child—even the child’s own father—against the mother’s will, then the law treats it as a homicide. In other words, the reality of the child’s humanness is predicated on a subjective belief rather than on an objective fact.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Brian Fairchild on Muslim Brotherhood
Our friend the counter-terrorism expert Brian Fairchild of the Intrepid Group takes down the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper over his bizarre statement the the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" organization. Brian writes today in Pajamas Media:
"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee today, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a largely secular, non-violent umbrella group.
I have quickly put together the quotes below from the Brotherhood’s former and current leaders. They clearly show that the Muslim Brotherhood is extremely religious and violent, and that former Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef even supports Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Mr. Clapper’s congressional testimony reveals that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about regarding one of the most important topics for American policy considerations throughout the Muslim world, and particularly and immediately in Egypt.
The fact that the director of national intelligence is so ignorant of facts that are so easily amassed, and that he could lead U.S. policymakers so far astray from reality at such a crucial time, is inexcusable and grounds for his immediate resignation...."
Follow the link to see the readily available evidence Brian has amassed.
To listen to Brian in an extended discussion of Salfist Islam, go here.
"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee today, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a largely secular, non-violent umbrella group.
I have quickly put together the quotes below from the Brotherhood’s former and current leaders. They clearly show that the Muslim Brotherhood is extremely religious and violent, and that former Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef even supports Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Mr. Clapper’s congressional testimony reveals that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about regarding one of the most important topics for American policy considerations throughout the Muslim world, and particularly and immediately in Egypt.
The fact that the director of national intelligence is so ignorant of facts that are so easily amassed, and that he could lead U.S. policymakers so far astray from reality at such a crucial time, is inexcusable and grounds for his immediate resignation...."
Follow the link to see the readily available evidence Brian has amassed.
To listen to Brian in an extended discussion of Salfist Islam, go here.
Nancy Pelosi versus the Church (Again)
Updated version.
On February 8, Richard Doerflinger associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, speaking for the Catholic bishops, testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee in strong support of H.R. 3 (the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act) and H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act).
Two days later, on February 10 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) led a conference call which included bloggers and Democratic activists. The subject of the call was the upcoming votes on H.R. 3 and H.R. 358. The conference call was an attempt to rally like-minded persons to oppose the two bills. Greg Sargeant writing in the Washington Post, reported that Pelosi promises a major fight against both bills. Sargent’s headline read “Pelosi Vows Huge Fight With GOP Over Abortion.”
"Nancy Pelosi's extremely blunt assessments of the true motives of Republicans are why her supporters love her and her enemies hate her with equal passion, and on a conference call with bloggers just now, she unleashed a slashing attack on the House GOP's new anti-abortion push that may churn up emotions on both sides.”
While Mr. Sargeant characterized Pelosi’s "blunt assessments" as targeted at Republicans, it would be more accurate to describe them as targeted at Catholics, and especially the Catholic bishops. In the call Pelosi said:
“‘They are at a different philosophical place,’ she said, characterizing their view as: ‘all engagement has to result in a child.’ Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is ‘not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation.’"
The Think Progress blog reported Pelosi’s statement slightly differently:
“in a different philosophical place on…all engagements that result in a child. So that’s why homosexuality, that’s why birth control, all these things that are not consistent with their beliefs that are all about procreation.”
That is not a "Republican" position--far from it. The opposition to contraception as well as to abortion is not “Republican” but is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Congresswoman Pelosi’s ongoing and well-known dissents from the teaching of the church on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and natural marriage are no longer properly described as “dissent” but have become outright attacks. She is now doing everything in her considerable power to thwart the Catholic bishops.
Pelosi’s positions have not been unopposed, but at the higher levels of the Church that opposition has mostly taken the form of debate. On December 21, 2009 Pelosi said:
“I practically mourn this difference of opinion (over abortion) because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”
To which San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer responded:
"While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom."
While Archbishop Niederaur’s response may have been intellectually satisfying, it does not seem to have changed Congressman Pelosi positions one whit. On March 26, 2010 noted canon lawyer and Referendarius of the Apostolic Signatura Dr. Ed Peters wrote:
“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…. 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 in original.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
On February 8, Richard Doerflinger associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, speaking for the Catholic bishops, testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee in strong support of H.R. 3 (the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act) and H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act).
Two days later, on February 10 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) led a conference call which included bloggers and Democratic activists. The subject of the call was the upcoming votes on H.R. 3 and H.R. 358. The conference call was an attempt to rally like-minded persons to oppose the two bills. Greg Sargeant writing in the Washington Post, reported that Pelosi promises a major fight against both bills. Sargent’s headline read “Pelosi Vows Huge Fight With GOP Over Abortion.”
"Nancy Pelosi's extremely blunt assessments of the true motives of Republicans are why her supporters love her and her enemies hate her with equal passion, and on a conference call with bloggers just now, she unleashed a slashing attack on the House GOP's new anti-abortion push that may churn up emotions on both sides.”
While Mr. Sargeant characterized Pelosi’s "blunt assessments" as targeted at Republicans, it would be more accurate to describe them as targeted at Catholics, and especially the Catholic bishops. In the call Pelosi said:
“‘They are at a different philosophical place,’ she said, characterizing their view as: ‘all engagement has to result in a child.’ Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is ‘not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation.’"
The Think Progress blog reported Pelosi’s statement slightly differently:
“in a different philosophical place on…all engagements that result in a child. So that’s why homosexuality, that’s why birth control, all these things that are not consistent with their beliefs that are all about procreation.”
That is not a "Republican" position--far from it. The opposition to contraception as well as to abortion is not “Republican” but is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Congresswoman Pelosi’s ongoing and well-known dissents from the teaching of the church on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and natural marriage are no longer properly described as “dissent” but have become outright attacks. She is now doing everything in her considerable power to thwart the Catholic bishops.
Pelosi’s positions have not been unopposed, but at the higher levels of the Church that opposition has mostly taken the form of debate. On December 21, 2009 Pelosi said:
“I practically mourn this difference of opinion (over abortion) because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”
To which San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer responded:
"While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom."
While Archbishop Niederaur’s response may have been intellectually satisfying, it does not seem to have changed Congressman Pelosi positions one whit. On March 26, 2010 noted canon lawyer and Referendarius of the Apostolic Signatura Dr. Ed Peters wrote:
“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…. 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 in original.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
U.S. Bishops Support HR 3 "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion" Act
Permanent abortion funding ban long overdue, bishops tell U.S. House
From Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews:
"The U.S. bishops are supporting the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act (H.R. 3) because a permanent ban on abortion funding is long overdue, a representative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) told a U.S. House subcommittee this week.
“H.R. 3 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee February 8....
Since regaining the majority of seats last November, GOP House members have begun launching a series of pro-life bills aimed at curtailing government involvement in abortion. The Protect Life Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), was debated before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health on Wednesday. It would amend the federal health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.
The full testimony can be found online here:
www.usccb.org/prolife/HR3-testimony-2011-02-08.pdf
From Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews:
"The U.S. bishops are supporting the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act (H.R. 3) because a permanent ban on abortion funding is long overdue, a representative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) told a U.S. House subcommittee this week.
“H.R. 3 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee February 8....
Since regaining the majority of seats last November, GOP House members have begun launching a series of pro-life bills aimed at curtailing government involvement in abortion. The Protect Life Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), was debated before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health on Wednesday. It would amend the federal health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.
The full testimony can be found online here:
www.usccb.org/prolife/HR3-testimony-2011-02-08.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
