Isn't it Time?

A Sixth Catholic on the Supreme Court?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:32:00 +0000

News sites are abuzz this morning with the question of what it will mean if Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, a nominal Roman Catholic, is confirmed.

Probably nothing at all.

It rather seems like the beginning of a joke: "How many Catholics does it take on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? Five? Six? Guess again.

But the joke's on us.

According to a White House official, Sotomayor "was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events." I don't know what family celebrations this is talking about. Birthday parties? I take it this is meant to suggest that she doesn't attend Mass every week. The Lord's Day, apparently, isn't an important event--not even though it is a holy day of obligation, required by the 3rd Commandment, and is celebrated (as it always is in Catholic Parishes) with the Holy Eucharist. If God changing bread and wine into His Body and Blood and giving it to us to eat and drink for our salvation isn't an "important event", I wonder what is.

As reported by Belief.net and First Things, the nominee said in 2007:

"There is no such thing as a 'Catholic judge.' The bottom line is that the Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work as a judge...Just as there is no 'Catholic' way to cook a hamburger, I am hard pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I were not Catholic."

Clearly. The Catholic faith doesn't seem to have much effect on Judge Sotomayer at all. Besides, how would she know how to cook a Catholic hamburger anyway. Why cook when you can go to the cafeteria?

Most Americans Disagree with Notre Dame Invitation

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:54:00 +0000

Notre Dame Honor for Obama Seen as Mistake
Poll Reveals Majority Disagrees With University

NEW YORK, MAY 7, 2009 (Zenit.org).- More than half of all Americans oppose the University of Notre Dame's decision to honor President Barack Obama with an honorary degree, according to a Rasmussen poll.

The telephone survey, released Tuesday, asked 1,000 adults if the university should be giving the president an honorary degree, given the 2004 guidelines established by U.S. bishops stating that Catholic institutions should not honor people whose actions conflict with the Church's moral principles. Fifty-two percent of those polled said no, and among Catholics, 60% said no.
The statement of the U.S. bishops says: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
Only 25% of those polled agreed with the university's decision, and 19% said they were unsure.
When asked if it's important that commencement speakers for universities with a religious affiliation share the religious views of that university, nearly two-thirds (63%) said yes. Of Catholics, 56% said yes, while 87% of evangelicals answered in the affirmative, along with 63% of other Protestants.

While the majority disagrees with the university's decision to honor the president, only 30% of American adults believe the president should cancel his appearance at Notre Dame. Among Catholics, just 34% think Obama should cancel.

Of those polled, 15% say they are following the story "very closely," and another 23% are following it "somewhat closely."

Among Catholics, 25% are following the story "very closely," and another 27% are following it "somewhat closely."

Mr. Terry, follow the Bishop.

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:23:00 +0000

The latest news in the Notre Dame Scandel is that Mr. Randall Terry, along with Alan Keyes, is planning another protest with the hopes of being arrested, and is encouraging area pro-lifers to join him. All this in opposition to the wishes of our Bishop John D'Arcy.

I had not realized that Randall Terry had converted to Catholicism until this present news coverage, and frankly, I am appalled by his actions in defiance of our Bishop and his venomous response. Unlike Mr. Terry, Bishop D'Arcy has chosen the high road of pastoral leadership rather than public, self-indulgent grandstanding.

When Mr. Terry became Catholic, he pledged "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." This pledge requires us to be faithful to (and respectful of) our Bishop. Consider these words of St. Ignatius:

"Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 6:1.

"Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, [being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1.

"Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according to the flesh], and as the Apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2.

"follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 9:1.

He that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the devil" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 9:1.

And another point needs to be made. Fr. Jenkin's has grieviously sinned against the Holy Spirit in opposing the Bishops. Mr. Terry, and those who follow him, are guilty of the same sin. By rejecting the pastoral leadership of Bishop D'Arcy, Mr. Terry sends a message to all Catholics that it is okay to do what you want, regardless of what the bishop says.

Actions speak louder than words. And Mr. Terry's actions are no different than those of Fr. Jenkins, and the host of Cafeteria Catholics who refuse to support the Church's teaching on Abortion.

Mr. Terry, if you're not going to act like a Catholic, go back from whence you came.

Declining Support for Legalized Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:35:00 +0000

From The Bulletin

Survey: Abortion Support Falls 8 Percent

By JOHN P. CONNOLLY, The Bulletin
Monday, May 04, 2009

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows that the number of people who support legalized abortion has fallen by 8 percent.

According to the survey, 46 percent of people polled were in favor of legalized abortion, a drop from 54 percent last August.

The survey, conducted from March 31 to April 21 and sampling 1,521 adults, showed that 43 percent of men and 49 percent of women thought that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Those numbers decreased from when the same question asked in August 2008, where 53 percent of men and 54 percent of women said abortion should be legal in most cases.

While 42 percent of both men and women said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases in August, the number of men opposed to legal abortion rose to 46 percent. The number of women opposed to abortion remained at 42 percent in the recent poll.

“There has been notable decline in the proportion of independents saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases; majorities of independents favored legal abortion in August and the two October surveys, but just 44 percent do so today,” said the survey report. “In addition, the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans saying abortion should be legal declined between August and late October — from 67 percent to 57 percent. In the current survey, just 43 percent of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should legal in most or all cases.”

When broken down by religion, mainline Protestants showed a 15 percent decrease in abortion support since August, dropping to 54 percent from 69 percent support. The 33 percent support for abortion from evangelical Protestants fell by 10 percent to 23 percent. Among non-Hispanic Catholics, 49 percent favored abortion, down from 51 percent in August and 55 percent in October.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us

The War in Iraq and Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:33:00 +0000

In the uproar over the Notre Dame scandel, Mary Ann Glendon has come under fire for her supposed hypocrisy for accepting her appointment to the Vatican by the George Bush, but refusing to recieve the Laetare award from Notre Dame. The first criticism of this sort I dismissed as just more nonsense from brain-dead liberals who did too much LSD in the sixties and seventies. But now, it seems, the argument is being advanced by those I would expect to know better.

An example, here in Friday's USA Today.

When I was in college, I remember marching against abortion at the University of Michigan Diag. One counter protester, a young woman approached me and asked if I was in favor of the death penalty. I said that I was (today I would answer differently). She proceeded to "expose" my hypocrisy. I was dumbfounded. So I asked her. So you feel that both Abortion and Capital Punishment are wrong. She said, "No." "So you think they are both morally permissable." Again, she said no. "I am against Captital Punishment, but respect a woman's right to abortion."

My point was simple, even if she didn't see it, and eventually became so angry that further discussion was pointless. If Christians are hyprocritical for opposing abortion and favoring capital punishment, then the otherside is equally hypocritical for the opposite view point. Their position, is by their own standard, horribly inconsistent.

At least with the death penalty, it is the guilty (at least it is hoped) who pay. With abortion, children are executed without presumption of innocence, trial and the right to appeal. Moreover, at least an argument can be made in favor of capital punishment in so far as it's goal it to protect the lives of innocent people by executing violent offenders and by establishing a deterant to such crimes (how effective that deterant is, however, is hotly debated.) I can respect this argument, even if in disagreement.

Likewise, if any argument can be made to justify the war in Iraq, it must be made on the grounds of saving lives. Can't that argument be reasonably made? (Even if you disagree with it?)

But if you are against the war in Iraq on the grounds that it is immoral to take human life, on what grounds can you defend abortion? To argue that the lives of terrorists and rapists, but unborn children, should be protected is not only hypocritical. It's reprehensible.

Bishop praises Democratic Abortion Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:58:00 +0000

Yeah, I know.

Any talk from the Democratic leadership suggesting that they want to reduce the number of abortions is hollow. And I have a suspicion that some of this comes from the so-called Catholic pro-choice democrats who want to answer the criticism they have been receiving. Let me be the first (o.k. I'm sure I'm not the first) to say, "NOT ENOUGH! Abortion is genecide, and we will not be happy until you understand that.

On the other hand, if this bill is really going to save some unborn lives, then I am all for it. That is, the bottom line. But that is a big "if." Who knows what the Bill will look like once it reaches the oval office. I'm not optimistic.

From US News and World Report:

U.S Bishops' Pro-Life Chief Praises Democrats Abortion Reduction Bill
April 24, 2009 03:13 PM ET

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

When's the last time you heard Catholic bishops praise the Democrats on the abortion issue? Don't worry—I can't remember either.

But Cardinal Justin Rigali, who chairs the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a letter today urging passage of the Pregnant Women Support Act, the Democrats' main legislative vehicle for their "abortion reduction" program. During Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, Rigali quietly convened a meeting of antiabortion activists to devise a strategy to combat an expected Obama/Democratic assault on antiabortion policies, so this is a significant development.

Rigali has written to all members of the House of Representatives urging support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, which was introduced this week by Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Democrat from Tennessee.

I'll be watching to see how antiabortion groups and antiabortion Republican lawmakers react to the bill. Much of the antiabortion movement has been highly skeptical of the Democrats' abortion reduction plan so far, but it's going to be tough to challenge the antiabortion bona fides of the Catholic bishops' pro-life committee chief.

Read the full text of Rigali's letter here.

An excerpt from the Conference of Catholic Bishops' press release:

"The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable, and most engaged in making a decision about life or death for their unborn children," Cardinal Rigali said.

The Cardinal said that the PWSA offers "an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues."

"There are some statements that almost everyone can endorse. First, the fact that over a million abortions take place every year in this country is a tragedy, and we should at least take steps to reduce abortions," said Cardinal Rigali.

"Second, no woman should ever have to undergo an abortion because she feels she has no other choice, or because alternatives were unavailable or not made known to her. An abortion performed under such social and economic duress meets no one's standard for 'freedom of choice'," the Cardinal continued.

Video exposes Planned Parenthood

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:25:00 +0000

from Foxnews.com.

Planned Parenthood Tells 'Teen': Lie To Get an Abortion
Friday , December 05, 2008

A college student posing as a pregnant 13-year-old was told at a Planned Parenthood clinic to lie about the age of her baby's father to skirt Indiana laws on parental consent for abortion and on reporting child sex abuse.

According to a report in the Washington Times, Lila Rose, 20, went undercover as a 13-year old named "Brianna," who said she was pregnant by a 31-year old man. Rose, president of a pro-life organization at UCLA, recorded the interaction with a hidden camera; the video has been posted on YouTube.

Click here to see the video.

The video shows "Diana," a nurse at Planned Parenthood in Bloomington, Ind., telling Brianna that she is required to report the pregnancy to Child Protective Services, because it "could be reported as rape." But she goes on to tell Brianna that if she lies about the age and identity of her baby's father, she can avoid turning him in.

"I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age," Diana says in the video.

She tells Brianna, "You've seen him around, you know he's 14, he's in your grade and whatever. You know what I mean?"

Indiana law requires that sexual acts between an adult and children under 14 be reported to law enforcement and Child Protective Services.

The nurse also is seen giving Brianna information on where to get an abortion in Illinois, where parental notification laws are not enforced.

The Washington Times reported that Rose said her organization had taped several examples of similar conduct.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana suspended the nurse on Wednesday, the Times said, and issued a statement.

"We are deeply concerned about the content of the video. ... The apparent actions of the employee would be in violation of our strict policies and procedures," Betty Cockrum, the state chapter's president, said in the statement.

The organization said it would investigate the incident.

Click here to read more on this story from The Washington Times.

Bishop says: Take a "flying leap"!

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:16:00 +0000

Catholic Bishop to Defy Freedom of Choice Act, if it Becomes Law
Monday, December 01, 2008
By Matthew Hadro

(CNSNews.com) - Bishop Paul Loverde of the Roman Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., said last week that if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) should become law and a Catholic hospital in his diocese is forced to provide abortions, he would refuse to let the hospital comply, but he would also not close the institution.

Though there are no Catholic hospitals in his diocese, the bishop nevertheless was defiant: “I would say, ‘Yeah, I’m not going to close the hospital, you’re going to arrest me, go right ahead. You’ll have to drag me out, go right ahead. I’m not closing this hospital, we will not perform abortions, and you can go take a flying leap.’ ”

According to the catechism – or official teachings -- of the Catholic Church, Catholics are “obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.”

Catholics may refuse to obey civil authorities, “when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience.”

Loverde addressed the crowd of mostly young adults at a diocesan event last Monday about the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

In 2007, President-elect Obama publicly promised a Planned Parenthood convention that signing FOCA into law would be one of the first things he would do upon taking office.

The bill has not been approved by Congress, but seems poised to do so when the new Congress convenes in January. It would prohibit government from “interfering” with a woman’s right to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability -- or after fetal viability if a mother’s health is at risk.

The government also may not “discriminate” against or deny the exercise of women’s rights to choice “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”

The legislation has been interpreted by many, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), to mean that all hospitals and healthcare institutions would be mandated to perform abortions – or face the loss of federal funding and likely closure if they refuse to do so.

“It’s quite a title, let me tell you,” Bishop Loverde said, concerning FOCA. “It’s a misnomer, it’s neither free nor choice, so I don’t know where they got the name of the act, because it’s just crazy, because it has no freedom, and it has no choice, nobody has a choice for abortion.”

The bishop said that the law, if enacted, would deprive everyone of conscientious objection to abortion.

“It will take away the right of Catholic hospitals not to do abortions, which I suspect would close them,” Loverde said.

Under the proposed bill, any individual “aggrieved” by a violation of her “right to give birth or terminate a pregnancy” may file a civil suit in federal court.

At the USCCB’s fall general assembly in Baltimore, the bishops approved an 830-word, untitled statement condemning the Freedom of Choice Act, calling it "an evil law that would further divide our country."

One bishop, the Rt. Rev. Thomas J. Paprocki, auxiliary bishop of Chicago, pointed out that, if the government mandates that all health-care institutions perform abortions, it would not be enough for the Church merely to sell a hospital to another organization that would perform abortions.

“We would need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely,” Paprocki said.

Cardinal Francis George, the head of the U.S. Catholic Conference, hinted at closures while answering questions at a news conference during the fall general assembly.

When asked what the ramifications would be if Catholic hospitals were forced to take a stand against FOCA, George replied, “I think you can guess as much as I can. Sure, you have one-third fewer facilities for health care in the country than you have now, wouldn’t you, at least in the state of Illinois.”

An Amazing and Heroic Story from China

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:03:00 +0000

November 22, 2008
Protest saves woman from forced abortion in China

Washington DC, Nov 20 (CNA).- Following international attention which included the protests of U.S. Congressmen, China has released a detained ethnic minority Uyghur woman who was scheduled to undergo a coerced abortion.

Arzigul Tursun, who lives in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region, is about 26 weeks pregnant with her third child. Chinese authorities tried to pressure her to have an abortion, but she refused and fled her home. According to a backgrounder from the office of Rep. Joe Pitts, authorities interrogated and threatened her relatives.

After fleeing from population control authorities, Arzigul was taken into custody on November 11. A relative was reportedly forced to sign a document authorizing the abortion, which was originally scheduled for November 13.

She then fled Gulja's municipal Water Gate Hospital, after which authorities found her at a friend’s house, Radio Free Asia reports.

Tursun’s father Hasan Tursunjan told Radio Free Asia that between 20 and 30 police cars came to the family home to search for his daughter and take her to the hospital to undergo an abortion.

“It was a big operation—and they treated us very rudely,” he said. “They confiscated all our cell phones, but I hid one. One of them was pushing my forehead and saying, ‘You have connections with the separatists in America—see if they can come and rescue your daughter or not.’”

“I was very upset at what he did to me and said, ‘I believe they will rescue us, if not today then tomorrow, and if not tomorrow then the day after tomorrow—they will eventually rescue us,’” Tursunjan said.

“My youngest son was upset and rushed to us and shouted… ‘Don't touch my father!’ The [official] immediately called a few police over and they arrested him. They took him away with a car.”

He and some family members left for a relative’s house in the city, but police afterwards took him to a neighborhood where his daughter was found at a friend’s house.

“I saw many police cars,” Tursunjan reported to Radio Free Asia. “Many people from the neighborhood were watching. My daughter was leaning against the wall of one the buildings and crying. I was very sad…I rushed to her and embraced her. I told her not to cry and wiped her tears.”

After pressure from U.S. Congressmen, Arzigul Tursun was released to her family and permitted to continue her pregnancy.

“I am all right and I am at home now,” she told Radio Free Asia after being released from the Women and Children’s Welfare Hospital in Ili prefecture.

China’s “one child policy” applies mainly to Han Chinese, the ethnic majority in the country. Under the policy, ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs, are permitted to have additional children. Peasants are allowed three children, while city-dwellers are allowed only two.

Tursun is a peasant, but her husband is from the city of Gulja so their status under the policy is unclear.

“Their experience sheds rare light on how China's one-child policy is enforced in remote parts of the country through fines, financial incentives, and heavy-handed coercion by zealous local officials eager to meet population targets set by cadres higher up,” Radio Free Asia says.

Arzigul Tursun’s treatment attracted protest from New Jersey Congressman Rep. Chris Smith, who is the U.S. House’s Ranking Member on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. He voiced his opposition to the threatened forced abortion in a November 13 statement, saying:

"I appeal to the Chinese Government not to forcibly abort Arzigul, a Uyghur woman now in the custody of China’s population police and awaiting the nightmare of a forced abortion. The Chinese Government is notorious for this barbaric practice, but to forcibly abort a woman while the world watches in full knowledge of what is going on would make a mockery of its claim that the central government disapproves of the practice, and of the UN Population Fund pretense that it has moderated the Chinese population planners’ cruelty.”

The Front Royal, Virginia-based Population Research Institute has linked the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to assisting in forced abortions and coercive sterilizations in China. U.S. funding for the UNFPA was cut after it was found to be in violation of the federal Kemp-Kasten Amendment though such funding is expected to be restored under an Obama administration.

“Human rights groups and the U.S. Government will be watching very carefully to see what happens to Arzigul and her family," Rep. Smith’s remarks continued.

Before Arzigul Tursun was released, Pennsylvania Congressman Rep. Joe Pitts joined Rep. Smith’s protests, saying in a statement:

"I call on the Chinese Government to immediately intervene in order to stop any forced abortion from taking place. Though we know Chinese authorities regularly use forced abortions to enforce its coercive population control program, carrying out this brutal procedure with the world watching Arzigul Tursun’s case would display an utter disregard for any notion of human rights by the Chinese authorities. The Chinese Government should immediately release her from custody and allow her to carry her child to term.”

Rep. Smith had contacted U.S. Ambassador to China Clark Randt and asked him to intervene in Tursun’s case. According to Radio Free Asia, the ambassador spoke about the matter with the executive vice foreign minister, Wang Guanya.

Something "Reptilian" about the Obama Catholics

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:40:00 +0000

The following is from insidecatholic.com.

Newman in the Lion's Den
by Rev. Dwight Longenecker

Last week, we at St. Mary's Church in Greenville, South Carolina, found ourselves in the midst of a perfect media storm. The Sunday after the election, Rev. Jay Scott Newman, the parish rector (I serve as a weekend assistant), published his usual column for the parish bulletin, in which he commented on the election of Barack Obama.

Offering patriotic support and prayers for the president-elect, but also lamenting his radical pro-abortion policy, Father Newman told his parishioners:"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law." He concluded that, if they voted for Obama, they ought to go to confession before coming to Communion.

Perhaps Father Newman's statement could have been more nuanced. He could have clarified the matter by adding that, for it to be a serious sin, the Catholic needed to be fully knowledgeable about the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion and Senator Obama's voting record on the issue. However, this was not a pontifical statement written for the instruction of all Catholics in America; it was a bulletin column in a parish where there has been steady and consistent catechesis on the whole range of Catholic issues, including abortion.

By Monday, the local newspaper picked up the story. Father Newman was careful to ask for written questions and gave written replies, making it very clear that he could not and would not deny Communion to anyone. Nevertheless, by Wednesday the Associated Press ran the story with the headline, "SC priest: No Communion for Obama supporters." Most of the major news outlets picked up the story, and the parish was swamped with responses from across America. In the face of these distortions, Father Newman produced two documents that clarified matters.

By Friday, the Diocese of Charleston issued a statement that was taken badly by supporters of Father Newman, and over the weekend rumors ran riot about protests planned for our parish by busloads of Obama supporters. When the parish Web site crashed due to the number of visitors, parishioners concluded that the diocese had gagged Father Newman and pulled the plug on his site. (Coincidentally, my own Web site was down for servicing on the same Saturday, and before long whispers went around that I had also been gagged by the diocese and had my site pulled. None of it was true.)

What is true is that Father Newman received more than 5,000 e-mails within a few days. When the parish webmaster finally removed Father Newman's e-mail address from the Web site for his own protection and peace, e-mailers contacted me instead. I received nearly 500 replies. What interests me about the feedback from the fracas is what it says about American Catholics and American culture generally.

The mail we received can be put into four categories: Loyal, Lame, Defiant, and Demonic.

Addressing the worst first: A small number of e-mails were spitting with irrational rage, profanity, and vulgarity. We were called pedophiles, rapists, and insane perverts. Some went on to blaspheme in the most extreme terms against the Holy Father, the Blessed Virgin, and anything sacred they could think of. These e-mails were so brimming with brimstone that they were obviously from a demented or demonized person. These I deleted with a prayer for protection and deliverance.

Those e-mails I classified as "defiant" were angry and vociferous. We were idiots and bigots. Didn't we know it was priests like us who drive people away from the Church? The writers rarely defended Obama but usually attacked Bush and McCain, assuming that Father Newman and I are ardent Republicans. The usual theme was that poverty and war were as bad as abortion, and why did we never discuss these other matters? The Catholic Church was attacked and smeared, and in most cases the writer finally revealed that he was a lapsed Catholic.

The third category I call "lame." These e-mails had little to do with Father Newman's original bulletin column, but were simply emotional responses to the misleading AP headline. They were mostly sentimental, uninformed, and rambling. Some accused us of being nasty, judgmental, and intolerant. Others accused us of hating animals and the environment and not believing in global warming. And still others worried that we were fomenting racial hatred and hoped we would mend our ways. They were mostly from souls with a particular agenda who would direct their sad anger and fear toward anyone who grabbed their attention in a news headline.

The fourth category of e-mail was from loyal supporters. Heartening e-mails from all around the country poured in expressing solidarity, support, and sympathy. Converts told how priests like Father Newman and me gave them hope and drew them to the Catholic Faith. College students and old people wrote saying that they were encouraged in their faith and were determined to renew their pro-life fight because of Father Newman's letter. Priests and religious wrote thanking us for our stand and telling us to fight the good fight. Loyal, informed, and dedicated Catholics wrote simply to express their thanks and goodwill.

The thousands of e-mails we received reveal four American responses to full-fledged, red-blooded Catholicism.

The demonic were understandable: The devil will be a gentle dog as long as you feed him, but if you kick him, he bites back. The lame are those who are largely ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and can best be helped with prayer.

But the "defiant" category makes up the largest number of our respondents, and is the saddest category of all. Statistics show us that these are the Catholics who sealed Obama's victory. They are people who were poorly catechized over the last 40 years in America. They have been nurtured in the Protest Generation and told that it is fine, even noble, to disagree with the Church. They have been taught to act according to their conscience without taking the trouble or time to inform it.

Caught up in the trendy agendas of the day, they have jumped on the bandwagons of feminism, environmentalism, homosexualism, socialism, and sentimentalism -- mistaking their favorite cause for the Catholic Faith. When they are confronted with clear, concise, and consistent Catholicism they are shocked and angry, and their response is (if they haven't done so already) to leave the Church, preferring their own wisdom to the wisdom of God.

In the next 20 years, this sort of Catholic will become extinct. As America descends further into decadence and decline, the lines will be drawn between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. People will have to choose whether to serve God and His Church or the dark side. Catholics will have to choose to be fully committed or not. If they choose to be Catholic, let them be informed and involved and integrated. If they choose to leave the Church, then they should be honest and stop referring to themselves as Catholic.

If those in my "defiant" category are Catholics at all, then what kind of Catholics are they? We have heard the terms "cultural Catholic" and "cafeteria Catholic," but they might as well be called "chameleon Catholics" -- not only because they change color with every new trend of thought, but because there is something reptilian about them.

Rev. Dwight Longenecker is chaplain of St. Joseph's Catholic School in Greenville, South Carolina. Visit his Web site at www.dwightlongenecker.com

Washington D.C. leads U.S. in Abortions

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:38:00 +0000

This map from Time.com shows that D.C. has more abortions per 1000 woman than any state in the union. 40 out of 1000 babies are put to death.

I can't say I'm really surprised, and I think perhaps the number would be lower if our legislature was located somewhere else.

Obama's Agenda on Abortion: "Apocalyptic"

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:11:00 +0000

From the Colorado Independent:

Former Denver archbishop: ‘Catholics weep over Barack Obama,’ abortion

By Ernest Luning 11/21/08 10:13 AM

Roman Catholic Cardinal James Francis Stafford, who was Denver’s archbishop until being tapped for a Vatican position in 1996, warned a university audience President-elect Barack Obama’s “anti-life agenda” on abortion is “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” in an address reported Thursday by the Catholic News Agency. Stafford told students at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., that the next few years will be “among the most divisive in our nation’s history” because Americans were distracted by the prospect of electing an African-American president from Obama’s “deadly vision of human life.”

“Catholics weep over Barack Obama’s words,” Stafford said. “We weep over the violence concealed behind his rhetoric and that of Joseph Biden and what appears to be that of the majority of the incoming Congress.”

Calling the Nov. 4 election “a cultural earthquake,” Stafford recounted an Obama campaign promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act upon taking office. Stafford then quoted Obama telling a Planned Parenthood audience he “put Roe [vs. Wade] at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law.” The Democrat’s vision “is modernist and rooted in the Enlightenment,” Stafford concludes — a scathing criticism at the 20th anniversary commemoration of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

Denver’s current archbishop, Charles Chaput, sounded similar notes about Obama’s stance on abortion a month ago in a speech called “Little Murders.” Chaput called Obama the “most committed” abortion-right candidate since Roe, and went on to call for Joe Biden, a Catholic, to be denied communion because of his position on abortion.

Catholics United, a liberal group that came under fire from Chaput, fired back with a statement saying Chaput was impeding much-needed dialogue among Catholics over how to handle the abortion controversy short of the unlikely repeal of Roe.

Read Stafford’s complete remarks as prepared for delivery at Catholic News Agency.com.

Would you die Tomorrow to end Abortion?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:05:00 +0000

This is from the St. Louis Review Online, a weekly publication from the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

November 21, 2008

Bp. Hermann addresses abortion comments

Last week at the annual fall assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, archdiocesan administrator Bishop Robert J. Hermann stated that for any bishop, it would be a "privilege to die tomorrow to bring about an end to abortion."

His comments were picked up by media outlets across the country and have been touted in the blogosphere as a courageous statement in the defense of unborn human life.

Review staff writer Jennifer Brinker recently met with Bishop Hermann, where he reflected on his statement and also answered several other questions relating to the issue of abortion, the bishops’ meeting and the recent presidential election.

Let’s delve right into the issue at hand. At the recent bishops’ meeting in Baltimore, you said this:

"We have lost 50 times as many children in the last 35 years as we have lost soldiers in all the wars since the Revolution.

"I think any bishop here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow to bring about an end to abortion.

If we are willing to die tomorrow, then we should be willing to, until the end of our lives, to take all kinds of criticism for opposing this horrible infanticide."

Could you explain a little bit more about the point you were trying to get across?

I think that the way abortion has been presented over the past 35 years so often is that this is something that’s horrible, and we need to stop it. But it seems to me that people do not realize that it is 50 million children that we have killed. We have campaigned to save the baby whales, and yet we vote in pro-abortion politicians — which doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

I feel we need to be in an awareness- raising campaign to open our eyes to really see the destruction that we’ve brought about. There should be 50 more million Americans in our midst, and anyone under 35 can look around and say, ‘Where are they?’ And, ‘I’m very lucky to be alive.’

We are grateful for all the soldiers who have died to defend our freedom. But at the same time, we aren’t making similar efforts to protect the unborn. And so that’s my concern — to raise the consciousness of all people to the atrocities that we’re committing.

What was the reaction of your fellow bishops after you said this?

The reaction was one or two bishops started clapping, but then we moved on immediately (to other business). I received numerous comments from other bishops, thanking me for making this courageous statement. I said any bishop there could have and probably would have made the same statement.

After I had finished, Bishop (Robert) Finn and Archbishop (Joseph) Naumann and Bishop (Michael) Sheridan commented. Archbishop (Charles) Chaput sought me out and commented. So numerous bishops had come up to me and thanked me for the comment. I said we’re only doing what we’re supposed to be doing, that’s all.

What was the thought process going through your mind in which you said, ‘Yes, I would do this. I would lay my life on the line.’

Very simply: If American youth are willing to go to war and lay their life down to defend our freedoms, then every bishop should be willing to give up his life, if it meant putting an end to abortion. And if we’re willing to do that, then we should be totally fearless of promoting this cause without being concerned about political correctness, without trying to build coalitions with pro-choice people.

Can you tell me about some of the personal criticisms that you might have recently encountered in your role as bishop and your willingness to speak out for a culture of life?

First of all, perhaps 95 percent of the responses I have gotten have been very positive, very complimentary and very supportive.

The few negative responses I have gotten have not bothered me one bit, because I see that we’re products of a secular society. And what I see very clearly is that the underpinning premise of our society — but unspoken — is that God does not exist. And our culture flows from that thinking.

But we on the other hand, we say, ‘Yes God exists, and I believe in God,’ but often we act as if he did not exist. We are acting the way we have been conditioned.

I cannot tell you the number of people who have e-mailed me or told me in person, ‘This is the first time in my life that I voted contrary to strong feelings.’ And there are others asking me how they need to deal with their past voting habits.

I have great empathy and great compassion for people who are influenced by society and are taken in by the big lie that God does not exist. My job is to raise their awareness to, yes He does (exist), and it does make a difference what you believe. It makes a big difference in what you do.

In addition to this premise that God does not exist, we also have to be aware that our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and the powers and the spirits of this world of darkness, as Paul tells us in Ephesians.

Therefore, behind Planned Parenthood, behind the abortion issue, is the evil one. I often see human beings caught up in this as victims of the evil one who need my prayers and who need my compassion and who need my love. We don’t only want to save our children from destruction; we also want to save our adult brothers and sisters from eternal destruction.

Why was it important for the bishops to craft a statement directed toward the administration of President-elect Barack Obama? It heavily addressed perhaps the most pressing issue that currently faces the pro-life movement right now: the Freedom of Choice Act.

What makes this so dangerous is that candidate Obama said that one of the first things he would do would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act when he becomes president. And that really frightens us, because it would be undermining all the efforts for the past 35 years of trying to limit the destructive effects of abortion.

The other concern that we have in the next four years is that he may very well have the opportunity to place two more people on the Supreme Court, which could secure the Roe vs. Wade case for many, many years. During his campaign in Pennsylvania, President-elect Barack Obama said he has taught his daughters with proper morals, on the other hand, "if they make a mistake, I won’t want them punished with a baby."

What do you think about that statement?

I am very horrified that he would make such a statement, which in effect is saying that he would be willing to see his grandchild killed for the convenience of his daughter. When he promotes abortion, he is, whether he knows it or not, targeting blacks, because they have been targeted by Planned Parenthood with abortion information and facilities in their neighborhoods. So he and Planned Parenthood together are helping to reduce the African- American population in this country.

I think there are many people, some Catholics included, who still don’t understand why Catholic bishops and priests place such importance on abortion over other issues, such as the economy, immigration and the war in Iraq. Could you explain why Church leadership takes this stance that some have called "single-minded?"

Pope John Paul has made it very clear that while some people say that the economy, or the war in Iraq or immigration should be of prime consideration. But he said those rights mean nothing if the fundamental right to life is not guaranteed. Before these other rights mean anything, we have to guarantee the fundamental right to life. When someone is denied life, then all the other rights don’t mean anything. That’s the reason the Church places such a high priority on that.

For an individual to have a proportionate reason to vote for a candidate who supports abortion would be very hard to come by. The only way I could see that happening is if we had one candidate who supports abortion and another one who may mandate abortion ... as they do in China.

We have noticed in the weeks leading up to the election a surge in the number of priests, particularly our young priests, who have spoken out for a culture of life. Is there anything that you would like to say about the courage these men have shown?

I am very edified by the growing number of priests, and in a very special way young clergy, who had the courage to speak out from the pulpit so incisively and effectively against the evils of abortion. I think more and more priests are beginning to realize the seriousness of this cause and also see that taking a strong stance receives such tremendous support from our Catholics.

I encourage all priests to continue to pray about the issue, to study the teachings of Pope John Paul II, and Cardinal (Joseph) Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) on this issue, and then address it with love and patience and courage. We do not condemn proponents of abortion; we condemn their beliefs and their practices. We pray for them, and we want their salvation as we desire our own. When we preach pro-life from the pulpit, we’re doing everyone in the congregation a great favor by presenting the truth of our faith in a very clear, concise and effective manner. The truth shall set you free.

Is there anything that you could offer to our Catholic readers, which would give them hope for the future?

What can they do to get involved in better promoting a culture of life, especially during these next four years? I would encourage them to study the Church’s documents — perhaps to start with Pope John Paul’s, "The Gospel of Life," ("Evangelium Vitae") and then to follow that up with encyclical, "Humanae Vitae," ("Of Human Life") so they can clearly understand the nature of man and woman and the sacredness of God’s calling for man and woman.

The more they study that and begin to live those teachings, the more they’re going to come into freedom to promote the Gospel of Life, first of all, by the witness of their very lives. And secondly, they will be courageous in sharing their witness to others.

Isn't it time?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Woodring) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:34:00 +0000

Congratulations. You are one of the first viewers of this blog!! Sorry, you don't win a prize.

I am just getting started here, so give me a little time to get some content together. It won't be long, I promise.

Click on "subscribe to posts" and you'll get an email of any new posting on this blog. Click on "follow this blog" and you won't forget about this blog.

Isn't it time we end abortion? If you believe it is, then come back. You can make a difference.