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

Monday, August 31, 2009

Ancient Israel or Modern America?

"Listen to the word of the Lord! the Lord Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this: I am bringing down such a disaster on this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will ring. This is because they have abandoned me, have profaned this place, have offered incense here to alien gods which neither they, nor their ancestors, nor the kings of Judah, ever knew before. They have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built high places for Baal to burn their sons there, which I had never ordered or decreed, which had never entered my thoughts." - Jeremiah 19:3-5
This was a part of the 1st reading from the Office of Readings on Monday, 31 August 2009. & while it describes the circumstances of the Kingdom of Judah arround 600 BC, it sure sounds a lot like the USA in 2009 AD as well. Everything from liturgical abuse to New Age practices being welcome in many Catholic Churches to abortion is covered. The modern equivlent of the high places would be our abortion clinics.


Dr. Edward Green - Papa Benedetto's Statements on Condoms Line Up With Scientific Research

Well, what do you know? The Pope, teaching on what is the morally correct way based on God's law has been proven to be right. But why should this be a surprize? The same God who created the Universe to operate under a certain set of rules & laws also set up a set of moral laws that would be in agreement with how the Universe operates. Reacently I read a comment on another blog. This person was criticizing what was written in the post as well as the Catholic Church. In his comment he said: "He (Ted Kennedy) had all the right positions on abortion, birth control, stem cell research, and homosexuality, whereas the Catholic church has shown itself to be a continual enemy of progress." It seems to me that it isn't Teddy, it is the Church that is on the right side of things.

"The condom does not prevent AIDS"… "Only responsible sexual behavior can address the pandemic."
By Patrick B. Craine
RIMINI, Italy, August 27, 2009 ( - Once again, the director of Harvard's AIDS Prevention Research Project has publicly affirmed that the Pope was right on AIDS and condoms, as Zenit reports.
Dr. Edward Green affirmed the Pope's teaching in an address this past Tuesday at the 30th Annual Rimini Meeting for Friendship Among the Peoples, sponsored by the Communion and Liberation lay movement.
"As a scientist [I] was amazed to see the closeness between what the Pope said last March in Cameroon and the results of the most recent scientific discoveries," said Dr. Green. "The condom does not prevent AIDS. Only responsible sexual behavior can address the pandemic."
"When Benedict XVI said that different sexual behavior should be adopted in Africa, because to put trust in condoms does not serve to fight against AIDS," he continued, "the international press was scandalized."
This March, Pope Benedict ignited a worldwide controversy, outraging media, world leaders, and even church members, when, on his first pastoral visit to Africa, he said that condoms only heighten the problem of AIDS. AIDS "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems," he told reporters.
Notable critics were notoriously pro-abortion former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife Cherie. Interestingly, Mr. Blair, who joined the Catholic Church in 2007, but has not repudiated his anti-life views, is a featured speaker at this year's Rimini event.
The Pope was supported at the time, however, by members of the Church hierarchy, Catholic doctors, and Dr. Green himself.
In affirming the Pope, the AIDS expert also manifested a limited support for condoms, however, which is a view contrary to Catholic teaching. "The condom can work for particular individuals, but it will not serve to address the situation of a continent."
"To propose the regular use of the condom as prevention in Africa could have the opposite effect," he said.
Green pointed to the success of the Ugandan 'ABC' strategy, which says, "Abstain, Be faithful, and, as a last resource, use a Condom."
"The president was able to tell the truth to his people, to young people, that on occasions some sacrifice, abstinence and fidelity are necessary," he said. "The result has been formidable."
See related coverage:
Pope Says Condoms Not Solution to AIDS

Why Do I Think He Would Consider Any Criticism of His Actions a CyberEmergeny?

Be afraid, be very afraid. Add this to the little known law that gives the government permanent ownership of those computers that went onto the Cash for Clunkers site despite the claims on the site it didn't & many other things like all the Czars. Our civil liberties are under the greatest threat we have faced in our 233+ years of existance.
NOTE: For the most part these civil liberties groups are anything but conservative. So this is clearly not a part of the vast right-winged conspiracy mobs agenda.

by Declan McCullagh

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Catholic Health Association: Can't Endorse ObamaCare Because of Abortion

Nancy Pelosi says it doesn't (SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI RELEASES MISLEADING FACTSHEET ON ABORTION, HEALTH CARE), CHA says it does, as have so many others including Time Magazine & the Wall Street Journal. Sorry Nancy, once again you are lying. I think you need about 50 years in a monastery with a vow of silence to contemplate your multitude of sins against life as well as your bearing false witness & then making a good confession before it is too late.

by Steven Ertelt Editor

Washington, DC ( -- The Catholic Health Association released a statement on Friday saying it is not officially endorsing the government-run health care bills currently pending in Congress. The CHA says it can't endorse either the House or Senate bills because they do not specifically exclude abortions.
The head of the CHA says in a statement received that her group would like to support health care "reform" but says legislation can't be supported if it expands abortions.
"Our message has always been clear," says Sister Carol Keehan, president of the group. "Health care must respect and protect human dignity from conception to natural death. In that spirit, coverage for everyone is a moral imperative and a matter of social justice."
"To date, CHA has not endorsed any health care reform bill, but our message to lawmakers is unchanged," Keehan added.
"Health reform should not result in an expansion of abortion, and it must maintain conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to participate in abortions or other morally objectionable procedures," Keehan stressed.
Keehan says the CHA position on the legislation Congress is considering conforms to the set of principles CHA put forward in its "Vision For U.S. Health Care" document. It begins with values from Catholic social teaching including human dignity, justice and the common good.
The group says it is working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to bring about health reform "that respects the life and dignity of every person, from conception to natural death."
"This means care that respects the unborn, the patient with multiple sclerosis, the person living with cancer, the young mother, the addicted, the mentally ill, the frail elderly, the dying patient," the group said.
The statement comes at a time when the Catholic Health Association is drawing criticism from some pro-life Catholics who say it has put a push for health care ahead of protecting human life.
Earlier, it appeared CHA joined the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Charities USA in backing the legislation despite the abortion concerns.
The three groups sent out an action alert asking members to contact their legislators immediately."Please call and e-mail your Representative in the next 24 hours expressing your support for Congress to enact health care reform now," the groups said in a joint action alert at the end of July.
"Saint Vincent de Paul is partnering with Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association to amplify our collective voice to let Congress know that health care reform can not wait," the alert said.
The statement continues, "Your members of Congress need to hear from you that you support health care reform, and that the system needs to be reformed now."
In an email received, Catholic Charities USA clarified and explained its position.
"Let there be no doubt, Catholic Charities USA does not support nor will it support any provision or amendment that fails to uphold the sanctity and dignity of human life," she said.
"Furthermore, we will continue to work with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association to ensure that any legislation will continue to support conscience clause protection for health care workers and to ensure that the Hyde exception that no abortion can be funded with federal funds will continue," she added.
The nation's Catholic bishops have made it clear they cant support any health care package that includes abortion funding and rationing.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made that clear when Bishop William Murphy wrote a letter, both to Congress and released to the public, saying abortion can't be a part of health care reform.
"No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion," his letter said.
"Genuine health care reform that protects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and a vital national obligation," it added.
Since then, USCCB officials have sent two more letters outlining their problems with the current bill.
Bishop Murphy went on to say, "Health care reform cannot be a vehicle for abandoning this consensus which respects freedom of conscience and honors our best American traditions."
The CHA position of not endorsing a bill and pushing for abortion exclusions is different from that taken by the Catholic Medical Association, which has announced it opposes the government-run health care bills in Congress because the House version contains a section that could promote assisted suicide and rationing.
John Brehany, a medical ethicist who directs the CMA, said his grump would have to withdraw support until "it is clear that such consultation would be voluntary and that other safeguards are in place to protect the elderly against pressure to forgo legitimate medical treatment and care."

Just the Facts Ma'am, Just the Facts

National Right to Life Committee, Washington, D.C.
! Both of the health care bills backed by the Obama White House – H.R. 3200 in the House, and the “Affordable Health Choices Act” (unnumbered) in the Senate – create two big new federal programs that would cover abortion for any reason: (1) a national health insurance program that would be run entirely by the federal government, called the “public plan” or “public option,” and (2) a huge new program to provide subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans buy health insurance.
! Both bills will result in government funding of abortion. As the independent reported in an August 21, 2009, analysis, “Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.” also wrote: “Obama has said in the past that ‘reproductive services’ would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the ‘public plan’ would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies.” This is all also true of the Senate bill.
! Abortion is explicitly mentioned 17 times in the current House bill. On July 30, the Democrat-controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee added to H.R. 3200 an amendment written by staff to Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), both of whom have consistently pro-abortion career voting records. This “phony compromise” amendment explicitly authorizes the “public plan” to cover all abortions. This means that any citizen who wants to take advantage of the public plan will be compelled to purchase coverage for abortion on demand. Furthermore, the Capps Amendment explicitly requires the federal agency to raise every enrollee’s premium by an amount sufficient to pay for all the abortions paid for by the agency. So: a federal agency will collect the premium money (which, once collected, becomes
public funds and federal funds), will receive bills from abortionists, and will send the abortionists payment checks drawn on a federal Treasury account. This is clearly government funding of abortion – the federal government would be running a nationwide insurance plan covering abortion on demand.
! The abortion coverage would not be optional – no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the federal insurance program without paying the abortion surcharge. As Time magazine accurately reported (August 24), “The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount ‘not less than $1 per month,’ according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage.”
! The current “Hyde Amendment” law would not apply to the new premium subsidy program. Under H.R. 3200 as amended by the Capps Amendment, some private plans may elect not to include abortion, but private plans that cover elective abortion will be federally subsidized. Both bills provide funds for the new premium-subsidy program through a new funding pipeline that would not be subject to the Hyde Amendment, which is a year-to-year provision that currently prevents federal funding of abortions in the Medicaid program. As the Associated Press accurately reported in its August 5, 2009, analysis, “A law called the Hyde amendment applies the [abortion] restrictions to Medicaid . . . [But] The health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.”
! The proposed provisions are a radical departure from the status quo. Currently, the federal government does not pay into any health plans that cover elective abortion, and the federal government certainly currently does not run a national abortion insurance program. Time magazine reported (August 24, 2009), “The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government’s role in the financing of abortions.”
! In four congressional committees, pro-abortion Democratic committee chairmen and majorities, allied with the White House, rejected amendments to keep elective abortion out of the “public plan” and to prevent federal subsidies from going to private plans that cover elective abortion.
! Under the Senate bill, there is an additional problem: Both the “public plan” and, in time, most private insurance plans, would be required to cover all “essential benefits.” These must include (but are not limited to) ambulatory patient services, hospitalization, and preventive services. Under numerous past federal court decisions, such broad categories will include elective abortion unless Congress adds an explicit exclusion for abortion – but the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee rejected such an exclusion. Thus, under the Senate bill, many private health plans would be required to pay for and to provide local access to abortion, and many state laws that regulate abortion could be invalidated.
For additional information and documentation, or for an up-to-date report on the status of this legislation, go to


August 26, 2009


Obama is Using Another Mask to Hide Behind

Obama is trying to use Teddy's death to get his Health Care agenda accomplished like LBJ did with JFK's assasination to pass the Civil Rights Act. There are 2 major problems:

1: Teddy was no JFK.

2: Obama is no LBJ.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Glenn Beck asks - Czarist America = Nazi Germany? Part 2

By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 2009 ( - Germany's experience with National Socialism is one of the darker moments of human history. FOX News host Glenn Beck has taken on the challenge of applying the lessons of Nazi Germany (government-controlled health care, combined with the principle of valuing human beings based on "quality of life" and a severe economic crisis) to "question with boldness" the direction American health-care is heading under President Barack Obama and his policy advisors.
Beck hosts a radio program and a 5 P.M. television program on the FOX News Channel five days a week. But the anchorman's passion is for taking an honest and fearless look at Obama's advisors who have taken positions so radical out in the open that exposing them seems like melodramatic fiction.
In his health-care reform special, Beck looks at three critical advisors or "Czars" in President Obama's Administration. These policy advisors manage new offices and exercise power within the Executive Branch, but are unaccountable to Congress in the way that cabinet appointees confirmed by the full Senate are.
In the first part Beck focused on Nazi Germany, because a system that valued the worth of human beings based on "quality of life" led inevitably to Hitler's "final solution." However it began when Germans became used to the idea that human life ultimately had a value related to qualities valued by the state as a collective whole. That thinking led to the acceptance of "Lebensunwertes Leben" or "life unworthy of life," and crimes against humanity most Germans, other than the National Socialist elite, did not foresee as a consequence. "Well-intentioned people can produce systems that raise serious questions," admonished Beck, asking his viewers to take a hard look at several advisors in Obama's inner-circle whose intentions are undermined by very serious flaws when it comes to judging which human lives have dignity - or even qualify for life at all. These advisors or "czars" are designing America's new government-controlled health-care system. Beck names them as Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Reform Policy Advisor, John Holdren, Science Czar, and Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, and reminds his audience to take up President Obama's advice: to know his policies and who influences his thinking, look at his advisors.
Dr. "Zeke" Emmanuel and the Complete Lives System
Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel works in the White House Office of Management and Budget as a health-policy advisor and he is a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Dr. Emmanuel is one of the pillars of Obama's reform. However Dr. Emmanuel has stated repeatedly in public forums such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that doctors were driving up health-care costs because they value the Hippocratic Oath as "an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
Instead, Dr. Emmanuel raises the possibility of a new ethical system, the "Complete Lives System" that would ration care away from the elderly, away from infants, and away from human beings judged unable to rationally participate in society (such as those with dementia), in favor of those aged 15-44, who have the best chance "to live a complete life."
Dr. Emmanuel's theory of rationing, however, could end up being applied in a severe national economic crisis, far worse than the current recession, and not unlike the Great Depression that crippled Germany. Germany had made the mistake of trying to dig itself out of its staggering national debt by heavily inflating the money supply in order to save its economy. Beck makes the point that this is not too dissimilar to the United States' attempt to stimulate its economy, which unable to borrow more money from creditor-nations like China, has instead borrowed cash from the printing presses of the Federal Reserve.
Such a system could be implemented and recommended to the government insurance programs or private companies participating in the Health Insurance Exchange by means of a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research and its advisory panels as proposed in HR 3200 "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," which soon enough may be named for the departed Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin brought attention to this fact in a Facebook statement that charged Obama and Dr. Emmanuel would turn the health-care system into a "death panel." (see coverage here and here)
But as Beck points out, Dr. Emmanuel may not believe that people who can't become developed citizens are not "basic" and "should not be guaranteed," but he is not alone in his thinking. Obama's "Science Czar" John Holdren does him one better: some people are not yet human.
John Holdren: Not Even Born Babies are Human … Yet
John Holdren is President Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Beck says he is another key player in Obama's health-care reform. But Holdren has a life-long obsession with population control and has written two books outlining a host of options to deal with what he sees as a global crisis of "human overpopulation."
Beck points out that Holdren has this to say about who is human and who is not, and babies do not qualify as human beings: "The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experience and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being."
Holdren co-authored a college textbook called "Ecoscience" in which he advanced the idea that forced abortion and sterilization of women is justifiable under the US Constitution, and that sterilizing agents could be added to the drinking water in order to curb the growth of human populations.
That background does not sick well with Americans trying to judge for themselves whether to trust the safety and effects of the hastily approved H1N1 "swine flu" vaccine. Holdren has urged Americans to take the vaccine warning that up to 90,000 Americans could die from the virus this season - although to date less only 500 Americans have died of the virus. Many are wary of taking the fast-tracked vaccine citing the 1976 swine flu scare in which the vaccine killed more people than the disease and left many more with a nerve disease called Guillian Barre syndrome.
Cass Sunstein and Rationing by QALY
Cass Sunstein, Obama's appointed advisor to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shares opinions in common with Dr. Emmanuel and John Holdren when it comes to health-care rationing and the dignity of the human person. If Sunstein's appointment is not rejected by the Senate, then Sunstein will oversee the OIRA, which creates government regulations for federal laws.
Sunstein advocates rationing based on "quality-adjusted life years" (QALY), meaning that the government would evaluate statistically whether a person's life is worth the cost of living.
Sunstein is a radical animal rights thinker, who believes that animals such as dolphins and whales should have legal representation. Sunstein counts Princeton philosopher Peter Singer among his closest friends. Singer believes that children under the age of seven do not have sufficient rationality to count as human beings, and for that reason parents could commit infanticide.
Sunstein has also stated a desire to regulate the internet in order to fight what he calls a "system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government."


Robert Schindler - Real Defender of the Downtrodden, Teddy Kennedy - Anything But

After posting the article about the death of Robert Schindler a while ago I got to thinking of the contrast between him & Teddy Kennedy. The last few days Teddy has been lionized, deified & built up as a hero for the helpless & downtrodden. He was anything but.
I have long said he was nowhere near the person either of his brothers, John & Bobby, were. In fact, he owes his entire career to them, esp their deaths. Much of what he did was only because he was able to play on the tragedy of their assasinations.
He was no family man. His tomcatting arround is proof enough of that. He was also a drunk who got away with murder. If he wasn't a Kennedy he would never have gotten the special treatment in the investigation & pass for how he left Mary Jo Kopeckne to drown. Any regular Joe would have spent time in jail for negligent homicide etc. & his support of abortion meant that he allowed the murder of over 3200 people every day of the most downtrodden people in the USA. Add to that the untold others arround the world also murdered by abortion. He worked to take away our freedom & rights by working to make government big brother.
Then there is Robert Schindler, a real family man who, in fighting for his daughter Terri Schiavo, sought to protect untold others arround the world who were facing the same threats as she did. he tried to save a life, not leave someone to die. He never wanted to trade on his daughter's death, he wanted her to live.
What Wanda Franz, the president of The National Right to Life Committee said is exactly right: "Bob Schindler was an extraordinary father, husband and friend.” "Despite facing legal setbacks at virtually every turn, the Schindlers, with their children at their side, fought unceasingly to defend the right of their daughter, Terri Schindler Schiavo, to receive food and fluids."
I join her in thanking Robert and his family for "advocating for other medically dependent and disabled patients facing similar circumstances."
Sadly Ted Kennedy will get most of the attention. Robert Schindler will get passing mention. & in much of the main stream media it won't be any more positive than it was during his fight for Terri.
I may never have met him, but I am eternally grateful for all he did. He was a true hero. He will be truly missed as well. He has earned his rest & he is now reunited with Terri. May he rest in peace.
Other tributes to Robert Schindler:
The Curt Jester - Robert Schindler, R.I.P.

Robert Schindler - RIP, A Great American Hero

by Steven Ertelt Editor

St. Petersburg, FL ( -- Robert Schindler, the father of Terri Schiavo, whose former husband subjected her to a painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death, died overnight. Schindler, 72, had been battling health issues and he died of apparent heart failure.
In the aftermath of Terri's euthanasia death, Robert Schindler started a foundation with the rest of his family to help other disabled patients.
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation would connect patients or their families to legal help, physicians and pro-life groups who would speak out on their behalf to obtain basic medical care or lifesaving medical treatment denied to them by the government, hospitals or family members.
In February, Schindler pleaded with the father of Eluana Englaro not to give up on his daughter's recovery.
"Although we come from two different continents with different cultures, we do have many things in common. We both are fathers and we both have been gifted by the same God with children," Schindler wrote to Beppino Englaro."We both have a child that suffered severe brain injuries. I know very well the profound effect this type of injury can have on our loved one and their families. We both have experienced the same misfortune and hardships," he added.
Schindler's heart figuratively broke when both state and federal courts denied his family's attempts to provide care for his daughter as her estranged husband Michael Schiavo sought her death.
Bioethics watchdog Wesley J. Smith noted that in his remarks upon hearing the news.
"His health was broken by the ordeal of trying to save his daughter’s life and he never fully recovered from the horror of watching her dehydrate to death," Smith said. "The family is grieving."
The National Right to Life Committee, which worked very closely with the Schindler family to save their daughter and which continues to support their work, sent a statement to after learning of Schindler's death.
Wanda Franz, the president of the pro-life group called Schindler a good friend and said it "joined with pro-lifers nationwide in mourning the passing of our dear friend Robert Schindler."
“Bob Schindler was an extraordinary father, husband and friend,” Franz said. "His death is a profound loss for all of us in the pro-life movement. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with his loving wife, Mary and their children, Bobby and Suzanne."
"Despite facing legal setbacks at virtually every turn, the Schindlers, with their children at their side, fought unceasingly to defend the right of their daughter, Terri Schindler Schiavo, to receive food and fluids," Franz explained.
She thanked Robert and his family for "advocating for other medically dependent and disabled patients facing similar circumstances."
In 2007, the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund honored the Schindler family with the Proudly Pro-Life Award for their dedication and public witness to the cause of life.
David O'Steen, the executive director of NRLC, told “In life, Bob, and his wife Mary, never sought the spotlight. They only wished to care for their beloved daughter, Terri. Through their selfless dedication to Terri, they showed the nation and the world what it means when someone says they are ‘pro-life.'"
The sadness Schindler felt at losing his daughter was evident in the letter to Englaro's father."From the time my daughter Terri suffered her brain trauma, I made a commitment to her to get her proper treatment. I failed. I unsuccessfully fought the courts and her husband to have input in her treatment and to bring her home. That didn't happen and today I grieve my failure because it resulted in her death," Schindler added.
"My family and I grieve the loss of Terri. I particularly grieve the method in which she was put to death. She died of starvation and dehydration," Schindler said.
But he turned that sadness into action as he and the rest of the Schindler family, including son Bobby Schindler and daughter Suzanne Schindler Vitadamo, both took the rains of the foundation.
Robert also became a passionate crusader against the growing view that the disabled are a burden to society or their health care and treatment should be rationing.
From the letter to Englaro's father, Schindler wrote: "This type of death is cruel and barbaric. Advocates of euthanasia will tell you to starve and dehydrate a brain injured individual is painless. As a witness to this type of execution I can say this is not true. It is by far the most painful death a person can experience. That is why this is always done in strict privacy void of any witnesses or cameras."
Schindler died knowing the love of God and with a strong faith as a member of the Catholic Church -- a faith he expressed to Beppino.
"God gave you and I the responsibility to instill morals in our children and to keep them out of harm's way. To starve and dehydrate your daughter is far from God’s wishes." he said.
Condolences and donations for the Foundation can be sent to:
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, 5562 Central Avenue, Suite 2, St. Petersburg, FL, 33707.
Related web sites:
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation -
National Right to Life -

The New York Times Shows Its AntiCatholic Bias Again

(At least its bias against Pro-life orthodox Catholics)

The NY Times strikes again with an article that is, IMHO, clearly an attack on those Catholics who are opposed to abortion. It is also an attempt to make those who are catholic in Name Only look like the good guys for supporting OBamaCare (aka Teddy's plan for unlimitted death under the guise of health care).
The 1st lob is fired in the headline, Some Catholic Bishops Assail Health Plan. While it is true that there are just a few Bishops who have publicly spoken out, that isn't what they are getting at with this headline. They are trying to make it sound like the majority of Bishops blindly & wholeheartedly support ObamaCare. & that this bunch are the dissidents.
Then we get to the 1st paragraph with its half truths & misdirection. "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been lobbying for three decades for the federal government to provide universal health insurance, especially for the poor. Now, as President Obama tries to rally Roman Catholics and other religious voters around his proposals to do just that, a growing number of bishops are speaking out against it."
1st of all, The USCCB has called for universal access, not universal health insurance. The USCCB actual takes the following position: "In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care."
In a resolution dated 18 June 1993 (A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good) mentions this as 1 of the criteria for reform: "Universal Access. Whether it provides ready universal access to comprehensive health care for every person living in the United States." & while it does mention 1 of the problems for many poor people is a lack of insurance, nowhere does the resolution mention universal health insurance. It does give some criteria as guidelines for the discusion, but nowhere does it say that it is the duty of the Federal government to be the cure all. In fact, its suggestions actual call for a start at the grass roots in keeping with the Catholic teaching on solidarity.
& what the document also makes absolutely clear is that anything that runs counter to Catholic moral teaching, like abortion & euthenasia are not acceptable in any way shape or form. & that the USCCB does & will continue to oppose any efforts to include abortion. It also mentions the concern "that Catholic and other institutions with strong moral foundations may face increasing economic and regulatory pressures to compromise their moral principles and to participate in practices inconsistent with their commitment to human life."
Without going any farther, I can safely say that anyone who claims that ObamaCare meets these standards set 16 years ago is a liar. & any attempts to rally support of faithful Catholics is an attempt to get Catholics to buy into the very things that document says we can't.
The 2nd paragraph of the article really lays the groundwork for the effort to draw a wedge & marginalize those Bishops & others speaking out with their concerns. "As recently as July, the bishops’ conference had largely embraced the president’s goals, although with the caveat that any health care overhaul avoid new federal financing of abortions. But in the last two weeks some leaders of the conference, like Cardinal Justin Rigali, have concluded that Democrats’ efforts to carve out abortion coverage are so inadequate that lawmakers should block the entire effort."
1st of all, I have no idea where they came up with this as recent as July claim. The July 29 Letter from Cardinal Rigali to House Energy and Commerce Committee does mention the USCCB's long standing call for reform. Nowhere does it specificly embrace Obama's goals. Instead it makes it clear the longstanding concerns about there being no coverage of abortion, conscience rights of health care providrs & all the other Pro-life concerns. It is anything but an embracing. In fact it even points out the very things that Obama has denied like "The legislation delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to make abortion a basic or essential benefit in all health plans, or in the “public plan” created by the legislation."
As for the July 17 Letter from Bishop William Murphy to Congress that the NYT claims "appeared eager to back the Democrats’ effort" is anything but. Rather it goes into greater detail about the same concerns raised by Cardinal Rigali. & there are other points where they misrepresent what is really on the USCCB's website as well. All to make it sound like those who are raising concerns are out of the mainstream rather than representing it as they really do.
While the article does mention that there are other concerns, like Bishop Nickless' comments about how it is to be provided, it just says so in passing without going into a clear explanaition of why.
But it does make it sound like abortion is just 1 issue out of many. & that it is OK to not give it primacy at the most important & overriding issue. The same thing that those who are Obama supporters tried to use to justify it.
"The bishops’ backlash reflects a struggle within the church over how heavily to weigh opposition to abortion against concerns about social justice.
“It is the great tension in Catholic thought right now,” said M. Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.
The same question, Professor Kaveny said, set off the debates over whether conscientious Catholics could vote for Mr. Obama despite his support for abortion rights, whether he should be invited to speak at Notre Dame, or whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., should present themselves for Communion
You will notice that nothing is said about what the Church actually teaches & why people like Biden shouldn't receive Communion. But the real kicker is the use of the term "backlash". Just so you understand what they are getting at with that term, here is the dictionary definition of backlash that applies: "a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change: a backlash of angry feeling among Southern conservatives within the party." In other words they are using it in a perjorative way & laying some groundwork for another part of the article.
After spending some time on the debate of whether or not ObamaCare will fund abortion, with more emphasis on the claims by Obama & the Dems we get to this:
"Liberal Catholic groups argued that most bishops still strongly supported the broader goals of the health care proposals. “There are certainly some strident voices out there that want to see health care reform abandoned on the back of this issue,” said Victoria Kovari, acting director of the liberal Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, “but I don’t think that is where the bishops are.”
At least the used the word liberal. However, notice the use of the word "strident" to help make the arguement that those voices aren't raising real concerns but are trying to totally scrap health care reform. The quote is also another attempt to marginalize Bishops like Rigali as out of the mainstream.
But what is even more telling is who they got this quote from. While every other statement used was taken (sometimes out of context) from previous writings they get a direct quote from only 1 person. & that person is the head of 1 of the leading dissedent groups that labels itself as Catholic. With all due respect, Ms. Kovari isn't exactly an expert on what the Bishops really think. & her quote is actually 1 of those half truths. If you take what this article has tried to paint Bishops like Rigali & Nickless as ture, then yes, the Bishops are not where the NYT false pictures paints these Bishops is. But since Rigali & Nickless are right at the heart of authentic Catholic teaching, she is lying by trying to make it sound Rigali & Nickless want to stop health care reform.
What the article isn't is unbiased news coverage. It is slanted & innacurate in so many ways. It is another example of how far the Grey Lady has fallen from the days when you could trust what it printed. This article is clearly an attack on orthodox Catholicism. It has an agenda. To marginalize &, hopefully, silence those Bishops who are truly being the shepherds by falsely presenting their stands as out of the mainstream.
I have to add 1 last comment. If you define mainstream as that what the world promotes as OK, then the Catholic Church has never been mainstream & never will. It will always be out of touch with what the world wants to be OK because it is in touch with the mind of God. & it will always present the truth as absolute. In doing so, it will always show us that to truly be in touch we must have, as Scripture tells us, the mind of Christ.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

What's Wrong With This Video????

Or should I ask: "Is Anything Right???" Since that would be easier to answer.

On the other hand, this video from the Italian TV show "La Corrida" I could at least understand since it is from Italia:

Bishop D'Arcy on Notre Dame

I have to admit that I was more than a bit surprized to see that America was willing to print this. It is critical of Notre Dame President, Fr. Jenkins, as well as the Board of Trustees. I am sure that many, if not most, of the comments, letters to the editor, etc from the readers will be super critical of what the Bishop had to say. Although so far, there have been quite a few supportive of the Bishop in the mix of the expected responses.
I suspect this is just the 1st salvo across the bow. & the Bishop went to the 1 place where he knew the message had to be heard, those dissenting from the Catholic Church's teaching. & maybe America realized it had to print the article. He is giving Notre Dame, as well as other colleges, an opportunity to do the right thing so he won't have to step in any further. I know that many of us wishes he would be more forceful, more quickly. But I suspect he knows this way will make it easier for him to act further if he has to.

A pastoral reflection on the controversy at Notre Dame

Most Rev. John M. D’Arcy
As summer plays itself out on the beautiful campus by the lake where the young Holy Cross priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., pitched his camp 177 years ago and began his great adventure, we must clarify the situation that so sundered the church last spring: What it is all about and what it is not about.
It is not about President Obama. He will do some good things as president and other things with which, as Catholics, we will strongly disagree. It is ever so among presidents, and most political leaders.
It is not about Democrats versus Republicans, nor was it a replay of the recent general election.
It is not about whether it is appropriate for the president of the United States to speak at Notre Dame or any great Catholic university on the pressing issues of the day. This is what universities do. No bishop should try to prevent that.
The response, so intense and widespread, is not about what this journal called “sectarian Catholicism.” Rather, the response of the faithful derives directly from the Gospel. In Matthew’s words, “Your light must shine before others, that they may see your good works, and glorify your heavenly Father” (5:13).
Public Witness
Does a Catholic university have the responsibility to give witness to the Catholic faith and to the consequences of that faith by its actions and decisions—especially by a decision to confer its highest honor? If not, what is the meaning of a life of faith? And how can a Catholic institution expect its students to live by faith in the difficult decisions that will confront them in a culture often opposed to the Gospel?
Pope Benedict XVI, himself a former university professor, made his position clear when he spoke to Catholic educators in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:
Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church’s magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom.
In its decision to give its highest honor to a president who has repeatedly opposed even the smallest legal protection of the child in the womb, did Notre Dame surrender the responsibility that Pope Benedict believes Catholic universities have to give public witness to the truths revealed by God and taught by the church?
Another serious question of witness and moral responsibility before the Notre Dame administration concerns its sponsorship over several years of a sad and immoral play, offensive to the dignity of women, which many call pornographic, and which an increasing number of Catholic universities have cancelled, “The Vagina Monologues,” by Eve Ensler.
Although he spoke eloquently about the importance of dialogue with the president of the United States, the president of Notre Dame chose not to dialogue with his bishop on these two matters, both pastoral and both with serious ramifications for the care of souls, which is the core responsibility of the local bishop. Both decisions were shared with me after they were made and, in the case of the honorary degree, after President Obama had accepted. For the past 24 years, it has been my privilege to serve as the bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. During this time, I have never interfered in the internal governance of Notre Dame or any other institution of higher learning within the diocese. However, as the teacher and shepherd in this diocese, it is my responsibility to encourage all institutions, including our beloved University of Notre Dame, to give public witness to the fullness of Catholic faith. The diocesan bishop must ask whether a Catholic institution compromises its obligation to give public witness by placing prestige over truth. The bishop must be concerned that Catholic institutions do not succumb to the secular culture, making decisions that appear to many, including ordinary Catholics, as a surrender to a culture opposed to the truth about life and love.
The Local Bishop
The failure to dialogue with the bishop brings a second series of questions. What is the relationship of the Catholic university to the local bishop? No relationship? Someone who occasionally offers Mass on campus? Someone who sits on the platform at graduation? Or is the bishop the teacher in the diocese, responsible for souls, including the souls of students—in this case, the students at Notre Dame? Does the responsibility of the bishop to teach, to govern and to sanctify end at the gate of the university? In the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which places the primary responsibility on the institution, I am proposing these questions for the university.
Prof. John Cavadini has addressed the questions about the relationship of the university and the bishop in an especially insightful manner. He is chair of the theology department and an expert on the early church, with a special interest in St. Augustine. His remarks were a response to Father Jenkins’s rationale for presenting the play mentioned above.
The statement of our President [Father Jenkins] barely mentions the Church. It is as though the mere mention of a relationship with the Church has become so alien to our ways of thinking and so offensive to our quest for a disembodied “excellence” that it has become impolite to mention it at all. There is no Catholic identity apart from the affiliation with the Church. And again, I do not mean an imaginary Church we sometimes might wish existed, but the concrete, visible communion of “hierarchic and charismatic gifts,” “at once holy and always in need of purification,” in which “each bishop represents his own church and all of [the bishops] together with the Pope represent the whole Church...” (Lumen Gentium, Nos. 4, 8, 23).
The ancient Gnostic heresy developed an elitist intellectual tradition which eschewed connection to the “fleshly” church of the bishop and devalued or spiritualized the sacraments. Are we in danger of developing a gnosticized version of the “Catholic intellectual tradition,” one which floats free of any norming connection and so free of any concrete claim to Catholic identity?
The full letter can be found on the Web site of the Notre Dame student newspaper, The Observer:
It has been a great privilege and a source of joy to be associated with Notre Dame in the past 24 years as bishop. In so many ways, it is a splendid place. Part of this is because of the exemplary young men and women who come there from throughout the country. It is also because of its great spiritual traditions. The lines of young people preparing to receive the sacrament of reconciliation at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, the Masses in the residence halls, the prayerful liturgy at the basilica and the service of so many young people before and after graduation in Catholic education and catechetics, and in service to the poor in this country and overseas, is a credit to the university and a source of great hope. The theology department has grown in academic excellence over the years, strengthened by the successful recruiting of professors outstanding in scholarship, in their knowledge of the tradition and in their own living of the Catholic faith. This growth is well known to Pope Benedict XVI. It is notable that a vast majority has been willing to seek and accept the mandatum from the local bishop.
Developments on Campus
Yet the questions about the relationship of the university as a whole to the church still stand, and what happened on campus leading up to and during the graduation is significant for the present debate about Catholic higher education. I released a statement on Good Friday, asking the Catholic people and others of good will not to attend demonstrations by those who had come avowedly to “create a circus.” I referred to appropriate and acceptable responses within the Notre Dame community led by students. Titled “ND Response,” and drawing a significant number of professors, these responses were marked by prayer and church teaching, and they were orderly.
This journal and others in the media, Catholic and secular, reporting from afar, failed to make a distinction between the extremists on the one hand, and students and those who joined them in the last 48 hours before graduation. This latter group responded with prayer and substantive disagreement. They cooperated with university authorities.
In this time of crisis at the university, these students and professors, with the instinct of faith, turned to the bishop for guidance, encouragement and prayer. This had nothing to do with John Michael D’Arcy. It was related to their understanding of the episcopal office—a place you should be able to count on for the truth, as Irenaeus contended in the second century when he encountered the Gnostics.
I attended the Baccalaureate Mass the day before graduation, for the 25th time, speaking after holy Communion, as I always do. Then I led an evening rosary at the Grotto with students, adults and a number of professors. We then went to a chapel on campus. It was packed for a whole night of prayer and eucharistic adoration.
It was my intention not to be on campus during graduation day. I had so informed Father Jenkins and the student leadership, with whom I was in touch nearly every day. This is the kind of deference and respect I have shown to the Notre Dame administration, to three Notre Dame presidents, over the years. I found it an increasingly sad time, and I was convinced that there were no winners, but I was wrong.
As graduation drew near, I knew I should be with the students. It was only right that the bishop be with them, for they were on the side of truth, and their demonstration was disciplined, rooted in prayer and substantive. I told the pro-life rally, several thousand people on a lovely May day, that they were the true heroes. Despite the personal costs to themselves and their families, they chose to give public witness to the Catholic faith contrary to the example of a powerful, international university, against which they were respectfully but firmly in disagreement. Among those in attendance were many who work daily at crisis pregnancy centers on behalf of life.
The Silent Board
In the midst of the crisis at Notre Dame, the board of trustees came to campus in April for their long-scheduled spring meeting. They said nothing. When the meeting was completed, they made no statement and gave no advice. In an age when transparency is urged as a way of life on and off campus, they chose not to enter the conversation going on all around them and shaking the university to its roots. We learned nothing about their discussions.
I firmly believe that the board of trustees must take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer. They also must understand the seriousness of the present moment. This requires spiritual and intellectual formation on the part of the men and women of industry, business and technology who make up the majority of the board. Financial generosity is no longer sufficient for membership on the boards of great universities, if indeed it ever was. The responsibility of university boards is great, and decisions must not be made by a few. Like bishops, they are asked to leave politics and ambition at the door, and make serious decisions before God. In the case of Notre Dame, they owe it to the Congregation of Holy Cross, which has turned this magnificent place over to a predominately lay board; they owe it to the students who have not yet come; they owe it to the intrepid missionary priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., and the Holy Cross religious who built this magnificent place out of the wilderness. They owe it to Mary, the Mother of God, who has always been honored here. Let us pray that they will take this responsibility with greater seriousness and in a truly Catholic spirit.
Critical Questions
As bishops, we must be teachers and pastors. In that spirit, I would respectfully put these questions to the Catholic universities in the diocese I serve and to other Catholic universities.
Do you consider it a responsibility in your public statements, in your life as a university and in your actions, including your public awards, to give witness to the Catholic faith in all its fullness?
What is your relationship to the church and, specifically, to the local bishop and his pastoral authority as defined by the Second Vatican Council?
Finally, a more fundamental question: Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O’Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae? The first comes from a frantic time, with finances as the driving force. Its understanding of freedom is defensive, absolutist and narrow. It never mentions Christ and barely mentions the truth. The second text, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, speaks constantly of truth and the pursuit of truth. It speaks of freedom in the broader, Catholic philosophical and theological tradition, as linked to the common good, to the rights of others and always subject to truth. Unlike Land O’Lakes, it is communal, reflective of the developments since Vatican II, and it speaks with a language enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
On these three questions, I respectfully submit, rests the future of Catholic higher education in this country and so much else.

A Faithful Priest is Under Attack

I have a friend... oh, but, gentlemen. He's a friend of yours too.– Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes From Underground

HERO PRIEST: Fr. Alphonse de Valk

Hey Catholic peoples !
Perhaps you may consider helping Fr. Alphonse de Valk, editor of Catholic Insight, an orthodox Catholic magazine based out of Toronto, Canada.
Readers may be aware that Catholic Insight is under investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa after a complaint was filed over our coverage of the homosexual issue. The Canadian Human Rights Act, under subsection 13(1), categorizes as a “discriminatory practice” the communication by individuals or groups of messages “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” Hatred and contempt are not defined, allowing anyone to file a complaint on the flimsiest of grounds. These messages then become “thought crimes.” While the legal expenses of human rights complainants are funded from the public purse, those of defendants are not. We need to engage legal counsel and defray expenses for additional staff time, publicity, correspondence and so on. Our regular fundraising appeal takes place only once every two years. However, at this time, we must make a special request for funds in light of the unexpected new demands being made upon our budget. If you are able to help, please send your cheque or money order to Catholic Insight, P.O. Box 625, Adelaide Station, Toronto, Ontario, [Canada] M5C 2J8. For a credit card donation, you can call us at (416) 204–9601 or e–mail Catholic Insight is fighting to preserve the rights to freedom of expression, religion and the press as guaranteed by our Constitution. God bless you for your support. [PayPal also available.]
TH2 COMMENTS: Although its circulation is relatively small, Catholic Insight IS Canada’s national Catholic magazine, in terms of its adherence to orthodoxy. Canada’s oldest English–speaking Catholic periodical/newspaper is The Catholic Register, although now it promotes a wishy–washy, borderline–dwelling Catholicism, and I can think of one histrionic radical still on its writing staff. In contradistinction to this squeamish neutrality, the courageous Fr. de Valk and his team are fighting the good fight. Ever since Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919–2000) became Prime Minister in 1968 – a notoriously bad Catholic, his instituted policies (e.g. Gallicanism, Mulitculturalism) have led Canada on a downslide along the road called Fabianism (see definition in Note 2, EOS2). This has devolved to such a degree that Fr. de Valk / Catholic Insight has been accused of a “hate crime” (read thought crime, Orwell 1984) when he published writings – wholly in line with the Magisterium – against homosexualism.
If unable to contribute, your prayers for this good, holy and longsuffering priest would still be appreciated. Fr. de Valk is one of my heroes, and if you read about his plight (see links below), then, Catholic peoples, he might become a hero of yours too.
Catholic Insight:
Catholic Insight Defense Fund: LINK
[the Defense Fund link is also located at the bottom of the sidebar on this blog]

Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL): Human Rights Complaint Costing Catholic Insight
Ezra Levant Comments: Who’s Fr. de Valk

Nuns With Good Habits: Crossing the Tiber Edition

This is going to be a slightly different type of post. Why? Because these Nuns are not quite yet Catholic & won't be until 3 September 2009. As of now, they are still technically Episcopalian. But, on next Thursday 10 members of the Society of All Saints’ Sisters of the Poor will be welcomed by Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, Archdiocese of Baltimore. During a Mass in the chapel of their Catonsville convent the Archbishop will administer sacrament of confirmation and the sisters renew their vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. (Shown in the picture at the upper right are Mother Christina Christie (left), Sister Mary Joan Walker & Sister Emily Ann Lindsey.)
According to an article in the Catholic Review (10 Episcopal nuns in Archdiocese of Baltimore to join Catholic Church ) "Orthodoxy and unity were key reasons the sisters were attracted to the Catholic faith. Many of them were troubled by the Episcopal Church’s approval of women’s ordination, the ordination of a gay bishop and what they regarded as lax stances on moral issues."
According to Mother Christina: "People who did not know us looked at us as if we were in agreement with what had been going on (in the Episcopal Church). By staying put and not doing anything, we were sending a message which was not correct.”
Like many others from the Episcopal Church who have joined the Catholic Church "the sisters have received permission from the archbishop to attend Mass celebrated in the Anglican-use rite – a liturgy that adapts many of the prayers from the Episcopal tradition. Mother Christina said 10 archdiocesan priests, including Auxiliary Bishop Denis J. Madden, have stepped forward to learn how to celebrate the Anglican-use Mass." (Approved by Pope John Paul II in 1980) In addition to the Mass they have the six-fold Divine Office & times of personal prayer.
The All Saints’ Sisters of the Poor was founded in England & came to Baltimore in 1872. They became became an independent House in 1890. They have been at their current location since 1917. Besides their "rigorous daily prayer regimen, the sisters offer religious retreats, visit people in hospice care and maintain a Scriptorium where they design religious cards to inspire others in the faith."
1 of the goals of the group is to be recognized as a "diocesan institute". (an institute of religious men or women who take vows and live in community and they are overseen directly by the diocesan bishop) While they will maintain ownership of their 88 acres of property in Catonsville after they enter the church it is yet to be determined if they will retain their same name. This will all be determined through the Vatican.
Given the view of the Papacy that many people who call themselves Catholic have these days, their view is quite refreshing. "The sisters expressed deep affection for Pope Benedict XVI. The pope exercises an authority that Episcopal leaders do not, they said. The unity that Christ called for can be found in the Catholic Church under the leadership of the pope, they said."
"The sisters noted with a laugh that their love for the pope is evident in the name they chose for their recently adopted cat, 'Benedict XVII' – a feline friend they lovingly call 'His Furyness.'
As you can see from the picture they wear full habits with black veils & white wimples that cover their heads. Members of the community range in age from 59 to 94. I highly suspect that with their joining the Church they may soon see some new vocations.
Clearly their journey has not been easy. It has taken them 7 years to reach this point. "Before deciding to enter the Catholic Church, the sisters had explored Episcopal splinter groups and other Christian denominations. Mother Christina noted that the sisters had independently contemplated joining the Catholic Church without the others knowing. When they found out that most of them were considering the same move, they took it as a sign from God and reached out to Archbishop O’Brien."
Their chaplain, Episcopal Father Warren Tanghe, will also be received into the church at that Mass. He is discerning the possibility of becoming a Catholic priest.
You can also see a slide show of the sisters here.


Glenn Beck asks - Czarist America = Nazi Germany?

By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 2009 ( - "Question with boldness." That is the motto of radio host and FOX News television host Glenn Beck, who says he asks questions no different than ordinary Americans - he just has an army of researchers to help him explore these questions. But what the question explores is the disturbing relationship between eugenics, Nazism, and the imposition of Obama's health care plan upon the United States.
Like the old adage "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it," Beck has looked back to the past to get a glimpse of the future. Throughout the past few weeks, Beck has given considerable attention to the Obama Administration centralizing power under the Executive Branch away from Congress through the appointment of more than 31 powerful "Czars" or "special policy advisors" as the Administration prefers to call them.
Beck argues that the Obama administration's appointment of czars unaccountable to Congress, ramming massive legislation through Congress, and especially his health-care plan, bear close resemblance to how Germany's National Socialists consolidated overwhelming powers under the executive led by Adolf Hitler in such a way that strangled democracy in Germany.
Although many people remember the National Socialists for their brutal extermination of the Jews during World War II, Western leaders like Winston Churchill had condemned National Socialism as a regime contrary to the very root of Christian civilization and "guided by the lights of perverted science."
The question Beck asks is, why does Obama surround himself with so many advisors to reform health-care, who do not believe all human lives have equal value?" And one of Obama's czars believes that even after birth, a child is not yet human.
Roots of Nazi Eugenics
"They tried to figure out how much is a life worth and put a price on how much each individual is worth," said Beck, making clear that the logical conclusion is that some lives are worth more than others.
The roots of Germany's eugenics program, however, began in England and the United States. Beck traces its beginning with the social progressives creating laws mandating compulsory sterilization for groups which the state deemed "procreation inadvisable": such as the destitute, criminals, and the mentally disabled, some of the most vulnerable members of society. Illinois passed the first compulsory sterilization law in 1907, and more than 30 other states would follow before the Nazis rise to power in Germany.
One of the most egregious cases of this type of human rights violation is Buck v. Bell in 1927. In that case, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that Virginia was right to sterilize Carrie Buck against her will because, "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck, however, was poor but not mentally disabled. Buck's sister Doris was also sterilized forcibly when she was hospitalized for appendicitis, but she never found out why she could not have children until 1980.
Beck said that "no one is saying that eugenics is coming" or the "master race," but a lesson should be drawn from Germany, which descended down the dark road of perpetuating crimes against humanity once they had accepted the principle that there was "Lebensunwertes Leben" or "life unworthy of life."
Nazi Germany: Cutting Costs By Making Judgments on Quality of Life
For Beck, the idea of "life unworthy of life" gets personal. His daughter has cerebral palsy and he tells his viewers that doctors told him that statistically she would never walk, talk, or feed herself.
"She went to college. They were wrong," Beck says.
But Germany, which provided universal health care, began to view Germans with conditions like cerebral palsy as primarily a drain on health resources that could be allocated to healthier Germans. Beck choked up as he held a Nazi poster that featured a man with cerebral palsy and said it costs 60,000 Marks to keep him alive. Another poster said that the resources spent for one year on a mental institution could have built homes for Germans.
"What happened in Germany was that they could not afford health-care for all," warns Beck.
Beck repeats that he does not mean to say that President Obama is building a euthanasia program, like Germany's T4 program, which put to death around 70,000 human beings they deemed physically or mentally unfit. However, what Obama and his advisors have in common with Germany is the idea that some lives are worth more than others, and in the crisis of the Depression.
But the danger is that since Germany succumbed to National Socialism after its inflationary practices destroyed the economy in 2009, there is a real danger that the enormous national debt of the United States and its inflation of the money supply in order to stimulate the economy could lead to a similar collapse. Such a situation would create, amongst many other dire outcomes, near unavoidable rationing of healthcare.
"If there is a crisis what will they do? Whose voice will he hear?" asks Beck.
Beck says that answer lies with what President Obama himself said on the campaign trail: if one wants to know his policies, then pay attention to his advisors.
So when it comes to health-care reform: four advisors behind the effort deserve special attention: Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Reform Policy Advisor; John Holdren, Science Czar; Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar; and Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar.
Another article will detail Beck's unusually frank and alarming revelations about Obama's advisors - revelations made on his Fox television program that is skyrocketing in popularity and which Obama supporters are frantically attempting to shut down.


Cardinal O'Malley to be Ringmaster at Kennedy Circus

It just keeps getting worse. I would have no problem with Cardinal O'Malley presiding over a private Mass, but given how political this will be, his allowing this is tacit approval of Kennedy's long time anti-life stands. We won't go into details of the rest of Teddy's scandalous behavior that ranged from causing Mary Jo Kopeckne's death to his alley cat morals. Of course given how long he took to finally back out of the health insurance fiasco with the Massachusetts State Insurance program, O'Malley's presiding doesn't totally surprize me. Still, this is clearly anything but the right thing for the Cardinal to do since his participation IS scandoulous.
Below is part of the news report with the program for the funeral Mass. In addition to the Obama eulogy his sons will be giving a tribute to him. It appears all this will take place after Communion. 1st of all, neither of this is appropriate at any time during Mass. But, IMHO, it is even more scandalous & blasphemous to have them after Communion. The kids memorial will be the presentation of the cause followed by Obama's declaration of Teddy as a saint. Given this is supposed to be a time of reflection after receiving Christ in the Eucharist, I suspect that many of the so-called Catholics who are pro-abortion will be relieved to have another blasphemy follow their blasphemous actions rather than have time to reflect on the scandolous sin they just committed.
Then there is the so-called Intercessory Prayers that will consist of reading quotes from Ted Kennedy. Sorry, but once again this is in clear violation of the GIRM on what can & can't be done for the Prayer of the Faithful which is its proper name. In this case, I suspect calling them "intercessory prayers" is more accurate since so many of those there are anything but faithful Catholics. So any prayer they said clearly would be a prayer of the unfaithful.
I assume there will be a Gospel reading & it will be done by the homilst, thus why it isn't mentioned. & anyone who knows how anything but Catholic Boston College is, it is no surprize that Fr. Monan SJ, former president of the college, will concelebrate. I am sure he helped Teddy overcome any doubts about being pro-abortion if Teddy's conscience ever reared its ugly head.

O'Malley to preside at Kennedy funeral

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston will preside at the funeral of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy tomorrow at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (the Mission Church). The Rev. J. Donald Monan, a Jesuit priest who was the longtime president of Boston College and is now the chancellor, will be the principal celebrant. And the Rev. Mark R. Hession, pastor of Our Lady of Victory Parish in Centerville, will deliver the homily.
First Reading: Curran Raclin, stepson
Responsorial: Kara Kennedy Allen, daughter
Second Reading: Caroline Raclin, stepdaughter
Homily: Rev. Mark Hession
Intercessory Prayers: Kennedy's four grandchildren, and the youngest grandchild of each of his siblings, will read quotes from his speeches. (The family chose to honor the youngest children because Kennedy was the youngest in his family.)
Offertory: Grandchildren
Music by Yo-Yo Ma
Music by Placido Domingo accompanied by the Tanglewood Festival Chorus
"Ave Maria" by Susan Graham of the Metropolitan Opera
Tribute: Edward M. Kennedy Jr. and US Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (sons)
Eulogy: President Obama
Song: America the Beautiful

Friday, August 28, 2009

This Just In - Carhart Under the Microscope

Naturally, this has the usual slant against Pro-lifers, but it looks like more of the ugly truth that abortion supporters want kept hidden is getting out & in a big way. (Note: I just found out about this a few minutes ago. This is from today's edition of the paper & I got it from Troy Newman of Operation Rescue via Facebook.)

By Leia Baez-Mendoza

As part of Operation Rescue's efforts to close down a Bellevue abortion clinic, the group is working with former clinic employees who say they performed medical procedures without proper licensing.
Operation Rescue previously filed a complaint with state officials accusing the Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Nebraska of unsafe conditions. To support that complaint, the group has gathered statements from the former clinic workers.
Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who operates one of the few clinics in the country that will perform some late-term abortions, said Thursday that his Bellevue clinic has never done anything that was not well within Nebraska's scope of medical practice.
“We have not done anything that was improper,” Carhart said.
Today, Operation Rescue, which often uses confrontation and stirs controversy with large, vivid photos of fetuses, plans to begin training anti-abortion protesters in alternative methods aimed at getting Carhart's clinic closed down, said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue.
“We are hoping that we will be able to train a core group of people that will be able to conduct investigations, file complaints and use the legal system to close that clinic,” Sullenger said.
The training session is closed to the public for security reasons, she said.
The World-Herald spoke with four former clinic workers, who agreed to be interviewed only if their names were not used because they feared being sued over confidentiality agreements they said they signed with Carhart.
Operation Rescue, though, said it would submit the women's sworn statements to authorities. Those affidavits will identify them by name.
None of the clinic workers left their jobs by choice.
Two of the women said they routinely started IVs at Carhart's clinic though they weren't registered nurses or certified licensed practical nurses, as required in Nebraska. One was fired from the clinic in June, while the other was laid off this month. There is no indication the women lost their jobs because of their alleged involvement in starting the IVs.
A third former employee, who was fired about six years ago, said she frequently administered medication intravenously although she wasn't a certified LPN. That's the minimum requirement for the procedure, according to Marla Augustine, a spokeswoman for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, the regulatory agency for medical services.
The complaint was filed last month by Operation Rescue, based in Wichita, Kan., along with the Washington-based Christian Defense Coalition and two local anti-abortion groups, Rescue the Heartland and Nebraskans United for Life.
The complaint contends that Carhart's clinic is “in an appalling state of neglect and disrepair,” and that Carhart is endangering lives with unsafe medical practices.
The complaint was forwarded by Attorney General Jon Bruning's office to the State Department of Health and Human Services. HHS officials will neither confirm nor deny whether an investigation is under way.
Two of the former clinic workers said they were trained by a registered nurse at the clinic and eventually were taught to insert IV needles and to give intravenous medication. One of the women, who had completed no education beyond a high school diploma, said she was starting IVs and administering medication within a few months of starting to work at the clinic.
Another of the former workers said she saw dried blood on an instrument laid out for a procedure.
A fourth former employee said she was concerned for the safety of the patients because she sometimes saw unsanitary conditions while she worked there. She was laid off from the clinic this month.
Three of the women have felony drug convictions. One was convicted after she was let go from the clinic. The two others had the convictions on their records before they were hired.
Sullenger, of Operation Rescue, said she hopes the women's stories will beef up her group's complaint.
“In general, it's women who are not educated, trained or licensed that are handling duties at the clinic, including starting IVs and assisting with surgeries,” she said.
One of the former employees contacted Operation Rescue through its Web site. Another contacted Larry Donlan, president of Rescue the Heartland. Donlan or his attorney contacted the others.
One of the former clinic workers said Donlan promised to help her find a job after she was laid off from the clinic.
Donlan said he was eager to help the women and was pleased that most of them reached out to him to share their stories.
“It's part of our ministry to help these women,” Donlan said. “We can't get these women jobs, but we can give them leads. We are doing out best to help them.”
Carhart said several months ago that he temporarily would take on late-term abortions after his friend and colleague, Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita, Kan., abortion provider, was shot and killed at his church in May. Tiller ran the Women's Health Care Services clinic in Wichita, which is now closed.
Carhart specified that he would do third-trimester abortions at the Bellevue clinic only in cases in which the fetus, because of a medical problem, could not survive outside the mother's body.
Carhart has been a lightning rod on the abortion issue in Nebraska and nationally. In a lawsuit, he challenged the 1997 Nebraska law banning a particular type of abortion known medically as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X. In the procedure, a doctor removes the fetus as far as the skull, which is then crushed or cut to allow its removal through the cervix without injuring the woman. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ban in 2000.
Carhart also challenged the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban in 2007.
World-Herald staff writer Katie Fretland contributed to this report. Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery