I do did to on occasion to remind people I am not anti Episcopal. I am in fact very much concerned this faith is going off the rails. I also point out this things because in some Catholics views if were more just like the more liberal version of the Episcopal Church we would be going gangbusters. The fact that the numbers of that faith community are declining at a horrific rate enters no one's mind that makes this argument
Anyway a Anglican from Baton Rouge has discovered a resolution that will "correct this problem. Red Stick Rant has it at I'm SO Going To Episco-Hell. (Wherever That Is...)
When I was at Louisiana Tech about 10 of us Catholics each week would go to Canterbury for the service (we did not take communion) and the dinner afterwards. The people there were so nice and loved us and we loved them.
However I don't think it would ever enter their mind as counting us as Episcopals on their parish books
Monday, March 30, 2009
How Catholic Should Write their Bishops Part II
Father Z picks up on something I devoted a post to yesterday. See Archbp. Chaput’s workshop on debate and discourse
National Review Meets Immigration Politics Reality
Updated with more thoughts below
I will commend National Review of getting out of the echo chamber of Mark Krikorian and entertaining the chilling reality. I so wish we had done this in 2006 instead of hearing that all those that entertain the below notions were some sort of conservative heretics. Be sure to read this posters very good pdf that lays out the entire electoral implications!!! This data was very much available in 2006 but sadly was just ignored in 2007 buy Republicans and conservatives. The situation is dire. In fact the 2006 elections and long term implications is what scared many no to immigration reform folks just the previous year to action and to reverse their stance or be open to alternatives
But the fact he is here arguing this is a good sign. The fight is good and needed in this forum as this is again is talked about among Republicans and conservatives
Here are two posts from today
Re: Train-wreck [Richard Nadler]
John,
As head of Missouri’s largest taxpayer organization, and later as a newspaper editor, I spent many decades of my life gleefully torching business interests for betraying free-market principles in the political arena. I opposed them on public-school taxes, on public-debt issues, and on the whole panoply of subsidized urban redevelopment that created the now-obvious overinvestment in retail malls, casinos, and sports facilities. Ask Ramesh. He was there.
But I have no intention of opposing business when it is right. I have three — no, four — serious objections to kicking 7 million illegals out of the workforce. The first is: It’s not going to happen. The second is, if it did happen, the result would not be more jobs for American workers, but the catastrophic collapse of our rural export industries, and a substantial contraction of many branches of industry that depend on seasonal peak hiring to maintain their year-round staff. The third is, the overwhelming majority of these “illegal” workers were legally hired, under the I-9 verification laws enacted by politicians for whom you and I voted. The fourth, with which I don’t expect you to agree, is that the entire scheme is grossly immoral.
In your posted query to me, you characterize the owners of business in which illegals work as “wishing to hire cheap, illegal labor.” You describe them as “bent on violating federal law.” These are slanders. These entreprenuers wish to hire legally going forward, as they have in the past. They are eager for a new federal law, rather than the patchwork of state laws that deny them the safe harbor they require to run their businesses.
As to “cheap” labor: I eagerly await your plans for the ranchers, general contractors, farmers, meat-packers, seafood processors, hoteliers, computer software designers, restaurateurs, health-care providers, and home builders who disagree with you. Tell me, pray, what the wages should be for different job categories in these industries, since you seem to know.
As to Arizona: Yes, you can pass E-Verify there, no “illegal” benefits there, official English there. But what you cannot do there, or in any other state on the border, is elect politicians who refuse to negotiate a comprehensive immigration reform that mediates these goals with the legitimate interests of business and Hispanics.
Incidentally, I am not hostile to Randy Graff, J.D. Hayworth, Tim Bee, Sidney Hay, or Dave Schweikert – good conservatives all, defeated in Arizona House districts recently held by Republicans. What I resent is this: The death of the business-social conservative alliance in Arizona will deny me their votes on right-to-life, national defense, taxes, and the budget.
Now, John, permit me a question of my own: Do you honestly think that “no amnesty” is a wedge issue that politically benefits Republicans? If so, on what basis?
— Richard Nadler is president of the Americas Majority Foundation, a public-policy think tank in Overland Park, Kan.
03/30 01:59 PMShare
AND
M’or Derbs [Richard Nadler]
John,
You say the GOP is doing well in Arizona?
Well, let’s be complete. In Arizona, a 6-2 GOP congressional majority in 2004 has shifted to a 5-3 Democratic Majority. In 2008, the GOP gained one AZ Senate seat, and two AZ House seats. The statewide offices went to Democrats. For the first time since 1996, the Democrats took control of the powerful Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates securities, railroads, pipelines, rural water, telephones, and utilities.
John Shadegg kept his seat. I doubt whether another Republican could have. Shadegg, of course, favors comprehensive immigration reform (though not the Bush version) — a subject on which he has written at length here. He also endorsed immigration moderate Lisa James over deportation advocate Randy Pullen for State Party Chair.
In neighboring New Mexico, a 2-to-1 Republican majority is now a 3-to-0 Democratic unanimity. The two retiring GOP Congresspersons, Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce, were among the handful of GOP legislators who voted against the Sensenbrenner bill (H. 4437) on final passage, and thereby retained significant Hispanic support.
All nine congressional districts on the U.S. Mexico border are now represented by Democrats. As recently as 2004, George W. Bush carried five of them, with considerable Latino support.
If you want to get a realistic idea of what is happening on the border, I suggest you read my “Border Wars,” here.
The notion that immigration hasn’t damaged the G.O.P. in the Southwest is, at this point, delusional.
E-Verify is NOT the point. Hispanics have, and will, vote for a candidate who supports E-Verify. What they will not vote for is a Republican who wants to deport or starve 9 million Hispanics.
You are welcome to your opinions on deportation and on amnesty, John. In truth, these are the alternatives. But you had better understand their electoral implications.
— Richard Nadler is president of the Americas Majority Foundation, a public-policy think tank in Overland Park, Kan.
03/30 02:19 PMShare
Update- Let me say it is my firm belief that many people calling themselves "conservatives" understand the electoral implications. The key is the organizations that Mark Krikorian represents and advocates for (also advocated by Lou Dobbs) have a much bigger agenda. They are as fringe as AL Gore on the Environmental issues at their core. They also have strong misgivings about trade and free markets and have as their hallmark population control. In many ways their core objectives( and it is not about the illegals) is more in tuned with the left.
After they use conservatives they very much will shift their alliances. This has been one of my major objections to FAIR, CIS, and Numbers USA and their various groups. That conservatives in frustration over the illegal immigration problem have allied themselves with folks that do have their other long term objective in mind.
This does not apply to all hardline "No amnesty groups" or at least did not. But it is troubling how they have subverted many of them iinto this way of thinking.
I will commend National Review of getting out of the echo chamber of Mark Krikorian and entertaining the chilling reality. I so wish we had done this in 2006 instead of hearing that all those that entertain the below notions were some sort of conservative heretics. Be sure to read this posters very good pdf that lays out the entire electoral implications!!! This data was very much available in 2006 but sadly was just ignored in 2007 buy Republicans and conservatives. The situation is dire. In fact the 2006 elections and long term implications is what scared many no to immigration reform folks just the previous year to action and to reverse their stance or be open to alternatives
But the fact he is here arguing this is a good sign. The fight is good and needed in this forum as this is again is talked about among Republicans and conservatives
Here are two posts from today
Re: Train-wreck [Richard Nadler]
John,
As head of Missouri’s largest taxpayer organization, and later as a newspaper editor, I spent many decades of my life gleefully torching business interests for betraying free-market principles in the political arena. I opposed them on public-school taxes, on public-debt issues, and on the whole panoply of subsidized urban redevelopment that created the now-obvious overinvestment in retail malls, casinos, and sports facilities. Ask Ramesh. He was there.
But I have no intention of opposing business when it is right. I have three — no, four — serious objections to kicking 7 million illegals out of the workforce. The first is: It’s not going to happen. The second is, if it did happen, the result would not be more jobs for American workers, but the catastrophic collapse of our rural export industries, and a substantial contraction of many branches of industry that depend on seasonal peak hiring to maintain their year-round staff. The third is, the overwhelming majority of these “illegal” workers were legally hired, under the I-9 verification laws enacted by politicians for whom you and I voted. The fourth, with which I don’t expect you to agree, is that the entire scheme is grossly immoral.
In your posted query to me, you characterize the owners of business in which illegals work as “wishing to hire cheap, illegal labor.” You describe them as “bent on violating federal law.” These are slanders. These entreprenuers wish to hire legally going forward, as they have in the past. They are eager for a new federal law, rather than the patchwork of state laws that deny them the safe harbor they require to run their businesses.
As to “cheap” labor: I eagerly await your plans for the ranchers, general contractors, farmers, meat-packers, seafood processors, hoteliers, computer software designers, restaurateurs, health-care providers, and home builders who disagree with you. Tell me, pray, what the wages should be for different job categories in these industries, since you seem to know.
As to Arizona: Yes, you can pass E-Verify there, no “illegal” benefits there, official English there. But what you cannot do there, or in any other state on the border, is elect politicians who refuse to negotiate a comprehensive immigration reform that mediates these goals with the legitimate interests of business and Hispanics.
Incidentally, I am not hostile to Randy Graff, J.D. Hayworth, Tim Bee, Sidney Hay, or Dave Schweikert – good conservatives all, defeated in Arizona House districts recently held by Republicans. What I resent is this: The death of the business-social conservative alliance in Arizona will deny me their votes on right-to-life, national defense, taxes, and the budget.
Now, John, permit me a question of my own: Do you honestly think that “no amnesty” is a wedge issue that politically benefits Republicans? If so, on what basis?
— Richard Nadler is president of the Americas Majority Foundation, a public-policy think tank in Overland Park, Kan.
03/30 01:59 PMShare
AND
M’or Derbs [Richard Nadler]
John,
You say the GOP is doing well in Arizona?
Well, let’s be complete. In Arizona, a 6-2 GOP congressional majority in 2004 has shifted to a 5-3 Democratic Majority. In 2008, the GOP gained one AZ Senate seat, and two AZ House seats. The statewide offices went to Democrats. For the first time since 1996, the Democrats took control of the powerful Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates securities, railroads, pipelines, rural water, telephones, and utilities.
John Shadegg kept his seat. I doubt whether another Republican could have. Shadegg, of course, favors comprehensive immigration reform (though not the Bush version) — a subject on which he has written at length here. He also endorsed immigration moderate Lisa James over deportation advocate Randy Pullen for State Party Chair.
In neighboring New Mexico, a 2-to-1 Republican majority is now a 3-to-0 Democratic unanimity. The two retiring GOP Congresspersons, Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce, were among the handful of GOP legislators who voted against the Sensenbrenner bill (H. 4437) on final passage, and thereby retained significant Hispanic support.
All nine congressional districts on the U.S. Mexico border are now represented by Democrats. As recently as 2004, George W. Bush carried five of them, with considerable Latino support.
If you want to get a realistic idea of what is happening on the border, I suggest you read my “Border Wars,” here.
The notion that immigration hasn’t damaged the G.O.P. in the Southwest is, at this point, delusional.
E-Verify is NOT the point. Hispanics have, and will, vote for a candidate who supports E-Verify. What they will not vote for is a Republican who wants to deport or starve 9 million Hispanics.
You are welcome to your opinions on deportation and on amnesty, John. In truth, these are the alternatives. But you had better understand their electoral implications.
— Richard Nadler is president of the Americas Majority Foundation, a public-policy think tank in Overland Park, Kan.
03/30 02:19 PMShare
Update- Let me say it is my firm belief that many people calling themselves "conservatives" understand the electoral implications. The key is the organizations that Mark Krikorian represents and advocates for (also advocated by Lou Dobbs) have a much bigger agenda. They are as fringe as AL Gore on the Environmental issues at their core. They also have strong misgivings about trade and free markets and have as their hallmark population control. In many ways their core objectives( and it is not about the illegals) is more in tuned with the left.
After they use conservatives they very much will shift their alliances. This has been one of my major objections to FAIR, CIS, and Numbers USA and their various groups. That conservatives in frustration over the illegal immigration problem have allied themselves with folks that do have their other long term objective in mind.
This does not apply to all hardline "No amnesty groups" or at least did not. But it is troubling how they have subverted many of them iinto this way of thinking.
Can the LSU Band Spell OBAMA
I saw this today and thought this was such a interesting old picture. Pretty cool and gives insight how big the WPA was back then
Build us something Minster. Perhaps phase two and three of the new baseball stadium
LA Times Attacks Orthodox Catholics
Tim Hutten over at the LA times has a history of doing this as you can see.
Get Religion looks at this latest screed this time using the Obama /Notre Dame controversy as his vehicle at LAT: Is the pope Catholic?
The issue here that should looked at is not the underlying controversy but how it is being used.
Anytime you see "right wing" mentioned numerous times and "single issue" watch out.
What strikes you is that for a man that often reports on religion he sees things through a PURELY political lens. The fact that people are having a vast moral debate and feel strongly about it seems to never enter his mind.
This is one of the leading voices of the LA TIMES.
So you might be a Seamless Garment Catholic out there in the finest tradition of Dorthy Day but thank God the LA TImes has informed you are just a right wing political boss
Get Religion looks at this latest screed this time using the Obama /Notre Dame controversy as his vehicle at LAT: Is the pope Catholic?
The issue here that should looked at is not the underlying controversy but how it is being used.
Anytime you see "right wing" mentioned numerous times and "single issue" watch out.
What strikes you is that for a man that often reports on religion he sees things through a PURELY political lens. The fact that people are having a vast moral debate and feel strongly about it seems to never enter his mind.
This is one of the leading voices of the LA TIMES.
So you might be a Seamless Garment Catholic out there in the finest tradition of Dorthy Day but thank God the LA TImes has informed you are just a right wing political boss
Urinating on the Pope's Foot Comments Edited Out By Paper
Maybe some things need to go down the memory hole. In my native State of Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal emerged as a Union Parish hero following his successful efforts to broker the sale of Pilgrim’s Pride’s Farmerville chicken complex to Foster Farms, especially after committing $50 million of the state’s money to make the deal finally happen on Friday.
“We’re so indebted to the governor,” said state Sen. Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe. “He just wouldn’t let this go. He was a key component in the entire process.”
Union Parish Sheriff Bob Buckley agreed, though his praise was less refined.
“If Bobby Jindal walked up and peed on the Pope’s foot, he’d still get every vote in Union Parish,” Buckley said.
Jindal formed a Pilgrim’s Pride Emergency Task Force that began meeting daily at the Capitol almost as soon as Pilgrim’s Pride announced on Feb. 27 that it planned to close the facility in April, eliminating 1,300 jobs and virtually ruining 300 independent chicken growers.
“Gov. Jindal and his staff worked day and night to put this deal together,” said Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain, who was one of the lead members of the task force. “I’m sure I am speaking on behalf of the hundreds of Louisiana farmers and all of the employees who would have lost their livelihoods when I say thank you, Governor.”
Note the esteemed News Star World has now edited out those wonderful remarks by the Sheriff.
Oh too funny
Gov. Bobby Jindal emerged as a Union Parish hero following his successful efforts to broker the sale of Pilgrim’s Pride’s Farmerville chicken complex to Foster Farms, especially after committing $50 million of the state’s money to make the deal finally happen on Friday.
“We’re so indebted to the governor,” said state Sen. Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe. “He just wouldn’t let this go. He was a key component in the entire process.”
Union Parish Sheriff Bob Buckley agreed, though his praise was less refined.
“If Bobby Jindal walked up and peed on the Pope’s foot, he’d still get every vote in Union Parish,” Buckley said.
Jindal formed a Pilgrim’s Pride Emergency Task Force that began meeting daily at the Capitol almost as soon as Pilgrim’s Pride announced on Feb. 27 that it planned to close the facility in April, eliminating 1,300 jobs and virtually ruining 300 independent chicken growers.
“Gov. Jindal and his staff worked day and night to put this deal together,” said Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain, who was one of the lead members of the task force. “I’m sure I am speaking on behalf of the hundreds of Louisiana farmers and all of the employees who would have lost their livelihoods when I say thank you, Governor.”
Note the esteemed News Star World has now edited out those wonderful remarks by the Sheriff.
Oh too funny
Obama's Plan to Save the Auto Industry
Major portions are found here.
There is a lot here I agree and disagree with but two things stand out right away
GOVERNMENT WARRANTY It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way towards answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can -- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.
I am not sure what that means.
However this part caught my eye
GENERAL MOTORS
So let me discuss what measures need to be taken by each of the auto companies requesting taxpayer assistance, starting with General Motors. While GM has made a good faith effort to restructure over the past several months, the plan they have put forward is, in its current form, not strong enough.
However, after broad consultations with a range of industry experts and financial advisors, I'm confident that GM can rise again, provided that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. As an initial step, GM is announcing today that Rick Wagoner is stepping aside as Chairman and CEO. This is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner, who has devoted his life to this company; rather, it's a recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.
In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.
They must ask themselves: have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? And above all, have they created a credible model for how to not only survive, but succeed in this competitive global market?
Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.
Hmm. Of course the question is how political this gets. Consolidating brands means in other words Plant closures.
Now no doubt that might have to happen and the Shreveport Louisiana might suffer and have to be closed.
But imagine if you will the White House said that the US Military would have to come up with a more efficient Business plan and consolidate their Brands (that is bases) which means base closures before they approved their funding. Now we had a whole painful process over this and a base closure committee to make sure that to some degree politics could be taken out of it. Just a thought
Update-
Is the Warranty thing a prelude in giving consumers confidence if there is plan to put these companies in reorganizations via the bankruptcy courts? Now that would be a good idea if this is where all this headed. It seem maybe Obama is hinting at it which seems on the whole the course of action we have done from the start
There is a lot here I agree and disagree with but two things stand out right away
GOVERNMENT WARRANTY It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way towards answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can -- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.
I am not sure what that means.
However this part caught my eye
GENERAL MOTORS
So let me discuss what measures need to be taken by each of the auto companies requesting taxpayer assistance, starting with General Motors. While GM has made a good faith effort to restructure over the past several months, the plan they have put forward is, in its current form, not strong enough.
However, after broad consultations with a range of industry experts and financial advisors, I'm confident that GM can rise again, provided that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. As an initial step, GM is announcing today that Rick Wagoner is stepping aside as Chairman and CEO. This is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner, who has devoted his life to this company; rather, it's a recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.
In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.
They must ask themselves: have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? And above all, have they created a credible model for how to not only survive, but succeed in this competitive global market?
Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.
Hmm. Of course the question is how political this gets. Consolidating brands means in other words Plant closures.
Now no doubt that might have to happen and the Shreveport Louisiana might suffer and have to be closed.
But imagine if you will the White House said that the US Military would have to come up with a more efficient Business plan and consolidate their Brands (that is bases) which means base closures before they approved their funding. Now we had a whole painful process over this and a base closure committee to make sure that to some degree politics could be taken out of it. Just a thought
Update-
Is the Warranty thing a prelude in giving consumers confidence if there is plan to put these companies in reorganizations via the bankruptcy courts? Now that would be a good idea if this is where all this headed. It seem maybe Obama is hinting at it which seems on the whole the course of action we have done from the start
Joe Biden Strikes Again- Thanks Spain Prime Minsiter for Helping Us in Iraq
Though I really disagree with VP Joe Biden I do like him in many ways. I also want him to be some asset to this nation as VP in a constructive way. But when I see things like this I realize why the Obama administration keeps him off the stage
MAN, BIDEN IS A GAFFE WITH LEGS: during his meeting with Spain's primer minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in Chile yesterday, Biden thanked Zapatero for his effort... in Iraq (link in Spanish, haven't found this detail in any English-language media).As everybody knows, the first decision Zapatero made after his unexpected win in 2004, right after the Madrid train terrorist attacks, was to abruptly and unilaterally pull out from Iraq. So either Biden made a gaffe, or he was thanking Zapatero for angering Bush...
UPDATE. When I wrote the post I didn't remember to add this, which makes things even worse: shortly after ordering the withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq, Zapatero called the other countries to follow the example. Some help, Biden.
MAN, BIDEN IS A GAFFE WITH LEGS: during his meeting with Spain's primer minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in Chile yesterday, Biden thanked Zapatero for his effort... in Iraq (link in Spanish, haven't found this detail in any English-language media).As everybody knows, the first decision Zapatero made after his unexpected win in 2004, right after the Madrid train terrorist attacks, was to abruptly and unilaterally pull out from Iraq. So either Biden made a gaffe, or he was thanking Zapatero for angering Bush...
UPDATE. When I wrote the post I didn't remember to add this, which makes things even worse: shortly after ordering the withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq, Zapatero called the other countries to follow the example. Some help, Biden.
Tip fo the Hat to the Corner
Update- Biden should have left it at Afghanistan that would have been correct
The Comprehensive Case Why Obama Should Not Be Honored By Notre Dame
First let me give my full take on personal this. I am pretty much in the camp of Rick Garnett that is perfectly reasonable here.
This is where we stand sixty day in as this Corner poster so well points out-
President Obama and Honorary Degree Apologetics [Peter Kirsanow]
When a Catholic institution confers an honorary degree upon President Obama, it should be prepared to explain, with some degree of rigor, why the public should believe the institution takes the following actions of the president seriously:
The executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to perform abortions in other countries;
The votes against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would require medical care be provided to babies born after botched abortions — as opposed to leaving the babies to die;
The order allowing the use of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research that may (and likely will) lead to the destruction of human life;
The declaration that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would reverse virtually every restriction on abortion, ranging from parental-notification laws to laws against partial-birth abortion;
The expected abrogation of the "conscience clause" that permits observant Catholic (and other) health-care workers to decline to perform abortions;
The nomination of Kathleen Sebelius, arguably the most pro-abortion governor in the U.S., to head the Department of Health and Human Services;
The unalloyed support for Roe v. Wade that permits abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
Merely stating that the honor is being conferred in recognition of the president's historic election is insufficient. The historic nature of the election has already been marked thousands of times in thousands of venues. Any incremental value in having it done yet again — only this time in the form of an honor bestowed by a Catholic institution — must be explained against the actions noted above. Otherwise, it appears prominence and celebrity trump principle and values.
03/30 09:24 AMShare
This is where we stand at this very early date. Much of has been made of the Secretary of State sort of goof at the Our Lady's most important shrine in Mexico. But the real outrage was after that visit she went directly to Houston where she received the highest award from Planned Parenthood and said among other things "was very proud when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy".
Think about that for a moment.
Doug Kmiec who spent much of his reputation defending Obama and advocating him has rushed to his defense.
But it is telling in a very honest and upfront article posted at the Archdiocese of San Francisco web site the George Wesolek is director of Public Policy/ Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of San Francisco is having none of it as to the praise that Kmiec gives.
Along with others, I heard during the campaign from pro-Obama Catholics and Catholic organizations established to promote his candidacy that Obama would accomplish more than the previous administration to curtail abortions and promote life using "non-divisive" strategies. I have been eagerly looking for indications that this was indeed the case.......
and
Most distressing, is that there is no reaction from those pro-Obama Catholics and Catholic organizations that were and are apologists for Obama and his policies. These organizations - Catholics United, Alliance of Catholics for the Common Good, Network and others - provided Catholics with a scenario that painted Obama as "pro-life." Some of them openly said that they were pro-life and would work to move policy in a pro-life direction under Obama. Where are they now? Where are there any policy initiatives that would blunt the irrevocable thrust of these Obama actions early in his presidency?.......
In fact the main thrust of these groups is to attack Catholics that have some problem with this invite!!!
Further it gets worse. We see that the people that the President has vetting Judges come from radical pro-choice groups. In fact in other critical areas we see key positions relating to domestic policy manned by people from organizations such as Emily's list. A organization that found Senator Mary Landrieu too moderate on abortion to support in a past election.
We have not even got to the fact that the President is on the record of even wanting to repeal the Defense of Marriage act.
If George Wallace had been elected President instead of Nixon would Notre Dame have invited him? Would they have invited after he rescinded several orders dealing with integration and was poised to further use his power to stop the real needed advancement of Civil Rights? Would Notre Dame being giving such a President a honorary degree as to the LAW of all things? Would they have justified this by some reason of "having a conversation" whatever that means?
I have huge doubts any of this would have happened.
Even on issues such as torture where Catholics have disagreements with the Obama administration we find the new Obama policy is much like the old old Bush policy in many ways.
For good or for bad Notre Dame is one of the premier symbols of the Catholic faith in America to both Catholics and non Catholics. To say the least to many of my non Catholic friends what Notre Dame is doing is baffling to them. They don't understand how this can occur and really see it as a endorsement of the Church for these policies.
That is not true of course but to explain the whole sordid maze of canon Law, how the Bishops or the Vatican has no real control over Notre Dame, etc is in the end just not doable. It looks like I and others are just being legalistic. In fact maybe we are.
It is a shame that the Church , after having its credibility damaged in such a severe way after the clergy sex abuse scandal , that was starting to recover appears again to be engaged in hypocrisy. Now that charge might not be fair because we Catholics that pay attention to these sagas know the fine details of what is going on. But to the average Catholic in the pews and non Catholic that don't follow it they will not see it.
There are problems on several levels here.
Let us leave the topic of abortion and other "life" issues and go to another topic of Social justice concern among Catholics.
Douglas Kmiec remarks in his comments I linked above that Obama is against the "the exploitation of the immigrant " As many journalist noted our pragmatic (as Kmiec describes him) President when he was Senator pretty much screwed the immigrant for political advantage.
Obama has attempted to respond to this but people that know the process will have none of it.
Ruben Navarrette, Jr. who is one of the leading journalists in the nation on this issue said quite bluntly:
As for Obama, United Farm Workers leader Delores Huerta was right when, during a tour of a Southwest in support of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries, she told Hispanic audiences that Obama was a “Johnny come lately” to Hispanic causes. It was one reason that Hillary—who aggressively went after the vote by spending money, setting up an organization, lining up endorsements, etc—dominated the Hispanic vote in the primaries, beating Obama 2-to-1 among this segment.
Nor was Obama, according to Senate leaders, intricately involved in the Senate negotiations over an immigration bill. In fact, he supported the union-friendly “poison pill” amendment designed to weaken the guest worker provision of the legislation, which was essential to earning the support of Republican lawmakers. You’ll never hear it from leftleaning Spanish-language media or Latino liberals, but Senate Democrats helped kill immigration reform. Majority Leader Harry Reid used political sleight of hand to make it seem as if the Republican minority had mustered up the power to defeat reform. That was the point of a much criticized but entirely accurate Spanish-language ad from the McCain campaign that began airing in September.
Now everyone that knows anything about the process know what Reuben is saying is true. Including the very good lobby people various Catholic group had working this issue. Yet there was silence on this and the then Senator Obama was allowed to skate on this.
In fact we are treated to the irony that Doug Kmiec , that supported Romney that used the McCain position on immigration against him all over the place, is now pontificating on this issue.
I use that as yet another example of what has President Obama done that should merit such a honor. As to immigration reform Navarette makes the common sense observation that common sense immigration reform now is very unlikely. Note that article was written before the current economic woes that even make such a political hot potato as this even more unlikely. Will Obama want to do Health Care or immigration reform? His political capital is not limitless. From past experience we see that President Obama does not exactly have the Political guts that a Bush or McCain had on this issue . So the deportation, the families of mixed legal status living in the shadows, and a increasing American public rage over this continues. A rage that now will be fueled by populist anger dealing with their economic state. Obama played a real large role in this.
Yet from Catholic circles as to the issues above there appears to be no real moral and needless to say political consequence. We see this with the Notre Dame invite.
I suppose and I think it is likely that perhaps Notre Dame is being strategic here. They realize that once President Obama continues his anti life agenda (and FOCA related items) combined with judicial selections and a policy that will try to undermine the Defense of Marriage Act that it will only get worse. So lets get it out of the way and invite him. I find this to be a very poor reason not rooted in any Catholic morals I am aware of.
In 1972 what if Wallace had got elected President. I find it unlikely but what if? People forget that Nixon had to do a lot of the nut and bots of executing the laws regarding the dismantling of state mandated segregation. A contribution , by his political skill, is being more and more noted. What if Wallace had come in and in his first 60 days put a huge stop to that. Would Notre Dame have invited him? Would they have invited him under the pretense of keeping the conversation open?
I very much doubt it. There are principles here at stake that are far reaching.
This is where we stand sixty day in as this Corner poster so well points out-
President Obama and Honorary Degree Apologetics [Peter Kirsanow]
When a Catholic institution confers an honorary degree upon President Obama, it should be prepared to explain, with some degree of rigor, why the public should believe the institution takes the following actions of the president seriously:
The executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to perform abortions in other countries;
The votes against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would require medical care be provided to babies born after botched abortions — as opposed to leaving the babies to die;
The order allowing the use of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research that may (and likely will) lead to the destruction of human life;
The declaration that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would reverse virtually every restriction on abortion, ranging from parental-notification laws to laws against partial-birth abortion;
The expected abrogation of the "conscience clause" that permits observant Catholic (and other) health-care workers to decline to perform abortions;
The nomination of Kathleen Sebelius, arguably the most pro-abortion governor in the U.S., to head the Department of Health and Human Services;
The unalloyed support for Roe v. Wade that permits abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
Merely stating that the honor is being conferred in recognition of the president's historic election is insufficient. The historic nature of the election has already been marked thousands of times in thousands of venues. Any incremental value in having it done yet again — only this time in the form of an honor bestowed by a Catholic institution — must be explained against the actions noted above. Otherwise, it appears prominence and celebrity trump principle and values.
03/30 09:24 AMShare
This is where we stand at this very early date. Much of has been made of the Secretary of State sort of goof at the Our Lady's most important shrine in Mexico. But the real outrage was after that visit she went directly to Houston where she received the highest award from Planned Parenthood and said among other things "was very proud when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy".
Think about that for a moment.
Doug Kmiec who spent much of his reputation defending Obama and advocating him has rushed to his defense.
But it is telling in a very honest and upfront article posted at the Archdiocese of San Francisco web site the George Wesolek is director of Public Policy/ Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of San Francisco is having none of it as to the praise that Kmiec gives.
Along with others, I heard during the campaign from pro-Obama Catholics and Catholic organizations established to promote his candidacy that Obama would accomplish more than the previous administration to curtail abortions and promote life using "non-divisive" strategies. I have been eagerly looking for indications that this was indeed the case.......
and
Most distressing, is that there is no reaction from those pro-Obama Catholics and Catholic organizations that were and are apologists for Obama and his policies. These organizations - Catholics United, Alliance of Catholics for the Common Good, Network and others - provided Catholics with a scenario that painted Obama as "pro-life." Some of them openly said that they were pro-life and would work to move policy in a pro-life direction under Obama. Where are they now? Where are there any policy initiatives that would blunt the irrevocable thrust of these Obama actions early in his presidency?.......
In fact the main thrust of these groups is to attack Catholics that have some problem with this invite!!!
Further it gets worse. We see that the people that the President has vetting Judges come from radical pro-choice groups. In fact in other critical areas we see key positions relating to domestic policy manned by people from organizations such as Emily's list. A organization that found Senator Mary Landrieu too moderate on abortion to support in a past election.
We have not even got to the fact that the President is on the record of even wanting to repeal the Defense of Marriage act.
If George Wallace had been elected President instead of Nixon would Notre Dame have invited him? Would they have invited after he rescinded several orders dealing with integration and was poised to further use his power to stop the real needed advancement of Civil Rights? Would Notre Dame being giving such a President a honorary degree as to the LAW of all things? Would they have justified this by some reason of "having a conversation" whatever that means?
I have huge doubts any of this would have happened.
Even on issues such as torture where Catholics have disagreements with the Obama administration we find the new Obama policy is much like the old old Bush policy in many ways.
For good or for bad Notre Dame is one of the premier symbols of the Catholic faith in America to both Catholics and non Catholics. To say the least to many of my non Catholic friends what Notre Dame is doing is baffling to them. They don't understand how this can occur and really see it as a endorsement of the Church for these policies.
That is not true of course but to explain the whole sordid maze of canon Law, how the Bishops or the Vatican has no real control over Notre Dame, etc is in the end just not doable. It looks like I and others are just being legalistic. In fact maybe we are.
It is a shame that the Church , after having its credibility damaged in such a severe way after the clergy sex abuse scandal , that was starting to recover appears again to be engaged in hypocrisy. Now that charge might not be fair because we Catholics that pay attention to these sagas know the fine details of what is going on. But to the average Catholic in the pews and non Catholic that don't follow it they will not see it.
There are problems on several levels here.
Let us leave the topic of abortion and other "life" issues and go to another topic of Social justice concern among Catholics.
Douglas Kmiec remarks in his comments I linked above that Obama is against the "the exploitation of the immigrant " As many journalist noted our pragmatic (as Kmiec describes him) President when he was Senator pretty much screwed the immigrant for political advantage.
Obama has attempted to respond to this but people that know the process will have none of it.
Ruben Navarrette, Jr. who is one of the leading journalists in the nation on this issue said quite bluntly:
As for Obama, United Farm Workers leader Delores Huerta was right when, during a tour of a Southwest in support of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries, she told Hispanic audiences that Obama was a “Johnny come lately” to Hispanic causes. It was one reason that Hillary—who aggressively went after the vote by spending money, setting up an organization, lining up endorsements, etc—dominated the Hispanic vote in the primaries, beating Obama 2-to-1 among this segment.
Nor was Obama, according to Senate leaders, intricately involved in the Senate negotiations over an immigration bill. In fact, he supported the union-friendly “poison pill” amendment designed to weaken the guest worker provision of the legislation, which was essential to earning the support of Republican lawmakers. You’ll never hear it from leftleaning Spanish-language media or Latino liberals, but Senate Democrats helped kill immigration reform. Majority Leader Harry Reid used political sleight of hand to make it seem as if the Republican minority had mustered up the power to defeat reform. That was the point of a much criticized but entirely accurate Spanish-language ad from the McCain campaign that began airing in September.
Now everyone that knows anything about the process know what Reuben is saying is true. Including the very good lobby people various Catholic group had working this issue. Yet there was silence on this and the then Senator Obama was allowed to skate on this.
In fact we are treated to the irony that Doug Kmiec , that supported Romney that used the McCain position on immigration against him all over the place, is now pontificating on this issue.
I use that as yet another example of what has President Obama done that should merit such a honor. As to immigration reform Navarette makes the common sense observation that common sense immigration reform now is very unlikely. Note that article was written before the current economic woes that even make such a political hot potato as this even more unlikely. Will Obama want to do Health Care or immigration reform? His political capital is not limitless. From past experience we see that President Obama does not exactly have the Political guts that a Bush or McCain had on this issue . So the deportation, the families of mixed legal status living in the shadows, and a increasing American public rage over this continues. A rage that now will be fueled by populist anger dealing with their economic state. Obama played a real large role in this.
Yet from Catholic circles as to the issues above there appears to be no real moral and needless to say political consequence. We see this with the Notre Dame invite.
I suppose and I think it is likely that perhaps Notre Dame is being strategic here. They realize that once President Obama continues his anti life agenda (and FOCA related items) combined with judicial selections and a policy that will try to undermine the Defense of Marriage Act that it will only get worse. So lets get it out of the way and invite him. I find this to be a very poor reason not rooted in any Catholic morals I am aware of.
In 1972 what if Wallace had got elected President. I find it unlikely but what if? People forget that Nixon had to do a lot of the nut and bots of executing the laws regarding the dismantling of state mandated segregation. A contribution , by his political skill, is being more and more noted. What if Wallace had come in and in his first 60 days put a huge stop to that. Would Notre Dame have invited him? Would they have invited him under the pretense of keeping the conversation open?
I very much doubt it. There are principles here at stake that are far reaching.
More Conservative Praise For Obama's Plan on Afghanistan
I am bullish on it too.
Krauthammer’s Take [NRO Staff]
From Friday’s “All Stars.”
On Obama’s new Afghan policy:
Well, I thought if you take away the few gratuitous, and I thought cheap attacks on Bush and his policies, I thought it was a reasonably good plan, one that you could imagine the Bush administration have instituted, and certainly John McCain having adopted had he been elected.
And it is essentially an Afghan surge, although you can't use the word because it refers to Iraq, which we're not supposed to speak about in this new era of Obama.
The other thing it does is it learns the lessons of Iraq about a new strategy of counterinsurgency, namely, instead of search and destroy, which doesn't work, you flood the zone and you protect populations. And that's what we're going to do in the east and the south, where you have had a resurgence of the Taliban.
So I think all of that is good.
The one area where I think they are a little bit weak, this notion that we're going to affect the course of Pakistan with a billion and a half in aid. If you do the math, this is the sixth most populous country on earth. That amounts to $9 a year per person. You could purchase one left shoe with that if you are a Pakistani.
We are not going to have any effect on the course of the economy and the social development of a country of that size. All that we can do and what I would use the billion and a half, is to direct the assistance to the Pakistani military, because that's the future of the country and our main ally in the fight with Al Qaeda.
03/30 10:01 AMShare
Krauthammer’s Take [NRO Staff]
From Friday’s “All Stars.”
On Obama’s new Afghan policy:
Well, I thought if you take away the few gratuitous, and I thought cheap attacks on Bush and his policies, I thought it was a reasonably good plan, one that you could imagine the Bush administration have instituted, and certainly John McCain having adopted had he been elected.
And it is essentially an Afghan surge, although you can't use the word because it refers to Iraq, which we're not supposed to speak about in this new era of Obama.
The other thing it does is it learns the lessons of Iraq about a new strategy of counterinsurgency, namely, instead of search and destroy, which doesn't work, you flood the zone and you protect populations. And that's what we're going to do in the east and the south, where you have had a resurgence of the Taliban.
So I think all of that is good.
The one area where I think they are a little bit weak, this notion that we're going to affect the course of Pakistan with a billion and a half in aid. If you do the math, this is the sixth most populous country on earth. That amounts to $9 a year per person. You could purchase one left shoe with that if you are a Pakistani.
We are not going to have any effect on the course of the economy and the social development of a country of that size. All that we can do and what I would use the billion and a half, is to direct the assistance to the Pakistani military, because that's the future of the country and our main ally in the fight with Al Qaeda.
03/30 10:01 AMShare
Obama Sounds Like Bush On Iraq Again!!!
I might be critical of President Obama on several fronts but as a whole I have been supportive as to foreign affairs regarding our military and some key hot spots.
Exceptions was that horrible Chas Freeman guy (I think that was much more lower White House vetting thing) and the horrible State Dept Legal advisor that has been nominated.
But on things like Iraq I figured Obama had seen the light about the surge and consequences of rapid withdrawal long ago. He knew a good bit of the protest was just pure Bush derangement syndrome that would go away.
Obama said yesterday on one of the premier Sunday talking heads shows
IRAQ: NOT SPEEDING UP WITHDRAWAL
When asked if he would consider speeding up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, if things are going well enough in the country, Obama said no, that there was still work to be done for the U.S. in Iraq.
“I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one, which is let's-- have a very gradual withdrawal schedule through the national elections in Iraq. There's still work to be done on the political side-- to resolve differences between the various sectarian groups around issues like oil-- around issues like provincial elections.”
Good job!!
Exceptions was that horrible Chas Freeman guy (I think that was much more lower White House vetting thing) and the horrible State Dept Legal advisor that has been nominated.
But on things like Iraq I figured Obama had seen the light about the surge and consequences of rapid withdrawal long ago. He knew a good bit of the protest was just pure Bush derangement syndrome that would go away.
Obama said yesterday on one of the premier Sunday talking heads shows
IRAQ: NOT SPEEDING UP WITHDRAWAL
When asked if he would consider speeding up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, if things are going well enough in the country, Obama said no, that there was still work to be done for the U.S. in Iraq.
“I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one, which is let's-- have a very gradual withdrawal schedule through the national elections in Iraq. There's still work to be done on the political side-- to resolve differences between the various sectarian groups around issues like oil-- around issues like provincial elections.”
Good job!!
Why Free Trade Is a Good
I was very struck my this post Free Trade is Common at Cafe Hayek
There is quite a debate in the comments but I think the Free Trade folks win
There is quite a debate in the comments but I think the Free Trade folks win
Douglas Kmiec Says Obama Is "fightin’ Irish" Just Like Notre Dame
Well we knew Kmiec's response was coming. Father Z has good fun with it at Kmiec vs Wiegel: dueling editorials
Sunday, March 29, 2009
White House Makes Non Rich Kids Cry (Easter Egg Roll Chaos)
I think we are seeing an example of this White House viewpoint of bold experimentation on a micro level here. I so wished I could recall the exact quote but I think C.S. Lewis once said if there is a long standing tradition on something one should not change it till you really understood the reason for it.
Anyway it appears the Annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House has taken on what happens when one is trying to get a ticket to the LSU/Florida game
See The White House Lays An Easter Egg.
Update see also How Obama Ruined The Easter Egg Roll
From the D.C. Craig list
Behold the free market, and free speech, on display at the Washington Craigslist page:
From an offer to pay $200: “We want those tickets 1 adult and 2 beautiful children wanting to attend the Egg Roll. Have a heart and we’ll bring you back an egg.”
“I will trade 2 regular season Redskins tickets for 1 game (no parking) for any time tickets to egg roll 2 adults 2 kids. “
“I am a professional civil engineer about to install solar pv and solar hot water systems in current old-house addition project. … I will come to your house for a 2-hour session and conduct an in depth solar survey to assess your suitability. … I need 2 adult 2 children tickets — to the 8 a.m. slot if possible.”
“My fam has NEVER been and would love to this year! I can’t afford more than $50 for a pair or 3 tix but perhaps we can trade for them? Here’s an example of 1 of the things I have to trade.”
“All these people who wanted to get these tickets, and here is our government standing there holding them up just out of reach to see who will maim and kill and scratch their neighbors’ eyeballs out, and then climb up on their bloody stumps to reach those stupid tickets!”
“Everyone needs to contact the White House and suggest a lottery system for next year. A lottery system would allow everyone interested an equal chance to get tickets instead of rewarding folks who can try every 5 seconds the entire day.”
“The ‘purpose’ of online tickets this year was to make it more accessible to Americans who otherwise might not be able to go. It is really just a lame excuse for the government to fleece the Americans and ‘change’ a system that was not broken.”
Anyway it appears the Annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House has taken on what happens when one is trying to get a ticket to the LSU/Florida game
See The White House Lays An Easter Egg.
Update see also How Obama Ruined The Easter Egg Roll
From the D.C. Craig list
Behold the free market, and free speech, on display at the Washington Craigslist page:
From an offer to pay $200: “We want those tickets 1 adult and 2 beautiful children wanting to attend the Egg Roll. Have a heart and we’ll bring you back an egg.”
“I will trade 2 regular season Redskins tickets for 1 game (no parking) for any time tickets to egg roll 2 adults 2 kids. “
“I am a professional civil engineer about to install solar pv and solar hot water systems in current old-house addition project. … I will come to your house for a 2-hour session and conduct an in depth solar survey to assess your suitability. … I need 2 adult 2 children tickets — to the 8 a.m. slot if possible.”
“My fam has NEVER been and would love to this year! I can’t afford more than $50 for a pair or 3 tix but perhaps we can trade for them? Here’s an example of 1 of the things I have to trade.”
“All these people who wanted to get these tickets, and here is our government standing there holding them up just out of reach to see who will maim and kill and scratch their neighbors’ eyeballs out, and then climb up on their bloody stumps to reach those stupid tickets!”
“Everyone needs to contact the White House and suggest a lottery system for next year. A lottery system would allow everyone interested an equal chance to get tickets instead of rewarding folks who can try every 5 seconds the entire day.”
“The ‘purpose’ of online tickets this year was to make it more accessible to Americans who otherwise might not be able to go. It is really just a lame excuse for the government to fleece the Americans and ‘change’ a system that was not broken.”
Why is There a Double Standard as To McCain on Palin in 2012 Issue
I saw that McCain was asked again today if he would support Governor Palin if she ran for President in 2012.
I don't know why conservatives fall for this nonsense. Well I think some just don't like McCain.
I can never recall a person in McCain's position being asked so many times if he would support his VP nominee for the big office just months after he got defeated.
In fact have we not seem that actingPresidents are hesitant for obvious reasons to get involved in Party races when their on VP is running.
Why is McCain being even asked this? The media just wants to start a Republican fight and so many buy into it. Imagine if he said oh yes I will support her. The reaction would be vicious from the camps of supporters that like Jindal, Samford, Cantor, Huckabee the Governor of Minnesota , and heavens knows what the Romney folks would do.
Palin does not want that and neither should any Republicans
I don't know why conservatives fall for this nonsense. Well I think some just don't like McCain.
I can never recall a person in McCain's position being asked so many times if he would support his VP nominee for the big office just months after he got defeated.
In fact have we not seem that actingPresidents are hesitant for obvious reasons to get involved in Party races when their on VP is running.
Why is McCain being even asked this? The media just wants to start a Republican fight and so many buy into it. Imagine if he said oh yes I will support her. The reaction would be vicious from the camps of supporters that like Jindal, Samford, Cantor, Huckabee the Governor of Minnesota , and heavens knows what the Romney folks would do.
Palin does not want that and neither should any Republicans
Why Catholics Should Not Be Able to Be British Monarchs
I saw this in the London Times and it is worth reading. See Reform the monarchy? Let's wait for a century
The Act of Settlement 1701 discriminates against women and Catholics. But modernising it risks imperilling the Crown
He says in part:
There is quite a strong practical case for leaving the Act alone. The whole of the Commonwealth would have to agree any amendment. In some major Commonwealth countries the Queen is still head of state. In Australia, any amendment of the Act would lead inevitably to a further vote to make Australia a republic - perhaps already an inevitable outcome. In Canada there might be calls for independence for Quebec. The Canadian Government can well do without a Quebec crisis.
The UK would be affected as well; any reform of the Act would lead to new Scottish nationalist demands for complete independence, and perhaps also to new demands for a united Ireland. All of these are issues that will eventually have to be settled, but practical politicians might prefer to defer them............
do not find that the Act of Settlement is a burning issue with most Catholics. The relationship between the Catholic and Anglican Churches has never been friendlier. Few Catholics want to see the Church of England disestablished; none want to take over the cost of restoring the great cathedrals. Anything that weakens the Church of England weakens Christianity in England. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said that the Act of Settlement is not high on his agenda.......................
Yet the issues are complex; a reform of the Act would invite the introduction of new issues, and potential damage might be done to the monarchy. Why add to the Queen's burdens? Many people, including many Catholics, will reflect that the Act of Settlement has done a good job in preserving the British monarchy through historic dangers. They feel great loyalty to the Queen. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave the Act as it is until the 22nd century............
I actually find this attitude a lot with very Orthodox UK Catholics on the internet.
Further I think the Monarchy with all the other troubles the UK is going throug might have to step in at some point if things get out of control.
The Act of Settlement 1701 discriminates against women and Catholics. But modernising it risks imperilling the Crown
He says in part:
There is quite a strong practical case for leaving the Act alone. The whole of the Commonwealth would have to agree any amendment. In some major Commonwealth countries the Queen is still head of state. In Australia, any amendment of the Act would lead inevitably to a further vote to make Australia a republic - perhaps already an inevitable outcome. In Canada there might be calls for independence for Quebec. The Canadian Government can well do without a Quebec crisis.
The UK would be affected as well; any reform of the Act would lead to new Scottish nationalist demands for complete independence, and perhaps also to new demands for a united Ireland. All of these are issues that will eventually have to be settled, but practical politicians might prefer to defer them............
do not find that the Act of Settlement is a burning issue with most Catholics. The relationship between the Catholic and Anglican Churches has never been friendlier. Few Catholics want to see the Church of England disestablished; none want to take over the cost of restoring the great cathedrals. Anything that weakens the Church of England weakens Christianity in England. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said that the Act of Settlement is not high on his agenda.......................
Yet the issues are complex; a reform of the Act would invite the introduction of new issues, and potential damage might be done to the monarchy. Why add to the Queen's burdens? Many people, including many Catholics, will reflect that the Act of Settlement has done a good job in preserving the British monarchy through historic dangers. They feel great loyalty to the Queen. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave the Act as it is until the 22nd century............
I actually find this attitude a lot with very Orthodox UK Catholics on the internet.
Further I think the Monarchy with all the other troubles the UK is going throug might have to step in at some point if things get out of control.
Catholic Bishop of Columbus to Have Leg Amputated
Pretty traumatic surgery
Bishop to have left leg amputated below knee
COLUMBUS (AP) - The Roman Catholic Diocese in Columbus says Bishop Frederick Campbell will have his left leg amputated below the knee because of skin cancer.
The 65-year-old bishop said in a letter to clergy that he expects to resume administrative duties soon after surgery and return to his duties in about six weeks. He will be fitted with a prosthetic and is expected to walk
Bishop to have left leg amputated below knee
COLUMBUS (AP) - The Roman Catholic Diocese in Columbus says Bishop Frederick Campbell will have his left leg amputated below the knee because of skin cancer.
The 65-year-old bishop said in a letter to clergy that he expects to resume administrative duties soon after surgery and return to his duties in about six weeks. He will be fitted with a prosthetic and is expected to walk
Archbishop Chaput Shows How Not To Write Your BIshop- Q and A with Press Part VI
Past post I have done on this today - Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It , Why is Archbishop Rummel a Role Model for Archbishop Chaput? Press Q and A Part II , , Just Because You Were An Former Altar Boy Does Not Make You Pope- Archbishop Chaput Q and A with Press Part III, a Archbishop Chaput Talks About All Those Catholics On The Supreme Court - Press Q and A Part IV, and Archbishop Chaput Talks Faithful Citzenship Document and Catholic Voting- Q and A session with Press Part V
This will be the last one I do because I could do 14 more of these. There is a lot of meat here plus it is interesting the questions the press ask. I wanted to break up these posts into a readable parts.
For the entire interview and Press Q and A see The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
I find this part very iimportant because it gives a lesson how Catholics should write to their Bishops. Actually he is pointing out in a very personal way how NOT to write them. It appears this occurs on the left and right. The vile can happen and often happens in things not political too.
Father Z at What Does The Prayer Really Say? is always telling Catholics that on matters of liturgy to write their Bishops in a constructive and positive tone!!! Sadly we let our anger get the best of us and we forget who we are writing.
In a part of this interview Archbishop Chaput of Denver stated:
But see, we’re perceived as doing things we really don’t do. Sometimes that’s our own fault by our failures to communicate very well. But it’s hard to do that when you can communicate so quickly. Everybody does it. You know, all these blog sites now. It’s just amazing. How do you ever respond to all that? I personally – on the average – spend three hours a day answering mail. Most bishops probably wouldn’t do that because they just have a different pastoral style than I do.
I do it for two reasons. One, I think that if I don’t answer it, it makes the church look worse because “they don’t care about me.” But secondly, I think it’s an opportunity to evangelize. But it’s hard to do. I mean, three hours a day –
That is something that Chaput does that and that should make us mindful of how we write to them.
Anyway I thought this question and answer was important to end this series of post on.
PATRICIA ZAPOR, CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE: Archbishop, Sally alluded to something that probably most of us in the room have experienced, and that is the hate that gets directed at us – and at you, obviously, from what you describe of your letters – every time we present a position, whether it’s ours or the position of somebody we’re quoting, that doesn’t fit with the writer’s or the caller’s definition of what a good Catholic is, whether the caller or writer is right or wrong by whoever’s standard, it’s black and white, you’re with me or you’re going straight to hell. And this, in my sense – I’ve been a Catholic press journalist for a very long time – it’s gotten worse.
How do we deal with that? How do we tone down the black or white? Your writings, your comments, your speeches are very well-phrased. I think anybody with some of the positions that we get letters about would come from a conversation with you going, oh, maybe I need to tone down my rhetoric because the way the archbishop phrases these things, I see where he’s coming from. How do we deal with this in the general Catholic population with the people who are writing us, because it is so vitriolic? I’m not sure it does anybody any good – the pro-life, the pro-choice, the anti-immigrant, the pro – I don’t think it adds anything to the conversation to have it be so divisive. How do we attack it?
CHAPUT: I don’t know the answer to that any better than you do, Patricia. I think the internet has made it much worse. I used to get some hate mail before I was online, but not nearly as much as I did afterwards. I think the way that we have immediate access, which means we immediately speak out of our emotions rather than write a letter, send it the next day, you might change your mind. Instead you write it and you push the button to “show them,” you know, that kind of thing.
So I think our immediate ability to communicate has led to a coarsening discourse for one thing. I gave a talk recently – I think it may have been when I was in Toronto, where I said that the Lord reminds us that we are sheep among wolves, but it’s important for us not to become wolves ourselves because of our experience, and I think that often happens.
Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write. Sometimes, I must admit, that when I write back, I’m not as friendly as I should be. But I try not to be mean.
CROMARTIE: You’re straightforward.
CHAPUT: I try to be – well, sometimes I might be mean, I don’t – (laughter) – because I’m just mad because I’m writing it too soon after I get it, perhaps. But I think it’s important for me as a bishop, but also for anyone who believes that’s a Christian, to try to always speak those words clearly but with love and not to be wolves ourselves.
ZAPOR: Just a follow-up. Where is the responsibility? Who can tone it down? Who can help tone it down?
CHAPUT: Nobody can tone down this group. I don’t know who can tone down the left because they usually just – it’s really interesting, the left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul. (Laughter).
CROMARTIE: Mean, but not foul language.
CHAPUT: Yes. But I don’t have an answer to your question.
CROMARTIE: I think we’ve got a news story here. (Laughter.)
So Orthodox Catholics just recall that people like Chaput and other like him are our friends and we should recall that before we hit the submit button in an emotional states
This will be the last one I do because I could do 14 more of these. There is a lot of meat here plus it is interesting the questions the press ask. I wanted to break up these posts into a readable parts.
For the entire interview and Press Q and A see The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
I find this part very iimportant because it gives a lesson how Catholics should write to their Bishops. Actually he is pointing out in a very personal way how NOT to write them. It appears this occurs on the left and right. The vile can happen and often happens in things not political too.
Father Z at What Does The Prayer Really Say? is always telling Catholics that on matters of liturgy to write their Bishops in a constructive and positive tone!!! Sadly we let our anger get the best of us and we forget who we are writing.
In a part of this interview Archbishop Chaput of Denver stated:
But see, we’re perceived as doing things we really don’t do. Sometimes that’s our own fault by our failures to communicate very well. But it’s hard to do that when you can communicate so quickly. Everybody does it. You know, all these blog sites now. It’s just amazing. How do you ever respond to all that? I personally – on the average – spend three hours a day answering mail. Most bishops probably wouldn’t do that because they just have a different pastoral style than I do.
I do it for two reasons. One, I think that if I don’t answer it, it makes the church look worse because “they don’t care about me.” But secondly, I think it’s an opportunity to evangelize. But it’s hard to do. I mean, three hours a day –
That is something that Chaput does that and that should make us mindful of how we write to them.
Anyway I thought this question and answer was important to end this series of post on.
PATRICIA ZAPOR, CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE: Archbishop, Sally alluded to something that probably most of us in the room have experienced, and that is the hate that gets directed at us – and at you, obviously, from what you describe of your letters – every time we present a position, whether it’s ours or the position of somebody we’re quoting, that doesn’t fit with the writer’s or the caller’s definition of what a good Catholic is, whether the caller or writer is right or wrong by whoever’s standard, it’s black and white, you’re with me or you’re going straight to hell. And this, in my sense – I’ve been a Catholic press journalist for a very long time – it’s gotten worse.
How do we deal with that? How do we tone down the black or white? Your writings, your comments, your speeches are very well-phrased. I think anybody with some of the positions that we get letters about would come from a conversation with you going, oh, maybe I need to tone down my rhetoric because the way the archbishop phrases these things, I see where he’s coming from. How do we deal with this in the general Catholic population with the people who are writing us, because it is so vitriolic? I’m not sure it does anybody any good – the pro-life, the pro-choice, the anti-immigrant, the pro – I don’t think it adds anything to the conversation to have it be so divisive. How do we attack it?
CHAPUT: I don’t know the answer to that any better than you do, Patricia. I think the internet has made it much worse. I used to get some hate mail before I was online, but not nearly as much as I did afterwards. I think the way that we have immediate access, which means we immediately speak out of our emotions rather than write a letter, send it the next day, you might change your mind. Instead you write it and you push the button to “show them,” you know, that kind of thing.
So I think our immediate ability to communicate has led to a coarsening discourse for one thing. I gave a talk recently – I think it may have been when I was in Toronto, where I said that the Lord reminds us that we are sheep among wolves, but it’s important for us not to become wolves ourselves because of our experience, and I think that often happens.
Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write. Sometimes, I must admit, that when I write back, I’m not as friendly as I should be. But I try not to be mean.
CROMARTIE: You’re straightforward.
CHAPUT: I try to be – well, sometimes I might be mean, I don’t – (laughter) – because I’m just mad because I’m writing it too soon after I get it, perhaps. But I think it’s important for me as a bishop, but also for anyone who believes that’s a Christian, to try to always speak those words clearly but with love and not to be wolves ourselves.
ZAPOR: Just a follow-up. Where is the responsibility? Who can tone it down? Who can help tone it down?
CHAPUT: Nobody can tone down this group. I don’t know who can tone down the left because they usually just – it’s really interesting, the left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul. (Laughter).
CROMARTIE: Mean, but not foul language.
CHAPUT: Yes. But I don’t have an answer to your question.
CROMARTIE: I think we’ve got a news story here. (Laughter.)
So Orthodox Catholics just recall that people like Chaput and other like him are our friends and we should recall that before we hit the submit button in an emotional states
Archbishop Chaput Talks Faithful Citzenship Document and Catholic Voting- Q and A session with Press Part V
Past posts on this are Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It , Why is Archbishop Rummel a Role Model for Archbishop Chaput? Press Q and A Part II , , Just Because You Were An Former Altar Boy Does Not Make You Pope- Archbishop Chaput Q and A with Press Part III, and Archbishop Chaput Talks About All Those Catholics On The Supreme Court - Press Q and A Part IV
I am trying to break up some of the things that catch my eye in this very interesting with press and Archbishop Chaput in to about six posts. I am leaving out a good bit so please see the whole thing at The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
The United States Bishop document “Faithful Citizenship,” that was released before the 2008 elections. It was of a concern to us how much of it was , in our view, twisted. I think what Chaput says here is interesting. We also have another case that we saw in Liturgy recently where Bishops seem to think Catholics have the working vocabulary of a 4 th grader.
JACQUI SALMON, THE WASHINGTON POST: I have a question about “Faithful Citizenship,” the Catholic bishops’ – I know they don’t like to call it a voters’ guide – guide to election decision-making. There seemed to be a lot of disagreement among the bishops about what it said, particularly about abortion, about whether it did require Catholics to vote for a pro-life candidate or whether –while others said that abortion was not the only issue that should determine a Catholic vote. Where do you come down on this issue? What do you think it said? I understand that they’re reworking it. How do you think it should be reworked?
CHAPUT: I voted for it, and I think that there were probably – if I remember right – there were less than a handful of bishops who didn’t vote for it. So when we talked about it a year ago – I think it was last June, I’m not sure exactly when we issued it – there was unanimous opinion among the bishops who were there that this was much better than the Catholic voter guides that we had issued in previous years and that it was really quite clear on the issue of abortion and Catholic voting.
Now apparently it wasn’t very clear, and maybe the reason so many voted for it is people from all sides of the issue within the body of bishops read it differently. The one part that I was concerned about but they convinced me that I was unnecessarily anxious is it said that we should take into consideration other serious issues when really the teaching of the church isn’t other serious issues, it’s – what is the technical word that we use for – that Pope Benedict gave us – that reasons have to be “proportionate” to the issue.
The bishops said, well, we’re not going to put “proportionate” because people won’t understand it. Now I don’t know. American Catholics are intelligent enough to know what proportionate means, but we decided not to use it and to use other “serious” matters. Then I noticed it was being used, that all these other issues are serious. They are. Immigration’s serious; the way we care for the poor is extraordinarily serious. We’ll go to hell if we don’t care for the poor. So those are all very serious issues, but the real teaching of the church is “proportionate.”
That technical language is extraordinarily important on this issue because what is proportionate to the willing destruction of unborn human beings? What is? So I think that we are going to have to work on it and make it more precise. I voted for it. I thought it was a good document. We probably won’t get to doing this until two years before the next election, and then we’ll forget the pain. It’s just really interesting how we don’t do this right away. We always wait, put it off, until it’s too late.
I am trying to break up some of the things that catch my eye in this very interesting with press and Archbishop Chaput in to about six posts. I am leaving out a good bit so please see the whole thing at The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
The United States Bishop document “Faithful Citizenship,” that was released before the 2008 elections. It was of a concern to us how much of it was , in our view, twisted. I think what Chaput says here is interesting. We also have another case that we saw in Liturgy recently where Bishops seem to think Catholics have the working vocabulary of a 4 th grader.
JACQUI SALMON, THE WASHINGTON POST: I have a question about “Faithful Citizenship,” the Catholic bishops’ – I know they don’t like to call it a voters’ guide – guide to election decision-making. There seemed to be a lot of disagreement among the bishops about what it said, particularly about abortion, about whether it did require Catholics to vote for a pro-life candidate or whether –while others said that abortion was not the only issue that should determine a Catholic vote. Where do you come down on this issue? What do you think it said? I understand that they’re reworking it. How do you think it should be reworked?
CHAPUT: I voted for it, and I think that there were probably – if I remember right – there were less than a handful of bishops who didn’t vote for it. So when we talked about it a year ago – I think it was last June, I’m not sure exactly when we issued it – there was unanimous opinion among the bishops who were there that this was much better than the Catholic voter guides that we had issued in previous years and that it was really quite clear on the issue of abortion and Catholic voting.
Now apparently it wasn’t very clear, and maybe the reason so many voted for it is people from all sides of the issue within the body of bishops read it differently. The one part that I was concerned about but they convinced me that I was unnecessarily anxious is it said that we should take into consideration other serious issues when really the teaching of the church isn’t other serious issues, it’s – what is the technical word that we use for – that Pope Benedict gave us – that reasons have to be “proportionate” to the issue.
The bishops said, well, we’re not going to put “proportionate” because people won’t understand it. Now I don’t know. American Catholics are intelligent enough to know what proportionate means, but we decided not to use it and to use other “serious” matters. Then I noticed it was being used, that all these other issues are serious. They are. Immigration’s serious; the way we care for the poor is extraordinarily serious. We’ll go to hell if we don’t care for the poor. So those are all very serious issues, but the real teaching of the church is “proportionate.”
That technical language is extraordinarily important on this issue because what is proportionate to the willing destruction of unborn human beings? What is? So I think that we are going to have to work on it and make it more precise. I voted for it. I thought it was a good document. We probably won’t get to doing this until two years before the next election, and then we’ll forget the pain. It’s just really interesting how we don’t do this right away. We always wait, put it off, until it’s too late.
Archbishop Chaput Talks About All Those Catholics On The Supreme Court - Press Q and A Part IV
Past post on this are Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It , Why is Archbishop Rummel a Role Model for Archbishop Chaput? Press Q and A Part II , and Just Because You Were An Former Altar Boy Does Not Make You Pope- Archbishop Chaput Q and A with Press Part III
I am going to do about a total of 6 or 7 short posts today on what catches my eye in this very interesting speech and now added Q and A session with the press. The whole think is worth reading.
I thought this part was very interesting because Chaput is touching on issues of religion and the court , Catholic Justice's responsibility, an other matters. It starts out in an amusing sort of way because not only is Chaput having to explain the Catholic Faith to the press but also it appears basic concepts of American Govt.
CROMARTIE: Wendy Kaminer has sent in a question, and Wendy is a blogger at The Phoenix. This goes to the question of Catholic influence, especially on the Supreme Court.
WENDY KAMINER, THE PHOENIX: The majority of the Supreme Court – five of our justices – are Catholic. Given your sense of the obligations of Catholics to promote laws and policies in keeping with Catholic beliefs, is there a civics argument for religious diversity on the court, given its power to make law in a pluralistic society?
CROMARTIE: Let me follow up her question by asking one of my own, adding to it. What would you think about nine Catholics on the court? Is there a statute of limitations on the number of Catholics that can be on the court? Wendy, I know that you would probably appreciate that addition to your question.
CHAPUT: The Supreme Court doesn’t make law, as we know. It interprets the law. I think it’s much easier from a moral perspective to be a justice – a judge – than it is to be a legislator. Legislators are the ones who make laws and change laws. But to interpret the law in its fidelity to the Constitution is a much less morally compromising kind of position to have, I think.
I’d rather be a justice than a politician, in terms of dealing with my conscience, because if we write bad laws in this country that are constitutional, then the judges – the justices – have to interpret the laws as allowed by the Constitution, even if they don’t like them, even if they would think they’re not good for the country, it seems to me, even if they think they’re not moral. That’s what justices do.
So I had the impression that Wendy thinks that the Supreme Court writes the law. Certainly that’s not my impression. I know it can’t write the law. In terms of not wanting all the justices to be Catholics, I agree with you, Michael. That would not be a good idea in the United States.
CROMARTIE: And you say that on the record, don’t you?
CHAPUT: Certainly I think we live in a pluralistic society that I love, and I think it’s served our faith communities in this country very, very well, and I wouldn’t want to see it change.
DIONNE: See, that line is: “Bishop Opposes more Catholics on Court.”
(Laughter.)
CHAPUT: Well, how about this: “Protestant Says That There’s Too Many Already and There’s a Danger of Taking Over.”
Later Fred Barnes of FOX and the Weekly Standard make me laugh when he says:
FRED BARNES, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Archbishop, you’re against nine Catholics on the Supreme Court. How about eight?
(Laughter.)
CHAPUT: Seven? You sound like Abraham negotiating with God about Sodom and Gomorrah.
I am going to do about a total of 6 or 7 short posts today on what catches my eye in this very interesting speech and now added Q and A session with the press. The whole think is worth reading.
I thought this part was very interesting because Chaput is touching on issues of religion and the court , Catholic Justice's responsibility, an other matters. It starts out in an amusing sort of way because not only is Chaput having to explain the Catholic Faith to the press but also it appears basic concepts of American Govt.
CROMARTIE: Wendy Kaminer has sent in a question, and Wendy is a blogger at The Phoenix. This goes to the question of Catholic influence, especially on the Supreme Court.
WENDY KAMINER, THE PHOENIX: The majority of the Supreme Court – five of our justices – are Catholic. Given your sense of the obligations of Catholics to promote laws and policies in keeping with Catholic beliefs, is there a civics argument for religious diversity on the court, given its power to make law in a pluralistic society?
CROMARTIE: Let me follow up her question by asking one of my own, adding to it. What would you think about nine Catholics on the court? Is there a statute of limitations on the number of Catholics that can be on the court? Wendy, I know that you would probably appreciate that addition to your question.
CHAPUT: The Supreme Court doesn’t make law, as we know. It interprets the law. I think it’s much easier from a moral perspective to be a justice – a judge – than it is to be a legislator. Legislators are the ones who make laws and change laws. But to interpret the law in its fidelity to the Constitution is a much less morally compromising kind of position to have, I think.
I’d rather be a justice than a politician, in terms of dealing with my conscience, because if we write bad laws in this country that are constitutional, then the judges – the justices – have to interpret the laws as allowed by the Constitution, even if they don’t like them, even if they would think they’re not good for the country, it seems to me, even if they think they’re not moral. That’s what justices do.
So I had the impression that Wendy thinks that the Supreme Court writes the law. Certainly that’s not my impression. I know it can’t write the law. In terms of not wanting all the justices to be Catholics, I agree with you, Michael. That would not be a good idea in the United States.
CROMARTIE: And you say that on the record, don’t you?
CHAPUT: Certainly I think we live in a pluralistic society that I love, and I think it’s served our faith communities in this country very, very well, and I wouldn’t want to see it change.
DIONNE: See, that line is: “Bishop Opposes more Catholics on Court.”
(Laughter.)
CHAPUT: Well, how about this: “Protestant Says That There’s Too Many Already and There’s a Danger of Taking Over.”
Later Fred Barnes of FOX and the Weekly Standard make me laugh when he says:
FRED BARNES, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Archbishop, you’re against nine Catholics on the Supreme Court. How about eight?
(Laughter.)
CHAPUT: Seven? You sound like Abraham negotiating with God about Sodom and Gomorrah.
Just Because You Were An Former Altar Boy Does Not Make You Pope- Archbishop Chaput Q and A with Press Part III
See past posts Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It and Why is Archbishop Rummel a Role Model for Archbishop Chaput? Press Q and A Part II
I am again looking at this amazing and far reaching Q and A session that Chaput had after his speech to journalist. See The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
Archbishop Chaput explains something so clearly here that seems to go over the head of most Catholics and the press. This is part of a question posed by STEVE COLEMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS RADIO. This questions is part of a serious of questions Coleman ask that included who and when can a Catholic go to communion and such if they disagree with the Church. Be sure to read the whole thing. Here though Coleman asks:
COLEMAN: No, you’ve really answered most of it. I for sometime had a neighbor who was a former Catholic priest who then left the church and got married. And he said, I disagree with the church, but I’m still a good Catholic. So I guess that comes down to who defines what’s Catholic? Does the church define who is Catholic or does anybody just say I’m a Catholic?
CHAPUT: I think the church defines who is Catholic, just as the Lutheran churches decide what’s Lutheran and the Baptist churches decide what’s Baptist. The two issues that I get the most hate mail on are immigration and abortion, in Denver. And they always like to begin by saying, I was an altar boy or I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Somehow that gives them authority to decide what the church believes.
I was also an altar boy, and I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and I don’t think that qualified me at all. Even as a bishop, I’m not qualified alone to say what the church believes. I do that in union with the pope and my brother bishops and the tradition of the church, which is embodied in the life of our saints too – it’s not just the bishops. But I think we can’t redefine the church for our own definition of what it means to be a Catholic. And this doesn’t apply merely to “bad” stuff – like a former priest who leaves the church and gets married and thinks he’s just fine, God bless him. But then for him to redefine the church for the rest of us, that’s just not appropriate.
How self evident!!! But so many people miss it or wish to ignore it.
I am again looking at this amazing and far reaching Q and A session that Chaput had after his speech to journalist. See The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
Archbishop Chaput explains something so clearly here that seems to go over the head of most Catholics and the press. This is part of a question posed by STEVE COLEMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS RADIO. This questions is part of a serious of questions Coleman ask that included who and when can a Catholic go to communion and such if they disagree with the Church. Be sure to read the whole thing. Here though Coleman asks:
COLEMAN: No, you’ve really answered most of it. I for sometime had a neighbor who was a former Catholic priest who then left the church and got married. And he said, I disagree with the church, but I’m still a good Catholic. So I guess that comes down to who defines what’s Catholic? Does the church define who is Catholic or does anybody just say I’m a Catholic?
CHAPUT: I think the church defines who is Catholic, just as the Lutheran churches decide what’s Lutheran and the Baptist churches decide what’s Baptist. The two issues that I get the most hate mail on are immigration and abortion, in Denver. And they always like to begin by saying, I was an altar boy or I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Somehow that gives them authority to decide what the church believes.
I was also an altar boy, and I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and I don’t think that qualified me at all. Even as a bishop, I’m not qualified alone to say what the church believes. I do that in union with the pope and my brother bishops and the tradition of the church, which is embodied in the life of our saints too – it’s not just the bishops. But I think we can’t redefine the church for our own definition of what it means to be a Catholic. And this doesn’t apply merely to “bad” stuff – like a former priest who leaves the church and gets married and thinks he’s just fine, God bless him. But then for him to redefine the church for the rest of us, that’s just not appropriate.
How self evident!!! But so many people miss it or wish to ignore it.
Why is Archbishop Rummel a Role Model for Archbishop Chaput? Press Q and A Part II
Link to the Q and A transcript with the press and Archbishop Chaput here at my first entry at Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It .
I wanted to post this part because I think it shows how the past tells us a great lesson. Also for New Orleans area Catholics and all that attended Archbishop Rummel High school this is a source of pride.
DAVID KIRKPATRICK, THE NEW YORK TIMES: This takes us a little bit away from some of these hot-button topics, but could you talk a minute about who you might see within the history of the American church as models? Are there other bishops or archbishops whom you look to in that way?
CHAPUT: The one I use in my book who is really a model for me, because I remember him when I was a kid, is Archbishop Rummel, New Orleans, who really stood up against both the popular view of the Catholic community and against politicians in the state of Louisiana over the issue of integrating Catholic schools there. He just was very clear, and he was patient –
KIRKPATRICK: Integrating Catholic schools?
CHAPUT: Integrating Catholic schools in New Orleans at the time when this was a big issue in the South. He excommunicated three Catholic politicians because they opposed his decision to end segregation of Catholic schools there. And The New York Times wrote a nice editorial praising him for that – very different from the one criticizing Archbishop Burke for acting somewhat similarly on the issue of abortion.
KIRKPATRICK: I don’t write the editorial page.
CHAPUT: I know, I’m not accusing you. (Laughter). I’m just saying The New York Times in both cases. It’s just how generations and time change things. If a Catholic bishop acts strongly to the point of excommunicating somebody over an issue that we think is important, we cheer. If it’s an issue that we oppose, then we think he was somehow intolerant. Rather than criticize his decision, it somehow is, how dare he do this? Now Catholic bishops are required, under some circumstances, to exercise that kind of authority. You can disagree with their act, but to make the fact that they can act that way in the context of Catholic life, or they have the authority to act that way, is to impose kind of an American view, a democratic view, on a structure that is not only democratic but has other elements to it too.
But Rummel would be an example of that. There are many – I very much admired Archbishop O’Conner of New York for his willingness to say difficult things. He was somebody, you know, you probably all remember him. He was quite a guy, quite a personality. And I have many of my fellow bishops I admire very much, too, today – many of them, actually. They are not all perceived as being on the right of things. I think that it requires as much courage in Colorado, for example, to speak on the immigration issue as it does to speak on abortion.
I wanted to post this part because I think it shows how the past tells us a great lesson. Also for New Orleans area Catholics and all that attended Archbishop Rummel High school this is a source of pride.
DAVID KIRKPATRICK, THE NEW YORK TIMES: This takes us a little bit away from some of these hot-button topics, but could you talk a minute about who you might see within the history of the American church as models? Are there other bishops or archbishops whom you look to in that way?
CHAPUT: The one I use in my book who is really a model for me, because I remember him when I was a kid, is Archbishop Rummel, New Orleans, who really stood up against both the popular view of the Catholic community and against politicians in the state of Louisiana over the issue of integrating Catholic schools there. He just was very clear, and he was patient –
KIRKPATRICK: Integrating Catholic schools?
CHAPUT: Integrating Catholic schools in New Orleans at the time when this was a big issue in the South. He excommunicated three Catholic politicians because they opposed his decision to end segregation of Catholic schools there. And The New York Times wrote a nice editorial praising him for that – very different from the one criticizing Archbishop Burke for acting somewhat similarly on the issue of abortion.
KIRKPATRICK: I don’t write the editorial page.
CHAPUT: I know, I’m not accusing you. (Laughter). I’m just saying The New York Times in both cases. It’s just how generations and time change things. If a Catholic bishop acts strongly to the point of excommunicating somebody over an issue that we think is important, we cheer. If it’s an issue that we oppose, then we think he was somehow intolerant. Rather than criticize his decision, it somehow is, how dare he do this? Now Catholic bishops are required, under some circumstances, to exercise that kind of authority. You can disagree with their act, but to make the fact that they can act that way in the context of Catholic life, or they have the authority to act that way, is to impose kind of an American view, a democratic view, on a structure that is not only democratic but has other elements to it too.
But Rummel would be an example of that. There are many – I very much admired Archbishop O’Conner of New York for his willingness to say difficult things. He was somebody, you know, you probably all remember him. He was quite a guy, quite a personality. And I have many of my fellow bishops I admire very much, too, today – many of them, actually. They are not all perceived as being on the right of things. I think that it requires as much courage in Colorado, for example, to speak on the immigration issue as it does to speak on abortion.
Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It
The Pew forum has finally got the Q and A session between Archbishop Chaput and the press. See The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
I have my doubts that reporters will realize their mistakes we can hope. The q and a session is far reaching and well worth reading. I am going to take a few posts and examines just part of it.
First it is clear that Sally Quinn of the Washington Post still does not get it or in fact gets it and just will be her same ole self. As people recall she had her own Communion scandal via Tim Russert's funeral.
I must say Archbishop Chaput was very charitable in his response to Quinn.
She says in part
But at any rate, in trying to understand the Eucharist and what it means, you set very harsh guidelines right now for those who can and can’t.
It seems to me, listening to you and trying to understand who is really acceptable, it would seem that nobody should be able to take communion, given your guidelines, because everyone is a sinner. Everyone has scandal in their background; everyone has done something wrong. When I look at the people in a Catholic church, when I see them getting up and they are friends of mine – even at Tim Russert’s funeral – whose consciences I know are not clear, I think why are those people allowed to take communion? I think about the Catholic priests who abused young children who still take communion. I think of those who knew about it and stayed silent and are still taking communion. How do you resolve those issues?
OK let me say I am not buying this. After all the mail, commentary, and everything else after her incident I refuse to believe she does not understand concepts like basic Christian principles of forgiveness of sin and the Catholic sacrament of confession. What does people past "scandals" or past crimes have to do with anything. I have a hard problem here thinking she is so naive. If a ten year old Catholic can grasp these concepts why not Journalist Sally Quinn. She knows the Catholic Church is not like the ancient heresies where they would wait to baptize right before you dies because every sin after that could not be forgiven? Sorry not buying that.
More coming up
Catholic Converts 2009- In Hoc Signo Vinces A Calvinist Now A Catholic
I thought it might be fun to look at bloggers that are coming into the Catholic Church this Easter.
First let me say yes I know that we should not be calling all these people converts. Technically they are not "Converts" if they are baptized. Still that is the usual jargon.
I thought I would start with a very good blog just down from the road from me. That is In Hoc Signo Vinces. He had a very interesting entry that sort of details his faith journey. See I Was A Calvinist - Now I Am Catholic. What is interesting is the natural progression as he went from community to communty. A faith progression that makes a certain amount of sense and logic.
Like myself he was a former Baptist but unlike me I never took a strong look at Calvinism for whatever reason.
First let me say yes I know that we should not be calling all these people converts. Technically they are not "Converts" if they are baptized. Still that is the usual jargon.
I thought I would start with a very good blog just down from the road from me. That is In Hoc Signo Vinces. He had a very interesting entry that sort of details his faith journey. See I Was A Calvinist - Now I Am Catholic. What is interesting is the natural progression as he went from community to communty. A faith progression that makes a certain amount of sense and logic.
Like myself he was a former Baptist but unlike me I never took a strong look at Calvinism for whatever reason.
Will UK Catholics Steal Our Cardinal Daniel DiNardo To England!!
We better watch them .It might happen if the religion reporter for the UK Telegraph has anything to do about it :)
See This guy is awesome: Cardinal DiNardo of Texas on why Obama should not be honoured by Notre Dame
See This guy is awesome: Cardinal DiNardo of Texas on why Obama should not be honoured by Notre Dame
The Catholic Plague in the South- Blame General Sherman
Who knew the Yankees not only destroyed the innocent and wonderful Confederate Government but they also established the anti Christ (Catholics) in the American South. (Though I suspect in the below mentioned blog at some point he must go after Jeff Davis and the VP of the Confderate States that were also pro-Catholic)
A little humor this morning on the anti Catholic fringes.
This is a pretty funny anti Catholic site. Go see Jefferson's Whig Prophecy Fulfilled: Anti-Christ, Rome, JFK's assassins and 9-11 . I noted this web site because over that the Atlanta Journal Constitution he informs the good citizens of Georgia in the comments of this article that:
The Baptists and Masons have kept Rome (called “an engine for enslaving mankind,” and “the real Anti-Christ,” by Our Founder, Author and Prophet Thomas Jefferson) tamped down here, but they are still coming on strong with their stratagem of illegal immigration and forcing support of the false money they foisted off on us through the Robber Barons at Jekyll Island in 1913.
The unconstitutional Federal Reserve “potion” Rome’s Fifth Column made us swallow must be seen as the “Mr. Hyde” it truly is. Just next door on St. Simons we did to them physically and biologically at Bloody Marsh what we must now do on our borders and state houses legally, politically and spiritually for America to flourish as the Land of Promise once more.
Oh and it gets much better :)
I went over to his blog and his entry Falsified History: Roman Catholics in Dixie
History of Atlanta, Georgia," by Wallace Putnam Reed: "By July 1862 the following hospitals had been established: The Empire Hospital, Heery Hospital, Gate City, City Hotel, Alexander Concert Hall, Wilson's, Denny Medical College, and Janes and Hayden's."St. Joseph's was established in 1880, nine years before the above book was published in 1889. Built by the Roman Catholics who came and conquered with virulent Roman Catholic William Tecumsah Sherman's "March to the Sea," with an army of Irish, Italian, and German Roman Catholic immigrants, largely "off the boat," it is pure fabrication and papist propaganda to suggest St. Joseph's was Atlanta's "first hospital.'It works well as a lie for Roman Catholics wishing to enchance/falsify their "Dixie cred," to add to another, often repeated, that a non-existant "Father O'Reilly" interposed himself before the advancing column of his co-religionists to threaten excommunication should Sherman or his troops burn the downtown churches of Atlanta. ..............
all knew the "Union" was pursuing interests of "Popery and Black (corrupt) Republicanism," just as they were when they later financed the rise of Hitler; effected, through a Knight of Malta-led Roman Catholic CIA hit-team, overseen by Richard Nixon and GHW Bush, the assassination of Kennedy and King to send us to die for their pope in Vietnam; and, cheating a homosexual draft-dodger into the White House to commit 9/11.
Oh and don't fall for the evil Bobby Jindal either or even that supposed ex Catholic Sarah Palin (she must be a secret Agent.
In his entry President Jindal????
Louisiana is a cancer on America. There its political and criminal corruption is not even an open secret: it is an open fact. Jindal is its fulfillment.Inbred whitetrash Sarah Palin sucked up to and fronted for Roman Catholic/Vatican-banker-Rockefeller Big Oil in Alaska and was nominated for their Bush3 ticket by the same crowd who killed Meriwether Lewis and Abraham Lincoln, financed Hitler, assassinated Kennedy and King, cheated a homosexual draft-dodger into the White House and committed 9/11 for heroin and oil.........
The People can be “divided and conquered,” like Gingrich for the DuPonts, Bushes for the Rockefellers, and Piyush Jindal for Rome’s Fifth Column ensconced in Roman Catholic/Mafia-dominated Louisiana, Freedom’s battle for America must be fought anew.
Roman Catholic Mafia Dominated Louisiana!!!!
Question -if Jefferson was so fearful of Catholics why did he buy Louisiana that had so many of those Popish souls
A little humor this morning on the anti Catholic fringes.
This is a pretty funny anti Catholic site. Go see Jefferson's Whig Prophecy Fulfilled: Anti-Christ, Rome, JFK's assassins and 9-11 . I noted this web site because over that the Atlanta Journal Constitution he informs the good citizens of Georgia in the comments of this article that:
The Baptists and Masons have kept Rome (called “an engine for enslaving mankind,” and “the real Anti-Christ,” by Our Founder, Author and Prophet Thomas Jefferson) tamped down here, but they are still coming on strong with their stratagem of illegal immigration and forcing support of the false money they foisted off on us through the Robber Barons at Jekyll Island in 1913.
The unconstitutional Federal Reserve “potion” Rome’s Fifth Column made us swallow must be seen as the “Mr. Hyde” it truly is. Just next door on St. Simons we did to them physically and biologically at Bloody Marsh what we must now do on our borders and state houses legally, politically and spiritually for America to flourish as the Land of Promise once more.
Oh and it gets much better :)
I went over to his blog and his entry Falsified History: Roman Catholics in Dixie
History of Atlanta, Georgia," by Wallace Putnam Reed: "By July 1862 the following hospitals had been established: The Empire Hospital, Heery Hospital, Gate City, City Hotel, Alexander Concert Hall, Wilson's, Denny Medical College, and Janes and Hayden's."St. Joseph's was established in 1880, nine years before the above book was published in 1889. Built by the Roman Catholics who came and conquered with virulent Roman Catholic William Tecumsah Sherman's "March to the Sea," with an army of Irish, Italian, and German Roman Catholic immigrants, largely "off the boat," it is pure fabrication and papist propaganda to suggest St. Joseph's was Atlanta's "first hospital.'It works well as a lie for Roman Catholics wishing to enchance/falsify their "Dixie cred," to add to another, often repeated, that a non-existant "Father O'Reilly" interposed himself before the advancing column of his co-religionists to threaten excommunication should Sherman or his troops burn the downtown churches of Atlanta. ..............
all knew the "Union" was pursuing interests of "Popery and Black (corrupt) Republicanism," just as they were when they later financed the rise of Hitler; effected, through a Knight of Malta-led Roman Catholic CIA hit-team, overseen by Richard Nixon and GHW Bush, the assassination of Kennedy and King to send us to die for their pope in Vietnam; and, cheating a homosexual draft-dodger into the White House to commit 9/11.
Oh and don't fall for the evil Bobby Jindal either or even that supposed ex Catholic Sarah Palin (she must be a secret Agent.
In his entry President Jindal????
Louisiana is a cancer on America. There its political and criminal corruption is not even an open secret: it is an open fact. Jindal is its fulfillment.Inbred whitetrash Sarah Palin sucked up to and fronted for Roman Catholic/Vatican-banker-Rockefeller Big Oil in Alaska and was nominated for their Bush3 ticket by the same crowd who killed Meriwether Lewis and Abraham Lincoln, financed Hitler, assassinated Kennedy and King, cheated a homosexual draft-dodger into the White House and committed 9/11 for heroin and oil.........
The People can be “divided and conquered,” like Gingrich for the DuPonts, Bushes for the Rockefellers, and Piyush Jindal for Rome’s Fifth Column ensconced in Roman Catholic/Mafia-dominated Louisiana, Freedom’s battle for America must be fought anew.
Roman Catholic Mafia Dominated Louisiana!!!!
Question -if Jefferson was so fearful of Catholics why did he buy Louisiana that had so many of those Popish souls
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton States She Is Proud Obama Repealed the Mexico City Policy
Tip of the hat to Crunchy Con for this.
After visiting the Shrine of the Patroness of America (who is also the Patroness of the unborn)and shouting to Mexican "You have a wonderful Virgin, she went to Houston to get Planned Parenthood's highest award
Full transcript of her remarks are located here.
I note with some amusement that many Obama supporting Catholics tried to downplay the significance of this move for the pro-life movement. It appears that Planned Parenthood very much disagrees.
As I pointed out yesterday Sanger was a huge ole racist. See Sec of State Hillary Clinton To get Top Racist Reward Today
Here are some excerpts:
Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.........
The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was a hundred years ago. (Applause.) So I thank you.........
But around the world, too many women are denied even the opportunity to know about how to plan and space their families. They're denied the power to do anything about the most intimate of decisions..........
This is especially important today, when poverty and the lack of healthcare and education, hunger and job loss, are amplified by the current economic crisis. And I was very proud when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy(Applause.)
I am also pleased to tell you that we announced that the United States will once again fund family planning through the United Nations. (Applause.) We are going to fund a contribution of $50 million this fiscal year. That's a 130 percent increase over our last contribution, which was made in 2001. Congress has also approved the Administration's request for $545 million in bilateral assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs this year.
So Planned Parenthood gets to expand their abortion and anti life agenda worldwide!!! Of course they are cheering.
How does this make abortion go down
After visiting the Shrine of the Patroness of America (who is also the Patroness of the unborn)and shouting to Mexican "You have a wonderful Virgin, she went to Houston to get Planned Parenthood's highest award
Full transcript of her remarks are located here.
I note with some amusement that many Obama supporting Catholics tried to downplay the significance of this move for the pro-life movement. It appears that Planned Parenthood very much disagrees.
As I pointed out yesterday Sanger was a huge ole racist. See Sec of State Hillary Clinton To get Top Racist Reward Today
Here are some excerpts:
Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.........
The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was a hundred years ago. (Applause.) So I thank you.........
But around the world, too many women are denied even the opportunity to know about how to plan and space their families. They're denied the power to do anything about the most intimate of decisions..........
This is especially important today, when poverty and the lack of healthcare and education, hunger and job loss, are amplified by the current economic crisis. And I was very proud when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy(Applause.)
I am also pleased to tell you that we announced that the United States will once again fund family planning through the United Nations. (Applause.) We are going to fund a contribution of $50 million this fiscal year. That's a 130 percent increase over our last contribution, which was made in 2001. Congress has also approved the Administration's request for $545 million in bilateral assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs this year.
So Planned Parenthood gets to expand their abortion and anti life agenda worldwide!!! Of course they are cheering.
How does this make abortion go down
Louisiana Democrats Fail To Oust Chairman That Ran Anti Catholic Ads Against Jindal
Recall Democrat Chairman Chris Whittington? He was one that ran only in the Protestant north a horrid ad campaign against Jindal that tried to tap in anti Catholic feeling and used Jindal's faith against him!!
Well many state democrats tired to get rid of him but sadly with no success.
See Bid to oust Louisiana's top Democrat fails
The Know Nothing ads he promoted are not mentioned as a issue in the article but from what I know they still are a very big sore spot.
Well many state democrats tired to get rid of him but sadly with no success.
See Bid to oust Louisiana's top Democrat fails
The Know Nothing ads he promoted are not mentioned as a issue in the article but from what I know they still are a very big sore spot.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Douglas Kmiec versus Hadley Arkes Debate Video
Douglas Kmiec versus Hadley Arkes debate vid available here. Sadly I am on dial up at home so can't watch it at this moment.. I bet it is good. If I find a transcript or mp3 I will post it.
Is Catholic Worship Cannibalism?
No doubt many people about to come into the Church this Easter get this question are getting this question with some frequency from non Catholic friends and family.
Tim Troutman has a nice post on this at Real Presence - Does it Mean Cannibalism?
Tim Troutman has a nice post on this at Real Presence - Does it Mean Cannibalism?
Sec of State Hillary Clinton To get Top Racist Reward Today
After visiting Our Lady's special place that is the Patroness of the Americas and also the unborn here in the USA. See “New Eve” encounters her snakes? the Sec of State has jetted off to get America's top Racist reward.
The irony of course here is rich since after she said "You have a marvelous virgin!" and then goes on to receive the Margaret Sanger award for, among other things, supporting federal funding of abortion in Mexico.
As Father at Standing on Head notes in his HIlary Clinton Sanger (which has good links on this) "So the Pope rehabilitates a person he didn't know was a holocaust denier , and later apologizes while Hilary Clinton is proud to receive the Margaret Sanger award which magnifies and honors a known eugenicist, racist, supporter of the KKK and nobody blinks"
United States Catholic Bishops Slam Practice of Reiki
No doubt in my own state Sister Sandals is doing this someplace at some retreat.
Domine, da mihi hanc aquam! has the story at Reiki: Not Science, Not Christian
Ten Reasons has a post that has some pics that show of course that obvious Church demographic that is promoting this stuff
Domine, da mihi hanc aquam! has the story at Reiki: Not Science, Not Christian
Ten Reasons has a post that has some pics that show of course that obvious Church demographic that is promoting this stuff
Did British Muslim Outrage Make Anglican Bishop Resign
If so what dangerous nonsense. See The resignation of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is a victory for Islamism at the UK Telegraph
Another question to Conservative Episcopalians in the USA looking for help from Canterbury. If this is true and Canterbury did not protect him against non Christians where does that leave you as to the current Bureaucracy/ Hierarchy of the TEC USA?
Another question to Conservative Episcopalians in the USA looking for help from Canterbury. If this is true and Canterbury did not protect him against non Christians where does that leave you as to the current Bureaucracy/ Hierarchy of the TEC USA?
Did President Obama Actually Talk About Monk Joachim of Fiore?
The background is here at Vatican Throws Cold Water On President Obama's Mystic Monk (Updated)
I have spent some time looking at the very interesting views and history of this monk and the Church's reaction to him. A wilki page gives an overview.
Now my question did the Preacher to the Papal Household have independent knowledge of this or is going off what the Mayor of San Giovanni in Fiore said in August of 2008.
I am not saying the mayor is wrong but it seems to me that everything I see just cites this article. Where are the links to the actual speeches. In fact many took note of this article in 2008. Modern Medieval got all all excited. But he mentions something that caught my eye in his 2008 entry Barack Obama, Medievalist (?) . He says in part:
Does anyone know anything about this? The article doesn't give details of those occasions and I can't find -- anywhere -- independent verification of this. I've used the google, searched through Obama's website, used LexisNexis, Aldo Civico's website (the scholar who's mentioned in the article), etc. Nothing.
He might actually might have mentioned him and I suppose the mayor is basing this on something. But I find it odd I can't even find one original source for this yet. It might be there but still
I have spent some time looking at the very interesting views and history of this monk and the Church's reaction to him. A wilki page gives an overview.
Now my question did the Preacher to the Papal Household have independent knowledge of this or is going off what the Mayor of San Giovanni in Fiore said in August of 2008.
I am not saying the mayor is wrong but it seems to me that everything I see just cites this article. Where are the links to the actual speeches. In fact many took note of this article in 2008. Modern Medieval got all all excited. But he mentions something that caught my eye in his 2008 entry Barack Obama, Medievalist (?) . He says in part:
Does anyone know anything about this? The article doesn't give details of those occasions and I can't find -- anywhere -- independent verification of this. I've used the google, searched through Obama's website, used LexisNexis, Aldo Civico's website (the scholar who's mentioned in the article), etc. Nothing.
He might actually might have mentioned him and I suppose the mayor is basing this on something. But I find it odd I can't even find one original source for this yet. It might be there but still
Bishop Thomas J. Tobin Reminds People Jesus Was Not Always Nice to People In Power (You Need a Conscience Transplant My Friend)
See Bishop Tobin - 'You need a conscience transplant'
I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President’s anti-life actions don’t stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don’t offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.The other premise of my critics seems to be that because we are Christians we should never be angry or challenge others. We should always be charitable, tolerant, kind and nice, they suggest. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?Well, in fact, no................
I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President’s anti-life actions don’t stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don’t offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.The other premise of my critics seems to be that because we are Christians we should never be angry or challenge others. We should always be charitable, tolerant, kind and nice, they suggest. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?Well, in fact, no................
Sec of State Hillary Clinton Visits Our Lady of Guadalupe and asks ‘Who painted it?’
One would think she would have picked this up by now after years of dealing with Hispanics or Latinos
Anyway I hope and wish it the visits might make a change in her heart and she will not accept the planned parenthood award.
Anyway I hope and wish it the visits might make a change in her heart and she will not accept the planned parenthood award.
Friday, March 27, 2009
There is Something About Mary In the European Union
Except to Dutch protestants that don't seem to be thrilled
Dutch Protestants find EU Mary quite contrary
A group of Protestant Christians in the Netherlands is objecting to the emblem of the European Union being placed on car registration plates in their country, saying that the symbol conflicts with their religious convictions - writes Andreas Havinga.
The National Foundation for the Preservation of the Political Reformed Principles states that the EU emblem - a circle of 12 golden stars on a blue background - symbolises the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, by the Roman Catholic Church.
"Most people don't think about it, but the EU symbol was thought up by a Roman Catholic in honour of Mary," P. H. op 't Hof, chairperson of the Reformed foundation, was quoted recently by the Nederlands Dagblad newspaper as saying. The newspaper reported that a court in the town of Leeuwarden had acknowledged that the issue concerns a matter of conscience.
This emboldened the Protestant group to repeat earlier requests to transport minister Camiel Eurlings, asking that the EU symbol be removed from the licence plates that have been in force since 2000.
The government minister responded, however, by saying that he saw no reason to do so since it is European Union policy to have licence plates with the symbol.
The emblem and flag were first used by another European body, the Council of Europe, before being adopted by the EU in 1985. Some observers say that the symbol bears a striking similarity to the 12-star halo of the Virgin Mary often seen in Catholic art.
In 1989, the Vatican newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, reported the emblem's designer, Arsène Heitz, had described the source of his inspiration as a series of reported apparitions by the Virgin Mary in 19th-century Paris. The date on which the Council of Europe adopted the flag, 8 December 1955, coincided with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Still, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, Toine Manders, has rejected as "outrageous" the statements by the Protestant group. "These 12 stars were already around in the period of Greek mythology, in other words long before Christianity,'' Manders stated on his website.
The Reformed foundation is a group of members of the Political Reformed Party (SGP), who judge the SGP to be insufficiently Calvinist. Founded in 1918, the SGP is the oldest political party in the Netherlands, and is known for its refusal to take part in any government Cabinet.
The Reformed foundation declared its was "disappointed" by the answer from the transport ministry.
Its chairperson, Op 't Hof, however, has come up with a provisional solution to the problem. The group sells adhesive stickers with the Dutch lion symbol to cover the EU emblem. Officially this is not allowed, but Op 't Hof says he has never encountered any problems.
Tip of the Hat to the Anchoress
Dutch Protestants find EU Mary quite contrary
A group of Protestant Christians in the Netherlands is objecting to the emblem of the European Union being placed on car registration plates in their country, saying that the symbol conflicts with their religious convictions - writes Andreas Havinga.
The National Foundation for the Preservation of the Political Reformed Principles states that the EU emblem - a circle of 12 golden stars on a blue background - symbolises the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, by the Roman Catholic Church.
"Most people don't think about it, but the EU symbol was thought up by a Roman Catholic in honour of Mary," P. H. op 't Hof, chairperson of the Reformed foundation, was quoted recently by the Nederlands Dagblad newspaper as saying. The newspaper reported that a court in the town of Leeuwarden had acknowledged that the issue concerns a matter of conscience.
This emboldened the Protestant group to repeat earlier requests to transport minister Camiel Eurlings, asking that the EU symbol be removed from the licence plates that have been in force since 2000.
The government minister responded, however, by saying that he saw no reason to do so since it is European Union policy to have licence plates with the symbol.
The emblem and flag were first used by another European body, the Council of Europe, before being adopted by the EU in 1985. Some observers say that the symbol bears a striking similarity to the 12-star halo of the Virgin Mary often seen in Catholic art.
In 1989, the Vatican newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, reported the emblem's designer, Arsène Heitz, had described the source of his inspiration as a series of reported apparitions by the Virgin Mary in 19th-century Paris. The date on which the Council of Europe adopted the flag, 8 December 1955, coincided with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Still, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, Toine Manders, has rejected as "outrageous" the statements by the Protestant group. "These 12 stars were already around in the period of Greek mythology, in other words long before Christianity,'' Manders stated on his website.
The Reformed foundation is a group of members of the Political Reformed Party (SGP), who judge the SGP to be insufficiently Calvinist. Founded in 1918, the SGP is the oldest political party in the Netherlands, and is known for its refusal to take part in any government Cabinet.
The Reformed foundation declared its was "disappointed" by the answer from the transport ministry.
Its chairperson, Op 't Hof, however, has come up with a provisional solution to the problem. The group sells adhesive stickers with the Dutch lion symbol to cover the EU emblem. Officially this is not allowed, but Op 't Hof says he has never encountered any problems.
Tip of the Hat to the Anchoress
Senator Henry Reid Staying Classy- Calls Chief Justice Roberts a Liar
Sad
I am not a big fan of either when the left or right engages in such conduct against the Supreme Court. Partly because these folks knows these Judges will not respond out of traditon and respect for the Court
But when the head of the Senate calls the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES a liar for no reason. Well it is just sad. What a man you are Henry!!!
What is funny is that most serious lawyers no matter what their politics will find this horrible conduct and Reid seems to have no idea
I am not a big fan of either when the left or right engages in such conduct against the Supreme Court. Partly because these folks knows these Judges will not respond out of traditon and respect for the Court
But when the head of the Senate calls the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES a liar for no reason. Well it is just sad. What a man you are Henry!!!
What is funny is that most serious lawyers no matter what their politics will find this horrible conduct and Reid seems to have no idea
How to Strike at Notre Dame Scandals- Its Football and Sports- Stop the Recruits
As we see that Notre Dame is about to give a honorary degree in laws of all people Obama what to do
Simple strike at the heart of Alumni and many of what matters to them . That is Sports. Bishops in their various Diocese that are feeder schools for Notre Dame Sports should direct their Coaches not to cooperate with Notre Dame as to possible recruits.
That will get the Alumnis attention quicker than the whole Culture of Death argument. Maybe Charlie Weiss will have a bigger impact than the Bishop of South Bend who they wish to ignore.
Jeopardize that all Holy NBC contract they have and the whole program falls apart since they are not in a conference. Hit them where it hurts. The Bishops can do this in a very easy way since they don't give a damn what the rest of the American Catholic world thinks
Simple strike at the heart of Alumni and many of what matters to them . That is Sports. Bishops in their various Diocese that are feeder schools for Notre Dame Sports should direct their Coaches not to cooperate with Notre Dame as to possible recruits.
That will get the Alumnis attention quicker than the whole Culture of Death argument. Maybe Charlie Weiss will have a bigger impact than the Bishop of South Bend who they wish to ignore.
Jeopardize that all Holy NBC contract they have and the whole program falls apart since they are not in a conference. Hit them where it hurts. The Bishops can do this in a very easy way since they don't give a damn what the rest of the American Catholic world thinks
Presidental Porno- Coming to a Museum Near You
Hopefully not subsidized by our tax dollars
Justine Lai paints herself having sex with each of the Presidents, beginning with George Washington.
"I am interested in humanizing and demythologizing the Presidents by addressing their public legacies and private lives. The presidency itself is a seemingly immortal and impenetrable institution; by inserting myself in its timeline, I attempt to locate something intimate and mortal. I use this intimacy to subvert authority, but it demands that I make myself vulnerable along with the Presidents. A power lies in rendering these patriarchal figures the possible object of shame, ridicule and desire, but it is a power that is constantly negotiated."
No doubt President Buchanan is rolling over in his grave 
The Horrific Conduct of Dallas Police to Former Louisiana Tech Player Ryan Moats
If you are are much of a Sport's fan no doubt you caught this horrible episode on ESPN. It has been all the news up in here in North Louisiana with outrage stretching from Monroe Louisiana to Dallas Texas and beyond
Ryan Moats is a great guy and represented his former University of Louisiana Tech well. I was going to do a post on this but I see Astonished Yet have Home has done the work for me. See
Shameful Lack of Compassion and Common Sense by a Policeman in Life or Death Scenario
Ryan Moats Police Video Part 2
Ryan Moats Police Video, Part One
Again this no does not reflect the conduct of the entire Dallas police Department but it is still troubling.
Ryan Moats is a great guy and represented his former University of Louisiana Tech well. I was going to do a post on this but I see Astonished Yet have Home has done the work for me. See
Shameful Lack of Compassion and Common Sense by a Policeman in Life or Death Scenario
Ryan Moats Police Video Part 2
Ryan Moats Police Video, Part One
Again this no does not reflect the conduct of the entire Dallas police Department but it is still troubling.
Louisiana Catholic Blogs Update For Friday, March 27, 2009
I missed the Catholic blog update yesterday. So Sorry . I have got to think about changing the time I do that post. When I miss it it is often because I am getting tired and thinking about going home.
Here we go
From The Recamier has her Daily Update: March 26, 2009
Footprints on the Fridge has A Fresh Perspective for the Learning Room
A Number of Things. has a donation
Works and Prayers of a Fils Prodigue has a post here I want too look at again and perhaps comment on his site about. See his English paper Vatican II and the Nova Latina Populi . See also Personal Responsibility
The Wolf Den has what's the point of all of this suffering?
Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana has the following for us today:
“Rebuild My Church!” - Do We Have a Modern Day St. Francis?
Touchdown Obama
Friday of the Fourth Week of Lent
And the 2009 Margaret Sanger Award Goes to…
States Rebellion Pending (His analysis is off and wrong)
God’s Rules for Success
Is Michele Bachmann the Only Person in the GOP With Guts?
A Little Political Humor to Lighten Your Day: When Taxes Attack, Make Sure Your Gun Is Loaded
Dear Small Business Owner……….
It’s Howdy Doody Time! Geithner’s Stupidity Almost Singlehandedly Wrecks the Dollar
How Times Change
Is Obama Going to Play ‘Patty Fingers’ With Islamic Nations?
AUDACITY! The President Pressures the Good Archbishop Burke to “Be Quiet”
Ends and Means and the Audacity to Hope
Planned Parenthood Turning to ‘New’ Ways to Kill Preborn Babies
Tiller Update 3: Closing Arguments Scheduled for Early Friday after Tiller Admits Alleged Illegal Associate “Worked” for Him
Taking on Goliath: 20-Year-Old Lila Rose Squares Up Against Planned Parenthood
Bishop Olmsted: Notre Dame’s Obama Honor “Public Act of Disobedience to U.S. Bishops”
Homily of the Day: What Words Will Your Life Speak in the End?
TODAY’S GOSPEL
TODAY’S SAINT: Blessed Francis Faà di Bruno (1825-1888)
Teen Catholic has YAY!!!!!!!!!
Stranger in a Strange Land has Sign The Petition to Stop Obama Speaking at Notre Dame , What is Truth? , Images to Reflect On (nice), How Do I Abide in Jesus? , and The Truth is A Person
For The Greater Glory has No You Can't: Come Up with a Better War Strategy than Bush , No, You Can't: Lower Abortion Rates , and oh yeah me and GLORY go back and forth on if a post I did was appropriate or not at Plane Crashes Aren't Exactly Pro-Life ( I note this was discussed on the political board I go too and of course in about 5 minutes it devolves into some other bizarre topic as often happens on these boards.) NOTE I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT THREAD ( I am Bayourant on that board)
Thy Nose to the Marble. by Father Decker links to the following article he did . See
Joe Yawns, Joe Speaking and Joe Catholic Misc
I am going to link these the following posts that Astonished, Yet at Home! did in the next post. I was going to post on this Louisiana Tech related item but he has done the work for me. See Shameful Lack of Compassion and Common Sense by a Policeman in Life or Death Scenario , Ryan Moats Police Video Part 2 , and Ryan Moats Police Video, Part One . On other matters see Happy Birthday to My Occasional Fiancee on Facebook , The Pope Defended in the European Press , and How the War Between the States Affects Romance
ALIVE AND YOUNG has Dear Father: An ND Alum Writes to Notre Dame
In Hoc Signo Vinces our soon to be Catholic has Confirmation Name Chosen - St. Thomas of Canterbury, Friday Concert Series: Better Days, and Confirmation Name Update
Thoughts & Ruminations of Father Ryan has I’d start looking for one of these ads that says ‘Notre Dame University’… and a quote from Karl Marx, 1867. See also his Mother Angelica quote.
Cajun Cottage Under the Oaks has Wednesday Depression Cooking (maybe we should be getting the recipes- Cool link), and My Wednesday Daybook
Maudie in Mandeville has Dan Hannan, the British J.C. Watts, and that's no compliment , Oooh, did you hear Obama? , and Catholics cooperating with evil
Fr. Victor Brown’s Catholic Daily Message our expat priest in Houston has his thoughts at Feast of Saint Margaret Clitherow (26 March 2009)
Life on the (L)edge has SACRIFICE?!?
Finally our expat Priest in New Jersey Da Mihi Animas has:
Jerry Clower and Uncle Percy Ledbetter!
Saint of the day: Margaret Clitherow
Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government
Here we go
From The Recamier has her Daily Update: March 26, 2009
Footprints on the Fridge has A Fresh Perspective for the Learning Room
A Number of Things. has a donation
Works and Prayers of a Fils Prodigue has a post here I want too look at again and perhaps comment on his site about. See his English paper Vatican II and the Nova Latina Populi . See also Personal Responsibility
The Wolf Den has what's the point of all of this suffering?
Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana has the following for us today:
“Rebuild My Church!” - Do We Have a Modern Day St. Francis?
Touchdown Obama
Friday of the Fourth Week of Lent
And the 2009 Margaret Sanger Award Goes to…
States Rebellion Pending (His analysis is off and wrong)
God’s Rules for Success
Is Michele Bachmann the Only Person in the GOP With Guts?
A Little Political Humor to Lighten Your Day: When Taxes Attack, Make Sure Your Gun Is Loaded
Dear Small Business Owner……….
It’s Howdy Doody Time! Geithner’s Stupidity Almost Singlehandedly Wrecks the Dollar
How Times Change
Is Obama Going to Play ‘Patty Fingers’ With Islamic Nations?
AUDACITY! The President Pressures the Good Archbishop Burke to “Be Quiet”
Ends and Means and the Audacity to Hope
Planned Parenthood Turning to ‘New’ Ways to Kill Preborn Babies
Tiller Update 3: Closing Arguments Scheduled for Early Friday after Tiller Admits Alleged Illegal Associate “Worked” for Him
Taking on Goliath: 20-Year-Old Lila Rose Squares Up Against Planned Parenthood
Bishop Olmsted: Notre Dame’s Obama Honor “Public Act of Disobedience to U.S. Bishops”
Homily of the Day: What Words Will Your Life Speak in the End?
TODAY’S GOSPEL
TODAY’S SAINT: Blessed Francis Faà di Bruno (1825-1888)
Teen Catholic has YAY!!!!!!!!!
Stranger in a Strange Land has Sign The Petition to Stop Obama Speaking at Notre Dame , What is Truth? , Images to Reflect On (nice), How Do I Abide in Jesus? , and The Truth is A Person
For The Greater Glory has No You Can't: Come Up with a Better War Strategy than Bush , No, You Can't: Lower Abortion Rates , and oh yeah me and GLORY go back and forth on if a post I did was appropriate or not at Plane Crashes Aren't Exactly Pro-Life ( I note this was discussed on the political board I go too and of course in about 5 minutes it devolves into some other bizarre topic as often happens on these boards.) NOTE I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT THREAD ( I am Bayourant on that board)
Thy Nose to the Marble. by Father Decker links to the following article he did . See
Joe Yawns, Joe Speaking and Joe Catholic Misc
I am going to link these the following posts that Astonished, Yet at Home! did in the next post. I was going to post on this Louisiana Tech related item but he has done the work for me. See Shameful Lack of Compassion and Common Sense by a Policeman in Life or Death Scenario , Ryan Moats Police Video Part 2 , and Ryan Moats Police Video, Part One . On other matters see Happy Birthday to My Occasional Fiancee on Facebook , The Pope Defended in the European Press , and How the War Between the States Affects Romance
ALIVE AND YOUNG has Dear Father: An ND Alum Writes to Notre Dame
In Hoc Signo Vinces our soon to be Catholic has Confirmation Name Chosen - St. Thomas of Canterbury, Friday Concert Series: Better Days, and Confirmation Name Update
Thoughts & Ruminations of Father Ryan has I’d start looking for one of these ads that says ‘Notre Dame University’… and a quote from Karl Marx, 1867. See also his Mother Angelica quote.
Cajun Cottage Under the Oaks has Wednesday Depression Cooking (maybe we should be getting the recipes- Cool link), and My Wednesday Daybook
Maudie in Mandeville has Dan Hannan, the British J.C. Watts, and that's no compliment , Oooh, did you hear Obama? , and Catholics cooperating with evil
Fr. Victor Brown’s Catholic Daily Message our expat priest in Houston has his thoughts at Feast of Saint Margaret Clitherow (26 March 2009)
Life on the (L)edge has SACRIFICE?!?
Finally our expat Priest in New Jersey Da Mihi Animas has:
Jerry Clower and Uncle Percy Ledbetter!
Saint of the day: Margaret Clitherow
Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government