My Country, 'Tis of Thee", also known as "America", is an American patriotic song, whose lyrics were written by Samuel Francis Smith. The melody was derived from the British national anthem, God Save the King or Queen, by way of a German adaptation. The song served as a de facto national anthem of the United States for much of the 19th century.

1 My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring!

2 My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.

3 Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

4 Our father's God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King.

5 (added to celebrate Washington's Centennial)[2]
Our joyful hearts today,
Their grateful tribute pay,
Happy and free,
After our toils and fears,
After our blood and tears,
Strong with our hundred years,
O God, to Thee.

Additional Verses by Henry Van Dyke (see CPDL version link below)

6 We love thine inland seas,
Thy groves and giant trees,
Thy rolling plains;
Thy rivers' mighty sweep,
Thy mystic canyons deep,
Thy mountains wild and steep,--
All thy domains.

7 Thy silver Eastern strands,
Thy Golden Gate that stands
Fronting the West;
Thy flowery Southland fair,
Thy North's sweet, crystal air:
O Land beyond compare,
We love thee best!

....second only to national security, the shaping of the federal judiciary is the most significant legacy that the next president is likely to leave....

SOURCE: TOWNHALL.COM

First, I would like to thank you for your support in my recent political endeavor. In that business, many are called, but few are chosen. We took a strong stand for the principles we believe in, and together I believe we made a difference in the debate that will ultimately benefit our country.

The fact is – I have not changed my mind about any of what we discussed. The issues. Our nation’s values. And most important, our principles. And as I watch the presidential campaign I am convinced more than ever of the importance of these principles and I bet you feel the same way.

There has been a lot of talk about the need for change in this country. That is Senator Obama’s mantra, of course. And all of the commentators say, “It is a change election.” Well, I can understand why the call for change is so powerful considering the pitiful condition that our country is in.

We simply have the most prosperous, freest and strongest country in the history of the world. So we can understand why liberal politicians and their supporters see the need for great change.

On a more serious note, we have long recognized the role change plays in lives. Edmund Burke wrote extensively about it in the 18th century. He said that change was inevitable and when properly guided, change was a process of renewal. But it was his opinion that the man who loves change is disqualified from being a reformer because of his lust … to be the agent of change.

Remind you of anybody you know?

So it is not change that concerns us — it’s change in the wrong direction. And what we may be changing from.

This country was founded on certain eternal truths – the lessons of the Scriptures and the wisdom of the ages … the recognition that there is such a thing as human nature that must be taken into account when governing … a respect for tradition and – most fundamentally – the proposition that people are meant to be free.

From these principles a government was formed – a government with its powers separated, checked and balanced, because the Founders knew that power tended to corrupt human beings. In keeping with that, they incorporated into our Constitution a system of Federalism to ensure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government – a central government that was given certain delineated powers and no others.

From the application of these principles we developed a market economy, the rule of law, a system of trade with other nations, and a strong national defense. From the prosperity, freedom, and strength that came from this system we became a friend and example to all those around the world who aspired to those same things. We won wars, including the Cold War. We helped rebuild our enemies’ countries, which enhanced world stability, and which strengthened our own security along the way.

So with that in mind, I’d like to suggest a change for us: Instead of a constant search for the new, exciting and different, let’s re-assert the “First Principles” that made this country great.

Has freedom, liberty and the strength which guarantees them become outdated? And just what part of our Constitutional framework requires sprucing up or should be abandoned altogether?

Those changes that are momentarily popular in elite circles, which would expand our government, weaken our ability to defend ourselves, redefine marriage and life itself, sap our sense of personal responsibility and treat our people as if they were merely a collection of appetites to be fed in an election year … they must be rejected.

These are not changes we can believe in. These are changes we should run away from. Because the ideas behind these endeavors, which have long inspired left-wing politicians around the world, have led to consistently disastrous results.

Unfortunately the greatest agent of change this country has ever seen may be the Supreme Court of the United States – a fact that would astound the Founding Fathers who created it. Last month the Court for the first time in our nation’s history took from the elected branches of government the management of enemy combatants held abroad during times of war and gave these combatants the same habeas corpus rights we possess as American citizens.

Then the Court, in another 5-4 decision, overturned a death penalty conviction of a child rapist as a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Part of the opinion of the majority was based upon what they perceived as, “the evolving standards of decency” in America. The Court basically concluded we have reached the lofty moral level where a state will not be allowed to execute a child rapist no matter how young the child, no matter the brutality of the assault, or the frequency of the offender’s actions.

Logically, this can only mean that, when the Court decides that our moral standards have evolved even further, they will feel free to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. Then, presumably, we will have evolved to the level of decency of Europeans.

I am not sure what is more outrageous – holding that a state cannot impose the death penalty for such a heinous crime, the Court’s continued reshaping of the Constitution, or that we are governed by a Court’s perception of how far our standards of decency have evolved. This is a Court which is apparently unaware that most Americans’ consideration would include the child … not just the rapist.

Clearly, this is a Court that is often engaged in what can only be called a “liberal legislative function.” And these are legislative activities and outcomes that would never pass in the normal legislative process where you and I have a say in the matter.

I don’t know how to put it any plainer: If Senator Obama is elected, he will, through Supreme Court and federal court nominations cause this trend to accelerate. And that will bring about harmful changes in this country that no one in this room will want to see and no one in this room will live long enough to see rectified.

During his brief time in the U.S. Senate, the Senator strongly opposed the nomination of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. And without a doubt – despite what he may say – (Obama) would continue to follow the agenda of those who have enabled his meteoric rise: MoveOn.org, the NEA, NARAL, and the remnants of the 1960s radical left that failed then, but sees the opportunity for one last gasp.

I highlight our courts because, second only to national security, the shaping of the federal judiciary is the most significant legacy that the next president is likely to leave—especially these days with such an evenly divided court.

The Court is important. But I want to get back to where we started … our principles. And there is no more important principle than the defense of liberty… and of life. And here, too, Senator Obama has been an agent of change in the wrong direction.

For example, in 2002 a federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed by President Bush. This act protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Only 15 members of the US House opposed it, and it passed the US Senate unanimously. Even NARAL did not oppose it.

That same year as an Illinois legislator, Senator Obama voted against similar legislation that would have given these babies life-saving medical attention.

I trust that he is explaining how it is that he is to the left of NARAL on this issue during the “religious outreach” meetings he’s been holding of late.

The fact is that at a time when the Supreme Court is in the balance, and America is facing unprecedented national security threats … at a time when rogue nations have or are developing nuclear capabilities … at a time when Russia is increasingly belligerent and China is engaged in a rapid military build-up, the Democratic Party has nominated for president one of the most inexperienced and the most liberal members of the United States Senate. Think George McGovern … without the experience.

On the other hand, we have John McCain. He is strongly supportive of sound constitutionalists on the bench. And he has been consistently pro-life throughout his career. His life experience has prepared him to lead this country in the troubled times we live in today. His life has been one of sacrifice, and he has exhibited the courage to place the interest of his country and his fellow citizens above his own during both times of war and peace.

Recently, Democratic minions, including former General Wesley Clark, have been sent out to denigrate the importance of Senator McCain’s honor and courage during times of war. Apparently Team Obama believes that just like timeless principles, character you can depend on is not a particularly important qualification to be President of the United States. They are dead wrong.

In light of our country’s history and what likely lies ahead, personal honor, courage and integrity are the most important qualifications for a President. I am disappointed that Wes Clark chose to allow himself to be used this way. He really shouldn’t have. It too easily invokes the image of a bantam rooster trying to belittle an American eagle.

Even more important to our future than how we view the candidates is how we view ourselves. Do we see our nation as one in decline, populated by helpless victims for whom every misfortune and every economic downturn is a conspiracy against them?

Or do we still see that we are a people of free will, willing to accept our responsibilities?

Are we a people who – as generations of American before us did – believe that our best days are ahead of us?

Will we realize and appreciate what we have and what we have achieved?

Will we remember who we are, what we stand for, and what we represent to the world? That we are free people … who respect life … who love liberty.

I believe we will. And for those who have lost sight, there are the the principles we believe in to guide them.

We’ve had them for a long time. And these principles do not change. And will not change.

Thank you.

About The Author: Fred Thompson has been a lawyer, actor and United States Senator. He writes exclusive analysis and commentary for Townhall Magazine.

...Complications include shock, 'foaming at mouth,' convulsions, coma

WorldNetDaily, June 30, 2008

"Anaphylactic shock," "foaming at mouth," "grand mal convulsion," "coma" and "now paralyzed" are a few of the startling descriptions included in a new federal report describing the complications from Merck & Co.'s Gardasil medication for sexually transmitted human papillomavirus – which has been proposed as mandatory for all schoolgirls.

The document was obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by Judicial Watch, a Washington group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, and it has details of 10 deaths just since September.

"Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to re-evaluate its safety and to prohibit its distribution to minors. In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The organization's work uncovered reports of about one death each month since last fall, bringing the total death toll from the drug to at least 18 and as many as 20. There also were 140 "serious" reports of complications including about three dozen classified as life-threatening, 10 spontaneous abortions and half a dozen cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

The document reveals the case of an 18-year-old woman who got the Gardasil vaccine, was found unconscious that evening, and died. Another woman, age 19, got the drug and the next morning was found dead in her bed....ENTIRE ARTICLE AND HYPERLINKS FOUND AT:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68454

....Heroic parents are constantly vigilant.....

By Dr. Jeff Mirus, CATHOLIC CULTURE, June 13, 2008

.....The late Fr. John Hardon, author of our online Catholic dictionary, was fond of saying that only heroic Catholic families will survive in today’s world. But Father Hardon is no longer here to tell you what this means, so you’re stuck with father Jeff. My explanation can be divided into two categories, firmness and flexibility.

Firmness

Family heroism begins with firm parents. Heroic Catholic parents are implacably firm in maintaining control of the formation and education of their children, with the goal of making them saints. At the same time, these heroic parents pray hard that God will both bless their children richly and make up for their parents’ inadequacies. Perhaps it should not need to be said that to provide children with the right environment requires significant sacrifices of time and money. Moreover, sometimes these sacrifices will be met with resistance and ridicule, not only from outsiders, but also from other family members, and perhaps at times even from one’s own children. Tough.

In early third millennium America, heroic Catholic families generally don’t send their kids to public schools if they have any conceivable alternative. Nor do they take advantage of parochial or diocesan schools if their staffs are still riddled with cafeteria Catholics (or worse). If a sound Catholic school is not available, heroic Catholic families pull up roots and move, or they found independent schools, or they home school. Even if outstanding schools are available, they may still home school. I use the word “generally” in the first sentence, because there are exceptions to every parenting rule, and it isn’t anybody’s job but yours to make the best decision for your own children.

It is axiomatic that God will always supply the most when we can do the least, but we must also expect Him to supply less when we are simply unwilling to do more. And so heroic Catholic families must do their very best to keep tight control over their children’s educational environment at least through high school, and many will do so through college as well, depending on the child and the feasibility of using an outstanding Catholic college. Moreover, in heroic Catholic families, schools are never chosen because of their outstanding secular reputations, the material value of their credentials, or their brilliant extra-curricular possibilities. Heroic parents don’t sacrifice their children’s moral and intellectual formation so that they will have the opportunity to make more money or excel at sports, drama or music.

In heroic Catholic families, mothers work outside the home as little as possible, and fathers make themselves available to their children regardless of the pressures of work or their desire for rest and relaxation. Heroic fathers are very much involved in raising their children. Parental closeness to each child is maintained throughout the teen years; it is not abandoned during the difficulties of adolescence. In this context of ongoing involvement and availability, heroic Catholic families also pray together every day, forming a habit and expectation of family prayer from early childhood, preferably including the daily Rosary—which has a proven track record.

Heroic households not only bar the door to intruders but regulate the airwaves, as well as broadband and phone connections. They restrict their children’s computer time, cell phone features, television and movie watching, and (perhaps above all) Internet use. They educate themselves concerning the moral dangers of these media, and they make a point of not allowing into their homes media that represents people acting in ways that may lead their children into sin—ways in which they would never allow real guests to act. Heroic parents are constantly vigilant. If they are ignorant about certain technological issues, they get help from those who understand them.

At the root of all these priorities is the central and indispensable fact that heroic Catholic fathers and mothers are concerned not only about their children’s virtue but about their own virtue. They don’t make exceptions for themselves, or have a double standard for children and adults, as if foul language, immodest dress, violent anger, excessive drinking, impure entertainment, or any other vice is acceptable as soon as one is old enough. Such parents strive for perfection through frequent personal prayer, reception of the sacraments, and high moral standards. They work through their own problems, keep their marriages strong, and so provide their children with the ultimate emotional stability.

Heroic Catholic parents strive to be outstanding spiritual and moral examples to their children. It goes without saying that they never undermine the Church’s authority by making exceptions about which Church teachings they will believe and follow. Nor do they let a spirit of criticism undermine their children’s respect for the Church. They must certainly discuss difficulties and abuses frankly, but they will not constantly complain and find fault.

Flexibility

After reading all of this, you may think heroic Catholic parents must be pretty tough and inflexible. Tough, yes; inflexible, no. Let’s suppose for a moment that there are two kinds of Catholics who may become heroic Catholic parents:

(1) Those who are reflexively broad-minded, open and liberal, and who find it difficult to steel themselves to true Catholic spiritual and moral discipline;
(2) Those who are reflexively hard-nosed and dogmatic, and who find it difficult to be open or tolerant about differences of any kind, whether or not they have anything significant to do with the Faith. The preceding section should be a sufficient caution to the former group, but what of the latter?

All heroic Catholic parents must combine these two dispositions into one, by following the famous maxim: In essential things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity. This maxim is often attributed to St. Augustine, though I have been unable to find the source. Thomas à Kempis definitely wrote it in his influential Imitation of Christ around the year 1418, and it is in any case excellent advice.

Thus, heroic Catholic parents do not insist on having everything their own way. They do not regard their every preference as a rule of God, insisting on a conformity from their children which goes beyond what sound spirituality and the mind of the Church require. Do they love particular devotions? Their children are not evil if they do not share this passion. Do they prefer a particular form of the liturgy? They need not insulate their children against every other form, implying that an alternative preference is a sign of weakness or heresy.

Nor are heroic Catholic parents “control freaks”. They understand that their children need psychological space in which to grow and develop, and that there is room for give-and-take in many family matters. They avoid Jansenism, scrupulosity or any other excessively negative or repressive understanding of human nature. They are willing to reconsider their own priorities and preferences when a parenting pattern consistently leads to conflicts or has undesired results. They work hard to separate the essential from the doubtful, so that they do not “bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Mt 23:4)—nor on the shoulders of their spouses or their children. They encourage questions and explorations of important matters. They seek to foster understanding and maturity, not pettiness or mere conformity. Truly, a profound personal humility must possess the heart of every heroic Catholic parent.

Such parents realize that they must be consistent and fair with all their children, but they also know that each child is different, possessing strengths and weaknesses, gifts and needs all his own. They adapt to these needs, finding creative ways to acknowledge differences while remaining fair. In striving for consistency, they still remember that one size does not fit all, and that sometimes love is shown more in the exception than in the rule. They also know that their children cannot be “just like” somebody else’s children. They recognize each child’s uniqueness, and do not hold a child to the impossible standard of having to be “just like” somebody else.

In exactly the same way, heroic Catholic spouses know that their husbands and wives cannot be “just like” somebody else’s husband or wife. Heroic Catholic husbands and wives remain sensitive to the strengths, weaknesses, gifts and needs of their spouses, dealing with them on their own terms, not measuring them against impossible (and inevitably mythical) patterns. Nor do they demand of either their spouses or their children that they become clones of themselves.

Heroic Virtue

When Fr. Hardon warned that only heroic Catholic families will survive, he meant that only families who make deep and continuous sacrifices for God and the Good will be able to raise children who remain close and retain their Faith. He was referring to that same heroic virtue which is required for canonization, that is, the determination to practice virtue and follow God’s will consistently over time even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. That is what heroic virtue is. That is really all it is; it is within reach, and it is quite enough.

Even with heroic virtue, however, immediate success is not guaranteed. Children are their own persons. They might, even with the best of upbringing, make bad choices, stray from the Church, reject God. So might their parents.

This brings us to the final and most important characteristic of heroic Catholic families: They keep praying for each other until they die, and even after they die. Heroic Catholic parents—and heroic Catholic children—are always deeply committed to prayer. They live lives of prayer. They pray constantly, both now and forever.

ENTIRE ARTICLE MAY BE FOUND AT:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=251

By Deal W. Hudson, INSIDE CATHOLIC, 7/01/08

Infanticide is becoming a touchy subject for Barack Obama. So much so that his supporters either deny that their candidate ever voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or they describe his votes as "procedural," as if Obama never really opposed providing medical treatment for infants who survived an abortion.

The facts show otherwise.

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was first introduced in the Illinois legislature in 2001 after nurse Jill Stanek revealed that babies born alive in Christ Hospital in botched abortion procedures were left to die, unattended by medical personnel.

That same year Stanek testified before the Judiciary Committee, where Obama asked whether the bill would subvert a woman's right to abortion. Obama voted against the bill in committee but "present" on the Senate floor.

When the bill was reintroduced in 2002, Obama again voted against it in committee and was the only state senator to speak against it on the Senate floor. Again the bill was defeated with Obama voting "no" and leading the opposition.

Here is what he said:

Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.

2002 was the year the U. S. Congress passed and President Bush signed the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the bill. In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it.

In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote.

Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. It's for good reason Barack Obama has been called "the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever."

The Roman Catholics for Obama Web site has no mention of his opposition to the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act. Look under its section "Life and Dignity of the Human Person," and you will find statements on the death penalty, the Iraq War, gun control, and the promise to nurture "a socio-economic environment" that will provide "a safety net that will make abortion increasingly unnecessary and rare."

Some of Obama's infanticide apologists argue that since the declared intention of Obama in voting against the BAIP Act was to uphold Roe v. Wade then it was not evidence of "support for infanticide." Such poor logic completely detaches Obama's act of voting against the bill from its consequences. Without the passage of the bill, infants born in Illinois remained vulnerable to the lack of treatment witnessed first-hand in Christ Hospital by Jill Stanek.

It would be like a senator arguing that his vote to approve Iraq War funding was just to "support the troops" but not the war. How can you put a gun in a soldier's hand without taking responsibility for what happens when he shoots it?

Democratic pundits don't want to talk about Obama on abortion or infanticide, either.

On a recent CNN broadcast, Wolf Blitzer asked Bill Bennett what he would ask Obama, if given the chance.

Bennett said he would ask Obama about his abortion extremism and why he "doesn't see a problem with killing a baby after it's been born after eight months."

Donna Brazile, well-known Democratic consultant, reacted strongly: "You want to have a conversation about narrow issues, but the American people want to talk about gas prices."

Brazile can be sure that$4.oo per gallon gasoline isn't going to divest the millions of religious conservatives who care about the dignity of human life of their repugnance for infanticide.

The last thing the Democrats want to hear are questions raised about Obama's "moral judgment," as Bill Bennett did on CNN.

Obama's attempt to move to the middle of the political spectrum will have to overcome two major obstacles: the memory of Rev. Wright at the National Press Club and Obama's voting record on the BAIP Act.

Obama does seem to have distanced himself successfully from his old pastor, but once Americans start asking why he would allow doctors to deny medical treatment to a newborn child, it may raise larger questions about moral judgment.

Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, March 2008).

....Obama wants to secularize the religious workplace... his initiative is a fraud....

BILL DONOHUE, CATHOLIC LEAGUE, July 2, 2008

Catholic League president Bill Donohue urged Catholics to reject Sen. Barack Obama’s faith-based initiative:

“If a customer walked into a New York deli and said, ‘Let me have a hot dog on a roll—hold the frankfurter’—he’d likely be thrown out. That’s what the public should do to Obama’s faith-based initiative: since he wants to gut the faith from his faith-based programs, he should be told to junk it.

“Any church or religious agency that agrees to take federal money on the condition that it must operate in a secular fashion—in hiring and in disseminating its values—is selling out. If Orthodox Jews running a day care center are not allowed to exclusively hire Orthodox Jews, there is nothing kosher about it. If a Catholic foster care program cannot place Catholic children with Catholic parents, it is doing a disservice to the children. If an evangelical drug rehab program can’t deliver a Christian message to its clients, it may as well close up shop. But that’s what Obama wants—he wants to secularize the religious workplace.

“No wonder Obama said yesterday that ‘I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, and I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up.’ Indeed, if he really believes this then he might as well withdraw his initiative.

“The whole purpose behind funding faith-based programs is that they are, in fact, superior to secular programs. And the reason they are has everything to do with the inculcation of religious values disseminated by people of faith. No matter, Obama wants to gut the religious values and bar religious agencies from hiring people who share their religion. Hence, his initiative is a fraud.”

...Catholic Therapists Help Kids Overcome ‘Transgender’ Issues

BY CELESTE McGOVERN, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER CORRESPONDENT, July 6-12, 2008 Issue

PHILADELPHIA — When “Ben Carson” was 3 years old, his favorite color was pink and his best friend at nursery school was a girl. He drew flowers and he loved Snow White.

His parents noticed differences between him and other boys and they started to recall with concern the little things he had done since he was a toddler — such as wandering around the house wearing a towel robe like a dress.

“Then one evening when he was 4 years old, I was putting him into bed and he said, ‘I really don’t want to grow up,” recalled his father, a government worker in Philadelphia who requested anonymity to protect his son. “And he said, ‘I really wish I was a girl.’ Something clicked. I just knew something was really wrong with my son. He was depressed and just not happy with who he was.”

If young Ben lived in Massachusetts, he could be a candidate for “gender reassignment” treatment at a children’s hospital there that recently opened a controversial clinic that allows young children to select their own gender and treats them with hormones.

Hearings that began June 26 at the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee show just how accepted gender reassignment has become. Democrats on the committee want to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against adults who change their gender.

But Ben’s parents have opted for a different approach, one that conforms to Church teachings about the nature of human sexuality, by applying psychological and spiritual techniques to help their son fulfill his masculine identity as he matures.

Sometimes little boys playing with their sister’s Barbies or little girls refusing to wear dresses are just a passing phase. Sometimes, it’s more serious: Mental health professionals call it Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria syndrome when the condition of viewing oneself as having an opposite-sex identity is, among other things, consistent and lasts more than two years.

So-called “transgender” children are increasingly likely to be channeled into programs that treat them with hormones and on the road to full “sexual reassignment” — including amputating surgeries to give them pseudo-genitalia of the opposite sex.

But the Carson family’s story illustrates that a Catholic response to gender confusion may offer the most genuine hope for full healing.

The Catholic response is rooted in the Church’s theology of the body, which holds that each person is a unity of body and soul made in the image and likeness of God. Because of this, the Second Vatican Council’s pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World) states that “man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.”

As well, in Catholic theology there is no such thing as being “trapped in the wrong body.” Human beings are created male and female and although humanity’s fallen nature can result in psychological disunity and confusion regarding an individual’s sexual identity, every person’s body reveals his or her God-given gender.

Consequently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, “except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law” (No. 2297).

“We lost dominion over creation with original sin,” explained Christopher West, faculty member and research fellow of the Pennsylvania-based Theology of the Body Institute. But, he added, “Christ can heal us, he can restore our true sexual identity even when we are deeply cut off from it.”

But increasingly, this is not the mainstream medical response to children with symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder. This year, the Children’s Hospital Boston made headlines when it opened the doors to its Gender Management Service Clinic, the first of its kind in the United States dealing exclusively with biological and psychiatric sexual disorders.

Pre-adolescents are given hormone injections to delay puberty, and children as young as seven are encouraged to decide whether they want to be male or female.

The clinic’s director, endocrinologist Norman Spack, testified before a Massachusetts State Committee on the Judiciary this March that his office receives one or two calls a week from parents of children with Gender Identity Disorder.

Spack was supporting state Bill 1722, an act to add “gender identity” to existing anti-discrimination laws. Similar legislation has been introduced in a dozen states recently. The bill was endorsed by the ACLU and by homosexual and “transgender” activists.

Other activists have been lobbying schools.

A group called TransActive Education and Advocacy has introduced a “Transgender Children’s Bill of Rights” declaring: “I have the right to be on the outside who I truly am on the inside … even if I’m really young. … I have the right to be in a classroom where other students have been taught about the gender spectrum.”

Some schools have exceeded activists’ expectations already.

Third-graders at Chatham Park elementary school in Philadelphia in May had a guidance counselor explain to them that one of their classmates who “looks like a boy on the outside, feels like a girl on the inside.”

Another Colorado elementary school announced this May it would henceforth be treating a Grade 2 boy as a girl.

The underlying message is that children with Gender Identity Disorder are born that way — perhaps as a result of imbalanced hormones in utero — and they are therefore unchangeable and should be encouraged to embrace this “transgendered’ sexual identity.

Critics of this approach argue that Gender Identity Disorder is a psychological disorder, citing the lack of evidence supporting the hormone theory.

What’s more, as Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, has said “I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment.”

Wrote McHugh in First Things in 2004:

“The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions — second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their ‘true’ sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”

Catholic mental-health professionals opt for another approach, one they say has a proven record of helping kids overcome confusion about their gender identity.

“Effective therapy brings to an end the suffering of these children; hormones and surgery do not,” said Richard Fitzgibbons, a Catholic psychiatrist in Conshohocken, Pa., who has counseled many individuals with Gender Identity Disorder to appreciate the bodies they were born in.

The Carsons contacted Fitzgibbons to help their son Ben two years ago when he was 5. They began acting on his advice, shoring up their son’s masculinity in “a thousand ways” at home.

The Catholic parents added an affirmation to their son’s daily prayers, “Thank you, God, for making me a special boy.”

And Carson started spending more time with his son, focusing on traditional masculine activities like sports.

“It has been really hard going sometimes,” says Ben’s father, and he foresees more effort ahead, especially when Ben hits his teens. But he also sees enormous progress in his son.

“He’s so much happier,” Ben’s father said. “If you saw my son today, you would think he is a well-adjusted happy boy.”

Last year, the television show “20/20” aired a Barbara Walters segment on “transgender” children featuring a 7-year-old boy named Jazz whose parents let him “come out” at his fifth birthday party in a girl’s bathing suit. He wore his hair long and had a pink, frilly bedroom but sang with a boy’s voice.

Ben’s father said when he watched the show he saw how his own son, in different circumstances, might have gone that path.

“I just know from the bottom of my heart that we are on the right track,” he said. “And every time I think about it, I thank God that we are Catholic.”

Celeste McGovern is based in Innerleithen, Scotland.

By Mark Shea, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE, July 2nd, 2008

John 14:27

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

We are living today in a time of unprecedented prosperity, yet many are suffering from depression, anxiety and a general sense of hopelessness. Why is this?

Anytime man tries to obtain peace independent of a relationship with Christ, he is going to be terribly disappointed.

Yes, a typical person will from time to time experience a degree of peace at different points in life, but for the most part this peace is temporary and inconsistent.

Jesus makes a point of saying that he will not give his followers the peace of the world rather, he promised them God’s peace. The Hebrew word for peace, shalom, speaks of more than simply feeling good; it connotes a sense of wholeness, well-being, friendship, safety, prosperity, health, tranquillity and contentment.

The only way that this kind of peace can be experienced is by entering into a serious relationship with Jesus.

Today, let’s make it a priority to walk and talk with the Prince of Peace.

The Daily Homily by Fr. James Farfaglia, Thursday, July 3, 2008

I always enjoy the celebration of the feast day of any of the Apostles because it reminds all of us that we too are called to be apostles. The Second Vatican Council reminded us that this call to the apostolate is not only for priests and religious. The laity too are called to be active members of the Church.

Here is what the Council said: "There are innumerable opportunities open to the laity for the exercise of their apostolate of evangelization and sanctification. The very testimony of their Christian life and good works done in a supernatural spirit have the power to draw men to belief and to God; for the Lord says, 'Even so let your light shine before men in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven' (Matt. 5:16).

However, an apostolate of this kind does not consist only in the witness of one's way of life; a true apostle looks for opportunities to announce Christ by words addressed either to non-believers with a view to leading them to faith, or to the faithful with a view to instructing, strengthening, and encouraging them to a more fervent life. 'For the charity of Christ impels us' (2 Cor. 5:14). The words of the Apostle should echo in all hearts, 'Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel' (1 Cor. 9:16).

In my life as a priest, I have known many people that really live these words of the Council. They are exciting to be with. These are people who inspire me and make the apostolate extremely exciting and rewarding. But, then there are the people who do nothing at all. I have never understood their problem. I loathe complacency and laziness. I pray for patience all of the time. There is so much that needs to be done.

Pope John Paul II once wrote: "A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle."

.... Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. Why? It is the institution that produces, nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. And marriage is the cornerstone of society’s foundational institution: the family.....

By Charles Colson, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE, July 3rd, 2008

It was one of the more awkward moments in the presidential campaign. Senator John McCain was appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and she was asking why McCain did not support same-sex “marriage.” A well-prepared DeGeneres made the usual arguments about inclusiveness, and compared those who reject same-sex “marriage” to those who once refused to allow women or blacks to vote. It was all about fairness, she said.

McCain’s response? “I just believe in the status of a marriage between a man and a woman . . . We just have a disagreement.”

Maybe, given the sensitivity of the situation, that was the best answer Senator McCain could come up with. But suppose the senator and Ms. DeGeneres could talk backstage, away from the glare of TV lights. What could he say to seize the moral high ground? To start, he could discuss the true meaning and purpose of marriage.

In his book, The Clash of Orthodoxies, Princeton professor Robert George writes that matrimonial law reflects a moral judgment. That judgment is that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent-a union of one man and one woman. This judgment is based on both the biblical and natural law understandings-that marriage is a two-in-one flesh communion of persons. This communion is consummated and actualized sexually.

That is, marriage is made real by acts that are reproductive, whether or not these acts result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit. This organic unity is achieved even by infertile couples. Only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of human procreation.

By contrast, homosexual acts cannot be procreative and cannot unite people organically. As a result, these acts cannot be marital, which means relationships integrated around them cannot be marriages. In other words, same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage; it takes a man and a woman to become “one flesh.”

I can already hear the arguments your secular neighbors will make: “Okay,” they will say, “that’s your definition of marriage. But why should your views be imposed on everybody else?”

That is when we have to be ready with additional, non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. For instance, if we expand the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partnerships, on what grounds could we legitimately oppose marriages between three or more people? Or weddings between siblings?

Remember, we are not just defending the Christian view of marriage. Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. Why? It is the institution that produces, nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. And marriage is the cornerstone of society’s foundational institution: the family.

If the proponents of same-sex “marriage” succeed in foisting it on America, marriage itself would be reduced to nothing more than a legal contract between two (or more!) people. True marriage would be abolished, and the damage to our society would be incalculable.

These are the arguments we all need to learn to defend traditional, true marriage, particularly in those states where constitutional amendments are on the ballot this fall.

This update courtesy of BreakPoint.

By Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE, July 3rd, 2008

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

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

So why do we pledge to assent to something as beautiful as God’s natural designs? Something, which in a less darkened world, ought to go without saying?

For two reasons, at least: First, as an act of reparation for forty years of public dissent that led so many people astray by treating this ignorance of our Church as some kind of “enlightenment” or “liberation.”

Second as an act of witness and assent to counter the anti-witness of this dissent, which brought so much incalculable damage to our Church and world, and indeed the witness of the Church. We stand up as confessors of the Faith. In the ancient Church, after the great martyrdoms ceased, those who stood for the Faith in a hostile climate were known as confessors of the Faith.

In taking this pledge we stand with the martyrs and confessors of the past in giving public witness not only to the Truth of our Church but her beauty.

Human Life International has an ongoing campaign of collecting this Pledge from clergy members and seminarians. This week we announce and offer a similar pledge to members of the lay faithful.

To sign the Pledge electronically, click here. To download a pdf copy of the Pledge to sign and distribute to others to sign please go here [Laity Pledge in PDF]. http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/07/03/112997/

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

Fr. Tom Euteneuer is president of Human Life International.

By Human Events, Posted: 07/02/2008

President Bush today blamed congressional inaction for rising oil prices and said Americans should pressure their elected representatives to allow more domestic oil drilling.

"We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country, something I've been advocating ever since I've been the president. I've been reminding our people that we can do so in environmentally friendly ways," President Bush said at a Rose Garden press conference. "And yet the Congress, the Democratically controlled Congress now has refused to budge. It makes no sense."

Bush wants Congress to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and lift restrictions to offshore drilling.

"It makes no sense to watch these gasoline prices rise when we know we can help affect the supply of crude oil, which should affect the supply of gasoline," he said. "We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home in environmentally friendly ways and they ought to be writing their Congress people about it."

By John Gizzi, HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE, 07/03/2008

A week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not bring to a vote a bill to stop reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, the White House yesterday weighed in strongly behind the legislation authored by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.).

But, in also endorsing the Pence’s Broadcasters Fairness Act, the President’s top spokesman left open the possibility of the White House helping secure the 22 signatures required to get the measure out of committee and on the House floor for a vote.

“Look, I think if we’d control the United States Congress, there’s a lot of things we would have done -- like, for example, pass a housing bill that we first introduced ten months ago,” Press Secretary Dana Perino told me. “Let me point you back to everything that we’d said on the Fairness Doctrine beforehand. We don’t believe it is necessary, and we strongly disagree with Speaker Pelosi and those who support her position.

“So we support Congressman Pence,” Perino said, but added “I don’t know if there’s much we can do about the calendar.”

Perino did not rule out helping Pence round up the signatures he needs to get his measure out of committee. When I asked if the President or other Administration officials would help Pence in getting the required signatures on the discharge petition, she replied: “I’ll see if there’s anything [the] legislative affairs office [in the White House] is working on in that regard.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which required radio stations to provide equal broadcast time to opposing opinions on issues, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1947 until 1987. The Reagan Administration ended the practice, which discouraged small stations from carrying controversial commentators, noting that there were enough broadcast outlets and cable channels to provide diversity in commentary. Earlier this year, Pence introduced his legislation to bar reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. Last week, Pelosi told me at the Christian Science Monitor that she personally supported the Fairness Doctrine and would not bring Pence’s measure to a vote by the House if it failed to secure the required signatures on the discharge petition.

John Gizzi is Political Edior of HUMAN EVENTS.

....Obama Makes it Clear...he will repeal DOMA and the ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell’ policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination.....

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, JULY 2, 2008

Los Angeles - Sen. Barack Obama’s support for homosexual marriage could lose him votes in California, the Campaign for Children and Families says.

In a public letter from the presumptive Democratic nominee read Sunday at the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club in San Francisco, Obama wrote:

“As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell’ policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

News of Sen. Obama’s letter on homosexuality comes just after his wife Michelle explained her husband’s positions on marriage and gays serving in the military to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Caucus last Thursday.

In her speech, she compared homosexual advocacy groups with the civil rights movement, referring to events “from Selma to Stonewall” as a progression of justice.

According to Randy Thomasson, President of Campaign for Children and Families, a May 21 Los Angeles Times poll shows that 54 percent of California voters support Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, and only 35 percent oppose it.

“Despite his claims that he believes marriage is only for a man and a woman, Barack Obama is promising to destroy marriage protection in our nation and to oppose protecting marriage licenses for a man and a woman in California," said Thomasson.

“Most Californians know deep in their hearts that the homosexual 'marriages' parading in the streets are not real marriages,” he continued.

Thomasson, who describes himself as a registered independent, said that there are “significant differences” on marriage between Obama and his opponent, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, citing McCain’s stated support for marriage amendments in California and in Arizona.

Last Thursday McCain said in a statement, “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.”

Thomasson commented: “McCain supports and Obama opposes preserving marriage licenses for a man and a woman in California. In recent days, their positions for or against the mainstream values of American voters have become much more clear.”

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, JULY 3, 2008

Huntington - At least 9,684 sterilizations and even some abortions may have been performed at Catholic hospitals in Texas between 2000 and 2003, a whistleblower report based on state records alleges. While Catholic ethical directives are supposed to govern Catholic healthcare systems, the report claims that “all six US Catholic hospital systems operating in Texas do not follow these directives.”

The July 13 issue of Our Sunday Visitor examines the anonymous group’s report, based upon data from the Texas government, which requires most major hospitals to file information from inpatient records. The group reportedly includes a self-described biostatistician who says she worked with four other people, including a computer scientist and a medical ethicist. The biostatistician says the group chose to remain anonymous because of “concern over job loss or retaliation.”

According to Our Sunday Visitor, the researchers said they were motivated by a desire to increase transparency and accountability in Catholic hospitals, to inform the public about practices in Catholic health systems, and to encourage accountability for the Religious sisters who own and run the systems. The researchers believe the unethical practices could be taking place nationwide.

The data used in the report covers procedures performed between 2000 and 2003 at the Texas facilities of Ascension Health System, CHRISTUS Health System, Franciscan Services Corporation, Sisters of Mercy Health System, Trinity Mother Frances Health System and St. Joseph Health System of Orange, California. The researcher said her group had to purchase the state data at a cost of $4,600 per year, with more recent data being prohibitively expensive.

The report says that, according to state data, 9,684 instances of allegedly unequivocal “sterilization for contraceptive purposes” were performed in the 2000-2003 time period. The state data also indicates 39 abortions were performed at Catholic hospitals during the same period, but such statistics may record morally licit procedures such as the removal of a stillborn baby or emergency services for an abortion performed elsewhere, according to Our Sunday Visitor.

The researcher told Our Sunday Visitor that the abortion coding used in the state data is complex and must be studied on a case-by-case basis.

Joining together with the Catholic Health Association, the six Catholic health systems examined in the report issued a statement saying they are committed to “serving in fidelity” the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), which are the national standards for Catholic medical ethics. The healthcare providers also said some of the report’s data could be open to interpretation “and cannot be taken to infer immoral practices.”....ENTIRE ARTICLE FOUND AT:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13120

The report on Texas Catholic hospitals and the data on which it is based has been posted at the whistleblower site Wikileaks.org. It is viewable at

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Catholic_hospitals_betray_mission

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, JULY 3, 2008

Richmond - The Diocese of Richmond has provided more information surrounding the January incident in which Commonwealth Catholic Charities of Richmond (CCR) staff and volunteers assisted a 16-year-old Guatemalan girl obtain an abortion.

Speaking to CNA, diocesan spokesman Stephen Neill said that Bishop Francis DiLorenzo, after learning late on January 17 of the abortion planned for the next day, specifically said “I forbid this to happen.”

“We want to be clear that the bishop was opposed to the abortion,” Neill told CNA, noting that Bishop DiLorenzo is himself a moral theologian.

The Guatemalan girl, who has another child, is a ward of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement and was in the foster care of CCR. CCR employees reportedly fit the girl for a contraceptive device two months before the abortion.

In January 2008 one CCR employee signed the consent form required for the minor’s abortion, while a CCR volunteer drove the teen to and from the abortion facility. Federal taxpayer funds are forbidden from being used for an abortion, while Virginia state law requires a parent, legal guardian, or custodian to sign a minor’s parental consent form to obtain an abortion.

The U.S. Department of Human Services is investigating to determine whether Virginia law was violated.

A July 1 press release from Commonwealth Catholic Charities stated that its Executive Director Joanne D. Nattrass said she was notified the afternoon of January 17 that the girl was scheduled to have an abortion the next morning. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo was notified by Nattrass that afternoon.

“Based on erroneous and incorrect information provided to Nattrass, the Bishop was told it could not be stopped,” the press release said.

Four CCR staff members connected to the abortion were fired in March.

"The four people were deliberately flouting Catholic church teachings," Neill said to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. "The church teaches [that] abortion is wrong.".....CONTINUED......
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13121

...Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.

Thursday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time, July 3, 2008

Father Steven Liscinsky, LC

John 20: 24-29
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe." A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe that you are present within me. Let me feel your presence in my heart and soul. I want to live this day close to you and see everything through the prism of faith. I want to put my trust and confidence in you. You will grant me all the graces I need today. All I have to do is ask. I want to love you with all my heart, especially in charity, by giving myself to all I meet today so that I can communicate your love to them. Mary, accompany me in this meditation and intercede for me, so that God will grant me what I need to be a better follower of Christ and an apostle of his Kingdom.

Petition: Lord, grant me a faith that knows no doubts.

1. Unless I See…
Scientific progress dominates our world. Every day seems to bring new breakthroughs in technology and medicine, and all of this progress is driven by scientific experiment and empirical evidence. It might seem that “belief” has become irrelevant or outdated; yet when we think about it, most of what we know is through belief. We learned by believing what our parents and teachers taught us, and even today we continue to believe – although always with a modicum of skepticism – what we hear or read in the news. Belief is an essential element of our daily experience. And if we can believe other human beings (and the honesty of some of them is often highly suspect), how can we not believe God who is all truth and who will never deceive us?

2. Touch Me and Believe
Christ knows that we need to touch him in order to believe in him, and that is why he left us the Eucharist. In his real presence in the Eucharist, we can receive him daily. We can approach him in the tabernacle to talk about our joys and sorrows and ask him for advice. If we go to him, he will also “touch” us in a much deeper way than any other person can. He is a real friend who is always waiting for us.

3. My Lord and My God!
St. Thomas proclaims perhaps the deepest expression of faith found in the New Testament. He confesses that Jesus is both Lord and God. His faith springs from a personal encounter with Christ. Faith does not come from learning one’s catechism, or reading books, or listening to someone preach about Christ, but from personal prayer. It is a gift we have to ask for, one that we can find for ourselves only in intimacy with God – in active participation in Mass, in adoration before the Eucharist, or in simple visits to a church we are passing. Christ is always there for us in the Eucharist. We know where to find him.

Conversation with Christ: Lord, let me touch you in faith. Let me discover you in the great gift of the Eucharist, where you enter me in a real way whenever I receive you in communion. I want to build up a relationship of faith with you in the Eucharist. Like the disciples at Emmaus, I ask you to stay with me and never leave me alone. Like St. Thomas, I need you to increase my faith so that I too can exclaim “My Lord and my God” every time I encounter you in this great sacrament.

Resolution: I will visit Christ in the Eucharist some time today.

AMERICAN CATHOLIC, July 3, 2008

Poor Thomas! He made one remark and has been branded as “Doubting Thomas” ever since. But if he doubted, he also believed. He made what is certainly the most explicit statement of faith in the New Testament: “My Lord and My God!” (see John 20:24-28) and, in so expressing his faith, gave Christians a prayer that will be said till the end of time. He also occasioned a compliment from Jesus to all later Christians: “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (John 20:29).

Thomas should be equally well known for his courage. Perhaps what he said was impetuous—since he ran, like the rest, at the showdown—but he can scarcely have been insincere when he expressed his willingness to die with Jesus. The occasion was when Jesus proposed to go to Bethany after Lazarus had died. Since Bethany was near Jerusalem, this meant walking into the very midst of his enemies and to almost certain death. Realizing this, Thomas said to the other apostles, “Let us also go to die with him” (John 11:16b).

Comment: Thomas shares the lot of Peter the impetuous, James and John, the “sons of thunder,” Philip and his foolish request to see the Father—indeed all the apostles in their weakness and lack of understanding. We must not exaggerate these facts, however, for Christ did not pick worthless men. But their human weakness again points up the fact that holiness is a gift of God, not a human creation; it is given to ordinary men and women with weaknesses; it is God who gradually transforms the weaknesses into the image of Christ, the courageous, trusting and loving one.

Quote: “...[P]rompted by the Holy Spirit, the Church must walk the same road which Christ walked: a road of poverty and obedience, of service and self-sacrifice to the death.... For thus did all the apostles walk in hope. On behalf of Christ's Body, which is the Church, they supplied what was wanting in the sufferings of Christ by their own trials and sufferings (see Colossians 1:24)” (Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity, 5).

...Morgentaler named to Order of Canada...Appointment 'debases' award, says bishop...

Cassandra Drudi, Canwest News Service, July 01, 2008

OTTAWA - Dr. Henry Morgentaler was named a member of the Order of Canada on Tuesday, an appointment that quickly threw fresh fuel on the bitter abortion debate and was slammed by one of Canada's top Catholics as debasing the award.

While pro-choice groups hailed the appointment as well-deserved and overdue, it outraged pro-life activists and the Archbishop of Toronto.

"Canada's highest honour has been debased . . . We are all diminished," Archbishop Thomas Collins said in a statement.

"Henry Morgentaler is responsible for the most grievous destruction of the most vulnerable in our country . . . the bestowal of this is a dishonourable act and it must be revoked," he said in an interview.

Collins called on "all people of good will to protest this act of dishonour," saying he had instructed all churches in his archdiocese to carry a prayer on Sunday imploring "that the scourge of abortion be lifted from our land."

Almost single-handedly, Morgentaler pushed abortion rights on to the national agenda when he opened an illegal abortion clinic in Montreal in 1969. At one point, he was jailed for 10 months when a lower court acquittal was overturned by a higher court. The issue culminated in a landmark ruling in January 1988 in which the Supreme Court struck down anti-abortion provisions of the Criminal Code on the grounds they violate a woman's constitutional right to "security of person."

The Governor General's office confirmed Tuesday that Morgentaler has been named a member and will receive his insignia at a ceremony to be held at a later date. The appointment had been rumoured for several days.....CONTINUED......
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=e6835bac-36c4-48ce-abe3-661eab6a1cb6

The Daily Homily by Fr. James Farfaglia, Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Today's Gospel passage is quite dramatic. As we begin to unravel this passage of the Sacred Scripture, Our Lord confronts the demons and the people who prefer a herd of pigs to a living relationship with the Messiah.

The biggest lie that Satan has sold the modern world is that he does not exist. Divine Revelation tells us just the opposite. The modern world has been put to sleep by buying into the lie that Satan does not exist. Thus, if Satan does not exist, there is no sin and there is no need for the Sacrament of Confession. If Satan does not exist, who then is Jesus?

If we deny such an essential part of Divine Revelation, everything falls apart and multitudes of people get caught up in a huge deception. People begin to follow a false religion. The fallen angels do exist and their power is very real.

What can we say about the townspeople in today's Gospel? They prefer the pigs! Here is Jesus coming into their lives and they prefer a bunch of pigs! Isn't this amazing? They were farmers and their livelihood goes over the cliff with the demons in them. The townspeople rejected the Lord and preferred to keep their pigs.

Materialism is a big deception, a big lie from Satan. What is one of the principle problems of the modern world? Too many people have made money and their possessions into their gods. The pagans of old used to worship images of false gods. Today, the new false gods is a car, a house, lots of money, a high paying job. Many people are willing to sacrifice themselves and anyone on the altar of materialism.

As disciples of the Lord we must be very careful not to fall into the trap of materialism. What practical steps can we incorporate into our daily lives? May I propose a few suggestions?

First, we need to live within our means. Secondly, we need to live within a budget. Thirdly, we need to avoid, as much as possible, living in debt. If we find ourselves in debt, then we should get into a program that will get us out of debt.

Aside from these practical steps, we need to always have a daily spiritual life that will keep our focus on our relationship with the Lord.

Finally, we need to live the Sabbath. It is preferable that our attendance at Mass takes place on Sunday morning. Let us remember that the Sabbath prohibits us from doing unnecessary physical work on Sunday. Living the Sabbath will help keep our focus on the Lord.

....French-like behavior....Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.....

By Thomas Sowell, NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, July 2, 2008

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism “high-sounding nonsense.”

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one’s country with “the idea of cosmopolitan duty.”

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations’ banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers’ unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called “bellicose” books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers’ unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers’ heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun — French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims — and just like victims in other nations’ armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children — as well as some of their classmates and teachers — broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country “cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors.” In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to “raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland.”

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers’ union was told, “You are partially responsible for the defeat.”

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards — except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did — with the added twist of calling this “supporting the troops.”

Will that matter? Time will tell.