Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Catholic Church Elevates Wisconsin Site Where Nun Saw Virgin Mary In 1859

The Roman Catholic Church on Wednesday designated a Wisconsin spot where an apparition of the Virgin Mary allegedly appeared three times to a Belgian-born nun in 1859 as the only one of its kind in the United States.

The Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help at Champion, just east of Green Bay near Lake Michigan, has long been a popular destination for the faithful. But it was only in the last two years that the Diocese of Green Bay undertook the official process to earn the distinction that now puts it in company with renowned holy apparition sites including Lourdes, France; Guadalupe, Mexico; and Fatima, Portugal.

Green Bay Bishop David Ricken approved the sightings as legitimate apparitions after a two-year study by a commission he appointed. Ricken announced the distinction at a special Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception at the shrine, where he read from a decree that stated the apparitions witnessed by Sister Adele Brise in 1859 “do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful.”

Brise was 28 at the time of the visions, and had immigrated to Wisconsin from Belgium with her family about four years earlier. Brise would recount that a lady dressed in dazzling white appeared to her and claimed to be the “Queen of Heaven who prays for the conversion of sinners,” according to information provided by the Green Bay diocese. The apparition asked Brise to do the same, and to gather children and teach them what they should know for salvation.

After receiving the apparitions, Brise established a Catholic school and a community of Franciscan women.

Such sites of confirmed apparition earn that designation only by a Catholic bishop’s decree. A spokesman for the Green Bay Diocese said there are only 11 other such sites worldwide, none in the United States.

(Source: Associated Press)

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

On Ash Wednesday, is VP Joe Biden even Catholic?

From today's Baltimore Republican Examiner.  Written by Sean O'Donnell.

Today as President Obama gave a speech on the Stimulus Recovery Bill, many people may have noticed Vice President Biden in the background with something on his forehead.

Just what was on Biden’s forehead? It was ash in the sign of the cross from a mixture of burned palms and sacred oils because today is Ash Wednesday – the Catholic Church’s observation of the first day of Lent.

But just how Catholic is America’s first Catholic Vice President? Let’s take a look at some of Biden’s political positions and compare them with the teachings of the Church.

On abortion: Biden believes the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion-on-demand (Roe v. Wade) should remain intact. He also has received a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, pledged to appoint pro-choice Supreme Court nominees, and voted no on making it a crime to harm an unborn fetus during another crime. In short, he is a pro-choice politician that strongly supports abortion rights.

However, the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion in any circumstance. The Church is pro-life.

On embryonic stem cell research and human cloning:  Biden has voted to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research and has voted no on banning human cloning.

However, the Catholic Church is opposed to embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

On same-sex marriage: Biden has voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

However, the Catholic Church supports the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.

On school prayer: Biden voted no on requiring public schools to allow voluntary prayer.

However, the Catholic Church supports voluntary prayer in public schools.

On the death penalty: Biden authored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which greatly expanded the federal death penalty.

However, the Catholic Church is against the death penalty.

On the Iraq War: Biden voted for the Iraq War resolution.

However, the Catholic Church is opposed to the current war in Iraq.

(Additionally, Biden also voted against confirming fellow Catholic Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, yet voted for confirming Catholic Justice Sonia Sotomayor.)

My question to Vice President Biden is – Why do you claim to be Catholic when your political positions and votes go against numerous teachings of the church? That’s like a Nazi saying he likes Jewish people and enjoys Jewish culture or it’s like a Socialist supporting free markets and private property rights.

If a politician is going to parade his Catholic beliefs about – especially on Ash Wednesday – at least defend the teachings of the Church. Otherwise pick a new religion.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Great Catholic Blog!

Just stumbled on to a great Catholic blog, which features regular contributions from Fr. John Bartunek, LC, author of bestseller, "The Better Part -- A Christ-Centered Resource for Personal Prayer".  The blog, "Catholic Spiritual Direction" can be found here

I've also added it to the RC Blog's Favorite Blogs listing on the left.  Enjoy!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Catholic Mission -- "God has a Plan"

This past week, St. Veronica Parish in Chantilly, Va. sponsored a five-part Catholic mission titled, "God has a Plan". Fr. David Wilton of the Fathers of Mercy order led the mission and did an amazing job. It was one of the best missions I have personally experienced and it was extremely well received by the parish.

Below are links to download the audio from each part. These talks are great for both Catholics and non Catholics and make for a better way to enjoy a morning or afternoon commute.

Sins and Confession -- Click Here to Listen or Download (21.9 MB, 48:01)

The Holy Eucharist -- Click Here to Listen or Download (22.6 MB, 49:34)

Our Blessed Mother -- Click Here to Listen or Download (24.1 MB, 52:46)

Morality and Life -- Click Here to Listen or Download (27.3 MB, 59:40)

The Importance of Prayer -- Click Here to Listen or Download (24.6 MB, 53:44)

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Cardinal Dulles Recalled for Brilliance, Simplicity, Kindness

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Cardinal Avery Dulles, a Jesuit theologian who was made a cardinal in 2001, was remembered by friends and admirers for his brilliant mind as well as for his "simplicity and sense of wonder."

Cardinal Dulles died Dec. 12; he was 90. An evening wake was scheduled for Dec. 16 and 17 at Fordham University Church, followed by the celebration of Mass each evening. A funeral Mass for the cardinal was scheduled for Dec. 18 at St. Patrick's Cathedral, followed by burial at the Jesuit Cemetery in Auriesville, N.Y.

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired Washington archbishop, and a fellow member of the 2001 class of cardinals, described the Jesuit scholastic he first met 60 years ago as even then being "an imposing personality with his twang, his razor-sharp intellect and, perhaps more than anything else, his obviously profound dedication to his faith."

"He was one of the truly great American theologians, constantly renewing and deepening his commitment to the truth," said Cardinal McCarrick in one of many statements issued by church leaders, friends and colleagues after Cardinal Dulles' death.

From his early impressions of Cardinal Dulles as a young priest whose first Mass he helped organize, Cardinal McCarrick said his friend was "a holy man, totally without guile or pretense."

Pope Benedict XVI offered his condolences to the Jesuit community and Cardinal Dulles' friends and family. He remarked on the cardinal's "deep learning, serene judgment and unfailing love of the Lord and his church which marked his entire priestly ministry and his long years of teaching and theological research."

The pope said he prays that "his convincing personal testimony to the harmony of faith and reason will continue to bear fruit for the conversion of minds and hearts and the progress of the Gospel for many years to come."

Cardinal Dulles, the son of former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and nephew of onetime CIA director Allen Walsh Dulles, was the grandson of a Presbyterian minister.

He joined the Catholic Church in 1941 while a student at Harvard Law School. He served in the Navy in World War II, then entered the Jesuits after his discharge in 1946. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1956.

Cardinal Dulles had been the Laurence J. McGinley professor of religion and society at Fordham since 1988. He also had taught in Washington at the former Woodstock College, now folded into Georgetown University, and The Catholic University of America. He had been a visiting professor at Catholic, Protestant and secular colleges and universities.

Prominent among his many writings was his groundbreaking 1974 book, "Models of the Church," in which he defined the church as institution, mystical communion, sacrament, herald, servant and community of disciples, and critiqued each model.

Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said Cardinal Dulles' "wise counsel will be missed," and that "his personal witness to the pursuit of holiness of life as a priest, a Jesuit and a cardinal of the church will be remembered."

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington said that Cardinal Dulles' elevation from priest to cardinal was a sign of the particular esteem in which he was held. One of the rare nonbishops to be appointed to the College of Cardinals, he was named a cardinal in recognition of his service to the church as a theologian.

"He presented an authentic Catholic theology that was deeply rooted in the church's intellectual heritage and the American experience of that tradition," Archbishop Wuerl said.

He added that he would cherish the opportunities he had to work with Cardinal Dulles, whom he described as "insightful and ever kind. He had a way of making complicated and sometimes opaque issues clear and intelligible. But he also always had time to listen to others who did not have his level of theological mastery and to welcome their contribution."

Some of his fellow Jesuits recalled Cardinal Dulles for his intellect and for more mundane human traits.

"Cardinal Dulles was man of tremendous intellectual rigor whose teaching and writing contributed greatly to the vibrancy of Catholic intellectual life," said Father Thomas H. Smolich, president of the Jesuit Conference. "Yet for a man with so many gifts, he never viewed himself as anything more than a poor servant of Christ."

Jesuit Father Kevin Burke, president of the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, Calif., said Cardinal Dulles was among the theologians who after the Second Vatican Council brought fresh approaches to ecclesiology, the study of the nature and functions of a church.

"In addition, he began to pay particular attention to the amazing burst of theological creativity among Jesuits that appeared around the time of the council," said Father Burke, according to a release from the Jesuits.

In an article written for the Jan. 5 issue of America magazine, Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen, editor-in-chief, quoted Cardinal Dulles looking back on his own career in "A Life in Theology," the April 2008 lecture at Fordham the cardinal described as his farewell address: "I do not particularly strive for originality. Very few new ideas, I suspect, are true. If I conceived a theological idea that had never occurred to anyone in the past, I would have every reason to think myself mistaken."

The cardinal thought tradition was essential to theological development, noted Father Christiansen.

"Developments of doctrine," the cardinal observed, "always involve a certain continuity; a reversal of course is not development."

Father Christiansen also gave some more personal perspectives about his fellow Jesuit, describing his transition to a small Jesuit community in 1970 after Woodstock College moved from the Maryland countryside to New York City.

"Raised in a household with servants and having lived his life in institutions (the Navy and the Jesuits), small community was his first experience of domesticity," Father Christiansen wrote. "He learned to sew -- he had to be taught several times -- to shop and to cook. His favorite entree: Shake 'n Bake chicken."

The America article said Cardinal Dulles' lanky figure was subject to loving caricature within the Jesuit community, including a portrayal of him as the Mad Hatter in a mural of "Alice in Wonderland" painted in the kitchen of the 102nd Street Jesuit community in New York.

"A photo of the Wonderland mural hung until the time of his death in his room at the Jesuit infirmary," wrote Father Christiansen.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Meditation on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception

A beautiful meditation from St. Padre Pio, on the occasion of today's feast day in the Catholic Church -- The Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception...

Eternal Love, Spirit of Light and Truth, make a way into my poor mind and allow me to penetrate as far as it is possible to a wretched creature like myself, into that abyss of grace, of purity and of holiness, that I may acquire a love of God that is continually renewed, a love of God Who, from all eternity planned the greatest of all the masterpieces created by His hands: the Immaculate Virgin Mary.

From all eternity Almighty God took delight in what was to be the most perfect work of His hands, and anticipated this wonderful plan with an outpouring of His Grace.

Man, created innocent, fell by disobeying Him; the mark of original sin remained engraved on his forehead and that of his progeny who will bear its consequences until the end of time.

A woman brought ruin, and a woman was to bring salvation. The one, being tempted by a serpent, stamped the mark of sin on the human race; the other was to rise through grace, pure and immaculate. She would crush the head of the serpent who was helpless before her and who struggled in vain under her heel; for she was conceived without sin, and through her came grace to mankind.

Protected with Grace by Him Who was to be the Savior of Mankind that had fallen into sin, she escaped all shadow of evil. She sprang from the mind of God as a pure ray of light, and will shine like a morning star over the human race that turns to her. She will be the sure guide who will direct our steps toward the Divine Sun which is Jesus Christ. He makes her radiant with divine splendor and points to her as our model of purity and sanctity. No creature surpasses her, but all creation defers her through the Grace of Him Who made her immaculate. He Whom she was to carry in her womb was the Son of God participating with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the glory of her conception.

Clothed in light from the moment of her conception, she grew in grace and comeliness. After Almighty God, she is the most perfect of creatures; more pure than the angels; God is indeed well pleased in her, since she most resembles Him and is the only worthy repository of His secrets.

In the natural order she preceded her Divine Child, Our Lord, but in the divine order Jesus, the Divine Sun, arose before her, and she received from Him all grace, all purity and all beauty.

All is darkness compared to the pure light that renews all creation through Him Whom she bore in her womb, as the dew on the rose.

The Immaculate Conception is the first step in our salvation. Through this singular and unique gift Mary received a profusion of Divine Grace, and through her cooperation she became worthy of absorbing infinitely more.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Origin and History of the Solemnity of Christ the King

Tomorrow (11/23), the Roman Catholic Church will celebrate the Solemnity of Christ the King.

Here is some background information on this feast day:

On December 11, 1925, towards the end of that Holy Year, Pope Pius XI instituted this liturgical celebration as a feast ranked as a Double of the First Class with his encyclical Quas Primas.

The title of the feast was "D. N. Jesu Christi Regis" (Our Lord Jesus Christ the King), and the date was "the last Sunday of the month of October - the Sunday, that is, which immediately precedes the Feast of All Saints".

In Pope John XXIII's 1960 revision of the Calendar, the date and title remained the same and, in the new simpler ranking of feasts, it was classified as a feast of the first class.

In 1969, Pope Paul VI gave the celebration a new title: "D. N. Iesu Christi universorum Regis" (Our Lord Jesus Christ King of All). He also gave it a new date: the last Sunday in the liturgical year, before a new year begins with the First Sunday in Advent, the earliest date for which is November 27. Through this choice of date "the eschatological importance of this Sunday is made clearer". He assigned to it the highest rank, that of "Solemnity".

As happens with all Sundays whose liturgies are replaced by those of important feasts, the prayers of the Sunday on which the celebration of Christ the King falls are used on the ferias (weekdays) of the following week. The Sunday liturgy is thus not totally omitted.

It is also celebrated by the Legionaries of Christ order of priests and its associated international lay ecclesial movement, Regnum Christi, as "Regnum Christi Day". Its members are invited to spiritually renew their decision to give their lives to Christ out of love, and to do everything they can to make the Kingdom of Christ a strong and growing reality in society.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Group Asks IRS to Investigate Catholic Bishop against Obama

From today's USA Today... I especially love the comparison of Obama to King Herod!

A church-state watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether the Roman Catholic bishop of Paterson, N.J., violated tax laws by denouncing Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.

In a letter sent to the IRS on Wednesday (Oct. 22), Americans United for Separation of Church and State accused Paterson Bishop Arthur Serratelli of illegal partisanship for lambasting Obama's support of abortion rights.

In a column posted on the Diocese of Paterson's website and published in its weekly newspaper, Serratelli also compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the death of John the Baptist.

The bishop did not refer to Obama by name but only as "the present democratic (sic) candidate."
Under federal tax law, nonprofit groups — including religious organizations — are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates.

Serratelli wrote that Obama has pledged, if elected president, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion-rights legislation the Catholic Church vehemently opposes.

"If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood," Serratelli wrote.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United, said it is "impossible to interpret this passage as anything but a command to vote against 'the present Democratic candidate' because of his promise to sign a certain piece of legislation disfavored by the Catholic Church's hierarchy."

The Paterson diocese said Serratelli's column was focused on proposed abortion legislation, not the upcoming presidential election.

"It's absolutely, positively misleading to say that the bishop urged Catholics not to vote for Sen. Obama," the diocese said in a statement.

Rob Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United, said that of the estimated 90 claims it has filed with the IRS since 1996, only four others have accused Catholic bishops or dioceses of electioneering.

Earlier this year, Americans United asked the IRS to investigate Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, for criticizing former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was running for the Republican presidential nomination at the time.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

New Knights of Columbus / Marist College Poll of American Catholic Voters

Earlier this afternoon, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson addressed the press from Rome during a live news conference from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to highlight a new poll conducted for the Knights of Columbus by Marist College. The poll, which oversampled more than 800 Catholics nationwide, tackled a wide range of issues and produced some of the most detailed polling data ever collected on the Catholic electorate.

Here is the news release from the Knights issued earlier...

Poll shows major differences between practicing and non-practicing Catholics.

A just-completed nationwide poll provides new insights into America’s Catholic voters, highlighting the ways in which they differ from the electorate as a whole. But the survey also examines in detail the ways in which the 65 percent of Catholics who practice their faith regularly differ from the 35 percent who do not.

The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between September 24 and October 3, 2008.

In some areas, the poll finds that Catholic voters’ views are similar to the general population, on issues like government funding for the poor, amnesty for illegal immigrants, global warming, civil unions and same-sex marriage and a belief that the economy is the nation’s number one problem. 70 percent of all registered voters and 70 percent of all registered practicing Catholics say they would vote for a candidate who believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman, including majorities of the electorate and of practicing Catholics who would "definitely vote for" such a candidate. Catholics and non-Catholics agree that America needs a moral makeover. 71 percent of all US residents and 73 percent of US Catholics believe that “the country’s moral compass right now points in the wrong direction.”

But in other areas, Catholic voters differ from the electorate as a whole. They are less likely to vote for a candidate who favors the death penalty, and more likely to favor a candidate who is committed to success in the war in Iraq.

Some of the most dramatic differences are found within the community of Catholic voters. 59 percent of practicing Catholics are pro-life, while 65 percent of non-practicing Catholics are pro-choice. Non-practicing Catholics are far more likely to be pro-choice than the population at large (65 percent vs. 50 percent). Only 30 percent of US residents favor same-sex marriage, while 46 percent of non-practicing Catholics do. 75 percent of practicing Catholics oppose same-sex marriage.

Parental notification if a daughter under 18 is planning to have an abortion is supported by 77 percent of U.S. residents, and by 84 percent of practicing Catholics.

===============================

For a copy of Supreme Knight Anderson's presentation on the results of the poll, click here.

For a copy of the entire poll's detailed questions and responses, click here.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Did Gov. Palin Cut Alaskan Aid to Catholic Charities?

In today's National Catholic Register, Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College provided the following analysis on Liberal blog reports that Gov. Palin was a hypocrite when it comes to supporting charitable organizations:

Since Gov. Sarah Palin has arrived on the scene, claims have proliferated that she engaged in draconian budget cuts aimed at needy and vulnerable people.

Case in point: Numerous bloggers have claimed that Palin cut funds to Catholic charities. The idea made at least one mainstream source, as well. In a Sept. 11 Bloomberg News op-ed, Margaret Carlson wrote: “Palin, who said parents of special-needs children would have an advocate in the White House, cut funds for the Special Olympics, Catholic Charities and Covenant House. It would be good to know what she favors that parents need.”

I have previously examined the Special Olympics and Covenant House claims and found them to be false. The Catholic Charities claim is a similar kind of accusation, but a bit more complex.

First, I cannot find a line item or listing for Catholic Charities in the fiscal year 2008 or 2009 Alaska budgets. In the 2008 budget (July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008), however, Catholic Community Services was allocated funding for several projects.

By my calculations, the Alaska Legislature proposed $582,925 in four capital projects, and the Palin administration left $62,925 intact. According to the Palin administration’s rationale for vetoes, the $20,000 for the freezer would have been duplicate funding (apparently another source was found), and the $500,000 would have created “new facilities and programs.” Wilda Laughlin, spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services told me that most requests for new facilities were not funded, with the priority given to refurbish existing infrastructure (e.g., the Juneau Adult Day Center parking lot).

Now look at the 2009 funding for Catholic Community Services:

The Angoon folks still didn’t get their freezer and fridge. But the Juneau branch received $50,000 for hospice care, and the Fairbanks branch received $150,000 that they did not have before. Again, the charge regarding a cut relates to a reduced increase — and not a cut. As a legislator, it is relatively easy to ask for money for a constituent’s project knowing that the executive branch must balance the budget. In summary, the Legislature proposed $370,000 in three line items, with the final budget allocating $200,000 to the Catholic charitable organizations.

The Catholic organizations received almost six times as much funding in 2009 as in 2008. I do not see how this can be considered a cut.

In fact, the director of Catholic Community Services was happy to get the funding, according to a May 23, 2008 article in the Fairbanks News-Miner: “Palin also halved funding for counseling and adoption services at Catholic Community Resources. But Camille Connelly-Terhune, the group’s executive director, said the group was ‘thrilled’ with the $150,000 it did get. ‘It gives us the option to continue our services,’ she said.”

If Ms. Connelly-Terhune is happy, then why aren’t Palin’s detractors happy? Ms. Connelly-Terhune knows a raise when she sees one.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Bishop Slattery's Letter to Pelosi and Biden

A big thanks to one of my friends for getting me a copy of a letter from Bishop Slattery of the Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma, regarding the erroneous and scandalous comments made by Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden on the matter of abortion. This letter in particular stands out as being one of great evangelism on the dignity of human life and the need to end abortion in our society. See for yourself!

In recent weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden have been asked by Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" to explain their personal opinions on the question of “When does Human Life Begin?” The essence of their views, which they both claim are developed from their experience as Catholics, is first, that the tradition is inconsistent (Pelosi), and second, that even if it is clear, it is a matter of personal faith which, in a democracy, ought not be imposed on others (Biden). Having made their views public, and by presenting themselves as Catholics, both Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden have invited a discussion about the legitimacy of their views.

I, and other bishops, have already stated that Speaker Pelosi’s position is clearly inconsistent with Catholic teaching, and to promote such a view is scandalous. There are many witnesses in the tradition that clearly state the Catholic view in opposition to Speaker Pelosi.

In view of the absolute duty that we all have of protecting innocent human life, it is also necessary to respond publicly to Sen. Biden’s remarks. In his interview, Sen. Biden explained that although he was prepared as a matter of faith to accept the teaching that life begins at the moment of conception, it would be wrong in a pluralistic society to impose that judgment on everyone else, who may be just as ardent as he is in their own faith. He remarked that abortion is “a personal and private issue.”

Sen. Biden’s remarks reflect two erroneous beliefs. It is plainly false to assert that the answer to the question of when human life begins is limited to the realm of personal and private faith and that therefore there is no basis for preferring one position over another. While it is true that Christian revelation provides a framework for understanding human nature, there is also biological evidence on when human life begins, that all persons of good will, and not just Christians, may examine. Also, the division that Sen. Biden creates between privacy and social responsibility is tenuous. He supposes that social responsibility ends at the point that we turn the decision over to individuals.

Modern science clearly proves that human life begins at conception. At the moment when DNA from the mother and the father combine, a new, unique human being, who will develop continuously until death, is created. From then on, the early zygote functions as a human being. It has specifically human enzymes and proteins, and, over time, it develops complex human tissues and organs. After this genetic transfer, it can never develop into any other kind of being. Even as it develops through the process of pregnancy, the human nature of the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby never changes. It is this nature that directs and causes the miraculous physical transformation that takes place during the pregnancy.

In fact, the desire of some persons to destroy embryos in order to harvest stem cells is dependent upon the reality that they are already biologically human. Sen. Biden’s support for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would therefore be at odds with his stated belief that life begins at conception. Contrary to some misconceptions, the early human embryo is not a vague collection of tissues without specificity. In fact the exact opposite is true. The first cells of this new human being contain all of the information that will guide its development throughout life. The process of embryonic and fetal development involves “switching off” the complete power of the early cells so that they only take on one function, like being a heart cell.

While there are some members of our society who would like to define this biological human being as someone who does not share our basic human rights, such as the right to its own existence, this is a dangerous path. We, as a human society, have gone this way before, with disastrous results. Inevitably, it ends with the act of murdering those whom we objectify, as we have seen with the lynching of African Americans, or the Holocaust, or the countless other genocides of the 20th century. Whenever we treat another human being as an object, a thing, that we may do with as we please, rather than as a human person made in the image and likeness of God, we diminish, and inevitably destroy that being, and ourselves.

It is also paradoxical to suggest that by throwing the cloak of “privacy” over the act of abortion, that individual choice can transform an evil act into something that is good, or even tolerable. If, as Sen. Biden believes, human life begins at conception, it is difficult to see how that view can be reconciled with the position that we, as a society, should legally allow individual persons to decide on their own if murder is wrong.

The modern day notion of “privacy” assumes that there is a neat division between the individual who makes a decision, and the rest of the human community. A “private” decision is one that is limited to the individual. However, in the case of abortion, this decision has implications not only for the mother, but also for the father, both of their immediate families, and, in fact, for all of our society. The mother and the father lose a child, the family a niece or nephew, or grandchild, and the rest of us, a companion in life. How we protect, or ignore, these smallest members of our human community defines who we are as human persons.

A democracy, in order to flourish, must attend to the defense of the values that are essential to the human community. Ignoring this hard work and simply relegating abortion to the sphere of individual choice allows a cancer to eat at our very core, as we permit some human persons to sacrifice the lives of others for their own personal reasons. As Catholics, we cannot accept the premise that in the name of “privacy” all choices are equally right.Sen. Biden has opposed federal funding of abortions and backed the ban on partial birth abortions, and for that he should be commended. Yet, his justification for continuing to allow Roe v. Wade to stand as the law of the United States is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Once an evil is truly seen for what it is, neither can an emphasis on “privacy” excuse one’s moral responsibility to act to stop it, nor can defining murder as a “right to choose” change what it is that is actually chosen.Trusting always in the protection of Our Blessed Lady, whose immaculate womb first tabernacled the Word made Flesh, and asking for your prayers, I am

In Domino

Edward J. Slattery
Bishop of Tulsa

Archbishop Chaput on Faith and Politics

Not only does religion have a place in the public square, a democracy needs the input of religious morals and convictions to remain healthy and strong, says the archbishop of Denver.

Taking religion out of play, adds Archbishop Charles Chaput, author of "Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life," is the fastest way to destroy a democracy.

In this interview with ZENIT's Karna Swanson, Archbishop Chaput talks about the ideas put forth in his book on Catholics and politics, and comments on what he thinks are the important issues facing voters this November.

Q: Catholicism in the public square in the United States has had a long and complicated journey, and you say that Catholics have a lot to offer the political process, but that more often than not they keep their beliefs and convictions separate from their political actions. Why is that?

Archbishop Chaput: Catholics have always been a minority in the United States, and prejudice against Catholics in this country has always been real, even before the founding. Sometimes the bias has been indirect and genteel. Just as often it has taken more vulgar forms of economic and political discrimination, and media bigotry. Either way, prejudice always fuels the appetite of a minority to fit in, to achieve and to assimilate, and American Catholics have done that extraordinarily well -- in fact, too well.

In the name of being good citizens, a lot of Catholics have bought into a very mistaken idea of the “separation of Church and state.” American Catholics have always supported the principle of keeping religious and civil authority distinct.

Nobody wants a theocracy, and much of the media hand-wringing about the specter of “Christian fundamentalism” is really just a particularly offensive scare tactic. The Church doesn’t presume to run the state. We also don’t want the state interfering with our religious beliefs and practices -- which, candidly, is a much bigger problem today.

Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic.

Q: A chapter of the book was dedicated to St. Thomas More. In the same chapter you mention John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president of the United States. What is the fundamental difference between these two Catholic political leaders?

Archbishop Chaput: As I say in the book, we should be wary of drawing too close a parallel between More’s situation and the problems facing American public officials. But More and his friend John Fisher stay so vivid in our memories for a reason. They kept their integrity at the cost of everything they had, including their lives. They put God before Caesar.

As for Kennedy, we need to remember the context of his 1960 campaign. Kennedy had plenty of talent and courage, but he also had to overcome 200 years of ingrained Protestant suspicion.
Unfortunately, in easing those Protestant fears, he created a new and very flawed Catholic model of separating public service from private conviction. He was acting in good will, and of course he couldn’t see the future -- but he did a great deal of damage. Over the past 40 years, his example has guided every Catholic public official who is “personally opposed” to some grave evil, but won’t do anything about it. We’re still suffering the effects.

Q: You also note that the new media culture has created a new environment for public debate in which a "serious marketplace of ideas" is replaced by sound bites. How can faithful Catholic politicians operate in this environment?

Archbishop Chaput: There’s no easy answer to that. American Catholics need to take a much more critical attitude toward the mass media, including the news industry. Many very good people work in journalism, for example. But the picture of reality reported by the news media is always colored by at least three things: the technology of the medium, the need to make a profit and the bias of the organization.

What we see and hear in political reporting is often a dumbed-down version of the facts. Individual citizens need to be alert to how the media shape public appetites and mold our opinions. And Catholic political officials need to learn how to use the media -- honestly, of course -- and not be used by them.

Q: Did you hope the book, which was published months ahead of the presidential elections in the United States, would impact the election process in some way?

Archbishop Chaput: Actually, I finished the text in July last year and made final revisions last November. I wanted the book to appear in March this year to put some space between it and the campaign season. But the publisher makes those decisions.

It’s not my intention, in the book or anywhere else, to tell people how to vote. I don’t endorse candidates, I don’t use code language to get people to like or dislike any political party. That’s not the job of a pastor.

People need to vote their conscience. But “conscience” doesn’t miraculously appear out of nothing; it’s not a matter of personal opinion or private preference. Conscience is always grounded in truth bigger than ourselves. People who claim to be Catholic need to be honest with themselves and with the believing community. They need to really act “Catholic” in private and in public, and that includes the way they make their political choices. And it’s very much the job of a pastor to teach Catholics their faith and to encourage them to apply it.

Q: In this election year there seems to be more talk of "wider" social issues that Catholics should consider when voting. How do you see this trend? And what do you see as the biggest issues facing Catholic voters this November?

Archbishop Chaput: The moral witness of the Church doesn’t change, whether it’s an election year or not. We face a lot of very important issues this fall: the economy, immigration reform, the war in Iraq. These are urgent and compelling, but they can’t be used as an excuse to ignore the unborn child.

No matter how much we want to cover it over with talk about “wider social issues,” the abortion struggle remains the foundational social issue of our time. There’s no way of wriggling around the profits, the brutality and the injustice of abortion with pious language or theatrical gestures. Abortion is legalized homicide. It has to stop. Every other right depends on the right to life.

Q: The book is written mainly for a U.S. audience as it directly speaks of the Church in the United States. What could an international audience take away from the book?

Archbishop Chaput: All Catholics, wherever they live, whatever their country, need to remember that we’re citizens of heaven first. That’s our home. We serve our nation in this world best by living our Catholic faith fully and authentically, and bringing our Catholic witness for human dignity vigorously into our nation’s political life.

We need to stop being embarrassed to speak and work for the truth. We can be disciples, or we can be cowards. In today’s world, there’s no room for anything else. We need to choose.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Pelosi Agrees to Meet with S.F. Bishop Niederauer

Special thanks to Russ G. for forwarding the following article to the R.C. Blog from today's online edition of the San Jose Mercury News. Looks like Madame Speaker has some explaining to do about her appearance two weeks ago on Meet the (de)Press(ed)...


SAN FRANCISCO—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire from U.S. bishops for comments she made about abortion, accepted on Friday an invitation from the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco for a private talk.

Pelosi said in a letter to Archbishop George Niederauer that she'd "welcome the opportunity for our personal conversation and to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to Church teaching on other significant matters."

The proposed meeting stems from comments Pelosi made Aug. 24 on NBC's "Meet the Press." The Democratic congresswoman defended her support for abortion by saying "doctors of the church" have not been able to define when life begins.

She also cited the role of individual conscience. "God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions," she said.

Niederauer, who extended the invitation in the Friday column of the archdiocesan newspaper, and other bishops say that the church from its earliest days has considered abortion evil. Niederauer said Pelosi's remarks were in "serious conflict" with church teaching and it was his duty to explain clearly church teachings about faith and morals.

Several U.S. bishops have condemned the remarks made by Pelosi, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

While Pelosi's letter said she was interested in speaking about "church teaching on other significant matters," it did not mention abortion specifically. Her spokesman has defended her comments, saying in a previous statement that the congresswoman "fully appreciates the sanctity of family."

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Archbishop Chaput's 'Render Unto Caesar' Answers Crucial Questions about Intersection of Faith and Politics

The book is a must read for all Catholics as we approach Election Day in November. Below is a review of the book...


By Fr. Robert Imbelli

This new book by the Archbishop of Denver, Colorado, though addressed primarily to his fellow Catholics, will also serve to foster a much-needed conversation both within and outside the Church. Moreover, it appears at a particularly significant time: the eve of one of the most important presidential elections in recent American history.

One can read the book on several levels, each illuminating the other. The first level is indicated by the book’s subtitle: “serving the nation by living our Catholic beliefs in political life.” Central to the author’s position is that faith, though intensely and constitutively personal, is never private. Relationship with God through Jesus Christ is inseparably relationship with others in Jesus Christ, as the great judgment scene in chapter twenty-five of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew makes abundantly clear.

But, even beyond this, biblical faith always has social and even political implications. Anyone who takes seriously the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament readily acknowledges this. And the fulfillment of revelation in Jesus Christ only intensifies the believer’s vocation to foster the coming of the Kingdom in every dimension of human life.

The Catholic Church’s social teaching, from Leo XIII’s "Rerum Novarum," through Vatican Two’s "Gaudium et spes," to Benedict XVI’s recent Address to the United Nations, is the ongoing application of this prophetic tradition to the changing contexts of world history. Archbishop Chaput’s own conviction finds expression with these words: "The Church claims no right to dominate the secular realm. But she has every right – in fact an obligation – to engage secular authority and to challenge those wielding it to live the demands of justice. In this sense, the Catholic Church cannot stay, has never stayed, and never will stay 'out of politics.' Politics involves the exercise of power. The use of power has moral content and human consequences. And the well-being and destiny of the human person is very much the concern, and the special competence, of the Christian community (pp. 217-218).

On the other hand, there are influential voices, both in the United States and in Europe, that try to reduce religion and faith to a private preference that has no public role to play. They thereby seek to construct, what one critic calls, a “naked public square,” thereby domesticating religion and totally secularizing the public realm.

For Archbishop Chaput such a strategy not only denatures religion, and especially Catholicism, it stands in profound contradiction with the historical uniqueness of the American “experiment in democracy.” The so-called “wall of separation” between Church and State in the United States (a phrase often misleadingly invoked) was never intended to exclude the full engagement of believers in the political and civic life of the nation. And the American Constitution’s injunction against the “establishment” of religion was a precious protection against the unwarranted intrusion of the State into religious affairs.

The author draws significantly upon the thought of the late theologian, John Courtney Murray, S.J., who played a considerable role at Vatican II in the elaboration of the Council’s pioneering Declaration on Religious Liberty, "Dignitatis humanae." Murray argued (and Chaput agrees) that the founding documents of American democracy drew upon a natural law vision that affirms universal truths about the human condition. Thus Catholics, with their commitment to the natural law tradition, have a crucial contribution to make to American public life and the political process. Indeed, how can one possibly contribute to the common good unless one brings to the discussion and debate one’s deeply held values and moral convictions?

Moreover, the most authoritative figures in the Catholic tradition, like Saint Thomas Aquinas, recognize the legitimate autonomy of the secular. “Caesar” has a legitimate claim to the loyalty and dedication of citizens. But that loyalty can never usurp the obedience and worship due to God alone.

Archbishop Chaput dedicates a moving chapter to the English saint, Thomas More, whom Pope John Paul II called “the heavenly patron of statesmen and politicians.” The greatness of More lies in his courageous struggle to remain loyal to his duty to his earthly sovereign, while never compromising his ultimate dedication to the dictates of his conscience as reflective of his obedience to his heavenly King. As is well known, this integrity ultimately cost More his life; but his witness remains a powerful force and inspiration for all seeking to enlighten the social order with the light of the Gospel.

Thus the second level at which the book may be read is as an appeal to American Catholics to recover a robust and comprehensive understanding of their own faith tradition.

Too often, in the forty years since the Council, Catholics find themselves divided by selective appeals to one or another aspect of the Tradition. This tendency to choose selectively has been termed “cafeteria Catholicism,” and has only been exacerbated by the growing individualism of a consumer-oriented American society. Then, instead of being a “leaven” within Society, there is the risk of an indiscriminate accommodation to contemporary culture that weakens the Church’s evangelical witness. The author issues a blunt challenge to his fellow Catholics: “As Catholics, we need to take a much tougher and more self-critical look at ourselves as believers; at the issues underlying today’s erosion of Catholic identity; and at the wholesale assimilation – absorption might be a better word – of Catholics by American culture” (p. 184).

In effect, Archbishop Chaput is setting before his compatriots the same challenge that St. Paul posed to his fellow citizens of the Roman Empire. “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good, acceptable, and perfect” (Rom 12:2).

Key here is the virtue of discernment – always a demanding task. Yet it would be naïve not to admit that authentic discernment poses particular problems in our own day when the influence of the media is so pervasive. With all the benefits that instant communications provide, they can also, by their addiction to sound bites, detract from the necessary reflective weighing of evidence that alone fosters insight. In addition, so much of popular media (music, movies, video games) promotes entertainment of an escapist or violent nature, desensitizing and darkening conscience. No wonder that Archbishop Chaput several times appeals to the analysis of the late cultural critic, Neil Postman, whose study bears the ominous title: "Amusing Ourselves to Death."

Chaput’s realistic assessment of the challenge that lies before us issues in a renewed appreciation of the cost of discipleship. He invokes figures like the German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, and the Vietnamese Catholic bishop, later Cardinal, F.X. Nguyen Van Thuan to serve as exemplary witnesses of what a courageous following of Christ may entail. In the face of their faithful witness our propensity to facile compromises can appear as betrayal.

Finally, the ultimate criterion of life-giving discernment for a Christian can only be the Lord Jesus himself. He is the whole treasure of the Church; the Gospel of life we are called to share. The author writes: "The Catholic faith is much more than a set of principles we agree to, but rather an entirely new way of life. People must see that new life being lived. They must see the joy that it brings. They must see the union of the believer with Jesus Christ (p. 190).

Lastly, the third level at which the book may be read is as a reading of the Second Vatican Council. Though he does not employ the term or even treat the issue ex professo, the Archbishop clearly reads Vatican II through the lens of a “hermeneutic of reform” within the Church’s millennial Tradition.

In face of frequent appeals to the “spirit” of the Council, he forthrightly affirms: “The teaching of Vatican II exists first and foremost in the council documents themselves. No interpretation of the council has merit unless it proceeds organically from what the council actually said, and then remains true to it” (p. 112).

Moreover, what the Council actually said must be understood in the context of its entire body of teaching. Thus, however important the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions ("Nostra aetate") or the Declaration on Religious Liberty ("Dignitatis humanae") may be, they must always be read in the comprehensive context provided by the four “Constitutions” – the major pillars of Vatican II. Specifically, they must be read in light of the Christocentric vision of the Council that receives its orientation from Lumen gentium’s confession that “Christ is the light of the nations” (LG 1) and Gaudium et spes’s joyful affirmation that “Christ fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear” (GS 22).

It is, of course, true that the focus of the Council’s labors was ecclesiological and that it did not devote a document specifically to Christology. Nonetheless, the Council’s vision was permeated with Christology – and a “high” Christology at that. I have written elsewhere about Vatican II’s Christological “depth grammar:” how all the teaching of Vatican II must be read in light of its confession of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

I find the same persuasion expressed in Archbishop Chaput’s book. He writes, for example: “We need to root the social dimension of our Catholic faith, and everything else we do, in God’s love, which is the fuel for our mission of evangelization. We can’t offer Catholic social action to the men and women of the world without at the same time offering them Jesus Christ” (p. 193). Catholic mission and Catholic identity are inseparable. And they find sacramental expression in the Eucharist, the source and summit of Catholic life: "Ecclesia de Eucharistia." The Archbishop declares: “The Catholic Church is a web of relationships based on the most important relationship of all: Jesus Christ’s gift of himself in the Eucharist for our salvation. None of us earns the gift of Christ’s love. None of us ‘deserves’ the Eucharist” (p. 223).

In a final chapter the author engages some pressing pastoral issues regarding access to the Eucharist on the part of public figures who advocate positions the church holds to be intrinsically evil, like abortion. The Archbishop’s approach is both pastorally sensitive and theologically cogent. It will help bring clarity to the ongoing conversation and discernment in this delicate matter – one which must be addressed for the sake of the integrity of the faith.

To conclude: Archbishop Chaput has written a book that is informed, measured, civil, and pointed. It should be read, discussed, taken to heart in the United States and beyond. In many ways his message is simple, though certainly not simplistic. He puts the question forthrightly: “What needs to be done by Catholics today for their country?” and his response is equally forthright: "The answer is: Don’t lie. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to prove it. America’s public life needs people willing to stand alone, without apologies, for the truth of the Catholic faith and the common human values it defends (p. 197).

I find here a clear echo of what the Apostle Paul says to the Ephesians as a requirement of their union in Christ. “Therefore, put away all falsehood, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, for we are members of one another” (Eph 4:25).

Archbishop Chaput’s book, "Render Unto Caesar," can be ordered at both Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Pelosi's Incompetent Discussion About Abortion

Another example of a liberal catholic (lowercase "c") making mind-blowing and incompetent statements about abortion and the Catholic Church. Read and see for yourself...


MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions.

This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

MR. BROKAW: Madame Speaker, thanks very much for being with us.

REP. PELOSI: It's my pleasure. Thank you.

(Here's the video...)

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Catholics Should Look Deeper at Obama's TRUE Record on Issues

Today, I received the following article written by conservative Pat Buchanan that should be read by all Catholics and forwarded to any non-traditional/liberal catholics you might know.


A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J. Buchanan

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Audio -- "What Men Need to Know"

Kevin Brock, former Principal Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center of the FBI, provided this talk in 2006 at the Center for Family Development in Bethesda, Md., on his insight into the accelerating proliferation of pornography. This talk is very illuminating and challenging. He connects the dots between pornography and crime, and makes the case that despite the many problems that plague our culture, pornography is possibly the most dangerous for our youth and culture. He also offers his solution for the future, asking parents to create a protective environment for our children.

Click on the link below to listen on your computer or to download this talk, right-click the link and select "Save Target As..." and save to your computer.

brock.mp3
ReaganConservatives.us is an independent site and is not affiliated with any official web sites, associations, or organizations associated with President Reagan. Any views expressed or content included on this site do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of any of the organizations or individuals named, linked, or advertised.



Questions? Contact webmaster@ReaganConservatives.us



Copyright © 2008-2011, www.ReaganConservatives.us. All rights reserved.