Epic fail: LA Times claims fake catholic group's statement was issued by USCCB

Memo to the Los Angeles Times: fire Kim Geiger, and fire her editor while you are at it.

The Catholic News Agency has identified this article published five days ago by the Los Angeles Times which falsely attributes two quotes authored by the fake "catholic" group Catholics United to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

As of this writing, the error is still uncorrected on their website. Did the entire staff decide to take a vacation? 

This mistake is either laziness or manipulation on the part of the author, and to such a serious degree as to warrant a correction and an apology, and soon.

The error is also disturbing because it plays into the propensity of some news outlets to create/allow confusion over what is the true position of the US bishops on this sensitive and critical issue of health care reform. 

On the day of the health care debate last weekend I pointed out that the website Politico, which is very popular among DC political operatives and hill staffers, had misleading blog posts and a misleading cover story/headline for the majority of the day, claiming that the US bishops had "signed off" on PelosiCare. 

The danger here was that hill staffers would relay the misleading information they read on Politico to their bosses who would then go to vote on the floor thinking that the US bishops had signed off on health care reform in the format it was being voted on at that time, when in actual fact the bishops still opposed it.

In any case, an error of this magnitude should simply be corrected, and immediately.

The LATimes author can be contacted at kgeiger@latimes.com. {update - her email address has apparently been disabled or her inbox is full. - you can still email their complaints department readers.rep@latimes.com}

[Get Religion has also blogged on this boondoggle.]

Oh, and for the record, Chris Korzen and all his buddies at Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and Catholics for Choice are a bunch of self-serving, duplicitous parasites and I'll be happy to debate their campaign of distortions and misinformation any time someone wants to sponsor it. I say this with all charity because it's the truth. They are paid to confuse and deceive Catholics and they should be ashamed for it.

Here's a taste of what Chris and his allies are up to - and it's not serving the Church.

Update: Dominican sister caught volunteering at abortion clinic censured by congregation

Last week I blogged about the outrageous episode of Dominican Sister Donna Quinn's volunteer work at an abortion clinic being exposed.

I urged AmP readers to take action and email her superior, Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP. No doubt in part because of your efforts, Sr. Mulcahey has now responded on behalf of her congregation:

From Pat Mulcahy, Prioress of the Sinsinaw Dominicans On Behalf of Council Members, Erica, Howard, Jo, Liz, Mary Ellen, Sue, Tere

Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation

"Several months ago the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions.

After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately."

Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation:

"We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion."

This response is a start, but it is still lacking.

It is clear that the congregation and Sr. Mulcahey are under great pressure, otherwise they probably would never have taken any action against Sr. Donna. Consider Sr. Mulcahey's email response to LifeSiteNews when Sr. Donna's activities were first coming to light:

"[Sr. Mulcahey] in an email response to LSN that [Sr. Donna] sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there.""

Evidently Sr. Mulcahey has since re-examined her insane defense of Sr. Donna's activities at an abortion clinic, but she still has to eliminate this sort of language from her new defense: "[Sr. Donna] acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions."

... "among other procedures"?! This sort of verbal hedging about what goes on at abortion clinics is something I'm used to hearing from ... abortion clinic workers, not religious sisters!

Nonetheless, as I wrote, it's hard to imagine Sr. Donna ever being ordered to cease her scandalous activities unless someone paid attention, and you (and many others) had demanded that something be done about it. So well done, papists.

Now let us continue to pray for the conversion of these sisters' hearts.

Sick: Anti-aging skincare product uses aborted fetal tissue

From Jim Hoft at First Things, something you probably shouldn't read before lunch:

"This is just gruesome. A skincare company has started using aborted fetal tissue in its anti-aging skincare cream.Christian News Wire has the report.

Sure enough. Neocutis describes their Processed Skin Cell Proteins (PCP) used in their anti-aging creams on their website. From the Website:

"Through years of research, physicians discovered fetal skin has a unique ability to heal wounds without scarring. Inspired by this, medical researchers at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland created a biotechnology process to extract the rich proteins responsible for scarless wound healing from cultured fetal skin cells. A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments."

The website goes on to console the purchaser: "No additional fetal biopsies will ever be required."

I doubt the people using this anti-aging cream really needed the reassurance.

Related - CNA: "Pro-life group calls for boycott of cosmetics company using aborted fetal cells"

Politics: Pelosi attacks Democrat Stupak to keep abortion funding

It's a sad day when our Catholic Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) continues to exert pressure on another Catholic representative (Bart Stupak) when the only "crime" he is guilty of is trying to make health care reform pro-life:

"Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill.

"The Speaker is not happy with me," Stupak said.

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: "I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it."

A portion of the interview can be accessed here. The entire interview can be seen here." (The Hill)

NARAL Pro-Choice America calls Stupak's actions a "shameful abortion ban plot."

In their email fundraising, they claim Stupak and others are trying to "impose an abortion ban on private insurance plans in the reformed health system." They go on to claim: "Millions of women could lose coverage they already have."

Well ... it should come as no surprise to AmP readers that NARAL's claims are a lie. Pro-lifers are trying to only maintain the status quo when it comes to abortion funding, and yet pro-aborts are claiming we are trying to make pro-life inroads in our amendments. 

I wish we were, but given the landscape, the best we can do is try to hold the line. And even those amendments are being voted down at every turn. 

===

Also, on a somewhat related note, I have it on good authority that Nancy Pelosi continues to attend Mass and receive communion here in Washington DC. As recently as this past Sunday.

Pelosi: campaigning for anti-life legislation for one day, receiving Communion the next.

There really is no excuse.

Outrageous: Nun volunteers at abortion clinic - and what can be done about it

Not only has this dominican nun been volunteering at abortion clinics for "at least six years", but her religious superior is actually defending her choice even now that it is under public scrutiny!

"A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.

Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.

... Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.

... Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there." (LSN)

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, lays out at least three provisions in Canon Law which could be grounds for Sr. Donna's dismissal from the religious life.

Action items:

• LifeSite news is asking for individuals to respectfully express concern to the Prioress of the Sinsinawa Dominicans - Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP at Spatmul@aol.com.
• I think it is also appropriate to contact the local bishop to make sure he is aware of this scandal. I believe the Sinsinawa Dominicans are in the Diocese of Madison, WI. Their communications director can be contacted at brent.king@straphael.org

Baltimore City Council targets pro-life pregnancy centers

Archdiocesan newspaper for Baltimore The Catholic Review:

Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and 10 members of the council are sponsoring a bill that Catholic leaders believe harasses pro-life pregnancy support centers.

City Council Bill 09-0406, “Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers –Disclaimers,” would require pregnancy support centers to post a disclaimer noting that they do not provide abortion or contraceptive services. Centers that do not comply would be fined $500 per day.

In an Oct. 16 letter to Rawlings-Blake, Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien said the bill targets non-profit organizations whose mission is to help women carry pregnancies to term. He said it is “well-known” that pregnancy support centers are exclusively focused on assisting women in their choice for childbirth, and do not provide abortions or contraception.

So much for supporting women with crisis pregnancies.

Outrageous: Obama volunteer website promotes Planned Parenthood opportunities

If you're surprised, you haven't been watching who is President:

President Barack Obama promised when he was a presidential candidate in July 2007 that he would be a lapdog for the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Obama is now making good on that promise by promoting Planned Parenthood on his new volunteerism web site, Serve.gov. (LifeNews)

Ironically the search engine they use is called "All For Good". I typed in "Planned Parenthood" and "Washington DC" and found plenty of opportunities waiting for me.

Sure, this is bad. But of course I've come to expect this. President Obama believes in mainstreaming Planned Parenthood and its vision of "health care services" for women.

But let me take this new finding in a slightly different direction....

Ever notice how liberal Catholics who support the President are extremely vocal about any sort of charge made against the President which they think is unfair?

I think it is more revealing to observe their complete silence on other issues. Let's face it - the President supports the mission and organization of Planned Parenthood. That's the unavoidable conclusion to his political background, promises - and now - presidential administration.

So I probably won't be holding my breath waiting to see Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Michael Sean Winters, and others of their ilk, hit the presses and airwaves with some sort of claim that the President isn't responsible for this sort of thing.

Well, maybe he isn't, but he sure is happy to see it happen on his watch. And he's less than silent about it.

Outrageous: Liberal Catholics trying to lay health care reform blame on US bishops

Hold on to your hats -I'm going to try to make something very complicated, well, a little less complicated.

This is about the ongoing struggle between democrats (and their friends) who want health care reform to include money for abortion, and pro-life Catholics who don't want money for abortions to be included in health care reform.

Here is a list of the most important players in this fight:
1) Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of the US Bishops' pro-life committee, and those who work for him
2) The leaders of the democrat party who are crafting health care legislation, and are eager to appease their pro-abortion supporter
3) Amy Sullivan (writing in TIME Magazine) and other media-type individuals (who falsely claim to present a "Catholic" perspective on health-care reform, like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good) trying to give cover to the democrats and malign the pro-life activities of Cardinal Rigali and other pro-life Catholics

The latest salvo in this ongoing fight comes from Amy Sullivan, who wrote in TIME Magazine this weekend claiming that the US Bishops have been sending mixed and confused messages to democrats in Congress, making it impossible for democrats to honor the Bishops' demands that money not go to abortions in health care reform.

She claims that democrats in Congress were taken by surprise when Cardinal Rigali wrote this on October 8th:

"However, we [bishops] remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously."

In fact, it is more accurate to say that Cardinal Rigali had seen through the democrat-sponsored Capps amendment as being nothing more than a shell game to sneak abortion funding into health care reform anyway, and so he wrote the above sentences with a clear message for the democrats in Congress: "enough is enough."

Eliminating money for abortion in health care reform would be as simple as approving any of the multiple pro-life amendments (such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) which have already been offered. But no - democrats have voted down every single pro-life amendment which has been offered during the long course of these deliberations.

Which leaves us with a very cold, obvious fact: the reason there is abortion funding in the current health care reform proposals is because democrats put it there, and have repeatedly kept it there.

Sorry, Amy, you can't blame the bishops for this one.

If you are interested in this topic, do also read what Deal Hudson and Steven Ertelt have written. Deal Hudson takes a look at what may be happening internally at the USCCB during these negotiations, while Steven Ertelt has an expert source briefing us on what has been happening politically in Congress.

Outrageous: Candidate for expulsion - Jesuit novice in Oregon province

In February of this year I blogged about the Northwest Province of Jesuits filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Now I find out the disturbing news that one of the Province's novices is, well, morally bankrupt:

Meet Cormac Brissett who's a novice in that province. He signed a protest in defense of public lewdness in a circular letter posted on-line by an apologist for pederasty, William A. Percy, in No to Sexophobia (May 3, 1995) with one of the founding members of Nambla. It's hard to believe that Mr. Brissett's opinions are a passing fancy, he's penned articles for Lavender Magazine, and intereviewed another pederastic intellectual,Edmund White, without the slightest criticism. It would be more surprising that Mr. Brissett would give up his unnatural tastes and intellectual defense of them than that the Jesuit order will perform due dilligence on its candidates for priesthood.

I'll leave the moralizing to Diogenes, but I'll write down my gut reaction: "What would Ignatius say?!"

Homosexualist Play To Be Performed at Four SF Catholic High Schools

Friday is AmP off-beat news day, but I have a feeling today's stories are just going to be plain sad:

Four Catholic High Schools in the Archdiocese of San Francisco are scheduled to host a performance of the condom-endorsing sex-education play Secrets. The play was written by openly lesbian playwright Patricia Loughrey. Secrets will be performed on October 14, 2009 at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory High School in San Francisco; on November 5, 2009 at Sacred Heart High School in Atherton; on January 19, 2010 at Mercy High School in Burlingame, and on February 9, 2010 at St. Ignatius College Preparatory High School in San Francisco.

The play depicts a teenager who is HIV positive. Some content in Secrets was considered, by the Fremont, California Unified School District, to be sufficiently graphic to require that a permission slip be signed by parents before their child would be allowed to see it. The Fremont Unified School District also posts an online flyer (in English and Chinese) for parents, informing them of the performance, and inviting them to watch a video of Secrets before giving their permission. The flyer also describes two of the scenes: “A character dumps dozens of brightly wrapped condoms on the floor with a discussion about which type of condoms are the best to use and how to use them effectively.” Another scene is a “Discussion about contraceptives and a visual display of them.” The production of Secrets in the San Francisco Archdiocese is sponsored by the Educational Theater Programs division of the Kaiser Permanente HMO. (California Catholic Daily)

Nothing like Catholic private education.

LifeSiteNews "attempted to contact both the diocesan department of education and schools showing the play; but no calls or emails have yet been returned."

Nothing like transparent diocesan administrations.

And down south, where the real nuts roll:

The University of San Diego, a Catholic institution of higher education, gave permission to Pride (a campus “alliance” of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered queer and questioning students) to hold a campus dance on Friday, October 9, 2009. According to an e-mail obtained by California Catholic Daily, Pride met with the Vice President for Student Affairs and the Vice President for Mission and Ministry to discuss the dance and other issues regarding the group. The two administrators agreed to permit the event on campus. In the e-mail, a student leader wrote to the members of Pride, “we can have a DANCE, not a social or mixer, a full-on DANCE!!!! The University and administration support us and will continue to support us sponsoring a dance on-campus. This is a great step in the direction that we want to go…”. By providing a venue for students struggling with homosexual tendencies to pursue romantic relationships, such dances may conflict with Catholic teaching on sexual activity outside of marriage. (Cardinal Newman Society)

Sounds like a mixed bag of nuts.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Sarah Silverman's modest proposal for the Pope, and what I propose for Sarah

Professional attention-searcher Sarah Silverman has released a YouTube video called "Sell the Vatican, Feed the World" which will soon pass half a million views.

You are welcome to watch it, but we warned that it's extremely vulgar.

In the video, Silverman tries to make an argument that the Pope needs to sell the Vatican to feed poor people.

I'm not disagreeing with Silverman that poor people ought to be fed, but I'm sure sick of liberal know-it-alls getting away with stupid arguments and ignorant stereotypes of the Church. That's what I'm going to focus on.

Even the Associated Press has covered this story, and it doesn't help the reputation of the Church when Rev. James Martin, SJ - culture editor of the Jesuit magazine America, writes that Silverman may be onto something.

.... excuse me?!

Silverman is trying to claim that if the pope doesn't sell the Vatican to feed the poor, the pope and the Church are somehow being hypocritical - that their actions don't reflect their beliefs.

Well, let's take a look at the facts:

• The Catholic Church already feeds more people than any private institution in the world. In the world. There's not even a close second. As a Church, of course we could do more. But we are doing something - and its a lot of something. Silverman might give credit where credit is due.
• Silverman makes the slur that the Vatican was involved in the holocaust. Seriously, Sarah? The historical evidence firmly exonerates the activity of the Church during the holocaust. Pope Pius XII personally saw to the protection of thousands of Jews, at great personal risk to himself and the Church. As a person of Jewish ancestry, how dare she attack the institution credited by Jews the world over with protecting Jews when so many world governments were deaf to their cries. This is beneath even her.
• Silverman likes quoting Christian sayings back to the pope - does she know about motes and beams? I'm curious how much of Sarah's profits, including her movie profits, have you used to feed the poor? If she is tired of seeing starving people on TV, what has she done about it, besides uploading a self-promoting video to YouTube? Shouldn't those who work to feed the poor be outraged at the antics of Silverman, when she uses the plight of starving people to further her own popularity and distract from their needs?
• At the end of the day, it's just a really stupid idea even in itself. The assets of the Vatican (St. Peter's Basilica, etc.) don't have a fair market value. Who is going to buy the Vatican? The best use of the Vatican is to continue to provide a place of worship to the millions of people who are members of the Church, who are in turn the economic engine behind the Vatican's ability to feed the poor. Pure and simple.

Some of you may be thinking: "Thom, chill out, everyone knows this is a joke."

Well not so fast - we look at this proposal and find it preposterous, but plenty of people watch this and receive yet another confirmation of their ingrained opinion - frequently reinforced by pop culture - that the Catholic Church is a bunch of selfish hypocrites who use Christianity as a way of lining their fur-coat vestments.

Honestly.

So my last point is for Fr. Martin, who writes that Silverman "is on to something - like Jesus was":

• Attacks on the Church are not the correct opportunity for pius hand-wringing. The take-away from the Sarah Silverman proposal is not "Gee, I guess she has a point". Rather it is: "The only good point Sarah makes we Catholics already knew, now has she heard any of the points we Catholics have in response?"

I, and every serious Catholic, don't need Sarah Silverman telling us we need to do more as individuals and as a Church to feed the poor. However, Sarah Silverman and most everyone who listens to her, needs to know that the Church is attempting - to the best of its ability and despite all its human failings - to live out the gospel mandate of Jesus Christ to feed the hungry.

(A little example might help here, if Silverman promised to match the charitable output of the Church dollar-for-dollar in its care and feeding of the poor, she would be bankrupt in a couple days. And that's just a guess. Maybe she would be bankrupt sooner.)

So no, Sarah Silverman doesn't have a point. The Church has a point - it has the truth.

That's what we should be talking about.

I realize papists don't need to hear these truths from me, but when your friend or co-worker asks you, "so what do you think about that Sarah Silverman video?" ... you know what I have to say about it.

Answer Sarah Silverman, Teach the World.

Mature audience: Woman describes performing abortion while pregnant herself

WARNING: this post contains a graphic description of an abortion that may not be appropriate for some individuals. Please read with care.

I think it's important in the debate about abortion to have an honest dialogue about all parties who are involved.

I think this blog, written by a female abortionist, goes far in revealing the sort of extreme cognative dissonance that is necessary for someone to perform abortions. 

And yet, even in this situation, it's impossible for her to avoid her own humanity - and the humanity of the young human person she is destroying:

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. 

I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. 

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. 

Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. 

It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

... and yet, she continues to perform abortions to this day.

There are several more examples in the same post of similar, incomprehensible thoughts and experiences related by the abortionist-writer.

If anything we've ever read has convinced us we need to pray for an end to an abortion, for the conversion of those who perform them, and work with greater self-conviction in the knowledge that our cause is just and desperately-needed in this world ... this was it.

Report: Catholic University's liturgical abuse prompts vandalism, possible hate-crime charges

The University of Detroit Mercy is "a Catholic university in the Jesuit and Mercy traditions."

This is educational institutional code for "Catholic-but-dont-hold-that-against-us-we-really-dont-believe-this-silly-stuff."

In response, one zealous student made a stupid attempt to thwart a case of inevitable (grave) liturgical abuse, and may get charged with a hate crime as a result:

A UDM student reportedly stole four medallions depicting various world religions in an attempt to deny their recognition in the Sept. 24 Celebrate Spirit service, the university's opening {Mass}.

The student, who has not been publicly identified, entered Gesu Church between 7 and 9 a.m., according to the UDM Department of Public Safety.

The suspect stole the medallions representing Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism and disposed of them, officials said.

The medallions have not been recovered. The medallions representing Christianity and Judaism were still in place. (Source - The Varsity News)

The UDM website helpfully explains this "Procession of Medallions of Major World Religions":

* the Star of David (Judaism),
* the cross (Christianity),
* and the Star and Crescent (Islam) represent the three sister-communities who trace the origins of their faith to Abraham.
* The Yin-yang symbol (Confucianism),
* the Dharma Wheel (Buddhism),
* and the Om (Hinduism) represent the great religions of the East.

All faiths recognize the reality of the transcendent and attempt to engage believers with Ultimate Reality. The medallions are a sign of welcome to every expression of Spirit in this celebration as we move together through this coming academic year.

(The UDM website also explains what the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" is, for those of us who need sensitivity training:

The word "eucharist" comes from the Greek word for "thanksgiving." The gathered community first brings forward bread, the staff of life, and wine, a festive drink. We place these symbols of our life and joy into the hands of the priest, a chosen representative of this community and of the larger Church. He calls down the power of the Holy Spirit over the gifts, recalling the story of Jesus' own gift to us and asking that God transform them. Then with Jesus and the community he gives thanks to God. Our great "Amen" at the end is the sign of our acceptance of all that we have said and done together.)

And yes, for attempting to interfere with these great "signs of welcome" and "signs of our acceptance", the student may very well be charged with a hate crime. Too bad this young student isn't eligible for welcoming or acceptance, apparently.
Oh well, I guess he missed his chance.

The local Jesuit campus minister helpfully provides tus with the moral of the story:

"It's a sad thing that happened, and it illustrates how one person's inability to accept others can affect a whole community," said the Rev. Gary Wright, S.J., of Campus Ministry.

That's funny, becuase now I'm confused ... I thought the 2009 theme of the Celebrate Spirit! 2009 opening liturgy was what is written on the UDM website:

"As a result of this year's Celebrate Spirit, we hope that the UDM community will be more aware of the gift of creation, more moved to praise and thank God for it, and more empowered to take action to care for it. In the light of current social awareness and scientific understanding, we hope that all who participate will see environmental concern as more than a political position, more than a practical survival strategy. Rather it is a deep and necessary response flowing from our faith traditions, spiritualities, and ethical principles."

I guess environmentalism also has a vital role to play in UDM's "Catholic Mass."

Which is UDM code for "Interfaith-ecumenical-faith-healing-celebration-event-community-growing-environmentally-sustainable-equality-promoting-difference-negating-positive-thinking-hey-whatever-just-show-up-please-and-bring-a-side-dish-or-something-gathering."

Obama wins nobel peace prize, Vatican PR predictably disappoints

I'm not sure which has me scratching my head more, the fact that the Nobel committee granted President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, or that Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi says the Vatican received the news with "appreciation":

"The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama is greeted with appreciation in the Vatican, in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena, and in particular also recently in favor of nuclear disarmament. It's hoped that this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment, which is difficult but fundamental for the future of humanity, so that the desired results will be obtained."

Whispers makes the right point here, by quoting from former Nobel Peace Prize winner Mother Teresa:

"The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing -- direct murder by the mother herself."

So, in the Vatican's view (as Lombardi claims), someone who has only promised in words to establish peace, but has acted in deed to destroy the peace between mother and child (abortion, even late-term abortion), between scientists and new life (embryonic stem cell research), and between fruitful love and selfish sexual gratification (government-sponsorship of contraception, especially to school-age children) ... deserves this prize?

Here is the reaction I posted to Facebook:

"Well, it's official, the Nobel Peace Prize is MEANINGLESS."

PS - this photo from AmP reader Tomasino was too good to pass up:

"Condom Couture: Columbus designers get busy with colored condoms"

Keep it classy, Planned Parenthood:

Twelve students from the Columbus College of Art and Design have proven your health teachers wrong-there is more than one way to wear a condom.

On Thursday, Oct. 1, CCAD put on their 2009 'Condom Couture' fashion show. This event, held at the Bar of Modern Art, was a celebration of Planned Parenthood's 77th anniversary.

Before the event, there was a reception for patrons featuring a live jazz band, swirling condom-shaped lights, and a slide show about Planned Parenthood.

The program began with a fashion show of designs students had created with condoms.

...  Although host Ali Barrett joked "cocktails, condoms, high fashion... typical Thursday night," 'Condom Couture' was anything but typical.

Despite being described as a celebration, it was also an inventive, fun way to raise money and increase awareness for Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio. (source)

These people get our money. The government gives Planned Parenthood our tax dollars.

Video: Disco Mass

From Damian Thompson - a little over a minute of pure unadulterated horror:

See why we need the GIRM?

In Vogue: "Contraception fights global warming"

From Salon, a simple message:

"Want to combat climate change? Use birth control. Family planning is a green technology."

This sort of argument has been around for some time, in fact I blogged about a parallel argument early last month.

You know what also is a green technology? Genocide.

I mean - think about it: less people, less environmental impact.

The logic is perfect.

Oh, and lethal.

(Still, we should pray for the author, Frances Kissling, who wrote in June of this year that "It's hard for pro-choicers to admit sometimes a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose abortion -- but we have to." Now there's a concept.)

Outrageous: "Planned Parenthood Gives George Tiller Top Award"

From the epically-bad-taste category, comes this story:

The International Federation of Planned Parenthood Foundation gave slain late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller its highest award over the weekend. The international abortion business honored Tiller posthumously in Washington months after he was shot and killed in his Kansas church.

Planned Parenthood gave Tiller its Medal of Honor for "outstanding individual contribution to sexual and reproductive health." (LifeNews)

Imagine for a moment the worldview the people who thought this would be a good idea must have.

Incredible.

Video: Cardinal Mahoney tries to dodge abortion in health care question

From CNSNews.com's Edwin Mora, an incredible video interview recorded yesterday:

Let's look at what Mahoney said when asked if he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that abortion funding is in the health care reform proposal being drafted in the House of Representatives:

“This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.”

When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the health care bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.”

My initial thoughts:

• I'm waiting for liberal Catholics to condemn Mahoney's response as inadequate because he basically claims to be a "single issue" Catholic bishop. "My field is immigration"? Excuse me? Since when does focusing on one issue get a bishop off the hook of being informed about other issues? *crickets*
• "This is way beyond my field"? Sounds like the infamous "This is above my pay grade" response which Obama gave at one point to a similar question (and even he later admitted this was a flippant answer).
• Is Mahony so oblivious to current events that he is unaware of the actions taken by Cardinal Rigali, of the warnings issued by over forty US bishops, of the numerous reports in mainstream media outlets that confirm this simple fact that abortion funding exists in the House version of health care reform?
• Finally, Mahony pulls the rug out from underneath his own feet when he says "No, but that’s what the president said, too, so." ... what?! I thought Mahony said he was uninformed? And yet he is evidently informed about what Obama has said. So, Mahony knows what Obama has said about abortion, but not what the US Bishops have said.

Absolutely incredible.

Outrageous: Italian PM calls Pope Benedict a liar in newspaper

Watch it. That's my pope you're talking about:

The Italian newspaper Il Giornale, owned by the family of Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, carries a headline today dominated by the words “Ha mentito” - “he lied”, referring to Pope Benedict XVI. The paper is busy stirring up trouble over the claims by Swedish TV, due to be aired tonight, that the Vatican knew in advance about the Holocaust-denying background of Bishop Richard Williamson before his excommunication was lifted.

The words “he lied” are admittedly taken from the programme. But it’s a malicious allegation: Benedict has told no lies whatsoever regarding this matter, even if Vatican officials working for him have a case to answer. (UK Telegraph Blog)

Damian Thompson has the full background.

Here's hoping the Vatican press office vigorously and competently defends the pope against these unfair accusations.

I mean, there's a first for everything.

Obama: On Douglas Kmiec's complete moral meltdown

Prof. Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University was the most visible Catholic apologist for Barack Obama in last year's presidential election. During that time, I frequently blogged about my profound disagreement with his pro-Obama advocacy, stemming from a false articulation and exposition of Catholic prudential principles.

After Obama was elected, Dr. Kmiec was awarded the ambassadorship to the Catholic nation of Malta.

Now, in his first interview with the Times of Malta, Dr. Kmiec displays what I can only describe as a complete intellectual meltdown. He describes his first encounter with Mr. Obama:

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

"When I thought about all these things, I thought 'this is my catechism come to life' because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church."

It is for that reason, Prof. Kmiec says, that he was convinced he had found a person of intelligence who had articulated a set of views and policies he could easily support.

Come again - the most pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage president in history, and Dr. Kmiec sees him as a "catechism come to life"? By that definition, what pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage politician is not a catechism come to life? Does Dr. Kmiec have no sense of objective assessment? Do words and actions mean anything to him? Or is someone "pro-life" simply through a subjective self-assessment with no correspondence to reality?

Dr. Kmiec's support of Obama has become more extreme as the evidence to support his views about the President have become more impossible to substantiate. If Dr. Kmiec truly thought this about Mr. Obama when he first met him, why did he withhold such high praise until now?

I would suggest it is because Dr. Kmiec is going for broke. After all, no one takes him seriously now who does not already agree with his unstated first principles (that abortion is a reality we just have to "live with", for instance) - so why not become explicit about how warped is his integration of Catholic moral teaching and prudential instruction?

I mean, what other conclusion can one come to when you read passages like this:

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced - and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions - "this seems to me a good interim step".

"I prayed on this," he explains, pointing out that Pope John Paul II had said that Catholics must be clear on their stand on abortion but also that people in political life could sometimes do less than they would like to do as long as there were moves towards the protection of life.

"Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like," he says.

This is delusional. Mr. Obama has "taken steps towards the protection of life ... not as fast as some would like" in Dr. Kmiec's view? In fact, Mr. Obama has taken steps in the opposite direction. And fast.

Consider: Mr. Obama has chosen to fund oversees abortions at US taxpayer expense. He has destroyed President Bush's faith advisory board and populated it with pro-abortion representatives. He has appointed not a single pro-life Catholic or political figure to any position of responsibility in his administration. He continues to lie about the existence of abortion provision in his multiple health care provisions (a fact verified by multiple mainstream news media organizations). He has not lifted a single finger when Democrats in Congress have thwarted repeated attempts by Republicans to exclude the expansion of abortion funding and coverage from these health care plans. He has not put a single conscience clause provision into writing. His Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to pass legislation that will drastically expand the federal funding which Planned Parenthood and other abortion mega-providers will receive annually. He has ended the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. And these concrete examples are only those which come immediately to mind.

I was at the debate on life issues between Dr. Kmiec and Dr. Robert George at the National Press Club here in Washington DC earlier this summer. At one point, Dr. George asked Dr. Kmiec to name a single pro-life initiative that Dr. Kmiec knew Mr. Obama has proposed or supported. Dr. Kmiec could not. Several months down the road, there is still nothing one can point to. There is even more one can point to as evidence that Mr. Obama is not pro-life or pro-marriage. He has never made any secret of his pro-abortion stance. It is pitiful to defend someone who sees no point in defending himself on these and other issues.

This interview is also pitiful, as are the continued attempts by pro-Obama Catholics who try to argue that Mr. Obama - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - is a pro-life politician, or is a good example of a "catechism come to life." But Dr. Kmiec and his friends have learned that the best way to lie, is to repeat the lie.

And so, here we are, with more lies, or at least delusion.

Either way, I hope that sane individuals who have witnessed Kmiec's meltdown are taking note.

Important: As Acorn gets Axed, it's time to toss CCHD in the fire too

ACORN, the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now, is in the news a lot these days (and much more now that the mainstream media outside of Fox News has decided they can't ignore the story anymore).

Most recently, the Senate chose to de-fund 169 million dollars earmarked for ACORN by a vote of 83-7 (I'd like to see the seven names that still supported this corrupt organization).

ACORN has long been in the inside track of democrat community activism, and until recently was even going to play a role in the 2010 census - a process which is often used for political expediency by activist organizations like ACORN, whose employees have already been convicted multiple times for registering dead people and cartoon characters to vote in elections. Seriously.

Back in October and November (twice) of last year I did a series of posts pointing out that our own Catholic Campaign for Human Development (which operates out of the US Bishops' office) funnelled Catholic contributions to ACORN.

That's right, money given by Catholics in the pew has been going to an organization that was caught on film telling pimps in New York City how to hide money from loan sharks by burying it in the backyard before they go apply for a government mortgage for their home under an assumed name. Seriously.

From everything I've heard and read so far, CCHD is just bad news. The fact that it funded ACORN for so many years (and continues to fund highly-questionable organizations) simply proves the leadership of CCHD is completely at-odds with responsible Catholic social activity.

Mary Ann Kreitzer has an extended article on CCHD's misdeeds published at Spero News. She also writes about "thirteen news stories designed to tear back the curtain on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), or as I call it, Catholic Cash Helping Democrats."

Papists, money is tight these days. With our government (finally) de-funding the state-sponsored corruption at ACORN, we Catholics need to de-fund the Catholic-sponsored corruption at the CCHD.

What can we do?

Every year around Thanksgiving time there is a second collection taken for CCHD at Masses in the United States. Here's what I'd like to do:

1. In the next weeks I will search for the dioceses that have chosen to opt out of this second collection for CCHD (you can help me by emailing me if you know this has happened).
2. I'd will publish these dioceses here on AmP, and keep the list updated.
3. Then, I'd encourage you to (respectfully) write your bishop (if his diocese is not on the list) and ask that he also instruct his parishes to opt out of this second collection.
4. Put that extra money you would have given to CCHD in the collection basket of your own parish, where it will do some actual good.

If an organization has proven to be a bad steward, the Lord will find new stewards. We can help.

update - not to get distracted, but an AmP reader writes in:

Of the 7 senators who voted against pulling funding from ACORN:
- 1 is Baptist
- 1 is Episcopalian
- 1 is Jewish
- 4 are Roman Catholic

Wonderful.

People who don't support Obama are racists, liberal Catholic claims

I've discovered the application of Godwin's law which is most applicable to pro-Obama Catholics. It goes like this:

"As it becomes more difficult to defend Obama, the probability of a charge of racism approaches."

In all seriousness, Michael Sean Winters - a liberal Catholic who supported Obama during his presidency and continues to do so - actually wrote this in American Magazine about those who came to Washington DC for an anti-tax rally:

"It is becoming well nigh impossible to deny the racist overtones of these protests."

What, may you ask, is the strongest argument for this astounding claim?

"Many of the virtually all-white crowd on Saturday yearned for an earlier time with less government involvement in society."

You read that correctly: the fact that this crowd was predominantly caucasian (by Winters' account), proves that it must be racist. By Winters' logic, the United States Senate must be "racist" - it is "virtually all-white", after all.

Winters goes on:

"But, that earlier time [of less government involvement in society] recalls, for many of us, the memory of states’ rights being enforced through dogs and water cannons."

So let's parse this argument:

1. When there was less government involvement in society in America, there was also racial segregation
2. The anti-tax marchers want less government involvement in society (specifically, over-taxation and regulation)
3. ... the anti-tax marchers want a return to racial segregation.

That is Winters' argument, in three easy steps.

As I tweeted immediately upon being forwarded and reading Winters piece, "Liberal Catholics would do well to practice some fraternal correction." Let me explain:

Liberal Catholics will go ballistic when a conservative Catholic writer makes an absurd argument, and demand that fellow conservatives disown the maverick's argument. Because, on the whole, we strive to be reasonable and agreeable people, we typically do so. We can call one of our own out of bounds without feeling we've eroded our common arguments. We can call crazy "crazy" because we try to avoid it. Winters seems to be reduced to just writing crazy.

Well, in similar fashion, I'd like to see some "liberal" Catholic writers take Winters to the woodshed for this one. People who don't like Obama don't like him because they are racist - really?! Is anyone typically sympathetic to Winters prepared to defend this claim of his? There are many more people in America who did not attend this march who are sympathetic to the concerns of those who did attend. Are all of them equally guilty of the racism Winters ascribes?

I'll be waiting for such logical reflection on these claims Winters has injected into the debate.

But frankly, until Winters himself retracts this stupidity, I'll feel free to disregard him completely.

After all, I shouldn't give my time to someone who writes for a racist magazine like America.

I mean, just look at the complexion of that magazine's editors.

[photo - boston college]

Pro-Environmentalist and Pro-Contraception forces finally join hands

For some time I've been waiting for this to happen. Here's why: the radical environmentalist movement is fundamentally an anti-humanist movement, because it blames human activity for environmental problems facing the world, and sees the good of the "earth" as trumping the good of human existence and flourishing.

So what's their solution to human-caused problems, especially when they are unavoidable? 

Simple: reduce the number of humans.

Once you understand that conclusion, headlines and articles like this UK Telegraph one make perfect (perverted) sense:

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.

The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.

... UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 [b]illion.

Did you catch that? 500,000,000 less people. And some individuals think this is a good thing! Even though it's well proven that there are plenty of resources to feed such a population.

This is the brave new world envisioned by these radical pro-environmentalist figures: a depopulated world in the future, and a lifestyle of illogical limitation for those already living.

This is an ideology we Christians, as a people of hope and trust in God, must defeat.

Papist Quote of the Day: National Catholic Reporter

From arch-dissenter Father (he doesn't like using the title) Richard McBrien in arch-liberal publication National Catholic (they shouldn't get to use the title) Reporter:

"Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward." (source)

Yes, I'm sure Jesus doesn't want us worshipping His substantial presence (sarcasm).

Seriously, remind me why the Catholic News Service Twitter (the official news agency of the US Catholic Bishops) continually publicizes National Catholic Reporter articles?!

Here's my quote of the day:

"Supporting NCR, perpetually or not, is a doctrinal, theological and spiritual step backward, not forward."

Orthodoxy FAIL: "A Catholic View Of Gay Marriage"

A letter to the Washington Post editor from Mark Clark, a member of the board of "Dignity USA, a national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics and their families and supporters":

"A Catholic View of Gay Marriage"

As one of the 580,000 Catholics in the Washington Archdiocese, I object to the suggestion by Ronald Jackson, executive director of the D.C. Catholic Conference ["Wuerl Ups Opposition to Gay Marriage," Metro, Sept. 2] that we are all bigots.

Many Catholics support the right of all people to marry, whether to a person of the opposite sex or to a person of the same sex.

Church authorities should stick to the governance of religious wedding ceremonies and leave to civil authorities the responsibility of granting marriage licenses, a responsibility that should be exercised without discrimination.

Calling faithful Catholics "bigots"? Check. False "Church is a democracy" assertion? Check. "Church shouldn't speak out on moral issues" fallacy? Check.

That's one heckuva letter to the editor.

Liturgical No-No: Puppets in Mass

From last week's parish bulletin at St. Agatha's in Milton, MA:

They are quite serious about puppets at St. Agatha's. They have a "Puppet Ministry History" page on their website and a chance to "meet the cast" (my favorite is Clyde, a "Male camel who thinks he is self-important and superior to the other animals" - like all males, I guess).

The organizers say they are only performing at the 9AM Mass because they "feel it is the best place to begin." Actually, Mass is the worst place to begin. Puppets have no place in the divine liturgy.

They say they are going to "pray, and let God lead us where He wants us to go."

I think he wants you to get out of Mass. That's a good place to begin.

Ben & Jerry introduces gay ice cream

This is not a parody:

From the Ben & Jerry's website:

In partnership with Freedom to Marry we are gathered here to celebrate Vermont and all the other great states where loving couples of all kinds are free to marry legally. We have ceremoniously dubbed our iconic flavor, Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby in support, and to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality. Check out our press release.

Talk about setting out on a rocky road....

So long, Ben & Jerry's, I'm going to miss Half-Baked. Hopefully Haagen-Dazs wants more business.

Ph/t: Catholic Femina.

Video: Catholic Schoolchildren taught to "pledge allegiance to the earth and all Her sacred hearts"

Amy Proctor:

The cult of enviornmentalism is being preached at St. Mary’s Resurrection Elementary School in New Jersey. In this Fox Report below, you’ll see Catholic school children start their day by pledging “allegiance to the earth and all Her sacred hearts”, an allusion to the Sacred Heart of Mary and Jesus. You’ll also hear them sing their song, “Whose the greatest mom of all? Earth Mama!”

If I were a parent, I'd want a refund.

Rewarded: Doug Kmiec gets his send-off to Malta

Douglas Kmiec, Obama's most devoted Catholic defender, was sworn-in yesterday as Obama's new ambassador to the Catholic country of Malta, and Dan Gilgoff was there.

As Gilgoff says, "The Obama administration's faith outreach operation can make for some pretty bizarre scenes."

It also provides an opportunity for Kmiec to utter some pretty bizarre lines, like this one: "We live at a time when even at some great universities, a spirit of narrow-mindedness sets in over a spirit of inquiry."

In this case, the "spirit of inquiry" that inspired Mr. Kmiec to support Barack Obama for President, has - lest we forget - resulted in not a single discernible step towards building a culture of life in this country, despite all of Mr. Kmiec's promises that Obama would do this. 

Instead, Obama has subsidized foreign abortions with our tax money, is attempting to "mainstream" abortion funding in his health care plans, will allow hundreds of millions of dollars to go to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, and has not introduced any sort of conscience protection for Catholic health care providers and doctors. And that's just a sample. I'm not even talking about euthanasia and same-sex marriage, also core issues of Catholic concern.

Of course, pointing out these sorts of facts does not get you an ambassadorship to Malta.

I'm just too "narrow-minded" to deserve that, I guess.

Hypocrite: Fr. Jenkins still showing no mercy to Notre Dame protesters

Ever notice how people who talk about "tolerance" and "understanding" when they feel persecuted show precious little of either when it's their turn in power?

That's exactly what Fr. Jenkins is doing now. 

After being roundly criticized by bishops and faithful alike for inviting Barack Obama to give the commencement address at Notre Dame earlier this year, Fr. Jenkins is now doing precisely nothing to help the plight of over 88 peaceful pro-life protesters who were arrested on Notre Dame's campus in the weeks leading up to Obama's arrival (I blogged about their situation back in June).

Thomas Brejcha, a Notre Dame alum and president of the Thomas More Pro-Life Law Center has penned an open letter to Fr. Jenkins:

I’m writing you, as president of Notre Dame, my alma mater, with an urgent plea that you drop the criminal trespass charges that have been pending against the many defendants – most of whom are faithful, fervent pro-life Catholics – who “dared” to venture onto Notre Dame’s campus last Spring, 2009, to bear peaceful, prayerful witness to the sanctity of all human life, from conception to natural death. 

... All were arrested, handcuffed, and hauled off to jail where they spent the night and sometimes longer in custody.

Surely that protracted detention and the humbling impact of a public arrest on trying to enter the campus of America’s premier Catholic university was enough of a penalty to offset whatever “injury” or “insult” these good people inflicted on Notre Dame’s property rights.

So, it was shocking to hear that the charges were not quickly dropped, and an even worse surprise to hear that these good Catholics had to return to South Bend to enter their pleas of “not guilty” and then again to demand jury trials.

When the St. Joseph County prosecutor backed off the latter demand, we were yet more deeply aggrieved on hearing, Fr. Jenkins, that you had responded to a request that the charges be dropped by claiming that “it is out of [your] hands.”

With respect, Father, the future of these cases – if they must go on – is squarely in your hands. Notre Dame is the complainant. Its security personnel directed and/or conducted the arrests, pointing out those who would be arrested (pro-lifers) and those who would not (those carrying pro-Obama signs and/or taunting the pro-lifers).

Participation of Notre Dame witnesses will be essential if these 88 cases – all of which are to be scheduled for jury trials – actually go forward. Some defenses that already have been raised by initial trial counsel – e.g., Catholics’ access to the Sacred Heart Basilica on campus – also would require Notre Dame witnesses’ involvement in the trials.

So much for tolerance, forgiveness and finding common ground.

Fr. Jenkins ought to be ashamed.

Politics: Obama using faith-based office to politicize religion

Dan Gilgoff has an excellent article posted to US News & World Report entitled "Obama Has Dramatically Changed Role of Faith-Based Office." He has excerpted the most important part of his findings:

Yet some of the biggest questions surrounding Obama's office when it launched remain unanswered. The administration has not decided whether to allow religious groups to hire only fellow believers with federal funds, a hugely controversial issue. The outside faith advisory council, which will formulate proposals for achieving the office's policy goals—and for combating climate change and reforming the office itself—won't formalize its recommendations until next year. And the office is still devising metrics by which to measure its effectiveness, a subject of much debate during the Bush years.

So, in many ways, the office is a lame duck.

Simultaneously, however, there are more foundational concerns about this office coming to light:

Reinforcing its new policy role, Obama has brought his office under the purview of his Domestic Policy Council, delighting many faith leaders, particularly on the left. "The Bush office was totally disconnected from policy," says Wallis.

Such access has upset some on the left, who say religious leaders shouldn't be shaping government policy, and some on the right, who say the work amounts to politically inspired religious outreach. "We would have gotten killed for doing that," says Jim Towey, who directed Bush's faith-based office and notes that religious outreach in the previous administration was handled by the White House Office of Public Liaison, which reported to Karl Rove. "It looks like a political office now."

Bottom line: under the Bush administration, this office helped faith-based organizations pursue their public work (or "agenda") more effectively. In contrast, under Obama, this office harnesses the resources of these faith-based organizations to carry out Obama's agenda.

That's change I don't like.

Politics: The Sex-Study Stimulus Package

Paid for by my tax dollars and yours:

Examine "barriers to correct condom use" at Indiana University, at a cost of $221,000.

* Study "hookups" among adolescents at Syracuse University. Study's cost: $219,000.

* Evaluate "drug use as a sex enhancer" in an analysis of "high-risk community sex networks" at the University of Illinois, Chicago. That study will cost $123,000. (NY Post)

I don't remember signing on to any of this.

Huh? Sweden outlaws home schooling?!

As a proud product of home-schooling, I find this decision deeply disturbing:

The founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association says home schooling in Sweden will soon be banned altogether, with a few minor exceptions.

Mike Farris says that Sweden will ban all home schooling except for children with medical exemptions and foreign workers with the appropriate work visas.

"That's it. People who have religious convictions or are home schooling for religious reasons will not be given one of these very rare exemptions," he points out. "And so for all intents and purposes, home schooling is going to be banned in Sweden. They're following the German statute, following the German model."

In Germany, parents face stiff penalties if they are caught illegally home schooling their children. The Romeike family recently left Germany and is seeking asylum in the U.S. after facing stiff fines and the potential loss of custody rights for home schooling their children. The Home School Legal Defense Association is offering them legal help. (OneNewsNow)

Whatever other intentions a country may have when they outlaw home-schooling, the bottom line is that it undermines the fundamental right of parents to be the primary education of their offspring.

By the way, if you are homeschooling in the United Stares or are considering it, you need to know about the Home School Legal Defense Association. They are your friends.

Sick: Woman stabbed after refusing abortion

So evil:

A Southbridge teenager is being held on $500,000 bail for allegedly stabbing his pregnant girlfriend several times because she refused to get an abortion.

Police said 18-year-old Alex Santana attacked Leah Diver at about 2:30 a.m. Friday during an argument over the pregnancy.

The 28-year-old Diver is in critical condition at a Worcester hospital. Police say the fetus survived. (Boston Herald)

Sadly the reporter can't bring himself to say: "The baby is still living."

Because, if he said that, it would admit that abortion kills something living.

In fact, the legal "awkwardness" between Roe v. Wade and the reality that unborn children are living human beings is revealed to poignant effect by the story of a mom who "wants her twin fetuses recognized as children."

For a society that is (rightfully) concerned for women's issues, it is amazing that we tolerate a legal system which formally denies that a woman who has unintentionally lost a fetus has suffered the death of her child.

Huh? Regnum Christi releases CD promoting RC vocations

Um, what planet is the regnum christi leadership on?!

Their movement is under Apostolic Visitation for the crimes of its founder, and their leadership ought to be under intense scrutiny for possibly aiding and abetting him.

Now is definitely not the time to be selling CDs that promote abandoning yourself to the regnum christi movement:

'Why does a woman choose consecrated life over a business career, husband and family or the opportunity to compete as a world-class athlete? The CD gives the answers.

As in Abraham's day, God continues to call, and souls continue to answer. The new CD "Count the Stars," created by the Regnum Christi consecrated women in Greenville, RI, tells the story of four women who heard that call and answered with their lives.

The "Count the Stars" audio book also features an original song, "Question Answered," composed by the sophomore class at Mater Ecclesiae College, the institution of higher learning where the consecrated women of Regnum Christi prepare for their life of service to the Catholic Church.

The CDs are on sale at the price of one for $15 or two for $25."

Considering the clear evidence that Legion money was used to support Maciel's life of sin, could it be anything but desperation to try making a profit from a CD designed to convince young girls to join the movement? Perhaps the movement ought to be honestly addressing questions such as these posed by former members of the movement.

Legion of Christ Communications Director Jim Fair has some explaining to do, I think.

Ph/t: Catholic Light.

Politics: Lies, and the Obama who tells them, and the Faux Catholics who let him

I like to consider myself a patient guy.

But this sort of stuff is infuriating to me:

• Obama, in his own BlogTalkRadio discussion with the "American Faith Community", cited the claim of funding of abortion as one example of the false claims that are being circulated by critics of his health care reform initiative."
• Obama's campaign organization - which is still alive and kicking months after his election into office - is humming the same false tune.

Now, the majority of Americans understand that abortion coverage is in the health care reform bill. This despite mainstream media organizations trying to deny and downplay it, and despite Obama's massive spin campaign.

But what really gets me about all this is how various fake Catholic organizations are helping Obama and his surrogates lie. Jack Smith is hot on their trail:

"The administration's ploy throughout the campaign and his presidency has been to seek or invent amenable decoys for the actual voices in faith communities that oppose his radical anti-life agenda. Many of these decoys are pure hacks like the folks at Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. This is a shameful exercise by an American administration to displace legitimate political opposition by substituting staged conversations with supporters faking as faith groups - and presenting an in-house love fest as concensus building."

Obama and his supporters have perfected the tactic of claiming the other side is doing what they do better. In this case, Obama and his supporters have been shouting from the rooftops that the otherside is making up stories about what is in the current health care proposals.

Well, the joke is on us, because on the issue of abortion in health care, it's Obama and his supporters who are making. stuff. up.

Here are six facts which prove abortion is in the current health care legislation.

Can anyone imagine abortion not being included in this plan, which is predominantly supported by the left and far left, who take abortion-on-demand as a human right and (often) argue that universal health care is a human right?! The fact that they are silent on this issue logically means we must be vocal.

I'm all for arguing matters of prudence, for debating differences of opinion, for contrasting competing political viewpoints, but seriously .... this is a simple matter of facts. And the fact is that abortion is in health care. And shame on Obama, his surrogates and especially some Catholics for denying it.

Surprise: Washington behind forcing Belmont Abbey to pay for contraception

I blogged on this story earlier in the week. Turns out someone pulling strings in Washington is responsible for reversing the previous conclusion, which was in favor of Catholic religious liberty:

"In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Belmont Abbey College president Dr. William Thierfelder said officials at the Charlotte division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) told him that a decision to close a discrimination complaint against the school for failing to offer contraception coverage was reversed after the matter went to the nation's capital."

The times, they are a-changin' for the worse.

update - whoops! forgot to include the link to the original LSN article.

Nope: ObamaCare would let Planned Parenthood into public schools

It gets worse and worse:

In Title V of H.R. 3200, Subtitle B, called School-Based Health Clinics, outlines a new federal program where the government would fund health clinics near or in the nation's public schools.

However, Section 399Z indicates that school officials won't be responsible for administering the clinics. Instead, that responsibility falls to the clinic sponsor, which could be Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest abortion business which does more than 350,000 a year

... "The clinics would be funded by federal grants awarded by the Obama administration, which has made it clear that they expect Planned Parenthood to play an active role in their proposed health care system," he says.

Medina says he is not surprised that Planned Parenthood is included in the bill and could be given unprecedented access to teenagers and pre-teens to promote abortion.

The abortion business has had a close working relationship with the Obama administration since its beginning. (LifeNews)

At least teenagers have to figure out the bus route or have access to a car to visit a Planned Parenthood now.

This provision, however, allows Planned Parenthood to set up shop practically in the classroom, handing out condoms and contraceptives, and providing their full range of "reproductive services" to school-age children. And we know what those include.

Just say no!

Lies: Congresswoman behind "Planned Parenthood Stimulus" shows her true colors

Steve Ertelt at LifeSite has the goods:

'Rosa DeLauro has deceived the media and hopes to deceive pro-life advocates into thinking her Congressional bill is an attempt at "common ground" on abortion. But, the House member from Connecticut exposes her hand in a new fundraising email for Emily's List that bashes pro-life advocates.

DeLauro is the co-sponsor of a new bill along with pro-abortion Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio that is billed as a middle ground in the abortion debate.

The measure, which provides funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business and would require direct taxpayer-funding of abortions, has been panned by pro-life advocates as disingenuous.

Now, DeLauro tips her hand in a Tuesday fundraising pitch for the pro-abortion group Emily's List, and shows how much contempt she has for pro-life advocates."

[Read on.]

I wrote at length about the bill she is co-sponsoring with Congressman Tim Ryan, which the USCCB pro-life office calls the "Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009."

Don't be fooled: Rosa DeLauro couldn't care less for legitimate pro-life concerns, or people.

Belmont Abbey College in hot water for daring not to pay for contraception

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in its great wisdom, has determined that Belmont Abbey College discriminated against women when it changed a policy that had previously allowed women to have oral contraception covered by the College's medical plan.

This is discrimination against women, the EEOC says, because only women take oral contraception. Never mind the fact that Belmont Abbey also doesn't pay for male prophylactics (I presume). I guess a group of men haven't filed that suit yet.

It's interesting that Belmont Abbey College, in the policy change I mention above, also ceased paying for voluntary sterilization and abortion. I wonder if the EEOC will next say that excluding abortion as a medical "benefit" equals discrimination as well?

If Belmont Abbey College doesn't re-instate the oral contraception coverage, they could face further legal action from the EEOC. So they could use some prayers, and some free legal advice.

Just another day in the life of an institution trying to be Catholic in the United States....

update - the Cardinal Newman Society has this on their radar:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that a small Catholic college must include coverage for artificial contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan, raising new concerns about the need for conscience protections and religious exemptions in America’s health care policies.

The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) today sent a letter to EEOC acting chairman Stuart Ishimaru, noting that “it is ironic that the federal agency responsible for protecting against discrimination has so blatantly engaged in an inexcusable violation of religious liberty in its Belmont Abbey ruling.”

CNS also is sending a letter to all Catholic bishops in the United States, informing them of the EEOC action against Belmont Abbey College and highlighting the dangerous precedent this ruling sets to force Catholic employers to include contraceptive coverage in employee health plans.

update 2: Patrick Reilly, President of the Cardinal Newman Society, has an op-ed on this ruling against Belmont Abbey College in the Wall Street Journal.

How dare Rep. Ryan deny the pro-life activity of American Catholics and Christians?

Pro-abortion forces aren't stupid, they're calculating.

I've already discussed the DeLauro-Ryan bill, and why I think it needs to be urgently defeated. It is attempting to split the pro-life movement by claiming that those who do not support contraception are not truly pro-life.

The sponsor of that bill, Democrat Tim Ryan, was quoted earlier this week by Steven Waldman, the guy behind religion internet portal Belief.net.

[a brief tangent on Waldman....]

Steven Waldman introduces Tim Ryan as a "pro-life Democrat and author of the Ryan-DeLauro bill, which attempts to reduce the number of abortions in part through expanded use of contraception."

Reality check: Tim Ryan, as others have explained (see link to the DeLauro-Ryan bill above), isn't pro-life. Or rather, his "pro-life" solutions will actually increase the number of abortions.

I typically try to make arguments about abortion through reasoned argument. I rarely, if some have noticed, pull out the Papist bat. But here I need to: just how does Waldman, who runs a religion website, think he can promote contraception without alienating faithful Catholics, and make no mention that he's going against the teaching of the Church? Would he, say, talk about advocating blood transfusions for jehovah's witnesses without tripping over himself to mention that the leadership of that denomination opposes it? Nope, because even the religion editor knows that Catholic teaching is the one that he can get away with ignoring, with no argument. 

That's a double standard. Okay, tangent over ... time to get back to Ryan:]

Mind you I haven't even gotten to the Ryan quote that Waldman thinks it's so important his religious readers see. Here it is:

"The new fault line is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"

Despite claiming to be pro-life, Ryan just insulted the pro-life movement in a reprehensible fashion. 

He creates a straw man argument for the pro-life, anti-contraception movement. Does he honestly believe pro-life, anti-contraception individuals (let's be honest, the majority of them are Catholics) simply "hope and wish" that abortion will go away?!

Reality check: there are hundreds of pro-life pregnancy centers which do not distribute contraception, but provide concrete care to pregnant women. There are thousands of pro-life individuals who work at these institutions. There is a massive network of Catholic hospitals in the Unites States that provide care to pregnant women, and they don't distribute contraception. There are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Catholics (and other Christians) in America that support these efforts through the contributions of their money, time and prayers. 

So how dare Rep. Ryan claim that those who do not distribute contraception are not doing something to actively reduce abortion and promote a culture of life in America where every human being - mother and unborn child - are cared for and valued?

And I haven't even touched the fact that throwing contraception at women at-risk of becoming pregnant isn't going to ultimately address the problem of abortion in this country.

But let's start with some common ground: those who don't distribute contraception are certainly doing more to improve the lives of pregnant woman and children than just "wishing" and "hoping."

Publisher, editor fired over Canadian PM communion controversy

Remember that "Canadian Prime Minister pockets consecrated host!" story from earlier this month? 

In my coverage, I focused on the duty of the officiating Archbishop to refrain from giving communion to someone who isn't in communion with the Church. 

AmP readers were also quick to point out that in the distributed video, the Prime Minister is not actually seen "pocketing" the consecrated host.

Well, it looks like he did actually consume it, instead of pocketing it, and the publisher and editor cooked the story on the writers:

"The publisher and editor of the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal are no longer with the paper after it was forced to apologize to Stephen Harper and two of its own reporters over a story about whether the prime minister took communion at the state funeral of former governor general Roméo LeBlanc.

CBC News has confirmed that editor Shawna Richer has been fired and that Jamie Irving is no longer the publisher of the paper. Earlier, their names had been removed from the paper's list of senior staff.

The apology, which ran on the provincial newspaper's front page on Tuesday, said the story that ran on July 8 that accused Harper of placing a communion wafer in his pocket was "inaccurate and should not have been published."

"There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now," the apology said.

"Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them." (CBC News)

Let's still be clear, the Archbishop still shouldn't have given him Communion in the first place, he had no business accepting it, and the fact that the above story is headlined "Publisher, editor out over wafer story" tells you how far we still have to go when it comes to informed, respectful reporting of matters Catholic.

Text: My response to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote a letter to the editor and published it in Politico yesterday (ph/t Salon) in response to a piece by Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (available here):

"Tony Perkins took 729 words to obscure a simple fact: What he and his allies are demanding is a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market (“Keep Abortion Funding Out of Health Care Reform,” July 28).

Today, private plans can choose whether to cover the service — and most do. If Perkins succeeds, women who purchase private insurance that now covers abortion services will lose that coverage.

The bills moving through Congress now do not reference abortion, so it’s obvious that Perkins is injecting this issue unnecessarily into the health reform debate in hopes that it will bring down the whole endeavor. That’s outrageous."

Here is my response, which I will try to have published on Politico:

Nancy Keenan took 106 words to cover-up a simple agenda. What she and her allies want is the greatest expansion of federally-funded abortions since Roe v. Wade. She is incorrect in claiming that Tony Perkins is "demanding ... a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market." Instead, he wants health care reform to respect existing laws which prevent federal funds from paying for abortions. The difference is that Perkins says his goal, while Keenan hides her own.

Keenan incorrectly claims that Perkins wants women to lose their private insurance coverage of abortion. Instead, Perkins is only talking about the government's proposed public plan, which is not private insurance. It is one thing for private individuals to decide what their money pays for (such as abortion coverage in private insurance), it is another for government to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, to the exclusion of existing laws which the majority of Americans support.

Perkins is not "injecting" the issue of federally-funded abortion into the bill, like Keenan claims. Otherwise, why have Democrats resisted every attempt to have abortion coverage excluded? If there is anything outrageous here, it is Keenan's efforts to obscure the facts.

I'll update this post if my response is published.

Why are Catholic organizations rushing anti-life health care reform?

Seeking healthcare for the needy is one thing,but  supporting the current draft of health care "reform" is entirely different, and I believe actually antithetical to the first idea.

Now when I see this picture with (at least one) Catholic bishop in front of the USCCB offices in DC (I've walked by it often) .... I agree that we should seek health care that protects life ... but the fact of the matter is that the current form of health care reform we are looking at does not protect life. 

So why on earth is this picture used in this video by the Catholic Health Association's campaign to pass health care reform "NOW"?! The picture ought to be featured in a video complaining that the current health care reform bill does not protect life ... so we're still waiting.

This is not an isolated case. 

Jack Smith describes what "NETWORK - A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby" (founded in 1971 by 47 women religious) is doing to support Obama's plan. 

More importantly, Steven Ertelt tells us (ph/t, ALL) that three large Catholic organizations are mobilizing on behalf of Obama-care: Catholic Charities USA, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association (whose ad I mention above). More:

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Charities USA 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 last week.

"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," that group says on its web site.

Kathleen Gilbert once again turned in some excellent reporting, and got someone on the phone:

When LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) described the healthcare plan's abortion mandate to Roger Playwin, the National Executive Director of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, he interrupted to say: "The bishops' office has advised us that that's not accurate. So I can't speak to it, because all I know is that the bishops' office has said that story is going around, but it's inaccurate. That's all I know."

Um, no, Mr. Playwin, you are mimicking the abortion-lobby's talking points.

LifeSiteNews has posted easy ways of contacting the various organizations. 

I could go into all of this in more detail, but I'll try to keep it short: telling people that Congress needs to fix health care "now" will only result in enacting a horrible piece of legislation which will not fix the problems it was written to solve, and will include many things which Catholics ought to oppose, such as mandated abortion coverage with taxpayer money.

It's extremely disappointing to see organizations charged with caring for the poor making such poor prudential decisions. If you follow the LifeSiteNews link above you can read an embarrassing attempt to justify this decision when the simple facts, I submit, should make us conclude that current bloated form of legislation being considered in Congress is something we shouldn't wait to vote No on.

The faster we get rid of this false start, the faster we can take a look at pursuing real health care reform.

Catholic Common Ground: Reject the DeLauro-Ryan bill

Working in DC politics I get to observe a lot of situations which frustrate me, but this concerted effort to deceive pro-lifers into supporting a bill which hurts the cause of life in America gets me angry.

What especially angers me is how the Catholic pro-life movement is treated by pro-abortion supporters of this bill. Just read what "Catholics for Choice" president Jon O'Brien wrote:

"Not everybody agrees with the bill. The nation's 400 Catholic bishops have not signed on. However, we should remember that their 400 votes count for little when taken beside the nation's 67.5 million Catholics--the majority of whom will support the bill's provisions."

Excuse me? Is this sort of argument supposed to appeal to me as a faithful Catholic?

The USCCB Prolife office has taken the extraordinary (and needed) step of forcefully repudiating the claims of DeLauro-Ryan bill supporters:

Let the Taxpayers Beware!

It should be called the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009.

Instead, co-sponsors Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have given their “new” (though largely recycled) bill the promising title “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” Sponsors describe the bill as a “common ground” approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, one that should appeal to opposing sides in the abortion debate.

Sure, the bill is dressed up with some funding for after-school programs, and some (very poorly crafted) efforts to provide support for pregnant students. But make no mistake. The bill is “about access to birth control,” according to Congressman Ryan (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” May 19, 2009). In the same interview, Ryan explained: “We have to have birth control and contraception offered to these poor women who don’t have access to contraception, period, dot. There’s no other way we’re going to be able to reduce [abortions].” About what you’d expect in a bill whose co-sponsors enjoy a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

... let your member of Congress know that the Ryan/DeLauro bill cannot fulfill the promises in its title. The real abortion-reduction bill in Congress now is the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.1032, H.R.2035), which needs our support.

I wrote earlier today about a chance to defund Planned Parenthood subsidies in the new Health and Human Services fund allocations. Faithful Catholics should also reject the Ryan/DeLauro bill as a deceptive ploy to give more money to big business abortion.

update: for the record, Rep. Tim Ryan deserves especial blame here, as Jack Smith points out:

Rep. Tim Ryan is not prolife. In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0. While once prolife, Ryan's record is now as extreme on abortion as Rep. DeLauro and Senator Barbara Boxer - supporting even taxpayer funding of abortion in DC.

The lie that Tim Ryan is prolife is very convenient for the true backers of the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act". Planned Parenthood and NARAL can say the bill represents "common ground". But claiming the bill is "common ground" and that Ryan is prolife are both lies.

Obama on federal funding for abortion: "Let's not get distracted"

Yesterday Katie Couric asked Obama the question that Catholics and other Americans are very worried about:

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (CBS)

I explain why I think Obama's response is deeply flawed over at this American Principles blog entry.

Briefly: how are we to take seriously Obama's claim that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America when his attitude about the single-greatest expansion of abortion access in our nation's history is ... "let's not get distracted"?!

update: and now that I think about it for a few more seconds- if Obama doesn't want abortion to "distract" us, why not simply rule out covering them with taxpayer dollars? That strikes me as a very simple fix.

Picture: Sotomayor photoshopped into Guadalupe Image

... 'cuz it's cool to make fun of Catholic stuff. (/sarcasm)

NewsBusters reports:

With the start of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearings the topic of abortion naturally arises – not only because it one of our most polarizing legal and social issues, but also because Sotamayor claims to be Catholic, a religion that adamantly and explicitly teaches the evil of abortion.

And while her Catholicism scares some liberals, others are using it as a selling point, and in doing so desecrating a holy image of the Virgin Mary. Felix Sanchez, the CEO of D.C. government and public relations firm TerraCom and chairman of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, has updated his Twitter page with a background of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Over Our Lady’s face, the likeness of Sotomayor has been superimposed (shown at right).

The patron saint of all the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe has a special place in the hearts of Hispanic Catholics, especially Mexicans (which Sotomayor is not). But Sanchez seemed to use the image to appeal to all Hispanics and to promote his plea to “Confirm Sonia Maria Sotomayor,” as his Twitter page says.

Yesterday, NARAL officially backed Sotomayor.

While elected officials who claim to be pro-life hem and haw about how difficult it is to pin down what Sotomayor actually thinks about abortion, one of the most pro-abortion groups in the United States is perfectly happy to take a wild guess.

Oh yeah, and shame on Felix Sanchez.

GE says "Who needs Lab rats? We have human stem cells!"

I wish I was joking:

General Electric has announced that it will use embryonic stem cells provided by Geron Corporation for the purpose of testing toxic effects of drug treatments.

GE issued a statement, attempting to preempt criticism over the decision, saying, "We acknowledge the considerable debate and take very seriously the ethical and societal issues associated with research using stem cells derived from embryonic or fetal tissue."

"We conduct our research in an ethically and scientifically responsible manner," the statement said. (LifeSiteNews)

How do they get to claim they are conducing "ethical" research? 

What if I were to steal a video someone made, upload it to my American Papist You Tube Channel and when the original copyright-holder complained, responded by saying "Don't worry, I did it ethically"?! Who would be satisfied by such a dismissive response?

This habit of using human instead of animal stem cells marks the continuation of a dangerous trend:

Konstantin Fielder, General Manager of Cell Technologies at GE Healthcare said that stem cells harvested from human embryos could even replace lab rats as the primary scientific testing method.

"Once you have human cells and you can get them in a standardized way, like you get right now your lab rats in a standardized way, you can actually do those experiments on those cells," he said.

Do something about this: Contact General Electric on the web or call them at (203) 373-2211.

Why is Bishop Hubbard supporting the disastrous "Cap-and-Tax" bill?

I strongly disagree with the prudential opinion expressed by Bishop Howard Hubbard:

"The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing "the largest tax increase in American history."

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposes a complicated series of schemes known as "cap and trade," ultimately imposing taxes on the carbon-dioxide emissions that are cited as a major factor in global warming. Even before the 1,200-page legislation was made available to Congress, the members of the House of Representatives received a letter from two leading representatives of the American Church, giving their strong endorsement for the bill.

Bishop Howard Hubbard, who chairs the US bishops' committee on international justice and peace; and Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services, welcomed the introduction of the Waxman-Markey bill." (CWNews)

I work in politics now. I know this is a bad, bad bill. It has a negligible effect on the environment (even environmental groups have admitted this!), it stresses an already deeply-weekend economy with more taxes and bureaucracy, it will result in more domestic job losses, and - perhaps most outrageously of all - will result in American dollars being spent to build foreign infrastructure at the expense of American private enterprise (the bottom line keeping our progressively-more-top-heavy government running in the first place)!

Just look at some indepentent analysis of this bill's effects:

"The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the legislation, concluded that the Waxman-Markey bill would entail new costs of $770 a year for the average American family. A separate analysis by the Heritage Foundation suggested that this figure was grossly understated, and the actual costs would be closer to $3,000 per year for a typical family of four-- rising steadily up to $4,600 by the year 2035. The Heritage analysis added that the bill would increase gasoline prices by 58%, home heating oil by 56%, and electric rates by 90%. The total drag on the economy would likely result in a loss of over 1 million jobs, Heritage concluded. In spite of this enormous cost, the Foundation argued, the Waxman-Markey bill would produce only a miniscule effect on the process of climate change, producing a drop in world temperatures of "only hundredths of a degree Celsius" in the next 40 years."

So why on earth is Bishop Hubbard supporting this ineffective and harmful bill using the mantra of the US bishops? 

It lessens the effectiveness of the Church's voice on moral issues when one of its bishops so foolishly takes an imprudent decision on a practical one.

Politics: Infanticide-promoter Peter Singer argues for rationing health care

Peter Singer, a eugenicist who believes in infanticide, takes to the pages of the New York Times magazine to advocate rationing health care for you and me:

"Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?"

Who would honestly want to be on the same side of a debate as Peter Singer?

This is a man who admitted that if it was up to him, he might have pulled the plug on his sick mother (luckily his sister had joint care of her and wouldn't allow it). There is also some disagreement that he actually helped pay for his mother's health care costs - which contradicts his utilitarian philosophy.

So either he is a hypocrite or a monster. And I'm disturbed that he likes Obama's socialized health care plan. With advocates like that, who needs critics?

Open topic: New Science Czar Once Backed Forced Abortions?

This is just. plain. scary:

Another nominee of President Barack Obama is coming under fire for taking an extreme position in favor of abortion. This time, John Holdren, whom Obama appointed to become Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is accused of backing forced abortions and population control.

Holdren will become Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Informally, the position is known as the Science Czar.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, Obama's nominee wrote that women could be forced to have abortions whether they wanted them or not. (LifeNews)

And if you really want your toes to curl, visit this link which provides all the details.

update - in fairness: "Obama’s science czar does not support coercive population control, spokesman says"

Senate Health Care Plan *does* fund abortions with taxpayer dollars

Pro-abortion advocates in the House and Senate have been trying to hide the fact that, under their new health care plans, taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. It's amazing to watch them try to squirm out of actually admitting it (as reported by FRC):

HATCH: "...Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"
MIKULSKI: "It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service."
HATCH: "No, but it would provide for them."
MIKULSKI: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."
HATCH: "Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis. I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you."
Later...
HATCH: "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."
MIKULSKI: "...No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time." 

FRC also reports the sad news that an attempt to scratch abortion coverage was defeated 11-12:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) was the only Democrat to stand his ground and vote for life. If you'd like to help FRC in this battle to ban taxpayer-funded abortion, log on to our new site, www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org, dedicated to promoting the rights to life and conscience.

Now Planned Parenthood is desperate to get (more) federal money. And here's how they put it:

"We've been deeply concerned that women would be the first targets in health care reform and now it's happened. Yesterday, anti-choice Senator Orrin Hatch launched an attack on Planned Parenthood and the U.S. senators who were trying to help women."

Take a look at this Planned Parenthood claim:

"Instead of telling the truth, [Sen. Hatch] claimed that it mandates abortion coverage in an attempt to drum up opposition. This is an outright lie — and we need your help to fight back."

But if Planned Parenthood is telling the truth, and abortions won't be covered... then why did Sen. Mikulski oppose adding language to explicitly exclude abortions? Because Planned Parenthood is lying.

Jodi Jacobson at my favorite-radical-abortion-agenda-website-to-expose RH Reality Check mimes the Planned Parenthood talking points and claims that abortions won't be covered. Well she's right - abortions aren't covered directly. Abortion providers are covered. But that's not really a difference, is it?

Because the pro-life movement is under fairly constant attack these days for using "incendiary" language, let's extract a few lines from the super-popular liberal blog DailyKos:

[Senator] Hatch! I pay for YOUR health care, I've paid for your health care for years with my tax dollar.

Now, you'd better listen up and get it straight about health care for American women.

And you can take your anti-woman religiosity and stuff it up in your place where the sun never shines.

We American woman are getting mighty tired of the idiotic shenigans of Republican Senators, from David Vitter, the whoremaster of Louisiana, to Larry Craig of Idaho who tap dances in men's bathrooms, to John Ensign of Nevada and his corrupt crony Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who heads the secret sweety payoff to silence committee.

Ah, don't you love that liberal temperate language?

LifeNews recommends taking this action if you are concerned about your tax dollars paying for abortions:

See the members of the committee and send them an email or call them in response to the vote for the pro-abortion Mikulski amendment. Tell them you don't want abortion coverage in health care.

Phone calls are more effective than emails. And don't be scared about picking up the phone - the staff of these offices are used to hearing from the constituents back home. Add your voice.

update: video:

More on the Canadian Prime Minister/Eucharist controversy

"Canadian Papist" and AmP reader Matt with a useful comment:

Hey, just wanted to throw you a line to let you know that the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) confirmed that the host was, in fact consumed. Also, in knowing the Archbishop of Moncton, who gave Prime Minister Harper the host, he really dropped the ball. He should be a lot more careful in giving out the Eucharist, as I'm certain Harper had no idea what was going on. 

"Unfortunately, the camera did not stop long enough on the prime minister, but, as I told you, the prime minister is a Christian, and when he was offered communion by the priest, he accepted it and consumed it as well," Soudas said. 

Soudas is his spokesman. Is it still wrong for Harper to consume it? Sure, but he didn't know better, and he can't be held responsible for his ignorance.

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, focuses in his commentary on the ministerial obligation of protecting the Eucharist - and in this case - the Archbishop's woeful neglect of said obligation.

Photo: Criminal stupidity at an abortion clinic

Some individuals have an ideological commitment to abortion, which allows them to permit it and protect those who perform them ... even in circumstances where common sense would be raising red flags everywhere.

Perfect case in point, the crazy (and outrageous) things being perpetrated by an abortion clinic in Rockford, IL:

What people in the world can demonstrate such pathetic math skills (a minor point), such offensive anti-religious attitudes, condone rape and incest, cover-up for sexual predators, and still be permitted a license to engage in medical procedures covered by insurance agencies while enjoying protection under federal and local laws?

The answer: abortionists.

Outrageous: Absolutely vile’ advice column tells men how to pressure pregnant women to abort

Sadly ... tragically ... this is the evil voice I hear behind so much of the radical abortion-on-demand movement:

A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”

The advice column was authored by Isabella Snow, who is described as a Sex Education Correspondent. It was published on AskMen.com, a risqué site which claims seven million monthly visitors.

The column is bluntly utilitarian in style, focusing on pregnancy’s and abortion’s effects upon the relationship of a man and a woman. It ends each paragraph of advice with a summarizing tip labeled “prenatal prep.” The avoidance of children and fatherhood is a repeated theme.

Snow begins by noting that while male readers may hope a woman will “stick to the original plan and terminate the pregnancy,” some women may suddenly want to become mothers “despite previous agreements.” She advises the male reader to try to make his girlfriend consider his wants and desires by approaching her “correctly” and taking care with his “presentation.”

Snow advises discussing a possible abortion on a sofa at home to provide intimacy and “reduced eye contact,” purportedly to make it easier for the woman to speak “openly.”

“You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant,” Snow adds. “You can’t just talk about having an abortion the same way you’d talk about having a cavity filled.” (CNA)

CNA updated their story after publishing it, saying "When CNA attempted on Wednesday to access the article again on Askmen.com, we were redirected to the site's main page."

In other words, there is still enough common sense in some of the world to provoke a sense of shame in those who have long since discarded such emotions in pursuit of utility.

But every once in awhile, the mask is discarded long enough for us to see the selfishness of men which is encouraged, and the exploitation of women that results from a cultural that tries to sever sex from new life.

Kathleen Reeves doesn't want to understand the Church

I was virtually introduced to the writing of Kathleen Reeves when someone forwarded me a post by her on RHReality Check (those folks behind the "common ground" forum I've been monitoring lately). Kathleen writes that "Jill Stanek Doesn't Want to Prevent Abortions."

That's a surprising claim to make, considering Stanek converted to the pro-life movement after holding an expiring child in her arms until the little baby died. The child, of course, was a "survivor" of a later term abortion.

My point is, it takes some serious nerve to claim a registered nurse, who has held dying babies in her arms, doesn't want to prevent abortions. Really, how dare Kathleen claim such a thing?

(So much for common ground.)

Kathleen, it's pretty clear, doesn't have arguments of her own when it comes to debating issues surrounding abortion and contraception. What we get, instead, are amateur conclusions like this:

But there’s something much more immediate and practical in [Stanek's] refusal to consider contraception a “lesser evil.” If she did, she would be admitting that she, and all religious fundamentalists, are wrong. She would be ceding ground to safe sex, to free condoms in bars, to Planned Parenthood! Let’s not forget that even Jill Stanek, with her superior knowledge of Satan’s works, is human. She has her pride to think of.

Let me get this straight: all religious "fundamentalists" think contraception and abortion are equal evils? Okay, that's an easy one: Kathleen is wrong about that claim. Moving on: even if contraception is a "lesser" evil, it *does not follow* that anything *less* than murder (such as contraception) should be promoted! In other words, just because something isn't the most evil thing in the world does not mean it should be accepted ... especially when it leads to worse evils.

Stanek, therefore, cedes absolutely no ground when she says in the same breath (my phrasing): don't abort children because it's taking an innocent life, and don't use contraception because it's immoral and in fact leads to a culture of death which will always require abortions to clean up its "mistakes." Does Kathleen truly believe America is critically lacking in access to contraception? Does she believe a culture that has already severed sex from new life will ever rule out destroying new life once it has been conceived through sex?

(Sadly, I'm betting Kathleen can't understand such a logical argument.)

Let's shift gears a bit - Kathleen claims that Jill Stanek doesn't want to prevent abortions (without, mind you, ever mentioning why Kathleen herself thinks abortions should be prevented ... is she ready to admit something is "wrong" about abortions? Whoops, there I go asking logical questions again!).

Well, here's a claim back at her: Kathleen doesn't want to understand the pro-life movement. In particular, when it comes to the question of contraception and abortion, she does not want to understand the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Instead, she makes a point of attacking the Church and the Church's teachings in almost every one of her posts on RH Reality Check. I found many such posts simply by looking at the first paragraph of her recent pieces.

(Remember my frequently-stated lament: anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.)

I'll take just a few lines from each one of these posts:

• "As in America, religious people are capable of forming political or social beliefs independently from clerical influence." (discussing the role of the Catholic Church in Spain)
• "Indeed, the Catholic hierarchy’s distance from the experiences of American Catholics is exacerbated by the Catholic Church’s specific version of patriarchy. How does it feel as a woman (or as a man) to have a celibate man tell you about sexuality?" ("Contraception and Catholics: Quiet Disobedience")
• "Tolerance, apparently, is Enemy Number 1, especially in places where the Catholic Church’s sphere of social and political influence is intact, but waning." ("Catholic Aid Organization's Subversive Support of Latin Americans")
  
• "Would [the leaders of the Church], in the spirit of pragmatism and compassion, allow at least a dialogue about contraception?" ("When the Catholic Church Was Pragmatic, Not Doctrinal")
  
• "The suggestion that American bishops should have a greater political presence is offensive to me as an American and as a Catholic. Many Americans have a complex, nuanced relationship with their faith, and Catholics, like non-Catholics, are capable of holding political views. Gaynor’s implication that political power lies in the Catholic hierarchy rather than in Catholics will only alienate the faithful. His is the type of attitude that’s threatening to make the Church extinct." ("The New Inquisition")
• "I wish that the Catholic Church was free of the constraints that so often impede governments—the messy and sad trade-offs of national and international politics. But it’s clear that we can’t count on the Pope to take a daring stand on this issue." ("With the Future of a Continent in His Hands, the Pope Fumbles")
• "... as we bicker about gay marriage in the United States and as many gay couples travel to the two states in which same-sex marriage is recognized, gay couples have been marrying in Spain for four years. The Catholic Church was ticked off at that, too." ("Catholic Crusaders No More")

... and that's just a start. 

It's hard to find common ground with someone who evidently despises the authentic teaching of the Church and doesn't even attempt to understand it or give it the benefit of the doubt. Can you imagine if RH Reality Check was attempting to reach common ground over territorial disputes in the Holy Land and employed virulent anti-semites (or ex-jews who despise the jewish tradition) to make its rhetorical and practical arguments?

There's a lesson to be learned here, I think, even though it requires me to paint with a broad brush: militant pro-aborts who call for "common ground" sound awfully similar to bad Catholics who call for doctrinal dissent. Oftentimes (again, painting with a broad brush here), they are the same individuals. 

I'm waiting for a common ground that doesn't compromise my principled, non-negotiable commitment to building a culture of life and defending the unborn, as taught by the Church and is evident through reason.

Video: Canadian Prime Minister pockets consecrated host!

Much more than a faux pas:

LifeSiteNews:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in hot water over a video that caught him taking Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, despite being a non-Catholic Christian. To make matters worse, the video shows him walking away without consuming the host.

And what makes matters really worse is how clueless everyone involved seems to be, beginning with Harper's spokesman:

Asked why the PM as a non-Catholic would receive Communion, which in Catholic teaching is reserved for Catholics and even only those Catholics who are properly disposed to receiving Communion, Soudas replied: "Who is the Prime Minister to judge once Communion has been offered to him?" Soudas added, "It is a well known fact that he's a Christian."

It's like Soudas is not even listening to the question. Sure, in protestant congregations they are (typically) very permissive about who is eligible to receive "communion." But Catholics aren't.

Harper is currently en route to the G8 leaders' summit, after which he will meet with Pope Benedict on Saturday. It would be appropriate for Harper to apologize to the pope at that meeting, and explain fully what happened. It's simply a matter of courtesy to Catholics and their strongly-held beliefs about the Eucharist.

Strongly-held, of course, with the exception of one Fr. Bourgeois, who delivered the homily at the Mass where this took place, and said: "Usually, to partake in Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, you have to be a member of it, but if you're not, exceptionally sometimes at major occasions (it is different)," he said. That's wrong. Where does it say that in Canon Law?!

Also falling down on the job, Monsignor (Bishop?) Andre Richard, who gave Harper communion, who said: "I didn't see anything wrong there because I was busy doing something else." Um, what else should you be doing except noticing that you a) gave the prime-minister of your country - who is not a Catholic - Communion and b) didn't even notice that he pocketed a consecrated host? It is your duty as a minister of Communion to observe what happens to it!

Source: Questions Catholics demand explanation for PM pocketing communion wafer at LeBlanc funeral in the Telegraph-Journal.

"Rhetorical Strategy and Reality Reduction"

I know I lamented in my previous post that certain groups of individuals produce problematic copy at a rate that far exceeds my freedom and ability to refute it, but I can take a stab at one or two as time provides.

Michael Sean Winters always provides plenty of opportunities, like his short essay "legislative strategy and abortion reduction" published a couple days ago in the National Catholic Dissenter.

It appears that liberal Catholics have all agreed among themselves in recent weeks that it's time for them to come out of the closet about supporting contraception, or at least the distribution of contraceptives when the alternative - supposedly - is pregnancies resulting in abortions.

As brief backstory, there are currently two bills being discussed which focus on reducing abortion.

Winters comes out - surprise, surprise - against the US bishops and supports the Ryan-DeLauro bill ("The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act", which is bad) over the bill introduced by pro-life Democrats ( "The Pregnancy Women Support Act", which is good).

Winters admits his Ryan-DeLauro bill "includes funding for contraception and extensive sex education." Now I bet, at this point, we are all somewhat aware of the sorts of things which are considered acceptable in public school sex ed. classes (Clearly, we need more lessons in pornography and masturbation in our highschools!). That last sentence in parentheses was sarcasm, by the way.

I could point out Winters' sly rhetorical attempts to make the case for legislative pragmatism, to remind us that politics is the art of the possible, and recommend to us that compromise is the best path to progress, but really all his points boil down to the same thing - "give up your principles."

I'll let him say that in his own words:

"Compromise is not always a bad word and on the urgent matter of reducing the abortion rate, made more urgent by the economic downturn and consequent rise in the abortion rate, Catholics can in good conscience support a bill that is not their first preference but is still preferable to doing nothing."

Why is this bill preferable to doing nothing? It floods the market with (more) contraceptives (which Winters apparently sees no problem with - sorry Pope Benedict and the Magisterum); the bill is far-and-out preferred by radical pro-abortion groups as a way to further their agenda (here's one example); and at the end of the day the bill is basically a massive money infusion for parasitic organizations like Planned Parenthood, who see abortion as darn good business.

In the social encyclical Pope Benedict released this week, he says in Paragraph 28:

One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples ... [and] questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways.

Not only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of infant mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.

Now, I don't think I'm stretching the pope's words one jot when I claim that Pope Benedict thinks it's a bad idea for governments to promote contraception. Frankly, it's more than bad - it's evil. As in never-to-be-done evil.

Winters thinks its preferable for Catholics to support a bill that allows the government to promote contraception than for them to do nothing. And he doesn't even seem to admit the possibility that Catholics and other pro-lifers, standing strong, could lobby behind a far-better bill that doesn't have the same flaws I mention above.

I disagree with him on both counts, and I would argue that I have the Pope and the bishops on my side. 

What exactly does Winters have on his?

Jack Smith on America Mag's calumny

Seriously, enough is enough:

A number of recent editorials by Catholic Obama partisans have sought to discredit the U.S. Bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole by grossly misappropriating the words of Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn.

Sometimes with attribution, sometimes without, but never in context, they have ripped four words, “We are at war,” from a 3,981 word address Bishop Finn made to a pro-life convention April 18, and given it meaning and context of their own making.

None have been so egregious as the Jesuit editors of America. This week’s Current Comment editorial in America disgraces the paper and the Society. It is vicious calumny in service to wicked ends. [Read on.]

It's almost exhausting to keep up with everything they write. I wish I was paid to dissent and dissemble.

Offered as "common ground": How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life

I might not do this perfectly, but I think it needs to be done.

I've been keeping tabs on Reproductive Health Reality Check (RHRC) since they announced a "common ground" forum on abortion.

Problem is, if pro-lifers want to head East towards life and pro-aborts want to move West towards the death of unborn children, any turning to the center of common ground by pro-lifers is movement in the wrong direction.

My patience and sincere attempt to be understanding and open to RHRC's common ground forum is about out. What might be the breaking point is a piece by Cecily Kellogg, who describes herself on her blog as a "foul-mouthed liberal, feminist, fat, recovering alcoholic, mother, wife, woman and writer."

So what did this individual contribute to RHRC?

"How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life"

It turns out to be yet another eulogy for late-term abortionist George Tiller, and a defense of late-term abortions in general. Now, because she makes her case based on her own personal experience, I have to talk about that to make my points.

Tiller, she claims "was committed to his work." Why? She says, "because he believed 'abortion is a matter of survival for women.'" I'd like to find out how many of his abortions saved women's lives. I know every one of his abortions killed a child. But that's not fair for me to say, apparently. That's not acceptable common ground. And yet it is acceptable for Kellogg to claim that Tiller "saved" lives.

She proceeds to narrate her nightmare story of succumbing to sever preeclampsia, which resulted in her doctors saying if she did not "terminate" her pregnancy, she was going to die "immediately."

After this experience (she had her son killed through "intact dialation and extraction") she "searched and found other women like me -- women whose lives were saved by the late-term medical termination of a pregnancy. I also met women who chose to spare their children from agonizing health conditions and birth defects by having an abortion."

... wait a second though, Kellogg just jumped from abortions which aim to preserve the life of the mother over into abortions for genetic disease and birth defects. That's called eugenics. And who wishes to be "spared" from their problems through death? When she came down with severe preeclampsia - an "agonizing health condition" (in her own words) - would she have wished to be "spared" from it ... by death? This sort of thinking isn't merely unacceptable common ground, it's insane and inhuman.

Kellogg, in her ideological quest to eulogize Tiller and all the evil things he stood for, jumps more logical tracks: "... doctors only perform [late term abortions] in cases of extreme medical need. Dr. Tiller himself never performed a late term abortion without counseling the parents -- and getting a second opinion from another doctor. My doctor described the day of my surgery as the worst in his professional career."

And yet Dr. Tiller did not only perform late term abortions in "extreme medical need." He did them at will. And what does Kellogg mean by Tiller "counseling the parents"? Of course he "counseled" them; late-term abortion is a major medical procedure! Kellogg's doctor might have had a hard day, but Tiller did this every day - he chose it. And just what, might I ask, is so hard about this decision, if Kellogg truly made the "right" one? If late-term abortion is medically "necessary", what need can there be for second opinions, counseling of options, etc?

Kellogg's last sentence is especially deceptive and indeed, manipulative:

"My doctor knew the procedure and was willing to perform it; something that has already become rare and will be rarer still if doctors have to put their lives on the line to perform this life saving medical procedure. If it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?"

Quite honestly: how dare she say that. She paints abortionists as heroes who "put their lives on the line to perform this live saving medical procedure." However, medical situations in which the woman's life can only be saved by a late-term abortion are incredibly rare. They represent a failure in medicine. The answer to "medically necessary" abortions is to make them medically unnecessary. That is the challenge. Her manipulative "if it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?" is about as honest as claiming we need to kill all the sharks in the world because one of them might take a bite out of you or your daughter.

Finally, at a deeper level, Kellogg's argument is one of exception. And honestly, you could not find a more extreme exception than the personal one she describes. Through this exception, where she chose to have her son half-birthed, and have his brains vacuumed out, she proceeds to argue that George Tiller was a hero for doing this to dozens (if not hundreds) of children, and then she even has the nerve to scare her readers into wanting this "right" to be preserved for mothers and their daughters.

This is not common ground. It's a repulsive trick.

It's especially repulsive because Kellogg is presuming that no one will dare disagree with her because, by inference, she can claim they "want" her to die or would "be okay" with it. 

Well of course I don't want her to die. I desperately want her, and all innocent human beings, to live. But I cannot condone her killing of another person to ensure the continuation of her own life. And I will not stand by and allow her to use the choice she made to preserve her life as a false justification for killing other innocent lives, including and up to those lives which are in no way threatening another person - such as the sick and disabled.

As I said at the outset, there are pro-abortionists who want me to move West, but I wish to move East. Meeting her in the "common ground" she offers of allowing late-term abortions, is a step in the wrong direction. It's a step towards death.

Related: Mary Davenport, MD asks "Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?"

Forget sex, the media knows that attacking the Catholic Church sells

First, the lie is spread around with a press release headline: Ohio Catholic Priest Comes OUT as a Drag Queen with a Billboard Dance Hit.

Then it builds with more sensationalism in the press release itself: "In celebration of Gay Pride Month, Big Mama Capretta reveals the surprise truth about her identity. By day, Capretta is none other than Father Anthony, a proud practicing Catholic priest from Columbus, Ohio! Big Mama Capretta's new hit single 'Big Mama's House' is currently #25 on the U.S. Billboard Club Play dance chart."

Next, the Advocate, an "award-winning LGBT news site", basically copies down the press release and offers it as "news", contributing to the believability of the lie begun by the press release.

Finally, huge entertainment blogs take the Advocate "story" as "news" and run with it. My personal favorite? Perez Hilton who pipes: "If the church ever wants to point fingers again, they should start in their own backyard."

Well, sorry to rain on the parade, but this guy has been "out" since the 1980's, and the Catholic "Church" he is part of is actually the Columbus Community of Charity Independent Old Catholic Church, an "all-inclusive and welcoming congregation" .... yadda, yadda, you know the story (actually, oddly-enough, attendance at their "masses" are "open only to membership." So much for being inclusive).

In other words, Father Anthony is as much a Catholic priest as calling myself "DJ-AMP" makes me a musical artist. 

Now, with these facts in hand, let's look at what is actually happening each step of the way in this story:

1) A PR firm realized the only way to promote this guy is to spread the claim he's actually a priest of the Catholic Church. This is false advertising because he is not a Catholic priest, and they knew that.

2) LGBT news sites happily continue the rumor because it plays into their stereotypes about priesthood, hypocrisy in the Church, etc. Never mind that it takes about five minutes of research to dismiss the lies spread by the press release. The Advocate is not even trying for journalistic integrity.

3) Celebrities like Perez Hilton who - idiot that he is - have a significant force in shaping today's pop culture, continue to perpetuate myths and lies about the Catholic Church. Remember this gem of a quote: "If the church ever wants to point fingers again, they should start in their own backyard." Try to imagine for a second if Perez Hilton had said that in reaction to a press release claiming a Hasidic Jew was a transvestite, etc.

Oh that's right, such things will never happen, because anti-Catholic prejudice is still acceptable, LGBT news sites aren't bound by the facts, and press firms have realized that when sex can't sell, attacking the Church will do.

Exclusive: ND President Jenkins made $432,000 in 2006

Notre Dame President and Trustee Rev. John Jenkins was compensated to the tune of $432,000 in 2006, and had an expense account of over $170,000 that same year (he is 5th from the top):

For full-size click here.

This image was taken from Page 18 of Notre Dame's public IRS 990 form (PDF) as a c-3 organization.

I'm not drawing any conclusions from this information, but it was surprising to me when I found out.

Cameron Diaz: “We don't need any more kids. We have plenty of people.”

Oh Cameron:

Cameron Diaz has said in an interview in the July issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine, which comes out tomorrow, that “We don't need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.” (LifeSiteNews)

Previous gem from Miss Diaz:

“If you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote,” she said.

Maybe her publicist could also begin sending her highlights from world census data.

Important: CT legislature attempts to oppress Catholic Church, Bp. Lori leads response

Connecticut is becoming a flash-point for government oppression of Catholic institutional autonomy. 

I reported extensively on the events which have led to this situation when they began to unfold in early March of this year.

Bishop Lori is not taking this most recent - and most serious - attack lying down:

The bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., says he's a man of God, not a lobbyist. But state officials say he's both.

According to the Connecticut Office of State Ethics, the diocese acted as a lobbying organization in March when it rented buses to transport people to a rally in Hartford — the state capital — to protest a bill that would have granted more power to parishioners regarding church finances.

Officials also are investigating whether the church acted as a lobbying organization on its Web site when it urged parishioners to contact lawmakers about the bill, which eventually was withdrawn amid public outcry, and about a another bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which was signed into law in April.

Now the ethics office is "evaluating" whether the diocese failed to register as a lobbyist — an investigation that Bishop William Lori says violates the diocese's First Amendment right to free speech and assembly.

"I don't know what the motive of the Office of State Ethics was or is, but I do know that their actions stem directly from our attempts to defend ourselves in the face of two pieces of legislation that were unfriendly to the day-to-day mission of the church," Lori told FOXNews.com on Thursday.

"We were simply seeking to fulfill our mission, to continue to be ourselves."

And the diocese is fighting back, bringing a civil lawsuit against two Office of State Ethics officials — Enforcement Officer Thomas K. Jones and Executive Director Carol Carson." (FOX News)

Make no mistake, what is happening in Connecticut is also critically important for the Church throughout the United States. I'll be keeping a close eye on this situation as it develops. Keep it tuned here at AmP and also visit the Bridgeport diocese website.

If the Connecticut legislature succeeds in penalizing the Church for acting as a "lobbyist" organization there, the rights of Catholics and Catholic institutions will be endangered elsewhere. We must stop their efforts in their tracks.

Poster: Fr. Jenkin's idea of "Reasoned Dialogue"

After my story on Thursday ("Hypocrite: Fr. Jenkins offers no mercy to pro-lifers arrested on his campus") an AmP reader was inspired to put together the poster below. I thought it was powerful and present it for your consideration:

Related: Video of this priest being arrested on the Notre Dame campus has over 200k YouTube views.

Huh? Abortion center offered "free abortions" in memory of Tiller

Just sick:

An abortion business in Pennsylvania is drawing criticism for giving away free abortions on Tuesday in honor of slain late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. The Philadelphia Women's Center said the free abortions were meant to show appreciation for Tiller, who was allegedly killed by extremist gunman Scott Roeder.

Town Hall columnist Jillian Bandes said a staff member at the abortion center said an unspecified number of free abortions were done yesterday for Tiller's “memory and legacy.”

However, by the end of the day, the center stopped doing free abortions and indicated it wouldn't likely do it again. (LifeNews)

I'm trying to grasp what sort of thinking could have led to the decision reported above. 

But I really lack the incentive, for some reason.

Hypocrite: Fr. Jenkins offers no mercy to pro-lifers arrested on his campus

This unfolding drama deserves more attention:

The president of the University of Notre Dame has "no interest" in interfering with the fates of over 80 peaceful pro-life protesters arrested on campus while protesting President Obama's May 17 commencement speech, says the pro-lifers' attorney. One of the arrestees, Lambs of Christ founder Fr. Norman Weslin, issued a statement Monday calling on University president Fr. John Jenkins to heed the arrested group's requests to meet, which Weslin says Fr. Jenkins has ignored.

... Attorney Tom Dixon told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) Tuesday that none of the charges have been dropped, and only two individuals accepted an offer to plead guilty in return for a sentence of time served and a fine. The rest face a maximum sentence of a year and prison and a $5,000 fine.

Asked about Notre Dame's involvement in the case, Dixon said he has "not heard anything" from the school, "except that they don't have any interest in exploring ways to resolve these matters." (LSN) (More backstory here)

So much for an olive branch. Fr. Jenkins is being given a perfect opportunity to show mercy, to deliver on his (and Obama's) promise of putting aside old grievances and moving forward in an enlightened fashion. Instead, Fr. Jenkins offers no common ground and no dialogue to these pro-life protesters.

Actions speak louder than words, and in this case, lack of action speaks louder than anything Fr. Jenkins has said. Does he really believe in forgiveness and understanding? Or does he just play these cards when he stands to benefit?

Noted: "Catholic Answers sues IRS, alleging ‘intimidation’ on political issues"

I will be watching to see how this situation develops with interest:

The apologetics organization Catholic Answers has filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service claiming the federal tax collection agency has “intimidated” churches and non-profit groups into silence on politically controversial moral issues.

In an announcement posted at the organization’s web site, Catholic Answers president Karl Keating explained that the IRS fined the group for a 2004 e-letter it wrote saying that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry should not be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

Keating charged that Francis Kissling, then-leader of the pro-abortion front group “Catholics for a Free Choice,” had instigated the IRS action with a complaint.

He said Kissling “hated” Catholic Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics,” which aimed to educate Catholics on issues such as abortion. However, the guide did not mention any candidates or political parties and was cleared of any violations by the IRS. (CNA)

Catholics for a Free Choice use bullying tactics?! That's ... very believable.

Huh? Video game company pays people to fake protest as Christians

I actually blogged about this game some time ago, on an offbeat friday.

But now I'm not smiling:

Video game giant Electronic Arts has admitted it funded a group of fake protesters who pretended to be Christians as a publicity stunt to spur interest in its upcoming action game very loosely based on Dante’s “Inferno.”

The game company hired a group of almost 20 people to stand outside the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles on Wednesday, the Associated Press says. The phony protesters passed out amateurish material and held signs bearing slogans such as “Trade in Your PlayStation for a PrayStation,” “Hell is not a Game” and “EA = Electronic Anti-Christ.”

Holly Rockwood, an EA spokeswoman, said the charade was arranged by a viral marketing agency hired by the company.

... A web page in the crude style of 1990s web design was also created in connection with the stunt. It depicted crosses crushing the word “sin” and placed images of the King James Bible among phony condemnations and thinly-veiled promotions of the game.

“A video game hero does not have the authority to save and damn... ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE. and he will not judge the sinners who play this game kindly,” the site said. (CNA)

I think EA's move is especially bone-headed considering how many Christians might be interested in a game that at least tries to include "spiritual" things, and considering how many Catholics might get a kick out of the game for its gag value. 

I mean, getting to play Dante as he slashes his way through hell? It sure beats Tetris.

White House proclaims June to be LGBT pride month

The proclamation:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Full text here at whitehouse.gov.

Abortionist George Tiller killed during Church service

The abortionist George Tiller, notorious for his performance of late-term abortions as well as his close ties with Kathleen Sebellius, was killed during a Church service this morning:

"Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.

Long a focus of national anti-abortion groups, including a summer-long protest in 1991, Tiller was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, Stolz said. Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time." (AP)

I unreservedly condemn this killing. The pro-life movement believes in justice for all and murder is always wrong with no exceptions.

With that said, some foes of the pro-life movement are already trying to use Tiller's death as an excuse to demonize the pro-life movement as a whole. Even the AP report makes reference to this:

"Stolz said all indications were that the man acted alone, although authorities were investigating whether he had any connection to anti-abortion groups."

Any group that would sanction the unlawful killing of someone is simply not a pro-life group.

The National Organization for Women is especially guilty of this reprehensible, bigoted association of the (as yet unidentified) killer with the non-violent activities of the pro-life movement:

Saying that women "lost a champion" with the death of Tiller, the pro-abortion National Organization for Women claimed that an "anti-abortion terrorist" must have killed Tiller even though the identify of the shooter has yet to be revealed.

NOW said "the anti-abortion cause" was behind Tiller's murder and other actions against abortion centers and practitioners even though members of pro-life groups have never been behind any such incident.

Saying that bringing the person who killed Tiller to justice is "not enough," NOW called on the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to "root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded criminal acts for decades."

"We call on the new attorney general Eric Holder and head of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to treat these murders in the same way they would treat politically-motivated domestic terrorism of any other kind and put the full resources of their two departments behind that effort," they said. (LifeNews)

NOW should publish a full apology for its unfounded attacks as well as for trying to profit from Tiller's death.

LifeNews has reported the story, and has also begun listing the pro-life organizations which have condemned the act. SBA List has done so, as has ALL. Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, said:

“As the late Cardinal John O’Connor said, ‘If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me. ... It's madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It’s madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing.’”

The last quote comes from Geoffrey Miller:

[Tiller] knows the truth now. If the truth has indeed set him free, he will be a most powerful ally to us through his intercessions.

I pray that this sad event becomes on occasion for the pro-life movement to reveal the depths of its mercy, and for the media at-large to report the story accurately. Murder is never right, of the born or unborn.

update: President Obama has released a statement on Tiller's death:

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." (6:21 p.m.)

Vatican demands UK newspaper issue "immediate and unambiguous" retraction

Looks like the Vatican press office is trying to earn its paycheck today:

The Vatican has demanded that The Times retract a "completely untrue" story that Pope Benedict XVI planned to present a "luxury facsimile" of the 1530 appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

[Damian Thompson has a photocopy of the letter, and some fascinating background.]

Frankly they could be doing this sort of thing every day, considering the amount of trashy reporting that gets printed about things Catholic in presses around the world.

But UK tabloids are particularly bad about spreading false (and often clearly false) Vatican rumors.

update - to their credit, at least one reporter has apologized.

Outrageous: Homeland Security document claims Pro-Lifers may be terrorists

It's a bad time to hold minority convictions:

Just months into his administration, President Barack Obama is already targeting pro-life advocates as the Obama administration has released a document that claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism. The new document comes on the heels of one in Missouri that caused a national uproar.

According to the Washington Times, a footnote attached to the nine-page report from the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis say the activities of pro-life advocates is included in "rightwing extremism in the United States.”

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says. (LifeSite)

Pro-abortion advocates love to paint pro-lifers as extremists. Pot, meet kettle.

Idiot: "Paraguayan president, bishop admits paternity"

How did this guy get ordained a bishop?!

ASUNCION, Paraguay - Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo admitted Monday he is the father of a child conceived while he was still a Roman Catholic bishop.

Lugo surprised journalists by acknowledging he had an intimate relationship with Viviana Carrillo, the child's mother — just five days after lawyers for Carrillo announced they were filing a paternity suit against him. (AP)

The Vatican has been extraordinarily generous in its dealings with him.

"Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request"

Revealing on so many levels:

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com. (CNSNews.com)

U.S. News Editor happy about economy causing more abortions

Someone forgot to read the memo - even people who promote abortion aren't supposed to like it:

"The recession is driving American demand for contraception and for abortions. The media have been riven this past week with stories about the rising number of couples and single mothers doing the math and deciding this is no time to bring a child into the world," Erbe writes.

"The media have also been rife with stories portraying this trend as something of a tragedy," she continues. "Let me propose a counter view: it is not." (LifeNews)

She calls abortion a "good decision" instead.

Email your complaints about her new column to bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com

Former Mayor Williams withdraws application after "Internet blogs" voice cocern

A gratifying, but odd, Associated Press update (underlining mine):

"Former Mayor Anthony Williams withdrew his application to join the Order of Malta after members of the Catholic service society complained he shouldn't be allowed to join because he supports abortion rights and protections for gay unions. Williams's critics used Internet blogs to voice their concerns, but order president Noreen Falcone said anonymous postings with incomplete information were unfair to Williams and his sponsors."

1) Yes ... I was one of those critical blogs.
2) Yes ... Williams was totally unacceptable.
3) ... Has anyone heard of a non-Internet blog?!
4) ... well, of course anonymous postings are going to contain misinformation. But what about the on-the-record bloggers? Where they wrong, too? Obviously not. So be willing to take one on the chin when you deserve it.

Stupid: Hillary asked "Who painted it?" when at Guadalupe

Ladies and Gentleman - our Secretary of State:

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay. (CNA)

Maybe planning her acceptance speech for Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award distracted her.

Hillary Clinton to receive Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood

Honestly, I can think of few things more offensive than a "Margaret Sanger Award".

Glad to see our Secretary of State is bending over backwards to receive it:

Doing a rare domestic political event, and continuing the Obama administration's forceful, if understated alliance with abortion-rights groups, Hillary Clinton will receive an award from Planned Parenthood Friday night in Houston, the group says.

"The 2009 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award, the organization’s highest honor, will be presented to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a champion of women’s health and rights throughout her public service career," according to the release.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is an old Clinton ally, and women's health was a central issue for her in the Senate. Her appearance, though, suggests she's raising her profile a bit beyond what had been, to date, a determined effort to keep her focus entirely on her new portfolio. (Politico)

Family Research Council forcefully (and succinctly) makes the case that it's outrageous for Hillary to accept such an award even if you disagree about abortion. Planned Parenthood engages is many illegal practices, and Margaret Sanger - its founder - was an evil eugenicist. And yet because of Planned Parenthood's financial ties and sympathetic ideology, the organization remains on the inside track of this administration.