Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Friday, October 31, 2008

A Democratic Halloween

If Obama Is Elected, Be Afraid, BE VERY AFRAID

I've Been Through Worse, I've Survived An Abortion

After the info about Obama not even supporting the Unborn Survivors Act came out, he went on the offensive (& that is truly what his actions were, offensive) calling what Gianna Jesson, an abortion survivor, said a dispicable lie. The irony is said his ad was misleading. (They claimed her's was also, but if it was, how come the law that supposedly exists hasn't been enforced? Any doubts, just ask Jill Stanek.)

Gianna Jessen: Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice in public policy almost left me to die and no one should have to go through what I went through. Exec. Dir. Jill Stanek: "It is despicable, repulsive and beneath contempt that Barack Obama would attack Gianna Jessen. She is a courageous abortion survivor and living miracle who would not be with us today if Obama's policies had been in place when she was born. Mr. Obama continues to mislead the American people on this issue, he voted four times against medical care and protection for babies who survive abortions in the Illinois State Senate, while the U.S. Senate was voting 98-0 to pass an identical bill. Mr. Obama needs to come forward and tell the American people that he understands people like Gianna Jessen, and that he will support and enforce Born Alive Infant protections -- that these are living, breathing human beings who have come into our world and deserve protection in the law and should receive medical care at health care facilities. These babies have the same rights as the rest of us."

Mille Grazie to The Courageous Bishops of America

Faithful Catholics in the US have been both stunned and gratified by the recent show of episcopal strength in dealing with the heretical nonsense of “Catholics” in public life who clearly misrepresent the Church’s teaching on vital issues. To date, more than fifty bishops have spoken out about this kind of misconduct or issued guidelines about voting at this critical juncture in our nation’s history. The trend is truly heartening. Let’s pray that it continues! Much more could be done, of course, but I am grateful that more bishops are standing up to strengthen and protect the faith of millions. Many have been longing for this show of valor from our fathers in the faith—and yes, they are our spiritual fathers. When they are strong, we are strong; and when they are weak—the flock is ravaged by wolves.
A few bishops deserve special mention. A good example is Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, CA, who stood up before the misnamed “Catholic Gay and Lesbian” conference last month and proclaimed the Church’s natural law teaching that homosexual acts are mortal sins. A whole group walked out of his speech in protest, and he was reviled afterward for daring to present Catholic teaching to them. The organizer of the conference actually apologized to the attendees for the talk! Bishop Soto made no apologies though. Likewise, San Diego Auxiliary, Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, has been the strongest champion of the legal effort to define marriage as between one man and one woman to combat the radical homosexual lobby in California.
Nor can we fail to mention the strong pro-life stances of Archbishops Burke (now in Rome) and Chaput (Denver) as well as Bishops Vasa (Baker, OR), Farrell and Vann (Dallas, TX), Martino (Scranton, PA) and Mallooly (Wilmington, DE) who are representatives of a group of other bishops who have made their voices heard forcefully on the Catholic voting issue.
It is not just in the US, however, where bishops have been applying their authority in an astonishing fashion. Here are just a few more of the good things happening around the world in the episcopal college:
The Bishops of Canada issued a statement criticizing the bestowing of Canada’s highest honor, the Order of Canada, on extreme abortionist Henry Morganthaler as if he were an example of all that makes Canada proud. Cardinal Turcotte of Montreal actually returned his own Order of Canada medal as a sign of protest to this mockery;
John Cardinal Njue of Nairobi, Kenya recently issued a marvelous, hard-hitting pastoral letter to his Archdiocese concerning the efforts to legalize abortion in that pivotal African country which to date has been such a stronghold against the culture of death;
The Philippines Episcopal Conference came out forcefully against the US- and UN-inspired Reproductive Health Bill which attempted to legalize every form of perversion on that Catholic populace; the bill was subsequently defeated but the bishops know that theirs is a regular battle in which they must engage for the souls of their people.
Thankfully, there are many more examples of episcopal courage that we could add to the reflections but suffice it to say that there seems to be a new wind blowing through the College of Bishops all around the world these days. Perhaps that wind is originating from Bavaria, but whatever its origin, let us continue to pray for our bishops and priests who are always on the firing line between the culture of life and the culture of death. We also need to thank them personally when they speak out in order to encourage them to do even more! Now that the example has been set, let us hope that other bishops and priests will have the audacity of our hope in Christ to go out and do the same!

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,

Cleveland Right to Life Warns of So-Called Catholic Groups That Are Really Pro-Abortion

Unfortunately the same can't be said about Bishop Richard G. Lennon of the Diocese of Cleveland. He has been strangely silent. Fortunately, Cleveland Right to Life has stepped in to speak out.They point out how one Diocesan worker who is supposed to be the Pro-life person in the diocese is involved with severl Pro-Obama groups who have worked to undemine the Pro-life stand of the Church when it comes to abortion.

While the Bishop stays silent, others under his charge work to undermine Catholic teaching throughout the Diocese.

In the midst of the most important election in decades, with more at stake in the paramount issues of Life than at any other time in our nation's history, the USCCB issued its document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" in an attempt to help U.S. Catholics make morally sound decisions, based on solid Catholic principles, in the voting booth this November. Unfortunately, the document only seemed to create more confusion among the faithful. As a result, over
50 U.S. bishops have issued statements in an effort to clarify the document's directives and emphasize the pre-eminent position that Life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research) hold in the teachings of the Church.
Cleveland Bishop Richard Lennon, however, has remained silent.
The duty of informing Cleveland-area Catholics about their moral obligations as voters has thus been exclusively in the hands of the Diocese's Social Action Office, headed by Executive Director Tom Allio. This office, which supposedly houses (somewhere deep within) the Pro-Life department of the Diocese, has issued the only diocesan voter's guide (limited as it is); is in charge of making "Faithful Citizenship" accessible and clear to parishioners; and is the sponsor of the very few talks being given on the topic (Allio himself will speak on "Faithful Citizenship in a Presidential Election Year" on Oct. 30 at John Carroll University).
But who is Tom Allio? And where do his priorities lie - with promoting the authentic truths of the Catholic Faith, or with promoting a particular political party in the swing state of Ohio in a hotly contested presidential election?
Along with his duties at the Diocese of Cleveland, Tom Allio serves on the Advisory Council of an organization called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Although it professes to be a "nonpartisan, lay Catholic organization that promotes awareness of Catholic social teaching," a close examination of its actions and affiliations proves it is neither authentically Catholic nor bi-partisan.
In fact, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACD) exists in order to create and spread false interpretations of Catholic doctrine to convince Catholics that it is not only possible but preferable to vote for Barack Obama and other pro-choice politicians. It is (according to IRS documents) a partner organization to Catholics United, which openly endorses pro-choice, Democratic candidates for office, including Obama.
Both "Catholic" organizations, while claiming to oppose abortion, refuse to endorse any legal remedies to the abortion genocide, such as overturning Roe v. Wade, passing parental notification laws, or even banning late-term abortions. And both organizations have come under fire recently for their tactics: Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput claims "the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn." And Francis Cardinal George of Chicago decries the groups' claim that they "promote the common good," stating, "Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good." Cardinal George has banned both groups' voting materials from distribution in his parishes, calling them "deceptive."
As a member of CACD's Advisory Council, the Diocese's Allio works with a who's-who of Democratic activists:
The Chair of the CACD's Board of Directors is
Elizabeth Bagley, a former member of Bill Clinton's State Department and wife of former Democratic National Committee Finance Chair Smith Bagley. She has personally given thousands of dollars to a host of pro-abortion Democrats, including Barack Obama.
Smith Bagley, in turn, is the President of the ARCA Foundation, which donates millions of dollars every year to a host of far-left organizations such as Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the ACLU, as well as numerous pro-Cuba, pro-Sandinista, and anti-corporate groups. In the Spring of 2008 alone, ARCA gave $75,000 to CACD.
Executive Director and Co-Founder of CACD,
Alexia Kelley, was the Religious Outreach Coordinator for Democrat John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
CACD Co-Founder
James Salt, who now acts as Director of Organizing for Catholics United, previously worked in the Kansas Democratic Party's Faith Outreach office; as such, he worked closely with ardently pro-abortion Kansas Governor Katherine Sebelius, who has been accused of protecting and even throwing parties for notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller ("Tiller the Killer"). Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann has publicly told Sebelius, a Catholic, not to present herself for Communion.
CACD Co-Founder
Tom Perriello is currently running for office as a pro-abortion Democrat in Virginia. He founded a second organization that is closely aligned with radical leftist George Soros'
George Soros, the pro-abortion Democratic activist and billionaire, is a major contributor to CACD, providing $100,000 in 2006 and $50,000 in 2005. Soros also funds the abortionist front-group Catholics For Choice.
In July of 2008, Tom Allio participated in a convention sponsored by CACD, Catholics United, and the "Catholic" lobbying group NETWORK to draft the "
Platform for the Common Good," a document which condemns "racism, sexism and classism" but never mentions abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research. The Platform pleads for "green space", "ecological responsibility", "clean energy", "stewardship of the earth", and "nutritious food", but not for the recognition of the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death nor for its legal protection. Even the convention's "Breakout Session Statements" completely ignore Catholic teaching on Life issues, in favor of such issues as immigration and ecology.
It is this Platform's principles that Allio emphasizes in his diocesan voter's guides, in his "Faithful Citizenship" materials, and in his contributions as a member of the
Board of Directors for Sojourner Magazine. Sojourner's Executive Director Jim Wallis was the moderator for several panel discussions at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, including one entitled "How an Obama Administration Will Engage People of Faith." And among its Contributing Editors, Sojourner lists notorious dissenters Joan Chittister and Rosemary Radford Ruether, both of whom have been censured by the Vatican.
Allio's CACD and NETWORK are, in fact, close and consistent partner organizations. NETWORK, in turn, is a supporting organization of Call to Action, the largest group of Catholic dissidents in America. Its members were officially excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz of Nebraska, a decision affirmed by the Vatican in November of 2006 with this statement: "The judgment of the Holy See is that the activities of Call to Action in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint. Thus to be a member of this association or to support it is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic faith" (emphasis added). Coincidentally, Allio's Associate Director at the Diocesan Social Justice Office, Karen Leith, is a past board member of FutureChurch, the Cleveland branch of Chicago-based Call to Action.
This November, as in years past, NETWORK will be represented at Call to Action's National Conference by Jean Sammon. Sammon, who has worked for NETWORK since 1998, is a former Board Member of Allio's Social Justice Office for the Diocese of Cleveland. She is scheduled to speak at Gesu parish on "Faithful Citizenship: Platform for the Common Good" on Oct. 29, and at JCU on Oct. 29 & 30.
Also scheduled to speak Oct. 29-30 at JCU, on the topics of "Faithful Citizenship," and "Catholic Social Teaching," is Catherine Pinkerton, CSJ, who gave the benediction at this year's Democratic National Convention. Pinkerton is quoted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer as admiring Barack Obama's "vision of where we stand as a nation."
Remember who else is speaking at John Carroll University on Oct. 30 on the topic of "Faithful Citizenship?" The Executive Director of the Diocesan Social Action Office, Tom Allio himself. Is it too much to assume that his talk, like those of his associates Pinkerton and Sammon, and like the materials he has made available to the Cleveland faithful, will push the partisan-Democrat, pro-Obama agenda of his CACD organization, while twisting true Catholic doctrine to suit his "Platform" and virtually ignoring the fundamental life issues at stake?
And why does our bishop sit silently by and allow the sole teaching on Catholic social principles in his diocese to come from an office run by a clearly biased, active dissenter?
Allio's Social Action office has influence in many other areas of our diocese as well - including our schools, universities and health care. Is the bishop aware of Allio's "extracurricular" activities and associations? Have Allio's travels on behalf of his dissident organization been funded by the Cleveland Diocese? And are other diocesan staff members involved in such organizations as well.
Further investigation seems warranted, but one thing is clear: Bishop Lennon cannot continue to allow people whose beliefs and activities put them outside of the Catholic Faith continue to dictate the policies of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.
Concerned? Alarmed? Want to help? Consider one or several of the following proactive measures:
Contact Bishop Lennon at; Phone: 216-696-6525 ext. 2030; Fax: 216-696-6547; or Chancery Building - 1027 Superior Ave. - Cleveland, OH 44114-2503.
Contact John Carroll University President Robert L. Niehoff at; Phone: 216-397-1886; or John Carroll University - 20700 North Park Blvd. - University Heights, Ohio 44118.
Contact the pastor of Gesu Parish, Rev. Lorn J. Snow, S.J.; Phone: (216) 932-0617 Fax: (216) 932-0731; or Church of the Gesu - 2490 Miramar Blvd. - University Heights, OH 44118.
Attend one or more of the above lectures and inform the audience of the speaker's bias and non-conformity with true Catholic teaching.
Forward this article extensively to faithful Catholics, pro-lifers and the media.
Volunteer to hand out faithful Catholic voting information in church parking lots this Sunday by calling Lifeworks Ohio at 216-661-3000 or e-mailing
Contact Cleveland Right to Life if you have any information you would like to share related to the Diocese of Cleveland (see contact information below).

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Kmiec et al*, This Is What You Are Supporting By Your Surrender to the "Culture of Death"


· Any hope for a U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade will be lost.
· The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will be signed into law eliminating 35 years of laws that have restricted and regulated the practice of abortion.
· He would very likely offer legislation to eliminate the Hyde Amendment which protects taxpaying citizens from being forced to pay for abortions through Medicaid.
· Abortion will be covered in his proposed national health care plan.
· The Mexico City Policy, which bars taxpayer funding of organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries, would be eliminated.
· Funding for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) would be restored, allowing millions of taxpayer dollars for abortions and forced sterilizations in Third World countries, including China with its coercive “one child” policy.
· The Born Alive Infants Protection Act and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act would be overturned.
· Current restrictions on the performance of abortions on military bases would be removed.

* My new nickname for this group of Pro-Obama Catholics, Pelosi, Biden, etc is the Lady McBeth cotingency. Like her they have the blood of innocent people on their hands. & like her, they will, unless they repent, never be rid of the blood.

The Fruit of the Efforts of the "Culture of Death"


"Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty."
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Republican governments could be supported only by pure Religion or Austere Morals. Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” - John Adams

Given how he rose to prominence as a result of the Stamp Act, I wonder what he would think if he knew he has been honored with being on several of them since then?


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Fr. Euteneuer: "No, it is not legitimate to disagree on abortion and still vote for a radical abortion candidate."

I have been asked by many people to help clarify Catholic teaching on exercising one’s voting rights, especially with respect to the abortion issue. There are many candidates across the nation running on many issues, and Catholics are trying to sort through them all, so I will state the Church’s position as unequivocally as possible for the education of the faithful and not as an endorsement of any particular candidate or candidates: true Catholics are not “single-issue” voters—we are principled voters. That determines which candidates we give our vote to and it determines the state of our souls after we vote.
With respect to the abortion issue, the principle in question is the moral impossibility for a Catholic to cooperate in an act or an institution that is “intrinsically evil.” Now, something that is “intrinsically evil” is not just a bad thing—it is a heinous thing, trumping all other moral considerations, and we can never legitimately commit the act ourselves or approve of it in anyone else. Casting a vote for a candidate who forcefully advocates the killing of innocent unborn babies shows approval or unacceptable toleration of that heinous crime against humanity, and Catholics can never do it in good conscience. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls such an attitude and action “formal cooperation” in evil (#2272). This does not mean that I commit the evil myself. It means that I agree with it and have made it possible for a person in public office to continue and/or advance that evil in my society.
Formal cooperation in the evil act of another is a sin, and depending on the gravity of the person’s evil act, formal cooperation in it can be a mortal sin. Since procured abortion is an intrinsically evil act, and all promotion of it fits into the same moral category, voting for a person who forcefully advocates it must be a mortal sin. Add to the sin of formal cooperation in evil the sin of disobedience to legitimate Church authority. To date the USCCB and more than a dozen US bishops and state bishops’ conferences have clarified these principles for Catholics, and their teachings couldn’t be clearer.
Further, add the sin of scandal that a regrettable number of priests and religious are giving by their appalling disingenuousness about Church teachings both in and out of the pulpit. Catholic parents and teachers equally give scandal when they do not teach their children the principles that undergird moral behavior or properly form their consciences according to the Truth that is in Christ.
Some ask if a Catholic may vote for someone whose policies would advance an agenda that is mostly in line with the Catholic Church’s teaching? Also, what if the Catholic disagrees with the candidate’s position on abortion but still wants to vote for this candidate for other reasons consistent with our values? Here the Church uses the term “proportionate reason” to indicate that there must be some kind of balance in the candidate’s position that indicates it is likely that a greater good would be accomplished for society despite the evil he or she advocates. Proportionate reasoning usually has to do with positions that are not intrinsically evil in themselves or that, if they are, would constitute such a minimal part of the platform that they would be “outweighed” somehow in the grand scheme of the candidate’s public service. According to the above principle, however, the degree to which the candidate would promote something as heinous as abortion can literally nullify all the other “good” that he or she would do for humanity! When the fundamental right to life is denied in society, all other rights and goods are therefore threatened. The very moral foundation of a people is eroded. So the answer has to be no, it is not legitimate to disagree on abortion and still vote for a radical abortion candidate.
May a Catholic vote for an “imperfect” candidate if the radical abortion candidate is worse? The Church says yes, but only if the vote is not expressed as an agreement with the “imperfect” elements of the candidate’s policies and only if the vote is intended to limit the evil that other candidate would inevitably do.
It is truly regretful that we have gotten to the point where we might have to surrender some of our basic values in the voting booth because we have not successfully insisted on the very best candidates for public office to serve the common good. That is a discussion for another day, but I anticipate that if Catholics do not assert Catholic values forcefully in elections and public policy from here on out, we may be faced in future elections with no choice whatsoever that can morally satisfy the Catholic conscience. Heaven help and guide us all on November 4th.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,

Dirty Secret About Breast Cancer-Abortion Link Pro-Aborts Don't Want Out

National Selective Awareness Month
Yes we can!(cer)!

For those of you scratching your heads as to the recent surplus of pink in your town, October is officially the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Some quick facts: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women worldwide and the most common cause of cancer death in U.S. women aged 20 to 59 years. Each year in the United States, approximately 211,000 women develop breast cancer and more than 47,000 (20%) do so before the age of 50 years. Approximately two in 15 American women are expected to develop breast cancer in their lifetime, and nearly 40,000 U.S. women die of the disease annually.
These are some heavy statistics, and in light of the facts, breast cancer really does warrant the degree of concern that it generates in our communities. However, this month isn't entirely all it's cracked up to be. See, when they called it "awareness" month, you might think that what they meant was "awareness". Here's the deal. There is a wealth of life-saving, medically sound information that women are being deliberately left very much unaware of. And it's all censored in the name of politics and liberal ideology from the party that pretends to care deeply for women.
A study by Patrick Carroll published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons on October 2, 2007 demonstrated that abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer."
It has long been established that a woman who has an abortion is left with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she ever became pregnant. Biological evidence and more than two dozen studies worldwide support a cause and effect relationship. Fifteen studies were conducted on American women, and 13 of them reported risk elevations. Seven found a more than twofold elevation in risk. Seventeen are statistically significant, 16 of which demonstrated a positive association. (By the way skeptics, the term "statistical significance" means that scientists are at least 95% certain that their findings are not due to chance or error.)
Conclusive worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion. With one out of every six women in America undergoing a surgical abortion at some point in their lives, and 47% having multiple abortions, this might be good information to make women "aware" of during this month of breast cancer "awareness", wouldn't you say?
If you go to the official National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) website and type in "abortion" on the websites search engine, you get a page stating, "Sorry but there were no results for your search term."
When perusing the "Risk factors of breast cancer FAQ", (also without a single reference to abortion) the website then urges you to seek more information for your unanswered questions on Having done so and searching the term "abortion", you find that the topic of the abortion and breast cancer link is nonchalantly dismissed with the excuse that it's not worth focusing on because, "Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate."
So let me get this straight... it's okay if hordes of us women die to breast cancer, just as long as our sensitive, feminine hearts aren't stirred to excess emotion in the process? What a joke. Someone needs to inform these guys that ignorance isn't always bliss when you're slowly dying from a self-induced malignant tumor.
Women have the right to know about the abortion-breast cancer research. In fact, putting the morality of abortion aside, it's blatantly anti-choice that women have been prevented from making informed decisions about this women's health issue. Breast cancer groups violate their mission to "eradicate breast cancer" when they withhold life-saving information about risk factors for the disease. So why would they do it?
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the close ties of multiple breast cancer groups with abortion providers and supporters, could it? Why would groups like Susan G. Komen for the Cure give roughly half a million dollars a year to abortion provider and breast cancer producer, Planned Parenthood, then publish the truth about abortion causing cancer? Telling women the truth about their health risks would hurt political ties. And it would appear that politics far outweigh the rights of women to make informed health decisions.
Think about this: Nancy Goodman Brinker, Komen's founder and former U.S. ambassador to Hungary, sat on Planned Parenthood's advisory board in North Texas five years ago.
Cynthia Pearson, formerly a Colorado organizer for NARAL Pro-Choice America and currently the executive director of the National Women's Health Network, sits on the National Breast Cancer Coalition's board of directors.Barbara Brenner, Breast Cancer Action's leader, formerly sat on the American Civil Liberties Union's board. The ACLU's abortion advocacy is well known in the courts.If tobacco executives and asbestos manufacturers were board members at the American Lung Association, donors would be outraged and would question their credibility. Why are we tolerating this blatant conflict of interest? The tobacco-cancer link might never have been brought to the public's attention if tobacco's executives had done what abortion's feminists are doing now... sitting on the boards of cancer fundraising organizations.
So what, you might wonder, is Planned Parenthood doing with the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated from the hard work and labor of women seeking awareness for breast cancer? While the nation is diligently acknowledging October as the Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Planned Parenthood is busy observing October as their self-proclaimed "National Family Sexuality Month". While women nation-wide are participating in breast cancer walks, marches and fundraisers in the hopes of finding means to save the lives of their daughters and sisters and mothers, Planned Parenthood is occupied with holding events such as, "The Liberation of Women's Pleasure Through The Vibrator" and "Fantasy and Skin Hunger Training Seminars" that they claim are "family workshops" good for ages eight and up. Women are dying daily from abortion induced breast cancer, and yet promoting sexuality is a weightier issue in the minds of pro-choicers.

It would appear that Planned Parenthood is only pro-woman after first being pro-abortion. On the scale of importance, abortion comes first, women's health second. Or maybe women's health comes in third, after teaching second graders how to masturbate. I never can keep the liberal choice agenda straight.

If you look up "breast cancer" on Planned Parenthoods website, they encourage women to "get the facts" and to "not let fears and concerns get in the way of your health." How about not letting the fear of losing your annual income from abortion services get in the way of the health of the women you profess to care for? The website states, "Planned Parenthood is concerned above all with women's health and the risk factors for reproductive health problems." If this is truly the case, then why ignore conclusive and vital evidence that directly pertains to the development of breast cancer due to induced abortion? Stop viewing women as money producing machines that will sell you their "products of conception", and actually inform these precious individuals that they are putting themselves at risk!

Deceiving women on this issue is anti-woman and anti-choice. An editorial by a National Cancer Institute epidemiologist asserted that "a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer" when she contemplates an abortion... bless her ignorant, liberated little heart. I'm sorry, but regardless of being pro-life or pro-choice, all women undergoing abortion are entitled to full informed consent as to all risks involved in their decision.

The NBCAM website states that, "With breast cancer, education is empowerment." I completely agree. That's our cue, ladies. Let's spread the word. Attend a local breast cancer walk, fair, or event and distribute fliers with information on the abortion-breast cancer link. Get media attention. Be controversial! Write letters to fundraising organizations, stressing the importance of uncensored medical education pertaining to breast cancer. This issue is far too important to let anti-woman organizations like Planned Parenthood censor. I know the deep rooted political power of Planned Parenthood can be daunting, but to quote NBCAM on the importance of individual involvement, "Messages from real women can be just as powerful, if not more so."

So let's go raise awareness, shall we?

- Gingi Edmonds

Just Look at This Picture!!!!!

Just Look
Edward Cardinal Egan
Archdiocese of New York
October 23, 2008

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?
If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.
But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a “human being” is, what a “person” is, what it means to be “living,” and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us “Roe v. Wade” address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining “human being,” defining “person,” defining “living,” and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who “chooses” to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a “human being” is and what the implications of someone’s wishing to kill it are. The word “incarceration” comes to mind.
However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled “In the Womb” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled “In the Womb—Multiples” and in color and motion shows the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what “living” means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than living and innocent human beings, something, for example, such as “mere clusters of tissues,” you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.
Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that the subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.
It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that “killing” and “choosing to kill” are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of “human being,” “person,” “living,” and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is “part” of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her “because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body.”
One please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the “Dred Scott Case” in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.
Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of “legalized” abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

She Doesn't Look a Day Over 110.

Today marks the 122nd anniversary of the dedication of Liberty Enlightening the World, or as she is more commonly known, The Statue of Liberty. Sadly, despite calls from the public & Congress, the National Park Service refuses to reopen access of the interior & crown to the public. It claims that "the current access patterns reflect a responsible management strategy in the best interests of all our visitors." My question is this, "How is letting the terrorists win by shutting off to public access the interior of 1 of America's greatest symbols of our freedom in the best interests of the visitors? Or the nation?"
Reality is, if the terrorists want to do something, they don't need access to the interior to wreck havoc. There is only so much that can be done. At some point we have to realize that there will always be risks. & if we let them take away our freedom out of fear, then they have already won.
It strikes me as unreasonable management cowardice on the part of the National Parks administration rather than reasonable management strategy.
National Parks Director Mary A. Bomar,

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- Emma Lazarus, 1883


Bishop Malooly Responds to Delaware Joe

A week ago I wrote a post entitled But Which Pope John XXIII? about Delaware Joe's latest bit of hoof-in-mouth heretical rantings. Since then W. Francis Malooly of the Diocese of Wilmington has responded. I am printing the response below.
Basically, he repeats what has been said time & time again since Pelosi did her foot-in-mouth performance. At this point, it should be obvious that they are going to thumb their noses at authentic Catholic teaching, even if Jesus would come down from Heaven to correct them. OK, maybe that might convince a few of them who haven't totally sold out. I suspect Biden is too far gone for this to do any good. He'd probably shove his Rosary down Jesus' throat.
It is time for his Bishop to do something stronger. However I suspect, as do many others, that he won't. Why? In part based on a statement made by Bishop Malooly in September. In the diocesan paper he said the following: "I do not intend to get drawn into partisan politics nor do I intend to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Catholic Church teaching."
Bishop Malooly, with all due respect, Biden, Pelosi et al have already done that. That have twisted & turned Catholic teaching to justify a political stand that they know is straight out of Hell.
He says a little later: "I think I will get a lot more mileage out of a conversation trying to change the mind and heart than I would out of a public confrontation. That might not make some people happy who feel there ought to be a confrontation but I have to follow my own conscience and try to do what I can for the long term."
OK, call Biden in for a conversation, NOW. Don't make a vague offer like Pelosi's Bishop did. You notice that the meeting still hasn't taken place. Call Biden in, talk to him. Maybe you will finally face the fact that, barring the always possible miracle, his heart is so hardened that it is far beyond talking.
As for "the long term" concerns, I have to ask "What do you mean?" What about the long term damage that is being done to untold number of souls who see no consequences in flaunting God's law as well as God's Church. Do you not care about the potential eternal consequences for their souls? Isn't eternity in Hell more than "long term" enough for you? What about all those unborn being killed by abortion? Isn't all that we have lost from what they have to offer in the years & decades ahead long term enough?
Bishop Malooly, while I am happy to see you continue to pray the Litany of St. Thomas More in the diocese, I have to honestly wonder why? Esp when you yourself refuse to follow the example of St. Thomas in doing the right thing. You call on all statesmen and politicians to "be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life." Shouldn't you be doing the same thing? I am sorry to say that as of right now I see very little courage & even less effectiveness. I hope I am reading things right, but fear I am right.
Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, responds to statements made by Sen. Joseph Biden published in the October 19, 2008 edition of the News Journal.
October 24, 2008
In his interview with the News Journal published on October 19, 2008, Senator Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He says, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and he goes on to claim repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.
This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate. Abortion is a grave sin because it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life. And the Church has always opposed abortion. The Church received the tradition opposing abortion from Judaism. In the Greco-Roman world the early Christians were identifiable by their rejection of the common practices of abortion and infanticide. The “Didache,” probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us that there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and that abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since. It was also the position of Protestant reformers without exception. It was the teaching of Pope John XXIII as well as Pope John Paul II. It is the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of the universal Church, including myself as shepherd of this diocese.
Some ancient and medieval theologians did see a difference between early abortions and ones that occurred later in term because under the limited medical knowledge of the time they did not know then what we scientifically know now—that a fetus is a living human being from the time of conception. Nevertheless, they universally condemned all abortions.
And of course we now know that a fetus is a living human being from the very start. Thus abortions take innocent human lives no matter when they occur. Since there is no “gradation” in the Church’s teaching on abortion, there is no way that the medically obsolete division of pregnancy into three trimesters by Roe v. Wade can have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Taking an innocent life in the womb is equally wrong at any stage of pregnancy.
The Declaration of Independence lists as God-given rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is listed first and it is the principal function of the state to protect the lives of its citizens. This understanding of the state’s primary obligation to protect human life is also fundamental to the Catholic social doctrine to which the Senator points. Without life all other rights are meaningless.
This Sunday all the parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington will pray the Litany of St. Thomas More, martyr and patron saint of statesmen, politicians and lawyers. In that litany we will ask St. Thomas More to intercede so that all statesmen and politicians may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life. We hope that Senator Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life.
Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly
Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington

Stockton Planned Parenthood: "It's just a grain of rice."


Don't Abort Your Rice Baby
Ashley Colantuono

We went to the Stockton Planned Parenthood to sidewalk counsel and hand out information. We decided to send a Truth Team in to talk to the women already in the waiting room.
Bud and I walked into the clinic and were surprised at all the women waiting for their abortions. Bud and I quickly started our conversation. I was pretending I was pregnant and wanted to keep my baby and Bud was trying to talk me into getting an abortion.
After a couple minutes the other women took notice to our conversation. Before long a clinic worker came from behind the desk and questioned what we were doing. I told her that I didn't know what to do about my pregnancy. Bud told her that there wasn't a decision. I was there to have an abortion.
I told her that the people outside had told me that my baby had a heartbeat. Bud asked her if it was a baby. "It's just a grain of rice," she said.
When I wasn't looking, the clinic worker looked at Bud with approval as if to egg him on to keep encouraging me to abort. But when she looked at me she tried to sound empathetic and sensitive.
I asked the staffer about adoption and when I did Bud pretended to get mad and walked out of the clinic.
She then sat down and started to talk to me about my "choice". After a couple minutes of her trying to persuade me to think about my decision even more, I asked if I could have a couple more minutes to think it over before I left the clinic.
While Bud was outside he met a couple with a situation resembling ours. Only theirs was real. The woman was upset about going in to schedule an abortion while her boyfriend was encouraging her to do it.
Bud quickly moved in and talked to the man while his girlfriend was on the phone. He gave him a "Before You Choose" pamphlet and told him he was in a similar situation. He encouraged him to leave with his girlfriend.
Bud joined me once again in the waiting room of the Planned Parenthood. By this time the couple was in line again. I had already given pamphlets to the women sitting around me. Bud and I decided our next move was to get that couple to leave with us. We made sure they saw us leave.
And a couple minutes later they walked out as well. The man came up and hugged Bud while I talked to the girl. I asked her if she needed help. I told her that our team was outside to help them with whatever they needed. Bud encouraged this guy to be a man and provide for his girlfriend and child.
After getting in the van we learned that Tara had talked to a woman walking into the clinic as well and that she had decided not to abort. We are so thankful that God used us in a powerful way today to save those two children and the couple from abortion.
We pray that God will continue to protect their children and that he will bless those people we talked to/gave information to. As happy as I am to know that I was a part of saving a child's life, I also know that we have to keep fighting. While I wasn't able to save every child in the clinic today, I know that if I continue to fight that we can make abortion illegal and unthinkable.


What If This Had Been an Effigy of Obama . . . . .

instead of 1 of Sarah Palin done by a homosexual in California? (Halloween Palin Prop Sparks Controversy In WeHo)
We all know that there would be screams of "HATE CRIME!!!!!!" The FBI and Secret Service would be launching investigations. & it would be loudly decried, & rightly so.
I can say that because it did happen in Portland (Secret Service investigates Obama effigy incident).
Let me start by saying that I find the idea of hanging anyone in effigy totally & absolutely disgusting. It is hateful, plain & simple. I didn't like it when it was done by Radical Muslims in the Middle East over the years. I don't like it here, regardless of who does it.
Having said that, I now raise the question, at what point does political speech, which all of them claim to be, cross the line to becoming a crime? When is it a death threat, when is it political speech?
In the Middle East protests where we say Reagan & others hung &/or burned, it was a death threat. In the USA, it depends. If Palin was a Democrat, the feminists would be screaming, if she was black, ditto. For certain groups it is automaticly a hate crime/death threat. She's not in any of those groups, so no outcry?
Also, how many of these who would scream about an Obama effigy applaud the effigies hung & burned by radical Muslims over the years? Double standard? Sure looks like it! Either it is always wrong, or it is always right. Which is it?
Every human being, male, female, regardless of skin color, deserves a certain modicum of respect. For me this crosses a line. It is always wrong. It may be free speech that is protected by the Constitution, but in my mind, it is an abuse of that right.

What is really sad is that some of these probably HAVE been said.

That is exactly what I thought when I 1st read this post over at American Rumpo. I know he was trying to be funny with what he wrote & he was. But it again proves the fact that the best humor is based on reality. & even though Vir didn't intend it to be so reality based, this is way too close to the truth than either of us would like.

Here is my list of the top 10 things overheard at a Catholics for Obama rally.
10. OMG, he is spiritual. I mean IMHO he is just sssoooo cute!
9. Barack Obama is not pro-abortion, he is against abortion every Feb 29 at 1:15 AM!
8. Oh no, I spilled my tofu french fries, and all over my new hemp shorts. OK center yourself Brian....ooommmm.......oooommmmmm.
7. Why can't Pope Benedict XVI be this charismatic. That is why more people like Barack he is just nice.
6. Lucy come help me assemble this table of "peace", it is almost time for our yoga prayers and we need the table of "peace" so we can put our candle of "spirit" on it.
5. Now Susan we saw you checking out that young man over there, be careful. You are still too young to date......without taking your birth control pill. Have you been taking them? "Yes daddy" OK dear you can go talk to him...have fun!
4. Susan Sarandon should have been a nun, she is so wise and cares so much about other people.
3. Who does the Catholic Church think they are? Telling me I can't vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I will start voting as they like as soon as they start ordaining women!
2. Who is this Saint Thomas Beckett guy and why do so many of these "extreme" Catholics think we need him now.
1. I agree with Obama, why should my daughter have to ruin her life over a simple mistake. I mean burdening a young woman with a child is EXTREME!

The Truth About Abortion's Psychological Damage That Planned Parenthood & Their Buddies at the American Psychological Association Won't Admit

From Mike Stack, 40 Days for Life of Southfield, Michigan:
I’m still a bit awestruck and emotional at what I encountered at the vigil site today.
We had invited several post-abortive women and men to stand with the “I Regret my Abortion” and “I Regret Lost Fatherhood” signs from the Silent No More campaign. Several of them shared their testimony of hurt and healing. I am still trying to process the intense emotions I have from this experience.
Here we have women and men deliberately ripping off their band aids and exposing their pain for the sake of those entering the abortion facility and those who work there. I have never seen a greater act of love.
Their self sacrifice is changing hearts and saving their sisters and brothers from making the same mistake they made so many years ago. My heart breaks not only from the sorrow of listening to their pain but from the joy of seeing the healing that they have experienced through God’s Mercy.
One of the most remarkable stories we heard this morning was shared by a woman that providence brought to us today.
She is well acquainted with the abortion facility where the 40 Days for Life vigil is taking place. She had an abortion there several months ago.
She told us how she was ambivalent about her abortion decision and had gone back and forth between the abortion facility and the crisis pregnancy center just down the road.
At that time she had been given a diagnosis of HIV and the abortion facility convinced her that her only option was to abort to avoid passing the deadly virus to her baby. Even though her husband objected, she initially consented to the abortion.
She was well into her second trimester and would need the two-day procedure for her abortion. She wanted time to think but the staff insisted she stay for the abortion and tricked her into doing the entire procedure in one day.
Meanwhile her husband was doing every thing he could to talk to her and get her out of the abortion facility but the staff locked him out and forced her to turn off her cell phone so he couldn’t communicate with her.
With the abortion completed she left and was later rechecked for HIV. It was found that there had been some mistake at the lab and she had been given a false positive report for HIV.
Today God has given her a healthy pregnancy — twins! — a renewed marriage commitment and some good lawyers to bring prosecution against the abortionist and his staff. She freely admits that these are all good things but nothing will bring back the child she has lost to abortion.
We pray in thanksgiving for the courage these women and men have demonstrated in exposing their hurt and healing and we pray for blessings on all those that hear their courageous words.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Texas Catholic Conference Is Sponsoring a "Pilgrimage for Life"

"God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gn 1:26) in each one." -Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), February 2005
On Monday 24 November 2008, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston will lead a Pilgrimage for Life. It will begin with a 9:00 AM Mass at St. Thomas Catholic Church in Huntsville,TX. After Mass there will be Eucharistic Adoration for those who are unable to participate in the walk. The walk will begin at the Huntsville Health Center (Planned Parenthood) at 10:30 am & end at 11:30 Am with a closing prayer at the Huntsville Prison site of the Texas Death Chamber. They are calling on those walking to also fast until the end of the walk.
Why are they doing this? According to their website: "The Pilgrimage for Life is an opportunity for Catholic Faithful to gather and pray for those affected by infractions on the dignity of life, and for a reinvigoration of the Culture of Life. Through gathering and processing, participants in the Pilgrimage for Life witness to the world our Catholic teaching on the life and dignity of the human person from conception to natural death."
It goes on to say:"Throughout the Pilgrimage, all life is acknowledged as sacred. Politics and preference are set aside, all life is welcome: the life of the unborn, the child, the mother, the father, the poor, the wealthy, the imprisoned, the victim, the elderly, the welcomed, and the stranger."
"The Pilgrimage for Life is an opportunity to reflect on the life and dignity of the human person from conception to natural death. Our presence today is one of prayer and reconciliation for all those who strive to promote a Culture of Life, and for those who are deceived by the Culture of Death. This is a witness, not a demonstration. All sloganeering, verbal confrontations, forms of harassment or public shaming, etc. are unacceptable. Please refrain from bringing signs or otherwise making political statements or partisan comments."
More info including a map of the route is available at the website.

As Someone Who Has Been There, He Should Know

Many of my friends from my days as a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue have been asking me lately how I can resist supporting an Obama presidency.
My answer--much to their horror--has been simple: "Because I used to be a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue, and I understand the party-line of the movement:
-- destroy the notion of objective truth with appeals to diversity, difference, and multi-cultism;
-- eliminate the possibility of rational discourse by elevating the affective above the rational;
-- convert all public political discourse into emotive appeals to race, gender, class, and sexuality;
-- define "freedom" as "freedom from constraint" and never as "freedom to do what is right;"
-- attack all secular opposition as "oppressive, self-centered, and fearful;"
-- attack all religious opposition as "superstitious, fundamentalist, and ignorant;"
-- use "white liberal guilt" to attack economic growth and prosperity;-- feed over-educated narcissism with the prospect of ruling, finally, and ruling more than the meager resources of an English/women's studies department at a state university."
Why do I oppose Obama? Simple. His political positions are evil. This man believes that it is morally acceptable to kill children. He believes that it is morally permissible to attempt to kill a child in the womb, fail, and then leave the child to die once delivered alive. This man believes that all Americans should participate in his evil by being forced to pay for the genocide of abortion with federal tax dollars. That the overwhelming majority of children murdered in the womb are black seems not to concern him at all. He has promised to eliminate all democratically enacted laws against the murder of children by signed the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" if elected. This will enshrine the Supreme Court's 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade into federal law.
That the MSM has chosen again and again to ignore, obfuscate, distort, and lie about his connections to domestic terrorists, international Marxists, local communists in Chicago, and his involvement with other radical left-wing groups like the vote-stealing ACORN cadre only adds to my deep suspicison and unease. Though these are more strictly political concerns and do not rise to the level of his promotion of child murder, they are nonetheless deeply distrubing to this American citizen.
Now, before you pop off in the comboxes about Catholic priests not being political, let me say this: at no time during my solemn profession as a Dominican friar in 2003 or during my priestly ordination in 2005 did I EVER renounce my U.S. citizenship; my right to free speech; my right to the free practice of my religion; or the free expression of my opinions in a public milieu. Nor should you take my opposition to the evil of the possibility of an Obama presidency as an endorsement of a John McCain presidency.
If you want me to support Obama you will need to demonstrate to me one thing and one thing only: how does the actual murder of 1.7 million children every year in the U.S. (and the inevitable increase in that number if B.O. is elected) outweigh any possible good that B.O. might do as a Marxist-feminist chief executive officer of the U.S.
All I can say at this point is: thank you God for constitutional term limits.
- Fr. Philip Neri Powell, O.P., Ph.D.

Good News - More Than 384 Lives Have Now Been Saved

The reason I say more than 384 is because part of the story you are about to read from the latest 40 Days for Life update talks about an Oklahoma clinic that has been shut down. So we aren't sure how many more women, rather than go elsewhere, didn't have an abortion there. It is also likely that many women at other locations changed their minds without letting anyone know.
“The Oklahoma City clinic has been closed five days in a row now,” Karen told me. “No word on why. Praise God! It’s not like him to close during the week.”
That quick message says so much. The “why” really isn’t that important; what’s important is that for numerous days during this 40 Days for Life campaign, the doors were locked — and no babies were dying in one Oklahoma City abortion facility.
In Ottawa, Ontario, the 40 Days for Life team spotted a want ad for the Morgentaler Clinic, the center run by Canada’s most infamous abortionist.
The ad is for a counselor. The clinic is looking for someone with a university degree to work 15 hours a week. The job pays $24 an hour, and it’s an immediate opening.
Does that mean the previous counselor quit? There’s no way of telling at this point. But that could well be the case.
It’s noteworthy when clinics close or lose staff members, but it’s your presence outside the abortion centers that is, has been, and will continue to be so critical to changing individual hearts and minds.
And that’s why we continue to rejoice in the many reports we’re hearing of saved lives.
The latest tally of confirmed lives saved as a result of this fall’s 40 Days for Life campaign is up to…
Here are just a few of those stories:
“Another turnaround!” notes Major in Huntsville, Alabama. “That makes six here since 40 Days for Life started. This one was 18 to 20 weeks into her pregnancy. Please pray for her!”
“A pregnant woman came to speak to me after having left the abortion clinic,” said Joanne at 40 Days for Life in Providence, Rhode Island. “She changed her mind because people were praying outside. She has decided to have the baby.”
A couple spoke to a 40 Days for Life volunteer outside the abortion facility in Louisville, Kentucky, then went in. A while later, they two came back out and the man said, “You got to me. We couldn’t do it!” Jenny said there is so much to be thankful for. “Isn’t it so humbling that God has called us to be a part of this?”
Luke in South Bend, Indiana tells of praying at the 40 Days for Life vigil on a day he was tired, hungry and really looking forward to taking a break. About that time, a woman drove up and asked if he worked at the abortion center. “No, I’m working for the Lord,” he said, “and praying.”
The woman told Luke she was under extreme pressure to have an abortion, and then asked him, “Can I have your advice? What do you think I should do?”
Luke prayed for the Holy Spirit to give him the right words. He then asked the woman, “Who gave you this child?” Those were indeed the right words; she responded, “God did.”
He asked her how she could reject such a gift. She thought about that for a moment and said, “You’re right. I could never have an abortion.” Luke told her she could find help at the nearby pregnancy resource center, and then she drove away.
“I broke down and cried for joy,” he said. “Blessed be God forever!”


Sunday, October 26, 2008

A Man for All Seasons

Columbia Pictures - 1966
120 Minutes
Directed by Fred Zinnemann
Paul Scofield - Sir Thomas More
Robert Shaw - King Henry VIII
Orson Welles - Cardinal Wolsey
Leo McKern - Thomas Cromwell
Wendy Hiller - Alice More
Susannah York - Margaret More
John Hurt - Richard Rich
Corin Redgrave - William Roper
Nigel Davenport - Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk
Embedding for the YouTube video of the trailer is disabled, but you can see it here:
A few days ago I talked about Archbishop Chaput's book Render Unto Caesar. I mentioned that he devoted a chapter to St. Thomas More & his relevance for today's political landscape. As Archbishop Chaput describes him: "More was a man of principle guided by a properly formed conscience, who died rather than betray either." In the book he recommended seeing this movie to get a flavor of More's character. I put the movie on my birthday wish list, got it (Mille grazie, caro amico!!) & am here to add my recommendation to the Archbishop's.
As the Archbishop says, Robert Bolt (screenwriter & writer of the play it was based on) got More right in many ways. & he goes on to remind us "Still, the Thomas More of history is much more complex and interesting than any drama will ever show." True, but then it is impossible to ever get everything about someone like More into a 2 hour movie.
That disclaimer having been given, I agree with the Archbishop's assesment, he got More right in so many ways. From the start of the movie we see the strength of More's character. Since everyone knows what happened to Sir Thomas More, I will go into detail about the movie. If you don't want to know all the details, I will say that I highly recommend this movie. It is well written & well acted. It deserved the 8 Academy Award nominations it got. Hiller & Shaw got Best Supporting nods. (Shaw should have won in my opinion.) Scofield won for best actor as Sir Thomas More. He originated the role in London & later on Broadway. Zinneman won for director. It also won Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, cinematography & costume design. For those who don't want it spoiled you can quit reading now & go rent the movie. Then come back & read the rest. For the rest of you:
The movie starts with More's summons to Cardinal Wolsey's palace. Wolsey called More in to discuss King Henry's desire to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon. More refuses, despite pressure by Wolsey to compromise his morals. More tells him: "I think that when statesmen forsake their own private consciences for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
Later we see where Wolsey's ambition leads him, disgraced, & dying in a monastery. His dying words are: "If I had served my God as diligently as I did my king, He would not have given me over in my grey hairs." Wolsey's death saved him from facing a trial for treason for failing to get the annulment from the Pope. While it is a small part, Welles did an excellent job of portraying a man who was more concerned with temporal power than seeking 1st the kingdom of God.
Meanwhile, we see More's return to his estate. There we meet most of the rest of the main characters. He is met upon landing by Richard Rich who is constantly begging More to find him a position at court. More suggests teaching instead because of the corruption in court. We meet More's daughter Margaret (Meg). She was 1 of 4 children, 3 daughters, 1 son, More had with his 1st wife Jane Colt. They also adopted a daughter. After Jane's death he married Alice & adopted her daughter as well. In the movie there is no mention of any opf the other children. Margaret was More's favorite. That is clearly shown in the movie. We also meet William Roper who is in love with Meg. However, More refuses to let them get married because Roper left the Catholic Church & became a Lutheran. More tells him: "Now, listen, Will. Two years ago you were a passionate Churchman. Now you're a passionate Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again."
After Wolsey's death, & despite his opposition to Henry's divorce/annulment, More is appointed Lord Chancellor of England. Shortly thereafter More's estate is visited by the King. Robert Shaw catchies Henry's mercuric temperment well. 1 moment we see Henry as fun loving, friendly & warm. We also see Henry actind devout & sincere in his belief that his marriage should never have been OKed by the Pope. Catherine had been the wife of Henry's older brother Arthur. Henry uses the Scripture where God said a man is not to marry his brother's wife, More the leverite law to justify their positions. Henry's stand of being a devout Christian is belied by his many affairs including the 1 he was having with Anne Boleyn even as he is acting so holy.
But after More's refusal we see the real Henry come out. He has a temper tantrum & screams: "I have no Queen! Catherine's not my wife! No priest can make her so! Those who say she is my wife are not only liars but traitors!" Here we see the truth come out. Henry's piety is an act. He then goes storming off, getting back on the boat. & in a funny scene we see all his obsequious courtiers running through the mud to get on board so they aren't left behind. Robert Shaw was perfectly cast as Henry. He is able to get across all the aspects of Henry's perseonality, pride, arrogance as well as anger. As I said, I think Shaw should have won the award for how he played Henry. Shaw was 1 of those versital actors whose roles varied from the psychopathic killer Red Grant in From Russia With Love to mobster Doyle Lonnegan in The Sting.
Henry's actions have an immediate effect on 1 person. Roper announces he is returning to the Catholic faith. This earns More's blessing for the marriage to now take place. During this conversation Rich comes in & again tries to get More to get him a position. More again refuses. Rich storms off after making some accusations. Roper wants More to have Rich arrested. More says he broke no law. At this point we get an excellent glimpse into More's character as he talks to Roper about the importance of upholding the rule of law.
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Rich ends up getting a position with Cromwell. Henry gets himself declared "Supreme Head of the Church in England", & gets Archbishop Cranmer to grant the annullment. More immediately reisgns as chancellor & returns home, hoping to avoid any public involvement with what lies ahead. More even refuses to discuss it with his family or friends to protect them. Unfortunately, Henry refuses to let it go at that. Knowing More's reputation with the people, he wants More to attend his wedding to Anne. He knows More's attendance will give the wedding legitimacy. More refuses.
He in now pulling in for questioning by Cromwell. Leo McKern was 1 of my favorite character actors. I 1st discovered him as 1 of the many #2s on The Prisoner. Later he took on what became his signature role as Horace Rumpole in Rumpole of the Bailey. His performance here didn't disappoint me either. We see Cromwell as the opportunist he is. Cromwell used every tactic he could to get More to get More to state his opinion on the wedding. Cromwell's hope is to get More to admit his disapproval so he can be tried for treason, or to trick him into approving it. More refuses to talk citing hir rights under English law. Cromwell calls him a traitor but has to let him go.
Parliament passes a new oath of loyalty requiring approval of the marriage. More can find no loopholes to allow him to take the oath so he refuses. He is now arrested, taken to the Tower of London & tried for treason.
Cromwell tries to prove that More's silence implies disapproval. More stands up to him & is able to quickly tear down the claims by Cromwell:
Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
Finally, it takes purjury by Rich to convict him. When More finds out that Rich's reward is he will become Attorney General for Wales, More says: "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"
Having been convicted of treason More finally speaks, condemning the trial & the king's actions as going against God's will as found in Scripture as well as a betrayal of all England stands for as found in both the Magna Carta & the Coronation Oath that Henry took.
At his execution he makes the following speech: "I am commanded by the King to be brief, and since I am the King's obedient subject, brief I will be. I die his Majesty's good servant but God's first." He tells the executioner he is forgiven for doing his duty & that he is ready to go to God.
As I said, the movie does an excellent job of giving us insight into More, the man, his philosophy & his faith. We see a man of honor & conviction who doesn't seek martyrdom, but welcomes it as God's will when it does come.
More was executed, his head was stuck on Traitor's Gate for a month. Margaret removed it and kept it until her death. Cromwell was beheaded for high treason five years after More. Rich's testimony helped to convict him. Archbishop Cranmer was burned at the stake for treason & heresy under Queen Mary. The Duke of Norfolk should have been executed for high treason but the King died of syphilis the night before. He was released from prison under Queen Mary. Richard Rich became Chancellor of England. He was able to ride the changing political tides under Henry & his successors.Under Queen Elizabeth's reign he died in his bed.
We can see from the movie alone how More stood out from the usual carnality, greed & ambition found in politics & sadly parts of the Catholic Church at that time. 2 lines said by More especially capture this. At 1 point he says: "I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos." The other was his reply to Norfolk's attempts to get More to go along: "And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"
As for the title, Bolt took it from some lines written by Robert Whittington in 1520:
"More is a man of an angel's wit and singular learning.
I know not his fellow.
For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability?
And, as time requireth,
a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometime of as sad gravity.
A man for all seasons."
More truly was a man for all seasons. True to God & true to self. Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery