by Judie Brown,
There are times when it seems that far too many words are uttered about “choice” and far too few about the human being whose life is expunged because it’s “legal” to do so. America has lost her sense of right and wrong, and perhaps that is because Americans are growing farther and farther away from recognizing why they exist and Who created them.
For example, when I was in the first grade at a Catholic school in Los Angeles, we had a book entitled The Baltimore Catechism. The first question in that educational masterpiece was “Who made us?” The answer: “God made us.”
It is such a simple concept, even now, and yet the popular cultural virulence toward all things pro-life hampers our vision of the truth. In fact, it has replaced common sense and logical thinking with preposterous ideas parading around as so-called constitutionally protected rights to all things sexually perverse, including the murder of our children.
Let me give you a few examples of how this is playing out right now as we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving.
In Michigan, Alberto Hodari has spent a good deal of time murdering preborn babies, maiming women and, as he admits on YouTube, lying to women. In describing his tactics to a group of Wayne State University students, the most depressing aspect of his lecture is that the audience is snickering during his comments. One is led to believe that Hodari is a comedian. Apparently, the horrendous nature of what he does to make money completely escaped the giddy students.
Is the nervous laughter symptomatic of today’s attitude toward aborting children? Perhaps, but this is also an example of the all-pervasive cancer that has been inflicted on the all-too-willing body politic by the culture of death. The very idea of laughing with and at the comments of a man who kills boggles my mind, but after nearly 40 years of decriminalized abortion, what should one expect?
By the way, Hodari is a prime example of those who ply the practice of abortion for financial gain. The most recent testimony to his evil ways became public earlier this week when it was reported that he is being sued by Caitlin Bruce, who claims Hodari subjected her to a forced abortion last year, when she was six weeks pregnant. Bruce told WJRT-TV that after she saw her baby on ultrasound, she decided not to go through with the abortion, but that didn’t stop Hodari:
He told his assistant, “Hold her down.” They had my arm pinned. His weight was all on my chest and then he took his hand and he had it so tight on my mouth that it was muffled. I was trying to scream, “Stop!” I was screaming. I was crying. It felt like they were ripping a life out of me. When he was done, he looked at me. He gave me a smirk and he left he room.
Voices for Women’s web site lists 49 lawsuits filed against Hodari, two of which resulted from expectant mothers dying after abortion. Not included in the list are two other patients who died after Hodari aborted their babies.
The news about Hodari is apparently not troublesome to the mainstream media, which seems to regard it as something akin to a report on a local football game. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek points out that some news outlets reporting on Bruce’s allegations have gone so far as to file a report without mentioning Hodari’s name.
Though he is certainly a poster boy for terrorism perpetrated against expectant mothers, Hodari is but part of the problem. Freelance writer Phil Elmore identifies the crux of the matter when he wisely observes,
A]ll discussion of abortion revolves around the implication, the begged question and conclusion, that an unborn baby is a baby. No matter how we try to distance ourselves from this simple fact, using medical technology to push further and further out the timeline along which we may choose to circumvent the inevitable process of that person’s being, there is no changing it. Abortion is the application of technology to a woman’s body for the explicit purpose of preventing a human being from existing – a human being who, if left well enough alone, would by all rights and in all probability be born. This birth isn’t merely a possibility and is not a choice; it’s a biological fact, unless a natural miscarriage occurs.
Could any parent who is not a monster look at his or her newborn baby and wish it dead – wish it pre-empted, circumvented, prevented from being? Can any woman who is human willingly abdicate the title “mother” without also abdicating her own personhood, at least morally? Can any man truly claim he is a man at all if he is willing to allow innocent human life to come to harm? Can any individual who has watched a baby move its arms and shift its body on a sonographer’s screen honestly believe that ending that unborn baby’s existence is anything but a violent murder?
Elmore applies common sense and this first-grade insight that should still be obvious to anyone who strives to live according to simple truth. And yet, we move ahead at breakneck speed in this nation, moving closer each day to the precipice of hell. Will we be able to turn back?
Imagine, for a moment, a breaking national news story about a new study that found that “abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks.” There is such a study, and it was conducted by researchers at New Zealand’s University of Otago. In its summary of the research findings, the New Zealand Herald reported,
Researchers who examined the medical history of more than 500 women have concluded abortion “leads to significant distress in some.”
Women reporting adverse reactions were up to 80 per cent more likely than women not exposed to abortion to have mental health problems, the Otago University study found.
That finding has raised questions about justifying abortions on the basis of mental health.
The study, reported in the British Journal of Psychiatry, found the risk of mental illness was “proportional to the degree of distress” associated with the abortion.
Professor David Fergusson, of the [university’s] department of Psychological Medicine, and his team studied data from women who had been interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.
More than 85 per cent of women reported a least one negative emotional reaction, including sorrow, sadness, guilt, regret, grief and disappointment.
Don’t worry, though, because you won’t hear of this study from any “mainstream” news outlet or, for that matter, few, if any of those self-described conservative news sources that are always “looking out for you.” Why not? It’s just not news in a culture where the act of abortion is revered as a satanic sacrament, shielded from any negative publicity that might actually convince the electorate that abortion is indeed a crime.
It is a reprehensible moral and scientific error to persist in defending the most egregious crime in mankind’s history, but who’s interested in the truth these days, when the “negative” result of sexual sin could be a preborn child?
This is why current efforts, in state after state, to achieve legal recognition of personhood for all human beings are so fiercely maligned, misrepresented and otherwise decried as untimely, imprudent or just a bad idea. Personhood activities focus attention on the reality of the individual whose life begins at his or her creation. Such efforts make us think about the who instead of politics. Personhood proposals invite the public to understand the reasons why abortion is a crime, rather than a panacea for the ill-informed who deny that God made them. Personhood discussions call into question all those weapons in the sexually saturated armory of the here and now, so precious to purveyors of godless behavior.
It is this denial of a simple truth about the human being that is the core problem, the cancerous cell, the beginning of the end of common sense. Who made us? Not the state! Not the politicians! Not the folks who, like Hodari, lie a little in order to gain the upper hand so that another baby can be killed before he is born. No … Even though so many deny it, God made us, each and every one.
As you sit down to your turkey, or your ham, or your cheeseburger and fries on Thanksgiving Day, give thanks to God, the God who made us. Give thanks that you still possess the common sense and logic of a first grader. And while you are at it, say a prayer for America … At present, her condition is terminal, the malignancy is stage 4, and its poison has invaded far too many minds. But there is a cure … It is He Who made us.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
TWISTED PERSPECTIVES AS THE LAW OF THE LAND?
by Judie Brown,
The "health care reform" proposal moved a step closer to reality this past weekend when the U.S. Senate approved opening debate on the measure. While a final version is clearly not imminent, there is mounting concern that any version that reaches the desk of President Obama will contain language that advances the agenda of those who support euthanizing the elderly and the vulnerable.
Dr. C.L. Gray, president of Physicians for Reform, has expressed grave concerns about the concept of the government replacing family and physicians in deciding who will and will not receive health care. He wrote,
“We the people” become powerless in dependency. Common to every major health care bill under consideration in Congress is a transfer of $1 trillion from the American people to Washington. With this massive transfer of wealth comes the transfer of power over medical decision-making.
Even now, Washington is proposing more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare. The elderly are being sacrificed for the “greater good” of society.
Further, one of the most thorough researchers ever to serve the voiceless, LifeTree’s Ione Whitlock, has written a stunning analysis of why there is no victory in any current version of congressionally mandated health care reform. In her essay, “The Current Health Care ‘Reform’ Legislation: How It Will Make Rationing and Death Hastening the Law of the Land,” she sets forth the reasons why this is so:
In progressive politics, death frequently comes in packages labeled “life.”
And so it is with legislation such as that which is now before the Senate. Think you are supporting pain relief and hospice legislation in order to prevent assisted suicides? Wrong. Thanks to Big Death—a collection of heavily funded nonprofit hospice and palliative care groups—the line between palliative care (pain relief, symptom management) and imposed death has become blurred.
[The collection of nonprofits composing the Big Death group includes AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American College of Physicians, American Hospice Foundation, Center to Advance Palliative Care, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, National Palliative Care Research Center, Providence Health and Services, and Supportive Care Coalition.]
One Big Death “thought leader” who has helped create the confusion between life-affirming palliative care and imposed death is Ira Byock, Dartmouth physician and hospice guru. In a blog for the New America Foundation this summer, he illustrated our point. He suggests, using the example of one senior citizen, that we might improve seniors’ lives simply by giving them “reliable transportation … to the local senior center [where they would] share nutritious group lunches and noon-time discussions on advance directives for health care.” In other words, he wants to sell seniors a free trip to the center for a fulfilling and healthy life … to persuade them to focus on death, of course.
Byock drew early attention and support from the late Andrea Kydd, former organizer for the Welfare Rights Organization and board member of the Tides Foundation. Kydd, who was also health program director for the Nathan Cummings Foundation, directed the foundation’s support on two end-of-life projects in 1995: One was a collaboration with the Commonwealth Fund to conduct a caregiver study directed by Ezekiel J. Emanuel and his wife Linda; the other was Byock’s Missoula Demonstration Project. The grant from Cummings was followed by a grant from Soros, one of the earliest grants awarded in Soros’ Project on Death in America.
From there, Byock moved to projects sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He directed a massive $15 million project, Promoting Excellence in End-of-Life Care, that could have been called “Promoting Rationing.” It tested methods of “moving hospice upstream” in various “difficult” clinical settings and on specific populations: veterans’ hospitals, Native American reservations, African-Americans in urban centers and prisons, for example. The project, headquartered in Montana, focused on financial savings and various ways to convince people to accept “palliative care” earlier in the game.
Blurring the distinction between life-affirming care and hastened death eases the path for bedside rationing, which of course lowers costs. How to convince “difficult” cases to forgo life-sustaining treatment? Offer them palliative care.
When Promoting Excellence moved to South Carolina, the effort was focused on reminding a group of chronically ill patients who “generally do not see themselves as dying” that, in fact, they were dying. Diane Meier and Sean Morrison of Mt. Sinai in New York worked with New Jersey-based Franklin Health and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina for intervention by case management teams using advance care counseling and a variety of other tools. Meier’s group reported that the South Carolina population was “an ‘upstream’ population of very sick people, averaging 46 years of age, generally suffering from serious, progressive and life threatening illnesses, who will likely consume high dollar amounts of resources” and were thus chosen for intervention.
When Byock delivered a provocative keynote address to a conference of over
275 end-of-life researchers, policymakers and community activists, he described the “levers” that could be used to change the U.S. death-denying culture. Bureaucracy would be their ally. Byock noted that “German sociologist Max Weber said that social movements that become successful become routinized by the agency of bureaucracy. Therefore, ironically, bureaucracy is the means and the mark of our success to this point.”
While Byock rallied the “levers” and “agents of change,” he also quietly created a new right-to-die consumers’ group that would organize caregiver and hospice groups and pressure legislators to pass living will legislation. Byock brought AAHPM together with Choice in Dying (also known as the Euthanasia Society of America and Society for the Right to Die) to form Partnership for Caring in 1999. PFC’s mission was to articulate “a national policy agenda” and their first priority was “mandated universal access to high-quality care.”
Just when we think we are supporting a partnership for caring, we end up with the choice to die.
Now, 12 years later, the Senate is poised to firmly establish Big Death’s “agency of bureaucracy” by implementing the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan.
According to the principle of subsidiarity, medical decisions should be made at the lowest level—closest to the patient, with the least bureaucracy. That is the first step in protecting American health care. All current health “reform” legislation is the polar opposite.
This is indeed the case. Pope Benedict XVI teaches the following regarding the differences between a controlling state and one that exists to support initiatives generated by its citizens:
The State, which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. (section 28)
What is disturbing about the multiple efforts of Byock and his colleagues is that the language they employ sounds perfectly acceptable to the average American. It gratifies their sense of stewardship and love for those who are perceived to be in pain or are facing death in the not-too-distant future.
Beware! Behind this engaging mask resides a commitment to cut costs by cutting lives short. Of that, there is no doubt. Whitlock’s flawless research confirms this.
As LifeTree's executive director, Elizabeth Wickham, PhD., points out, “No amendment can cure the death-dealing nature of the currently proposed legislation. It is critical that your voice be heard in opposition today and every day so long as these health care ‘reform’ bills are being considered.”
The "health care reform" proposal moved a step closer to reality this past weekend when the U.S. Senate approved opening debate on the measure. While a final version is clearly not imminent, there is mounting concern that any version that reaches the desk of President Obama will contain language that advances the agenda of those who support euthanizing the elderly and the vulnerable.
Dr. C.L. Gray, president of Physicians for Reform, has expressed grave concerns about the concept of the government replacing family and physicians in deciding who will and will not receive health care. He wrote,
“We the people” become powerless in dependency. Common to every major health care bill under consideration in Congress is a transfer of $1 trillion from the American people to Washington. With this massive transfer of wealth comes the transfer of power over medical decision-making.
Even now, Washington is proposing more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare. The elderly are being sacrificed for the “greater good” of society.
Further, one of the most thorough researchers ever to serve the voiceless, LifeTree’s Ione Whitlock, has written a stunning analysis of why there is no victory in any current version of congressionally mandated health care reform. In her essay, “The Current Health Care ‘Reform’ Legislation: How It Will Make Rationing and Death Hastening the Law of the Land,” she sets forth the reasons why this is so:
In progressive politics, death frequently comes in packages labeled “life.”
And so it is with legislation such as that which is now before the Senate. Think you are supporting pain relief and hospice legislation in order to prevent assisted suicides? Wrong. Thanks to Big Death—a collection of heavily funded nonprofit hospice and palliative care groups—the line between palliative care (pain relief, symptom management) and imposed death has become blurred.
[The collection of nonprofits composing the Big Death group includes AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American College of Physicians, American Hospice Foundation, Center to Advance Palliative Care, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, National Palliative Care Research Center, Providence Health and Services, and Supportive Care Coalition.]
One Big Death “thought leader” who has helped create the confusion between life-affirming palliative care and imposed death is Ira Byock, Dartmouth physician and hospice guru. In a blog for the New America Foundation this summer, he illustrated our point. He suggests, using the example of one senior citizen, that we might improve seniors’ lives simply by giving them “reliable transportation … to the local senior center [where they would] share nutritious group lunches and noon-time discussions on advance directives for health care.” In other words, he wants to sell seniors a free trip to the center for a fulfilling and healthy life … to persuade them to focus on death, of course.
Byock drew early attention and support from the late Andrea Kydd, former organizer for the Welfare Rights Organization and board member of the Tides Foundation. Kydd, who was also health program director for the Nathan Cummings Foundation, directed the foundation’s support on two end-of-life projects in 1995: One was a collaboration with the Commonwealth Fund to conduct a caregiver study directed by Ezekiel J. Emanuel and his wife Linda; the other was Byock’s Missoula Demonstration Project. The grant from Cummings was followed by a grant from Soros, one of the earliest grants awarded in Soros’ Project on Death in America.
From there, Byock moved to projects sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He directed a massive $15 million project, Promoting Excellence in End-of-Life Care, that could have been called “Promoting Rationing.” It tested methods of “moving hospice upstream” in various “difficult” clinical settings and on specific populations: veterans’ hospitals, Native American reservations, African-Americans in urban centers and prisons, for example. The project, headquartered in Montana, focused on financial savings and various ways to convince people to accept “palliative care” earlier in the game.
Blurring the distinction between life-affirming care and hastened death eases the path for bedside rationing, which of course lowers costs. How to convince “difficult” cases to forgo life-sustaining treatment? Offer them palliative care.
When Promoting Excellence moved to South Carolina, the effort was focused on reminding a group of chronically ill patients who “generally do not see themselves as dying” that, in fact, they were dying. Diane Meier and Sean Morrison of Mt. Sinai in New York worked with New Jersey-based Franklin Health and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina for intervention by case management teams using advance care counseling and a variety of other tools. Meier’s group reported that the South Carolina population was “an ‘upstream’ population of very sick people, averaging 46 years of age, generally suffering from serious, progressive and life threatening illnesses, who will likely consume high dollar amounts of resources” and were thus chosen for intervention.
When Byock delivered a provocative keynote address to a conference of over
275 end-of-life researchers, policymakers and community activists, he described the “levers” that could be used to change the U.S. death-denying culture. Bureaucracy would be their ally. Byock noted that “German sociologist Max Weber said that social movements that become successful become routinized by the agency of bureaucracy. Therefore, ironically, bureaucracy is the means and the mark of our success to this point.”
While Byock rallied the “levers” and “agents of change,” he also quietly created a new right-to-die consumers’ group that would organize caregiver and hospice groups and pressure legislators to pass living will legislation. Byock brought AAHPM together with Choice in Dying (also known as the Euthanasia Society of America and Society for the Right to Die) to form Partnership for Caring in 1999. PFC’s mission was to articulate “a national policy agenda” and their first priority was “mandated universal access to high-quality care.”
Just when we think we are supporting a partnership for caring, we end up with the choice to die.
Now, 12 years later, the Senate is poised to firmly establish Big Death’s “agency of bureaucracy” by implementing the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan.
According to the principle of subsidiarity, medical decisions should be made at the lowest level—closest to the patient, with the least bureaucracy. That is the first step in protecting American health care. All current health “reform” legislation is the polar opposite.
This is indeed the case. Pope Benedict XVI teaches the following regarding the differences between a controlling state and one that exists to support initiatives generated by its citizens:
The State, which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. (section 28)
What is disturbing about the multiple efforts of Byock and his colleagues is that the language they employ sounds perfectly acceptable to the average American. It gratifies their sense of stewardship and love for those who are perceived to be in pain or are facing death in the not-too-distant future.
Beware! Behind this engaging mask resides a commitment to cut costs by cutting lives short. Of that, there is no doubt. Whitlock’s flawless research confirms this.
As LifeTree's executive director, Elizabeth Wickham, PhD., points out, “No amendment can cure the death-dealing nature of the currently proposed legislation. It is critical that your voice be heard in opposition today and every day so long as these health care ‘reform’ bills are being considered.”
Pro-abortion congressman defends Rep. Kennedy as Senate hopefuls lash out at Church
Link
A pro-abortion Catholic congressman from Pennsylvania has come to the defense of Rep. Patrick Kennedy in his dispute with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence. “We don't legislate at the orders of the Vatican,Bishop Tobin is not telling Kennedy how to be a politician. He's telling him how to be a Catholic. Bishop Tobin has the right to do that. Bishop Tobin has the obligation to do that.... and if "what is in [your] conscience" is contradictory to what the Church teaches, QUIT LYING TO PEOPLE BY CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC. we legislate what is in our conscience and what we think is good for our country,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy as he received an award at Harvard University from Caroline Kennedy, who is Rep. Kennedy’s cousin. “I'm reaching out to Patrick Kennedy and also to my local priests and bishops to make sure they know that we agree on 99 percent of the issues.”
More harsh were comments on the issue by two Massachusetts senatorial candidates. “It seems to me a little bit ironic that a church that was willing to overlook the victimization of many, many children over several years is now turning around and saying to people who are good Christians, good Catholics, that, ‘You can’t join this,’’’ said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Catholic. According to the Boston Globe, Rep. Michael Capuano added:
“And they wonder why people stop going to church.’’ Capuano, who is Catholic, then ticked off issues on which he disagreed with the church, including abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and prohibitions against the ordination of women and married men as priests. It sounds like Murphy and Capuano need to be reminded that Catholicism isn't a democracy.
We’re supposed to “respect” Muslims, but here are politicians attacking the Catholic Church for upholding its own doctrine. The Catholic Church isn’t killing members of other religions around the World.
A pro-abortion Catholic congressman from Pennsylvania has come to the defense of Rep. Patrick Kennedy in his dispute with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence. “We don't legislate at the orders of the Vatican,Bishop Tobin is not telling Kennedy how to be a politician. He's telling him how to be a Catholic. Bishop Tobin has the right to do that. Bishop Tobin has the obligation to do that.... and if "what is in [your] conscience" is contradictory to what the Church teaches, QUIT LYING TO PEOPLE BY CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC. we legislate what is in our conscience and what we think is good for our country,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy as he received an award at Harvard University from Caroline Kennedy, who is Rep. Kennedy’s cousin. “I'm reaching out to Patrick Kennedy and also to my local priests and bishops to make sure they know that we agree on 99 percent of the issues.”
More harsh were comments on the issue by two Massachusetts senatorial candidates. “It seems to me a little bit ironic that a church that was willing to overlook the victimization of many, many children over several years is now turning around and saying to people who are good Christians, good Catholics, that, ‘You can’t join this,’’’ said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Catholic. According to the Boston Globe, Rep. Michael Capuano added:
“And they wonder why people stop going to church.’’ Capuano, who is Catholic, then ticked off issues on which he disagreed with the church, including abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and prohibitions against the ordination of women and married men as priests. It sounds like Murphy and Capuano need to be reminded that Catholicism isn't a democracy.
We’re supposed to “respect” Muslims, but here are politicians attacking the Catholic Church for upholding its own doctrine. The Catholic Church isn’t killing members of other religions around the World.
Monday, November 23, 2009
BISHOP THOMAS TOBIN: A LION FOR THE LORD
by Judie Brown,
Ever since Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, D.D., arrived in the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, he has been an articulate defender of truth. Since his installation in May 2005, he has focused his attention on shepherding his people, not only with a vision of faith through understanding, but with a clear set of Catholic moral principles that clearly guide his actions and shape his words.
Bishop Tobin is fondly remembered at American Life League for his “My interview with President Obama” column and his follow-up commentary, “Jesus wasn’t always nice,” in which he shared with his flock the various comments he had received after publishing the Obama “interview”:
If the language in my article about President Obama’s funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. It has nothing to do with my personal attitude about the man. Admittedly I’m not a fan, but as I’ve written before, I pray for him and his fine family and I wish him well. As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions. I do so because Christian charity requires me to do so, because I love my country and I believe in the sanctity of human life. As St. Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” (1Cor. 9:16)
Bishop Tobin does not mince words. During the latest scuffle with Congressman Patrick Kennedy, for example, he suggested that pro-abortion Catholic public figures “really have to question their membership in the [C]hurch.”
Further, Bishop Tobin published an open letter to Kennedy after the congressman chose to take his disagreement with his bishop to the public square. Bishop Tobin wrote,
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?
In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.
Obviously, even after Bishop Tobin released this letter, Kennedy was not convinced that he needed to pay attention to his bishop. The Providence Journal reported, “Kennedy said yesterday that he has a pastor, and ‘I have my sacraments through that pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion and all the rest.’ He said he preferred to keep his pastor’s name private.”
Kennedy also argues that Bishop Tobin erred in publishing this letter when, in fact, it has been clear for some time that Kennedy himself has no problem publicly disagreeing with his bishop. Arrogance is clearly a Kennedy family trait. It is also clear that this discussion will not go away until he stops flaunting his pro-abortion attitude in front of his bishop.
The latest chapter in this saga was reported in the November 22 Providence Journal:
Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.
“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion…,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview. Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. … [H]e declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.
We are aware of the immense power Bishop Tobin’s words have had for Catholics, including (we hope) those in public life who believe they can divide their faith into various compartments, bringing it out only when it serves their purposes. And now we certainly hope that his decisive action will have a powerful positive impact as well. We applaud His Excellency for applying Canon 915 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law to public figures who, like Kennedy, have no problem defaming the Church and denying the truth of God’s law.
Take action:
1. Thank Bishop Tobin for his courage in defending the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and standing up for the truth, and for his concern for Congressman Kennedy’s soul. Contact the bishop’s public affairs manager, Karen Davis (call 401-278-4600, fax 401-278-4659 or e-mail kdavis@dioceseofprovidence.org), or write to this address:
Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, D.D.
Diocese of Providence
One Cathedral Square
Providence, RI 02903
2. Contact Congressman Patrick Kennedy to let him know that you are praying for his conversion to truth. E-mail him through his congressional web site, call 202-225-4911, fax 202-225-3290 or write to this address:
Representative Patrick Kennedy
407 Cannon House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Ever since Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, D.D., arrived in the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, he has been an articulate defender of truth. Since his installation in May 2005, he has focused his attention on shepherding his people, not only with a vision of faith through understanding, but with a clear set of Catholic moral principles that clearly guide his actions and shape his words.
Bishop Tobin is fondly remembered at American Life League for his “My interview with President Obama” column and his follow-up commentary, “Jesus wasn’t always nice,” in which he shared with his flock the various comments he had received after publishing the Obama “interview”:
If the language in my article about President Obama’s funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. It has nothing to do with my personal attitude about the man. Admittedly I’m not a fan, but as I’ve written before, I pray for him and his fine family and I wish him well. As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions. I do so because Christian charity requires me to do so, because I love my country and I believe in the sanctity of human life. As St. Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” (1Cor. 9:16)
Bishop Tobin does not mince words. During the latest scuffle with Congressman Patrick Kennedy, for example, he suggested that pro-abortion Catholic public figures “really have to question their membership in the [C]hurch.”
Further, Bishop Tobin published an open letter to Kennedy after the congressman chose to take his disagreement with his bishop to the public square. Bishop Tobin wrote,
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?
In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.
Obviously, even after Bishop Tobin released this letter, Kennedy was not convinced that he needed to pay attention to his bishop. The Providence Journal reported, “Kennedy said yesterday that he has a pastor, and ‘I have my sacraments through that pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion and all the rest.’ He said he preferred to keep his pastor’s name private.”
Kennedy also argues that Bishop Tobin erred in publishing this letter when, in fact, it has been clear for some time that Kennedy himself has no problem publicly disagreeing with his bishop. Arrogance is clearly a Kennedy family trait. It is also clear that this discussion will not go away until he stops flaunting his pro-abortion attitude in front of his bishop.
The latest chapter in this saga was reported in the November 22 Providence Journal:
Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.
“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion…,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview. Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. … [H]e declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.
We are aware of the immense power Bishop Tobin’s words have had for Catholics, including (we hope) those in public life who believe they can divide their faith into various compartments, bringing it out only when it serves their purposes. And now we certainly hope that his decisive action will have a powerful positive impact as well. We applaud His Excellency for applying Canon 915 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law to public figures who, like Kennedy, have no problem defaming the Church and denying the truth of God’s law.
Take action:
1. Thank Bishop Tobin for his courage in defending the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and standing up for the truth, and for his concern for Congressman Kennedy’s soul. Contact the bishop’s public affairs manager, Karen Davis (call 401-278-4600, fax 401-278-4659 or e-mail kdavis@dioceseofprovidence.org), or write to this address:
Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, D.D.
Diocese of Providence
One Cathedral Square
Providence, RI 02903
2. Contact Congressman Patrick Kennedy to let him know that you are praying for his conversion to truth. E-mail him through his congressional web site, call 202-225-4911, fax 202-225-3290 or write to this address:
Representative Patrick Kennedy
407 Cannon House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Kennedy: Barred from Communion
I have to applaud this bishop's desicion!
Link
WASHINGTON — Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.
“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview.
Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. He declined to say when or how Bishop Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.
Bishop Tobin, through a spokesman, declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive Communion. But the bishop’s office moved quickly to cast doubt on Kennedy’s related assertion about instructions to the priests of Rhode Island.
Link
WASHINGTON — Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.
“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview.
Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. He declined to say when or how Bishop Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.
Bishop Tobin, through a spokesman, declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive Communion. But the bishop’s office moved quickly to cast doubt on Kennedy’s related assertion about instructions to the priests of Rhode Island.
Let's pray for Godless people like Kennedy.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Did you know Hitler's propaganda machine tried to commandeer Christmas?
Link
Neither did I. And that's why this article in today's Daily Mail online caught my eye and raised my eyebrows.
This insidious effort on the part of the Nazis to superimpose their own atheistic symbols and thought categories onto Christendom's ancient Christian symbols associated with the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was ultimately a failure, mainly because the Nazis were beaten by the Allies before this program of "re-education" could gain traction and take effect. But it is a good reminder that one of Hitler's prime directives was to do everything in his power to neutralize the Catholic Church, a force which he clearly understood to be the most formidable non-military obstacle standing in the way of the Reich's quest for total domination of Europe and beyond.
Well, happy holidays, Adolph. Your little scheme didn't work out the way you had planned, now did it?
P.S. Sadly, where Hitler failed, the modern Western media and merchandise complex has succeeded. But that's another post for another time.
Nazi Germany celebrated Christmas without Christ with the help of swastika tree baubles, 'Germanic' cookies and a host of manufactured traditions, a new exhibition has shown.
The way the celebration was gradually taken over and exploited for propaganda purposes by Hitler's Nazis is detailed in a new exhibition.
Rita Breuer has spent years scouring flea markets for old German Christmas ornaments.
She and her daughter Judith developed a fascination with the way Christmas was used by the atheist Nazis, who tried to turn it into a pagan winter solstice celebration.
Selected objects from the family's enormous collection have gone on show at the National Socialism Documentation Centre in Cologne.
'Christmas was a provocation for the Nazis - after all, the baby Jesus was a Jewish child,' Judith Breuer told the German newspaper Spiegel. 'The most important celebration in the year didn't fit with their racist beliefs so they had to react, by trying to make it less Christian.'
The exhibition includes swastika-shaped cookie-cutters and Christmas tree baubles shaped like Iron Cross medals.
The Nazis attempted to persuade housewives to bake cookies in the shape of swastikas, and they replaced the Christian figure of Saint Nicholas, who traditionally brings German children treats on December 6, with the Norse god Odin.
The symbol that posed a particular problem for the Nazis was the star, which traditionally decorates Christmas trees. . . .
Wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama logo ornaments. it shows how dumb the left is when they actually think that the NAZIS and Hitler were on the far right and were religious Christians.
What is going on today is how the NAZIS took control, even getting their thugs out to peoples houses, oh just like SEIU and ACORN. Obama supporters have already used children to sing songs with Christ replaced by Obama. This is right up their alley.
People are starting to realize what this administration is really up to. They are following the Nazi agenda to a tee..maybe not in the same order but to the tee.
They own the Network News, they have taken over about 30% of the manufacturing and economic system and now they must take control of the military-the same the Nazis did by removing key leaders and replacing them with their lackeys.
The Nazis did not have a majority in the legislature in Germany when they took over completely. They had to make a “deal” with another party to pass the enabling act which put Hitler in complete control. This concerns me since we have some even on this board who will vote for a third party no matter what as long as they fit their political views completely. What could happen is the democrats would stay in control of the house and senate allowing them to push the agenda a their whims. I don't like it any more than anyone else that some might have to vote for a lessor of evils to get the bastards out of there. The better choice would be to get involved, like me, and get a true conservative republican to run in each district and make dam sure he/she gets elected in the primaries and win the general election. Otherwise we might be facing a congress run by the democrats even though they are not the majority. By simple majority, they can head ALL committee's and continue to decide what bill gets to the floor and when.
Neither did I. And that's why this article in today's Daily Mail online caught my eye and raised my eyebrows.
This insidious effort on the part of the Nazis to superimpose their own atheistic symbols and thought categories onto Christendom's ancient Christian symbols associated with the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was ultimately a failure, mainly because the Nazis were beaten by the Allies before this program of "re-education" could gain traction and take effect. But it is a good reminder that one of Hitler's prime directives was to do everything in his power to neutralize the Catholic Church, a force which he clearly understood to be the most formidable non-military obstacle standing in the way of the Reich's quest for total domination of Europe and beyond.
Well, happy holidays, Adolph. Your little scheme didn't work out the way you had planned, now did it?
P.S. Sadly, where Hitler failed, the modern Western media and merchandise complex has succeeded. But that's another post for another time.
Nazi Germany celebrated Christmas without Christ with the help of swastika tree baubles, 'Germanic' cookies and a host of manufactured traditions, a new exhibition has shown.
The way the celebration was gradually taken over and exploited for propaganda purposes by Hitler's Nazis is detailed in a new exhibition.
Rita Breuer has spent years scouring flea markets for old German Christmas ornaments.
She and her daughter Judith developed a fascination with the way Christmas was used by the atheist Nazis, who tried to turn it into a pagan winter solstice celebration.
Selected objects from the family's enormous collection have gone on show at the National Socialism Documentation Centre in Cologne.
'Christmas was a provocation for the Nazis - after all, the baby Jesus was a Jewish child,' Judith Breuer told the German newspaper Spiegel. 'The most important celebration in the year didn't fit with their racist beliefs so they had to react, by trying to make it less Christian.'
The exhibition includes swastika-shaped cookie-cutters and Christmas tree baubles shaped like Iron Cross medals.
The Nazis attempted to persuade housewives to bake cookies in the shape of swastikas, and they replaced the Christian figure of Saint Nicholas, who traditionally brings German children treats on December 6, with the Norse god Odin.
The symbol that posed a particular problem for the Nazis was the star, which traditionally decorates Christmas trees. . . .
Wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama logo ornaments. it shows how dumb the left is when they actually think that the NAZIS and Hitler were on the far right and were religious Christians.
What is going on today is how the NAZIS took control, even getting their thugs out to peoples houses, oh just like SEIU and ACORN. Obama supporters have already used children to sing songs with Christ replaced by Obama. This is right up their alley.
People are starting to realize what this administration is really up to. They are following the Nazi agenda to a tee..maybe not in the same order but to the tee.
They own the Network News, they have taken over about 30% of the manufacturing and economic system and now they must take control of the military-the same the Nazis did by removing key leaders and replacing them with their lackeys.
The Nazis did not have a majority in the legislature in Germany when they took over completely. They had to make a “deal” with another party to pass the enabling act which put Hitler in complete control. This concerns me since we have some even on this board who will vote for a third party no matter what as long as they fit their political views completely. What could happen is the democrats would stay in control of the house and senate allowing them to push the agenda a their whims. I don't like it any more than anyone else that some might have to vote for a lessor of evils to get the bastards out of there. The better choice would be to get involved, like me, and get a true conservative republican to run in each district and make dam sure he/she gets elected in the primaries and win the general election. Otherwise we might be facing a congress run by the democrats even though they are not the majority. By simple majority, they can head ALL committee's and continue to decide what bill gets to the floor and when.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
