What price for change

Lots of news stories and commentary ever since Fr Jenkins announced and defended (continues to defend) the decision to honor Prez Obama with a degree in addition to speaking at the commencement. Lots of hash on both sides of the debate.  From the AP today - Abortion clouds Obama event at Notre Dame ...

To my mind, it is Notre Dame's identity as a Catholic university and Fr. Jenkins' obstinance that is the root of the scandal here.

Back to the AP article ...

A storm blew up immediately after Notre Dame invited Obama to address
Sunday's commencement exercises. It still rages, with anti-abortion
activists promising to disrupt the president's appearance, where he was
to receive an honorary degree.

It's the honorary degree that's the most troubling to me (and most I would imagine) in that bestowing such an honor is to hold the Prez up as an examplar with respect to the mission and goals of the university itself. You wanna invite him to speak on campus and even give the commencement speech? Fine! But did Fr. Jenkins and the board really have to take it that one further step with giving an honorary degree?
Be careful when reading this next quote - especially if you have a drink.

Obama supports abortion rights but says the procedure should be rare.
At Notre Dame, he finds himself at the vortex of the abortion rights
controversy that has riven U.S. society for decades.

Noooooooooo! The Dem platform removed rare from its plank regarding abortion. It now only says "safe" and "legal" when describing its vision of abortion. And I don't recall Prez O saying anything about his view of abortion being rare.
Even if this were true - here's my question ... what is it about abortion that makes you want it to be rare?
If it's safe and really nothing more than a privacy issue, then what's the big deal? Why should it be rare? Why not allow it to be as commonplace as possible?  Moving on ...

Recriminations against Obama's appearance in South Bend, Ind., have echoed across the Internet, on cable television and newspaper editorial pages.

This might be implied throughout the entire article; however it should be, I think, more clearly stated ... the issue is that Notre Dame (a premiere and prestigious Catholic university) is thumbing its noses at the US Bishops and causing scandal. The question (and the root of the recriminations mentioned in the article) is: to what Church does Notre Dame belong? Let's continue ...

The Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations hold that abortion or the use of embryos for stem cell research amounts to the destruction of human life

Ummmmm every embryologist acknowledges and all medical textbooks state that an embryo is indeed a human life. Therefore, its destruction as equal to the destruction of human life is a matter of science and simple math. This isn't a mere assertion of the Church.

The contrary argument holds that women have the right to terminate any pregnancy
and that unused embryos created outside the womb for couples who cannot
otherwise conceive should be available for stem cell research. Such
research holds the promise of finding treatments for some of mankind's
most debilitating ailments.

Bias in this article is apparent when pitting the words anti-abortion and the contrary argument against each other. But it's this last sentence that takes the cake ... embryo destructive stem cell research holds NO promise of curing or treating anything. 
But let's not allow science and reasoned thought to get in the way and cloud our reporting or political agendas ... 

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama in his commencement speech
"obviously would make mention of the debate that's been had" over
abortion, while emphasizing that "this is exactly the kind of give and
take that is had on college campus all over the country."

Great! Yet another chance for Prez O to claim to hear both sides and to appear as though he's wanting to engage in dialogue or some such whatever ... ya know, his actions just don't add up.

So far every single executive order or policy has been squarely pro-abortion (as in outright support of it).

Reconsidering and Re-engaging (Yeah, I'm Doing It Next Year)

The religious education school year is now officially over ... it sure seemed to be a shorter year than in the past.

And this was the year I decided to do some serious thinking about whether or not I'd return as a catechist. Admittedly, the whole reason why I started teaching religious ed was because my son was beginning in the program ... and I thought, "geez, I have to drive back and forth to drop him off - so, why not just stay and teach and save on the wear and tear and all that jazz."

Okay - not the kind of inspired desire to share the faith or anything ... purely pragmatic and utilitarian.

But the Holy Spirit sure works in strange ways!

No sooner had I finished my first year or two ... I got hooked ... I knew it was important to teach our faith (that was never a problem for my head) ...
Now I absolutely, positively, no-doubt-about-it felt and believed it to be important for me to be there ... my gut was engaged.

Hard work - sure it is! Yet a true joy as well ... it was clear that this was part of my vocation as a member of our parish community.

Now - fast forward to this year ... my son has gone through the program and has now completed all the years of formal religious ed at our parish. So, I'm thinking, "gee, maybe my time is done now, too. The boy isn't coming back - maybe I don't come back either."

But the Holy Spirit seems to have different plans ... In the past week I was approached by several parents - folks I'd never seen before - each of them expressing the requisite "thank you."  But two conversations stuck with me.

In both cases, the parent (mothers each of them) not only thanked me; they each expressed how much their children have been talking about the faith and about what we had been doing in class each week.  One of the kids here was soooooo quiet in class ... that she's talking seems out of character. 
Each parent also made sure to say how important they thought it was to have a man teaching their children in the faith. (I think I was the only male catechist in my session this year)

So, the Holy Spirit didn't have to beat me over the head (sometimes that has been necessary but not this time) ... He was telling me to continue in this work and ministry of catechesis. 

So, yeah - I'll be back next year ... with another group of 8th graders ...

We are such single-issue people ... Yeah Right

Jeff Miller in his blog, The Curt Jester, writes about Prez Obama's choosing Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary. His statements regarding Sebelius and her staunch pro-abortion position, about Obama's arrogance in pushing her appointment forward, and about the support given Sebelius by faux-Catholic groups such as "Catholics for Sebelius" and "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good" are quite charitable. He doesn't dance around the truth ... calls it clearly as it is: disobedience.

It must touch a nerve, because one commenter writes:

Arrogance - The Curt Jester via kwout

Such a false dichotomy ... this is dishonest to say the least. And how many times have I heard this!?! Too many, quite frankly.
The first problem here is that one cannot even dream to receive a living wage unless one is actually - well - living! And what could possibly be a greater assault on social justice than killing a baby in what should be the safest place on the planet (its mother's womb)? Yet, all snark and sarcasm aside ... the argument presented by this commentor is simply false.

There is no distinction between the right to life insofar as our opposing abortion and the right to life insofar as everyone being worthy of diginity by having decent health care, a living wage, etc.

Bottom line here is that if one professes to be a Catholic (and a faithful one at that) then one must follow Church teaching obediently in its entirety. And it is the Church that presents the most complete, most comprehensive, and most compassionate teachings on the entirety of life and diginity of each person.

From my experience it is only those who are abortion supporters that make the very false distinction like this commentor.

Great Story from a Catholic Dad

(source: Catholic Dads)

We have a small crucifix that we didn't realize was in the range of
Kenny's growing reach. It disappeared one day this week and got mixed
in with his toys. A short while later, a two year old being a two year
old, the crucifix was launched from the living room and landed in the
dining room, separating the corpus from the cross. Rosey gathered the
pieces, explained to Kenny how we have to show respect for sacred
objects (and that, for that matter, throwing ANYTHING inside the house
isn't permitted) and assured him that I would fix it when I got home
from work. So what was I greeted with when I arrived home? Kenny runs
to me yelling: "Daddy puts Jesus back on the cross! Daddy puts Jesus
back on the cross!" I'm told he'd been repeating it most of the
afternoon.

Touche, my son. Touche! To be more precise, I helped put him there in the first place. But point taken. Bring on Lent.

The NYT Dunces on Indulgences - FAIL

Read this and your brain will turn to mush ... you will become stupid - guaranteed. If one of my students wrote this and turned it in they would get a big, fat, red F. That this article gets an okay from an editor is beyond the pale.

It's not even worth fisking because there's so little substance to it. There is, however, an attempt to state church teaching ... which Paul Vitello, the author of this terrible piece, gets gloriously and tremendously wrong ... as in this gem of ignorance:

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the
confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they
still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter
heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in
special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or
erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

FAIL!

New rule - if you deign to use the phrase "according to church teaching," then you must consult church teaching via the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's not like this is some sort of hidden or secret book ... heck! you can even access it online!
So, let's look at what the CCC has to say:

[1471] What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guild has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church, which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfaction of Christ and the saints." (footnote 81: Paul VI, apostolic constitution)

There now ... that wasn't so hard ... was it?

The article just gets worse from there. Perhaps saddest of all are some of the comments from self-identifying "faithful Catholics" like this one (heavy sigh):

Here's a tip, if you are going to profess faithfulness to Christ's church, then you should learn what the Church indeed teaches and not rely on the poor catechesis you received from Sr. Kumbaya or Fr. I'm-Okay-You're-Okay-Just-Get-Along.

So, get off that cross already! - When even that wouldn't be enough

Patrick Madrid posted a video of how things looked at Fatima in 1917. I then went to YouTube to see it again.

Sometimes when I visit YouTube I'll look at the comments made by viewers ... I know that there will likely be some rather humorous or inane, if not outright stupid, comments - especially if they have anything to do with the Catholic Church. There was one comment for this video that had a lot to do with some discussions I've had with my students ... that of evil in this world. Here's the comment:

I was immediately reminded of the New Testament account during our Lord's crucifixion: "Let's see him come down from that cross and then we will believe in him." (Matthew 27:42) This commentor seemed to be of that same mind.
Part of the "yeah - but" line of thinking ... 'yeah, okay, this Jesus cured, healed, expelled demons, even raised his buddy from the dead; but we're still not sure ... hey! now if he were to get off that cross (something REALLY big!) then we might - just might - believe.'

Yeah right.

Not sure I understand why scandalous Catholics get away with this stuff

So, Speaker Nancy Pelosi did it again. American Papist has been reporting on this since it broke earlier in the week.

When she inserted her foot in it during last year's campaign - showing how utterly clueless she is regarding both Church history and Church teaching - it was nice to see many of our Bishops respond with letters rebuking her points of idiocy and scandal.

But here's what I don't understand ...

A non-Catholic friend of mine noted that he understood, although he is a Christian, is not allowed to receive the Eucharist because he is not in communion with the Church. He has some doctrinal differences of opinion, as it were. Since he does not profess to believe nor follow all of Church teaching, as he does not acknowledge the Magisterium, he is not in union with us ... therefore he cannot present himself to receive.
Got it ...

He went on to then ask why is it that a public official who clearly and obstinately dissents from the Church's teaching, which demonstrates that this official is not in communion with the Church (in a similar way as he is not in communion) ... that this official is unapologetic in dissent and this gives rise to a terrible scandal for others
Why is she allowed to present herself and receive the Eucharist?

Look - I'm not advocating that Pelosi (and Biden, Kerry, and others of their CINO brand) be excommunicated in a formal act (frankly I do not have any expertise in Canon Law at all!) of declaration by their respective Bishops. It does seem fairly obvious, however, that Pelosi and gang are not in communion (their public, persistent, obstinate, and scandalous statements and actions).

Inasmuch as I respect the approach of "individuals who are aware of being in a state of serious sin should not present themselves for receiving communion" in that no priest or extraordinary minister of the Eucharist has the right (morally, pastorally and juridically) to judge the state of someone's soul ... this same approach allows for so much relativistic wiggle room. Hence Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, and co. had no problems presenting themselves for communion during the Papal Mass.

Back the conundrum posed by my friend ...

As the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and as it is the most precious gift from our Lord Jesus ... many martyrs and saints having defended the Eucharist, not because of any symbolic meaning but because it is truly and really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ ...
When one receives the Eucharist, one is publicly stating that she/he is in full communion with the Body of Christ and His Church ... that the communion is in existence and not that it is a hoped-for reality ...

Why don't our Bishops - at least those who head the dioceses of Pelosi and gang - come out so clearly as to be plain that Nancy cannot present herself to receive. ... Period ... The End ...

If not, then, how can I even begin to answer my friend's question?

"Sincere faithful people" - huh?!?

So - this week started with euphoria for so many and ended with a "not surprised" for many others. It is not surprising that Prez OHB reversed the Mexico City Policy (and will very likely reinstate funding for UNFPA). And we who hadn't drunk the kool aid say, "not surprised."

OHB lied and will continue to lie.

And yet I get assailed by snarky remarks from other Catholic brothers and sisters who managed to convince themselves voting for OHB was not only acceptable but preferable in spite of his pro-abortion voting record both as a state senator and federal senator. I've also witnessed conversations in Twitter like this one on so many occassions:
... where a Catholic going by the Twitter id "noebie" resorts to a very common tactic I've witnessed over and over again ... he retorts that his faith is being called into question or that he is being judged in some malicious, or at the very least in a completely erroneous, way.
As though he and others of the Kmiec brand are martyrs for a just and worthy cause - that of full support for OHB who has shown time and time again an outright disdain for the unborn. It's a deflection - not a real response to the issue itself ...

Well, noebie, OHB has indeed now done something entirely objectionable (as you have snarked in your tweet above). I am not surprised that he did this and that he will continue to pass executive orders or lobby for legislation and such that are directly opposed to life and dignity of the unborn.
I'm willing to bet, too, that noebie's response (and many other OHB fans) will engage in more doublethink to appease their conscience ...
It will likely get dressed up in misguided rhetoric of 'concern for the poor' or other nonsensical dribble.

Barry's Reasons for Running, "what I want for every child in this nation"

Parade magazine posts an open letter from Barack to his two daughters ... giving his reasons for running for President. And Yahoo news reports the same.

Hmmmmmmm: "...In the end, girls, that's why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation. ... I want every child to have the same chances to learn and dream and grow and thrive that you girls have."

Except, of course, for unborn children.

The open letter is replete with fine rhetoric; however, it remains to be seen that these are indeed the real reasons for his run for the White House. Rhetoric is one thing; records and actions are others - and these are for what I and many will be waiting.

Good luck, Mr Obama. I sure wouldn't want the job you now have.

Conversations about FOCA - part 1

I'm rarely surprised by the lengths to which people will go to avoid admitting mistakes or to paint others as nitwits, polarizers, idiots or alarmists. Such is the case with many recent discussions I'm having about the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Obama had promised to sign into law as among the first things he'd do when President. That this will become law is really of little doubt in that it's something that both the House and Senate have already prepared ... And it would be quite easy for them to pass FOCA and present for Prez Obama's signature.

And yet, among those with whom I had conversations pre-election about why they'd vote for Obama I am having some interesting conversations with them now about FOCA. These conversations seem to fall into the following categories:

1. "I prefer to read the actual language and not rely on anyone's interpretation"
2. FOCA is not going to be signed into law given the current economic and terrorist problems
3. I and others like me are really alarmists because FOCA isn't really as bad as we make it out to be
   

The first point (the "I will read it for myself" camp) is nonsense. Every piece of legislation is interpreted ... whether by the Executive branch which has to come up with the regulations (which are indeed interpretations) to enact and enforce the law, or by the Judiciary which interprets the scope and boundaries of the law. There is just no way around this fact. Legislation is interpreted - period.
And what we have with FOCA is a record of what the legislative language could and likely be. Both the House and Senate have versions of their previous attempts; and it would stand to reason that the new language will be quite similar.
So, we are already able to apply possible interpretations. And frankly they don't bode well.

Slate: Back to the FOCA question » GetReligion via kwout

Like this guy's comments from a Slate article ... "can someone please show me the language ... that clearly delineates ... blah blah blah"

Ummmmm no such language exists per se; however, it is reasonable to interpret that this is precisely what FOCA would require.

The second part of the quoted section above is just obfuscation. FOCA makes no provision for conscience or faith objections. Abortion on demand, which would become a Federal right under FOCA, involves the intent to kill the child. Such is not the case when ministering to a mother with an ectopic, or tubal, pregnancy.

Yet somehow, in spite of the glaring fact that all laws are indeed interpreted I still have folks offer up the "I will read it for myself and not let someone interpret for me" argument. For me this is just personal pride in the face of an intrinsic evil being codified as an absolute right.

A Clarification as to Why

It has been running through my mind of late and I think it appropriate to state the purpose of this blog - which may be of interest to the three or so folks who actually read this. In a nutshell, this is a way for me to have a dialog with myself in a public way.

As the title of my blog suggests I will be posting (hopefully on a more regular basis) on how one - namely me - can come to know God, to serve Him and to love Him. I take this from my old CCD days where we memorized the questions and answers in the Baltimore Catechism ...

Why did God create you?
God created me so that I can know Him, to love Him and to serve him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.

This blog is my reflection on what it means and the challenges faced in being Catholic as I journey in this world. Much of the experiences and challenges have to do with (and will continue to be so) being a catechist for middle-school aged children. However, this blog is not solely about that. It will include postings of any type as they affect me from a Catholic view of the world and events around me.

It is my attempt to be a faithful son of Holy Mother Church who struggles each and every day with being a witness of Christ.

One day in a year

Did a quick calculation ... in terms of our formal religious education program ...
Each class is 70 minutes long
There are approximately 20 classes per year
That's 1400 minutes in a year, or a little less than one day (23.3 hours) of formal religious education in a year.

Consider, then, that our program is eight years long total (from grade 1 through grade 8), the children are given a grand total of a little more than 186 hours ... about 8 days of formal religious education.

As much as the quality of content may have improved over the years (actual catechesis and not the kumbaya-I'm-okay-you're-okay type of class), there is just so little time.

Oh really?!?

From a colleague's blog:

I normally don’t write about politics here but today isn’t normal. I
wake up feeling so much better - so much more hopeful - knowing that we
have elected someone that is listening. To everyone.

Everyone that is except for the most innocent and helpless among us whose voice will continue to be silenced in the most barbaric way.

"Little Murders" by Arbp Chaput

Powerful stuff as Archbishop Chaput gives an address to ENDOW ... definitely a must read - particularly as he unravels the subverted reasoning (dishonesty) of those Catholics who believe the Obama is somehow in concert with life issues (he's not!) ... be sure to read the entire address

Prof. Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation
in his past. He served in the Reagan administration, and he supported
Mitt Romney's campaign for president before switching in a very public
way to Barack Obama earlier this year. In his own book he quotes from Render Unto Caesar at some length. In fact, he
suggests that his reasoning and mine are ''not far distant on the moral
inquiry necessary in the election of 2008.'' Unfortunately, he either
misunderstands or misuses my words, and he couldn't be more mistaken.


I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is
the most committed ''abortion-rights'' presidential candidate of either
major party since the Roe v. Wade
abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party
platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively
''pro-choice;'' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an
unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide
against the unborn child - and let's remember that the great Lutheran
pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ''murder'' - the
Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly
anti-life.


Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator
Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that
could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion
and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret
abortion creates.


To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's
''real'' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis,
or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party
presidential ticket as the preferred ''prolife'' option is to subvert
what the word ''prolife'' means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama's
record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert
P. George's Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ''Obama's Abortion Extremism,'' and his follow-up article, ''Obama and Infanticide.'' They say everything that needs to be said.



Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private
citizen. But I'm grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and
giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think
his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly
groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common
Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural
priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress
prolifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to
abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and
at the ballot box to protect the unborn.


And here's the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced
in favor of Senator Obama are new. They've been around, in one form or
another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ''get beyond''
abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a
better society where abortion won't be necessary. All of them involve a
misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And
all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then
counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less
foundational social issues.


This is a great sadness. As Chicago's Cardinal Francis George said
recently, too many Americans have ''no recognition of the fact that
children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in
a country drenched in blood. This can't be something you start playing
off pragmatically against other issues.''


Meanwhile, the basic human rights violation at the heart of
abortion - the intentional destruction of an innocent, developing human
life - is wordsmithed away as a terrible crime that just can't be fixed
by the law. I don't believe that. I think that argument is a fraud. And
I don't think any serious believer can accept that argument without
damaging his or her credibility. We still have more than a million
abortions a year, and we can't blame them all on Republican social
policies. After all, it was a Democratic president, not a Republican,
who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - twice.


The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has
never been a comfortable cause. It's embarrassing. It's not the kind of
social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their
natural political alliances. And because the homicides involved in
abortion are ''little murders'' - the kind of private, legally
protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives - it's easy to
look the other way.


The one genuinely new quality to Catholic arguments for Senator Obama
is their packaging. Just as the abortion lobby fostered ''Catholics for
a Free Choice'' to challenge Catholic teaching on abortion more than
two decades ago, so supporters of Senator Obama have done something
similar in seeking to neutralize the witness of bishops and the
pro-life movement by offering a ''Catholic'' alternative to the
Church's priority on sanctity of life issues. I think it's an
intelligent strategy. I also think it's wrong and often dishonest.

New blog for Catholic Teens

found this site: No Question Left Behind ...

Looks like something very worthwhile ...

Check it thou out

And so today is the first day of class

Religious Ed school year officially starts today - with the first day of classes.
This year's focus is going to be much more on the Catechism (frankly, I think each year of Religious Ed should focus on the Catechism).

I'm looking forward to having some fun with the students ... and being able to delve into Church teachings and the like ... my first challenge is being able to make Dei Verbum accessible to 8th-graders ... since our first discussion will be around "how do we come to know God?" (or better yet ... how does God reveal himself? - since it is God who must condescend in order for us to truly know him).

 

from CatholicVote-dot-com

Check out: CatholicVote.com

Religious Ed School Year about to begin

I've tweeted about how happy I am that this year will focus more on actual-honest-real catechism ... teaching the teachings of Mother Church and no longer going down the path of "I'm okay, you're okay" nonsense.

In fact, our Pastor had wanted to purchase a copy of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (eventually decided not to do so).

So, I'm working to get lesson materials and lesson plans together.

As I do so, I'll start blogging again as one way of publicly reflecting on what's happening in this new school year.

Great Reading: A Vote for Sarah Palin

A Democrat gives reasons why her party is just plain wrong.

Check it, thou, out ...

Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the
Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that
party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of
elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it
back.

Mr O Is Such a Hypocrite (and this is surprising?!?)

Update: New York Sun has some interesting news here ...

 

If this reporting is accurate ... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080817/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_religion)

Obama said America's greatest moral failure is its insufficient help to the disadvantaged. He noted that the Bible quotes Jesus as saying "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." He said the maxim should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism.

... then Obama is more hypocritical and full of hubris than even I imagined him to be (which was a lot to begin with!).

Ummmm ... what of the very least among us - innocent babies? And particularly babies born alive after a failed abortion?

Ironically, too, is that the mega-abortion provider who turns quite a profit killing our children (aka Planned Parenthood) targets minority communities and people of color quite disproportionately. But then again, Margaret Sanger was no racist or elitist. Yeah right ...

 

Update: Jill Stanek posted some breaking news ... Breaking news: Obama campaign changes story, admits he misrepresented Born Alive vote ..

Although he is still trying to squirm away ...

I'm shocked! Simply Shocked! - NOT

New York Times article titled Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection ... apparently a tablet has been discovered dating only decades before the birth of Jesus ... and it (get ready for it!)

may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days

You mean to tell me that there is the likelihood of Jesus actually fulfilling Old Testament prophecies? I'm simply shocked! because as the NYT continues to say ...

Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

It can't be! ... all snarkiness aside (which this article deserves much of) ... this is something that my 8th-grade students even know - that Jesus was indeed Jewish ... that He is the fullness of Revelation, which began with the Jewish people centuries before Him.  

I'm not quite sure what this scholar means by this tidbit:

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

In reading the rest of the article, I've come to a conclusion that it is the "uniqueness" of faux scholarship's theology (ya know ... the likes of Elaine Pagels and neoGnostics and the like ... all who just clamor on that Jesus was an alien from another planet, or that he was a hippie, or a Communist, or ____________ (fill in the blank with any half-baked, half-brained label).

that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day

Of course, (ahem) scholars of today are sooooooo much more knowledgeable than oh - I dunno - say - the early written accounts by the - ummm - Gospel writers and St. Paul and Church Fathers.

Yeah - right ......

That the average Joe and Mary Catholic are not going to be perplexed or challenged by this in any way (did I mention that even my 8th grade students know that Jesus was Jewish?!?).

Laity Pledge to Humanae Vitae

(H/T to Jean M. Heimann)

To [Christian married couples] the Lord entrusts the task of making visible to men the holiness and sweetness of the law which unites the mutual love of husband and wife with their cooperation with the love of God the author of human life. [Pope Paul VI, Humanae vitae, ¶25].

It may seem odd to take a pledge to do what we are supposed to do anyway - follow the teachings of the Church. By our baptism and confirmation we are already vowed, at least implicitly, to do so. But we are living under special circumstances in a secular society where many Catholics have, knowingly or unknowingly supplanted their faith with another code by which they live, deeming it more "realistic." But nothing is more realistic or "practical" than eternal salvation and living this life in accord with God's designs.

This July will mark forty years since Humanae Vitae, and Human Life International has launched the Humanae Vitae Initiative to make Catholics aware of the grave dangers of the contraceptive lie and to try and undo the terrible damage done by the dissenters of Humanae Vitae. We need you to help HLI conduct a nationwide effort to get as many of our fellow Catholics as possible to take the Humanae Vitae Pledge to help rebuild our beloved Catholic Church here in the United States! So please fill out the pledge below, and encourage other Catholics to do the same!

So why do we pledge to assent to something as beautiful as God's natural designs? Something, which in a less darkened world that ought to go without saying? For two reasons, at least:
First, as an act of reparation for forty years of public dissent that led so many people astray by treating this ignorance of our Church as some kind of "enlightenment" or "liberation."

Second as an act of witness and assent to counter the anti-witness of this dissent, which brought so much incalculable damage to our Church and world, and indeed the witness of the Church. We stand up as confessors of the Faith. In the ancient Church, after the great martyrdoms ceased, those who stood for the Faith in a hostile climate were known as confessors of the Faith.In taking this pledge we stand with the martyrs and confessors of the past in giving public witness not only to the Truth of our Church but her beauty.

Human Life International has an ongoing campaign of collecting this Pledge from clergy members and seminarians. This week we announce and offer a similar pledge to members of the lay faithful.To sign the Pledge electronically, click here. To download a pdf copy of the Pledge to sign and distribute to others to sign please go here. [Laity Pledge in PDF]

We recommend pastors include it as a bulletin insert and lay people distribute it among friends and family.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

Yet another example of sin making you stupid

Caught from Jay Anderson's excellent blog : Socialists Call for Pope's Arrest in Australia

Resistance, a member of the NoToPope Coalition, is advocating the pontiff's arrest on the basis of his continued stand against contraception.
Resistance spokeswoman Lauren Carroll Harris said the Pope's view constituted a conspiracy to murder, because the church's opposition to condoms leads to more people becoming infected with HIV.

Ummmmm ... I remember hearing this nonsense during John Paul II the Great's pontificate. Utter nonsense. But logic and clear thinking isn't really a hallmark of these morons.

After all it's, like, been going on since, like, forever - so just get over it

Okay - a young (teenaged) couple are in bed and they hear mom or dad approaching. How many think that the young man would just stay there in the arms of the young girl, and address Dad like so ... "Gee Mr. Dad, your daughter and I are really in love and we decided to show our love to one another. And because this is a natural expression of our love together, I wanted to let you know."

Yeah - riiiiiiiiiiight. Better bet that the young man would try to leap back into his clothes and get out of Dodge before Dad or Mom gets into the room.

So, JC Penny is up in arms with their ad agency Satchi & Satchi over an unauthorized commercial which has been making its way throughout YouTube titled "Speed Dressing." What is even more disturbing is not the ad itself (which is highly disturbing to begin with) as much as many of the comments offered by folks.

The video's premise is that a teenaged boy and girl are practicing putting their clothes on as quickly as possible with the intent of having sex in the girl's home. Mom is at home, so the two teens go into the basement - the girl telling Mom that they're going to watch some TV. All of this in a a 1-minute video accompanied by some pseudo-Phillip Glass-esque soundtrack.

The basic gist of most commentors is - everyone's doing it ... teens are doing it ... what's the big deal? Which then quickly turns into a 'get over yourself' reply should anyone express even mild disapproval of the video.

OMG-Get over yourself people. This ad is professional, creative, thoughtful, and well-done. Very pertinent in today's society.

A news report on whatever can be "very pertinent in today's society" because it addresses what in fact happened. But it doesn't have to excuse (nor celebrate) the sin. But of course, I'm such a fuddy-duddy in thinking that morality and objective truth are oh-so-passe ... and who apparently doesn't have a life as this commentor so kindly pointed out ...

to the bed-wetting fuddy-duddies getting their knickers in a twist over this: get lives, why don't you?

To quote Mark Shea ... Sin Makes You Stupid! 

(video link)

Sunday Funny (hitting a bit close to home)

Saw this on Jill Stanek's blog .. from Glenn McCoy, June 20:

Short and to the point. On Mr. McCoy's site, though, it seems to have hit a sore spot with one commentor who writes:

A shameful misrepresentation of the abortion issue from a cartoonist who
obviously has no respect for women and their right to choose if and when to give
birth.

Question - what's the misrepresentation in this?

Obama fully supports infanticide by allowing children from "botched" abortions to die once they are born. The baby is born at this point. Whether or not the mother had wanted to abort the child is not what's called into question by this cartoon. It seems that proaborts can only try to deflect this issue by bringing up an irrelevant point or through ad hominem attacks (as this commentor does). I think we're going to see more and more of this as Obama's pro abort position gets more attention.

The punditry of trying to have it both ways

Associated Press writer, Christopher Wills, reports on Obama's speech to a church congregation exhorting men to be proper fathers to their children.

"Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father," he said. "It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

This is true to some extent; however, I would suggest that fatherhood does indeed begin at the moment of conceiving the baby.

But what exactly is Obama's difficulty here? By ensuring that abortion be unrestricted and unrestrained ... just go ahead and cajole entice pressure your baby's mother to kill the child and you're off the hook. Apparently you were never a father in the first place.

Then the AP writer, Mr. Wills, gets a bit gushy ...

Obama often speaks about the importance of parental involvement. (Me here: except of course when it comes to parental notification should their daughter be driven across state lines to have an abortion. Then there is no involvement necessary nor desired.)

In Washington, he's sponsoring legislation to get more child support money to children by offering a tax credit for fathers who pay support, more efficient collection and penalties for fathers who don't meet their obligations.

The issue adds to his family values credentials (Me again: WHAT credentials?!? viewing babies as punishments and supporting infanticide are not the type of credentials I'd be proud of ... but then again, we are talking about the Presidential Messiah here) and lets voters see him delivering a stern message to black voters

Obama is trying to have it both ways ... his rhetoric in this speech being clearly at odds with his voting record. And this Associated Press writer's characterization that somehow Moloch Obama has credentials as a family-values candidate.

Screwtape must be so pleased.

Dear Dad ...

Happy Father's Day, dad.

It's been 11 years since I last saw you, last heard your voice, last felt your touch. Would that we could spend this day together ... taking a walk down to the lake, firing up the barbecue, or just sitting together in the living room. Know that you have been and remain in my prayers.