Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana

.

CNN Florida Debate, Jan. 26, 2012
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

As Ronald Reagan used to say: Well.

Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams’ piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism.” Abrams then goes on to cite ” a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986.”

Or sort of cites it.

In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????

What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of his [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

So now I’ve read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

• “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom.

In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context:

“The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.”

In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol. Continue reading →

      ….It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” There is no other way to put it…..

READ MORE BELOW

   By Thomas Peters, American Papist, Jan. 27, 2012

Bishops across America are raising their voices against the onerous mandate issued by the Obama Administration through Kathleen Sebelius at HHS commanding Catholics to subsidize contraception, sterilization and abortifacient pills.

Bishop James Conley of Denver:

Let’s be clear. This decision does nothing to respect religious freedom. Without change, Catholic institutions will soon be legally required to provide services which violate a fundamental principle of our religious beliefs. If plans go unchanged, the Catholic Church, acting through our Catholic institutions, will no longer have legal protection for the free exercise of religion.

…Unity has never been more important. Certainly, there is disagreement among Christians about the legitimacy of contraception. But there should be no disagreement among Christians about religious freedom. Each of us has an interest in defending liberty. Now is the time. The bell tolls for us all.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria is calling on all Catholics to resume praying the St. Michael Prayer starting at all Masses in the diocese (an excellent idea!):

Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill. has asked parishes, schools, hospitals and religious houses to insert the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel into the intercessions at Sunday Mass to pray for Catholics’ freedom.

…“It is God’s invincible Archangel who commands the heavenly host, and it is the enemies of God who will ultimately be defeated,” the bishop said in a Jan. 24 letter to the Catholics of his diocese.

[...]He asked that the intention of the prayer be announced as “for the freedom of the Catholic Church in America.”

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh has by far the strongest response:

It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.

… A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease;  mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to chose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.

Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself.  In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.

Bp. Zubik also gets practical — an important step to take:

It is time to go back to work. They have given us a year to adapt to this rule.  We can’t! We simply cannot! Write to the president. Write to Secretary Sebelius. Write to our Senators. Write to those in Congress.

He’s absolutely right: getting angry is not enough. We have to get active!

Here I have to part ways with CV-blogger Emily Stimpson, who asks today if this reaction to the onerous mandate is “Too Little, Too Late?”

Absolutely not. It’s never too late to stand up for religious freedom and for Catholic identity.

First of all, the issue here is not contraception. The issue is religious liberty. The issue is that Catholic individuals and institutions are being forced by the government to violate their conscience. I particularly disagree with this line:

As grateful as I am for the fiery witness of Bishop Zubick and others like him, it’s hard to make the case that our present situation is a wonder. It’s hard to argue that it is a surprise. To a large extent, we’ve made our own bed, and now we have to lie in it. And we might very well have have to keep lying in it until the Church gets her own house in order on these issues.

How is the Church supposed to get her own house in order when she is being forced by the government to keep her house out of order?! The quest to establish and strengthen Catholic identity within her own institutions can and must continue without government interference and coercion. How are Catholic supposed to stand up for not condoning and subsidizing the evils mandated by the Obama/HHS decision if the very same individuals and institutions are daily participating in it by the government?

That’s why it is so important to fight now, and fight hard. We won’t back down.

There are numerous tools at our disposal. We can lobby Congress as I’ve advocated. We can support the groups pursuing a legal recourse, such as the Becket Fund (especially because top legal scholars are already saying they believe the HHS mandate is illegal).

And, most importantly, we can continue to stand up for religious liberty and articulate to our friends, neighbors and anyone who will listen why this right is foundational to the peace and justice of our country.

To those who would shirk from this task, see Bishop Zubik’s words. To those who would ignore the gravity of the threat, see Bishop Conley’s words.

And to all of us, let us heed Bishop Jenky’s exhortation to pray to St. Michael for victory.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25465

By David A. Patten, NewsMax,  26 Jan 2012

There is “no doubt” that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a strong conservative in the proud tradition of former President Ronald Reagan, Media Research Center founder and President L. Brent Bozell II told Newsmax on Thursday.

Regarding the GOP presidential candidate’s commitment to Reagan’s principles, Bozell said flatly of Gingrich: “He was a warrior — of course he was.”

Bozell’s remarks came in response to a controversial article by Reagan-era Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, published Wednesday in the National Review. In the article, Abrams maintains that Gingrich failed to support Reagan’s foreign policy initiatives against the former Soviet Union.

“I read Elliot Abrams’ piece, Elliot Abrams is a good man, and I am loathe to question him,” Bozell told Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And I suspect it is true that, look, there wasn’t unanimous peace and harmony in the ranks during the Reagan years with the conservative movement.

“There were differences of opinion,” Bozell said. “And sometimes, those differences of opinion were pretty strong: The INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] treaty, there was a huge difference of opinion there . . . there was criticism from within the ranks.”

But Bozell noted: “You have to look at the big picture, though,” to evaluate Gingrich’s commitment to Reagan’s ideals.

Bozell added: “And I think when you look at the big picture, and you look at the totality of the years with Reagan, and you look at what happened after the years of Reagan, when you were pushing back against the ‘cauliflower agenda’ — I don’t think you can question Newt’s commitment to the Reagan principles.

“He was a warrior — of course he was,” said Bozell, the nephew of the late William F. Buckley. “And it was because he picked up that mantle of Ronald Reagan in 1993, which had been dropped by the Bush people, it’s what led to the great victories of 1994.”

Bozell’s account of Gingrich’s role in the Reagan era is likely to be influential, given his lineage within, and lifelong dedication to, the conservative movement.

His father was a well-known conservative activist and Yale University debate team partner of Buckley, who founded the National Review. His mother, Patricia Buckley Bozell, was the “Firing Line” host’s sister.

In addition to conservative media watchdog MRC, Bozell founded the Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), the Parents Television Council, and the Culture and Media Institute. He has served on the boards of the American Conservative Union and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

He attributed the attacks on Gingrich’s conservative bona fides to “the fact that, for whatever reason, Newt has made some enemies in Washington.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Bozell-Gingrich-Reagan-conservative/2012/01/26/id/425616

By Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews, Jan. 26, 2012

DENVER – If we want to be “serious Christians,” the auxiliary bishop of Denver said last week, we must be honest about abortion. “Speak the truth, in love, about abortion,” Bishop James Conley urged his flock, commenting on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

“As uncomfortable as it might be, we are called to share our pro-life convictions with our neighbors, friends and families. We can counter the influence of relativism by speaking the truth with love—convincingly, clearly and without compromise.”

In a column in the diocesan newspaper coinciding with the Washington March for Life, Bishop Conley called on Catholics to work actively to stop abortion and overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made it legal in all states. 

Bishop James Conley

“We need not be combative or polemical—but to be serious Christians, we need to be honest. And honesty means telling the truth, in love, about abortion,” the bishop wrote.

“Make no mistake about it. Abortion is the killing of tiny human beings in the womb. But for nearly 40 years in the United States, abortion has been a legally protected right by the Supreme Court.”

On January 21st, while hundreds of thousands marched against abortion in Washington, Bishop Conley led a day of prayer and recollection in the Colorado diocese. He presided over a “Mass of remembrance” and lead the faithful in a “Rosary for life” at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. After the Mass, young people in the diocese were invited to attend a “pro-life boot camp,” a day of training with “scientific and historical information” and using the latest information on human embryology, sponsored by the diocesan Respect Life Office.

“We live in an era where reason has given way to sentiment,” he wrote. “Where, at the highest levels of society, emotion, self-interest and uncertainty have taken the place of logic.” The result of this inversion of logic, Bishop Conley said, is “to convince us that abortion is a fundamental right, and that life itself is not.”

Abortion, he said, “is no longer viewed even as a tragedy. Instead, abortion—the killing of tiny and not so tiny human beings—has become celebrated as a basic human right.” He called it “perverse” and a “tragically confused perspective” that abortion is increasingly seen as a safeguard to freedom.

He lauded efforts of the pro-life movement to reverse the tide, especially youth movements which, he said, are “are more popular than ever before”.

Since his appointment to Denver as auxiliary bishop in 2008, Bishop Conley has been steadily active among the U.S. bishops in opposing abortion. He was a signatory to a 2010 open letter warning Catholics not to support Senate legislation proposing to expand abortion funding. In 2009, he joined dozens of other U.S. bishops in condemning the appearance of President Obama at Notre Dame University.

Responding last November to charges from secularists that the pro-life viewpoint encourages a “theocracy,” Bishop Conley warned pro-life advocates that their greatest opponent was a militant “atheocracy” that is attempting to silence their message. The battle over freedom of religious expression, he said, amounts to “the biggest challenge the pro-life movement faces.”

“America today is becoming what I would call an atheocracy — a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers. And I might add — the faith that our society is most hostile toward is Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular,” he said.

In 2008, he co-authored a letter with then-Bishop of Denver Charles Chaput, correcting Senator Joseph Biden who had claimed in an interview that the question of when human life begins is a matter of faith, not science. Biden had said the issue is “personal and private.” The bishops responded that “in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it.”

In June last year, when the news came out of the connection between the Girl Scouts of America and Planned Parenthood, Bishop Conley warned parents that their daughters could be in danger of becoming “more receptive” to the pro-abortion and pro-contraception agenda.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/speak-honestly-abortion-is-the-killing-of-tiny-human-beings-in-the-womb-den

Starbucks Doesn’t Know Beans about Marriage

Coffee isn’t the only thing brewing at Starbucks. So is controversy–as customers learn about the company’s bold blend of liberal politics. This week, the coffeehouse jumped into a fierce battle over marriage in Washington State, home to the Seattle-based company. While the state is still sharply divided over same-sex “marriage,” Starbucks has decided to sweeten the pot for homosexual activists and join the attack on local families. According to Starbucks Executive Vice President Kalen Holmes, the bill to legalize counterfeit marriage “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.” A preview of the endorsement came last November, when Starbucks signed on to a legal brief that argues traditional marriage is “bad for business.” For customers, who were already having a hard time swallowing the company’s partnership with Planned Parenthood, this may be the final straw.

Despite the coffeehouse’s meddling, families in Washington State are doing their best to keep the legislation at bay. Local groups say the bill has enough support to pass, but as we witnessed in Maryland last year, the outcome could hinge on a single vote. Don’t let Starbucks do all the talking. Speak up and contact your leaders.

Meanwhile, the President, who claims his position on marriage is still evolving, made it clear which side of the marriage movement he’s on by blasting New Hampshire leaders for exercising their right to repeal gay unions. Asked by a reporter what the President thinks of the push to overturn the same-sex “marriage” law, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama “believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.” Interesting, since that implies the President thinks same-sex “marriage” is a right to begin with. In the past, President Obama has said the definition of marriage should be left to the states. Now he’s opposing a bill that does what he claims to support! Regardless, the state’s Judiciary Committee has already voted to wipe the law off the books and send the measure to the floor. “It’s very significant,” said state Rep. David Bates. “This will be the first place ever, anywhere in the world, where a legislature has reversed its position on same-sex ‘marriage.’” Although Gov. John Lynch (D) promises to veto the repeal, conservatives are still confident that they have the votes to override him.

That’s not the case in New Jersey, where liberals won’t have the backing to overcome Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) opposition to their bill. A measure to legalize counterfeit marriage had just been forwarded to the state Senate floor when Gov. Christie, keeping his campaign promise, announced he would oppose it. “The institution of marriage is too serious to be treated like a political football. I would hope the legislature would be willing to trust the people the way I’m willing to trust the people.” Although his statement threw some cold water on the effort, leaders still intend to force it. Encourage them to spend their time on the state’s real priorities by emailing them here.

After going down to the wire in the last session, Maryland is trying its luck at legalizing same-sex “marriage” for the second time. Liberals think their odds have improved in the only state to gain Democratic seats in the last election. Senate President Mike Miller has sent mixed signals on the bill–first promising to hold a vote, while also telling reporters that he sees same-sex “marriage” as “an attack on the family.” Help him make up his mind by emailing his office here.

In Maine, homosexuals activists are hoping for a different result after voters overturned the state’s counterfeit marriage measure at the ballot box. Winning the law back will be a tall task in the state, especially after such a recent defeat. Fortunately, two states have a chance to make a permanent dent in the Left’s hopes by passing marriage amendments in Minnesota (which votes on November 6) and North Carolina (May 8). Check out the Cloakroom Blog for the latest on marriage battles in your area.

The Measures of a Man

The March for Life may be over, but the momentum has carried on right into the U.S. Capitol, where two men are doing their part to put feet to the prayers of millions of American seeking to restore the right to life in our nation. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) is kicking things off with a push to ban D.C. abortions after the 20^th week of pregnancy, when it’s widely believed that babies can feel pain. “It will emphasize the humanity of the child and the inhumanity of what is being done to them,” Rep. Franks told the Washington Post. As chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that handles the District, he is all but guaranteed a vote on the House floor. Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has filed the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, which, like Texas’s law, requires doctors to perform an ultrasound and describe the baby’s development before a woman consents to abort. So far, the measure has 44 co-sponsors. Encourage your member to become one of them. Contact your representatives and ask them to support the Franks and Jordan bills.

** If you missed this afternoon’s special lecture, “Responding to Islam: Lessons from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, and Bishop George Bell,” you can watch the archived version here.

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/starbucks-doesnt-know-beans-about-marriage

SOURCE: CBS, Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The Los Angeles Police Department teamed with military special operation forces Wednesday evening to conduct multi-agency tactical exercises in the skies above downtown LA.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO

Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as a Black Hawk helicopter and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.

Someone could be seen sitting inside an open chopper with his legs hanging off the side.

Sky9 spotted the Black Hawk in the dark, making what appeared to be a drop off at a park before quickly ascending back into the air.

Throughout the exercise, the five rotorcrafts were staged at Dodgers Stadium.

The LAPD said the purpose of the training was in part to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments.

Chief Warrant Officer David Duran was a U.S. Army aviator for 12 years. He now flies Blackhawk helicopters for the National Guard in California. Duran says what KCAL9 saw Wednesday night could be a dry run for a future mission.

“They do a lot of mockup training,” said Duran. “But it’s always best to get the closest terrain layout to what the objective is.”

Duran said the military chooses training environments based on what they might be facing in the near future.

“If it’s a mountainous terrain, they go to the mountains; if it’s a desert terrain, they use the desert; if they’re in a coastal terrain, they use the coast,” said Duran. “If it’s an urban terrain, you know, whatever’s needed.”

In a release Monday, the LAPD said training exercises would take place at various sites around the greater Los Angeles area through Thursday. The exercises were coordinated with local authorities and owners of the training sites, according to the release.

Many wondered Thursday night about the safety of such drastic maneuvers being conducted over an urban area.

The LAPD said safety precautions were taken to prevent risk to the general public, as well as the military personnel involved.

Similar exercises have been seen in Miami and Boston.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/lapd-and-special-forces-conduct-military-maneuvers-in-the-skies-above-downtown-la/

   By Thomas Peters, American Papist, Jan. 26, 2012

The world would most definitely be a better place if more Catholics lived, professed and fought for their Faith as what it really is–The fullness of Truth on Earth.

Click to Read Vanity Fair Article

VIEW ONLINE:  http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2012-01-26

 Read the script for this program

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

Friday, January 27, 2012

“History will also give occasion to expatiate on the advantage of civil orders and constitutions, how men and their properties are protected by joining in societies and establishing government; their industry encouraged and rewarded, arts invented, and life made more comfortable: The advantages of liberty, mischiefs of licentiousness, benefits arising from good laws and a due execution of justice. Thus may the first principles of sound politics be fixed in the minds of youth.”

–Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749

By Don Schwager

 ”With what can we compare the kingdom of God?”

Scripture:  Mark 4:26-34

26 And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed upon the ground, 27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he knows not how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.” 30 And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” 33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Meditation: What can mustard seeds teach us about the kingdom of God? The tiny mustard seed literally grew to be a tree which attracted numerous birds because they loved the little black mustard seed it produced. God’s kingdom works in a similar fashion. It starts from the smallest beginnings in the hearts of men and women who are receptive to God’s word. And it works unseen and causes a transformation from within. Just as a seed has no power to change itself until it is planted in the ground, so we cannot change our lives to be like God until God gives us the power of his Holy Spirit. The Lord of the Universe is ever ready to transform us by the power of his Spirit. Are you ready to let God change you by his grace and power? The kingdom of God produces a transformation in those who receive the new life which Jesus Christ offers. When we yield to Jesus Christ, our lives are transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. Paul the Apostle says, “we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Corinthians 4:7). Do you believe in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit?

“Lord Jesus, fill me with your Holy Spirit and transform me into the Christ-like holiness you desire. Increase my zeal for your kingdom and instill in me a holy desire to live for your greater glory.”

Psalm 51:1-11

1 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love;  according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!
3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless in your judgment.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, you desire truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Fill me with joy and gladness; let the bones which you have broken rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your holy Spirit from me.

Go to | Daily Reading & Meditation Index |  (c) 2012  Don Schwager

American Catholic, January 27, 2012

Angela has the double distinction of founding the first teaching congregation of women in the Church and what is now called a “secular institute” of religious women.

As a young woman she became a member of the Third Order of St. Francis (now known as the Secular Franciscan Order), and lived a life of great austerity, wishing, like St. Francis, to own nothing, not even a bed. Early in life she was appalled at the ignorance among poorer children, whose parents could not or would not teach them the elements of religion. Angela’s charming manner and good looks complemented her natural qualities of leadership. Others joined her in giving regular instruction to the little girls of their neighborhood.

She was invited to live with a family in Brescia (where, she had been told in a vision, she would one day found a religious community). Her work continued and became well known. She became the center of a group of people with similar ideals.

She eagerly took the opportunity for a trip to the Holy Land. When they had gotten as far as Crete, she was struck with blindness. Her friends wanted to return home, but she insisted on going through with the pilgrimage, and visited the sacred shrines with as much devotion and enthusiasm as if she had her sight. On the way back, while praying before a crucifix, her sight was restored at the same place where it had been lost.

At 57, she organized a group of 12 girls to help her in catechetical work. Four years later the group had increased to 28. She formed them into the Company of St. Ursula (patroness of medieval universities and venerated as a leader of women) for the purpose of re-Christianizing family life through solid Christian education of future wives and mothers. The members continued to live at home, had no special habit and took no formal vows, though the early Rule prescribed the practice of virginity, poverty and obedience. The idea of a teaching congregation of women was new and took time to develop. The community thus existed as a “secular institute” until some years after Angela’s death.

Comment:

As with so many saints, history is mostly concerned with their activities. But we must always presume deep Christian faith and love in one whose courage lasts a lifetime, and who can take bold new steps when human need demands.

Quote:

In a time when change is problematic to many, it may be helpful to recall a statement this great leader made to her sisters: “If according to times and needs you should be obliged to make fresh rules and change certain things, do it with prudence and good advice.”

http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintofDay/default.aspx

   By Craig Bannister, CNSNews, January 25, 2012

Last night, Pres. Obama reaffirmed his determination to protect our country’s children from the dangers of mercury, despite his vigorous defense of a mandate that all Americans put more of it into their homes.

“I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning,” Obama promised in last night’s State Of The Union address.

But, Pres. Obama, apparently, isn’t concerned with the health risk he’s subjecting Americans to by requiring them to put mercury light bulbs in their homes – a risk his own EPA even warns about on its Web site.

When the mercury light bulb breaks in a home, “some of the mercury is released as vapor and may pose potential health risks,” the EPA says.

And, in December, Obama touted new regulations to protect coal power plant workers from the evil stuff:

“Just a few weeks ago, thanks to the hard work of so many of you, Lisa and I were able to announce new common-sense standards to better protect the air we breathe from mercury and other harmful air pollution.”

And, let’s not forget the extravagant clean-up requirements and potential costs associated with getting rid of this hazardous substance if you break one of these mercury bulbs.

So, exactly how is Obama “protecting our kids from mercury poisoning?” Is he going to require them to study by candle light?

Or, maybe, he was talking about the planet.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/obama-says-hes-protecting-our-kids-mercury-while-mandating-it-their-homes

By Fr. Dwight Longenecker, 1/26/2012, Standing on My Head: Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Blog
(gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/)

The new radicals won’t drop out. They’ll get involved in life and they’ll change the world.

The new radicals are the hundreds of thousands of college aged and high school students who thronged into Washington for the March for Life. All statistics show the future belongs to them. Anti abortion sentiment is strongest among the young, and the young people who marched on Washington yesterday are not only young and joyful. They’re smart.

The new radicals are the hundreds of thousands of college aged and high school students who thronged into Washington for the March for Life.

GREENVILLE, SC (Standing on my Head) – Some time ago I read a piece by an aging former hippie complaining that the younger generation have no passion of political protest.

This old guy was remembering his glory days of sit ins and peace protests and riots in the streets and anti war protests and rock concerts.

He’s blind to the fact that young people are just as radical as they’ve ever been. They’re just as idealistic and fed up with the complacent status quo. What the aging hippie didn’t see is that the complacent status quo is the brave new world he and his generation have created.

The new radicals aren’t really the unwashed and angry young people occupying Wall Street, they are the well scrubbed and happy young people marching up Constitution Hill.

What the sour old hippie didn’t realize is that you don’t have to be angry to protest injustice. You can have a peaceful, well organized and legal protest and still be radical.

The new radicals are the hundreds of thousands of college aged and high school students who thronged into Washington for the March for Life.

All statistics show the future belongs to them. Anti abortion sentiment is strongest among the young, and the young people who marched on Washington yesterday are not only young and joyful. They’re smart.

The new radicals won’t drop out. They’ll get involved in life and they’ll change the world. They will do so because they not have faith, but they come from solid families, good communities and from a people who know how to work hard, achieve solid results and do so with a positive, upbeat and can do attitude.

They know how to use the new technologies and overcome the MSM bias. They know how to get involved and stay involved–not just launch a few noisy protests.

They know how to work together with others and communicate their message. They will do so with intelligence, shrewd new ideas, hard work–and most of all–joy!

Then I thought of another reason why the aging hippie isn’t seeing any of his grandchildren espousing his radical causes….he probably doesn’t have any.

Fr Dwight Longenecker is parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Parish in Greenville, South Carolina. Read his blog and connect to his website at www.dwightlongenecker.com  Fr. Dwight Longenecker is chaplain to St. Joseph’s Catholic School in Greenville, South Carolina, and serves on the staff of St. Mary’s Parish, also in Greenville. These articles are used with permission.He was received into the full communion of the Catholic Church from Anglicanism in 1995 and, years later, ordained a Roman Catholic Priest.He is a prolific writer, sought after speaker and dedicated blogger.

http://www.catholiconline.com/national/national_story.php?id=44543

SOURCE:  Jill Stanek

      Yesterday, as the March for Life was taking place, pro-life Arizona Congressman Trent Franks (pictured right) introduced the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The backdrop, according to the National Right to Life Committee:

Article I of the U.S. Constitution established that the national seat of government would be placed forever not within any state, but in a special Federal District – and that the Congress would “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District.”

But what would the Framers of our Constitution say if they returned today – and learned, to their horror, that well-developed unborn babies are legally being put to death, in terrible pain, virtually within the shadow of the U.S. Capitol?

And they are.

Washington Surgi-Clinic, located just eight blocks from the White House, advertises it will abort babies up to 26 weeks old (6-1/2 months)  “us[ing] a method called dilatation and evacuation (D&E).” Here’s a medical illustration of a D&E via National Right to Life. Click to enlarge….

     In addition, Dr. James Pendergraft (pictured left), a convicted felon whose medical license has been suspended three times in Florida, advertises at LateTermAbortion.net that he will kill babies in Washington, D.C. in their “late second and third trimester.” According to this website, Pendergraft will abort up to 34 weeks, i.e., 7-1/2 months gestation.

Pendergraft lethally injects a baby by inserting a needle directly into her heart. Even convicted murderers undergoing lethal injection are anesthetized beforehand. But not innocent babies being aborted.

There is overwhelming evidence that preborn babies feel pain by the age of 20 weeks and probably much earlier. Preborn babies as young as 18 weeks are routinely anesthetized when undergoing surgery.

      The image, left, is of a 22-weeker. Babies this age and older are being torn limb from limb every day during abortions in at least the aforementioned two clinics in Washington, D.C., obviously with no regard for the excruciating pain they endure.

But Congressman Franks’ bill would ban all abortions in the District after 20 weeks.

Five states have now enacted abortion pain bans since 2010: Alabama, Kansas, Idaho, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. While abortion proponents claim the ban is unconstitutional, since it contains no health exception and does not take viability into consideration, the lone challenge filed against it was thrown out of court.

     Introducing the pain ban in the District of Columbia at this time is also a calculated move to bring pain to pro-abortion politicians, particularly President Barack Obama, who previously opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Partial-Birth Abortion Ban as Illinois state senator. According to The Hill, January 24:

Abortion foes are planning an election-year strategy aimed at forcing President Obama and congressional Democrats to take a potentially damaging stand on the issue….

“If at the end of this congressional session, abortion remains unrestricted … in the nation’s capital, it will only be because certain members of Congress – or the president – have obstructed this bill,” NLRC [sic] federal legislative director Douglas Johnson said Monday.

“And if they do that, they – and they alone, under the Constitution – are fully accountable for that policy.”…

Franks said he hopes his bill will draw attention to the abortion issue and remind the public of President Obama’s pro-abortion rights record. He said he hasn’t talked to Republican leaders in Congress about his bill.

But Congressman Franks got his ducks in a row before dropping the pain ban, hoping to preclude resistance from any spineless Republicans in leadership while sending shivers down the spine of congressional abortion proponents who can see another partial-birth abortion type of debate from their house – and dread it.

Congressman Franks made sure that when the pain ban bill was dropped its sponsor/co-sponsor list included the chairmen of the two committees and two subcommittees before which it will be heard:

• Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

• Congressman Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives

• Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

• Congressman Trent Franks, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution

Ask your congressperson to sign on as co-sponsor to HR 3803 if s/he is not yet on the list.

http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/01/new-fetal-pain-bill-brings-late-term-abortion-battle-to-obamas-back-yard/

… Archbishop Dolan said he left an Oval Office meeting with Obama feeling “a bit more at peace than when I entered,” and described the president as seemingly “very open to the sensitivities” of religious believers. On numerous previous occasions — including during his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, and a later roundtable interview with Catholic journalists — the president unequivocally had pledged respect for conscience rights, religious liberty and diversity of belief.…

By OSV Editorial Board, OSV Newsweekly, 2/5/2012 

President Barack Obama delivered the bad news himself.

On Friday, Jan. 20, he called New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to tell him that his administration would announce later that day that it had decided not to exempt Church-affiliated institutions from a new health-care regulation requiring employers to provide free birth control and sterilizations to employees.

But the president offered one concession: Nonprofits like Catholic hospitals, schools and charities would be given until Aug. 30, 2013, to comply with the regulation, 12 months later than most other American employers.

“In effect,” said Archbishop Dolan in a statement later, “the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

For many Church leaders and employers, Obama’s final decision to ignore the conscience objections — despite months of feedback from hundreds of religious representatives and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans — comes as something of a surprise. As recently as November, Archbishop Dolan said he left an Oval Office meeting with Obama feeling “a bit more at peace than when I entered,” and described the president as seemingly “very open to the sensitivities” of religious believers. On numerous previous occasions — including during his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, and a later roundtable interview with Catholic journalists — the president unequivocally had pledged respect for conscience rights, religious liberty and diversity of belief.

And now the Catholic Church finds itself in the odd position of being the primary defender of tolerance, pluralism and the principles of liberal democracy against a government that seeks to coerce citizens into behavior that violates their consciences.

But the Catholic Church is not alone. In a Jan. 22 editorial, the Washington Post said the Obama administration “came down on the wrong side of a tough call.”

“Requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views,” it said.

As the Washington Post notes, it is irrelevant that more than two dozen states — several with zero conscience protections — currently require contraception coverage in employee health plans. It is also irrelevant that a number of Catholic universities have been found to be offering contraception in their health plans, and it is equally irrelevant that a vast number of Catholic Americans use contraception.

That’s because contraception isn’t the issue at stake; the much more serious issue is the government’s unprecedented coercion of citizens over their conscience objections. “Never before,” notes Archbishop Dolan, “has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”

The Obama administration seems unlikely to reconsider this disastrous decision during an election year. Nevertheless, we are encouraged that a broad spectrum of social influencers have joined Catholic leaders, university presidents and hospital administrators in criticizing it. And we urge Catholics and all those who honor the First Amendment insistently, confidently and respectfully to demand that our government officials honor it, too.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/8978/Editorial-Forcing-Catholics-to-violate-their-cons.aspx

.

By Kathleen Gilbert, January 25, 2012, LifeSiteNews.com

.

WASHINGTON – Many pro-lifers at the March for Life this year caught a glimpse of one prominent pro-life leader they might not have been expected to see.

Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life was sighted leading a crowd of post-abortive witnesses with Silent No More through the freezing rain on Capitol Hill Monday, and met with LifeSiteNews.com the following day to give an update on his situation with his Ordinary, Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo.

Fr. Frank Pavone with members of Silent No More Awareness at the March for Life in Washington D.C.

Bishops Zurek’s abrupt statement ordering Pavone to suspend his active ministry outside the diocese, citing unspecified questions surrounding Priest for Life’s financial integrity, shook the pro-life movement in September.

Pavone told LSN that the matter “has been placed in the hands of Rome” to help clear up confusion between the two parties, including exactly what the suspension order entails. Pavone said that Bishop Zurek has clarified that the priest is “not in prison” and is free to travel.

“He’s asked me to only exercise ministry in the Amarillo diocese. Part of what we’re asking from Rome is to help clarify exactly what the expectations are, because there is a lot of confusion here as to what I am and am not allowed to do,” he said. Pavone noted that he continues to seek a mediator that would be agreeable to both parties.

The priest, who oversees the national Silent No More Awareness campaign as well as the post-abortive ministry Rachel’s Vineyard, emphasized that both he and Priests for Life have been “fully cooperative” with the bishop’s requests thus far, including the transfer of all requested paperwork, and that no charges have been leveled against himself or his organization.

Zurek told his brother bishops last year that he was suspending Fr. Pavone’s ministry outside the diocese based on “the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances” of Priests for Life. Pavone obeyed the order to return to Amarillo and where he took up residence at a convent and announced that he had begun the process of appealing the decision to the Vatican.

Pavone said he expected feedback from Rome “relatively soon” to assist both parties advance the mission of the Church and the pro-life cause. “We’re all on the same page when it comes to that,” he said.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fr.-pavone-expects-dispute-with-bishop-to-be-resolved-relatively-soon

….women’s choice — a powerful euphemism never deployed when discussing a woman’s choice to refrain from having sex. When it comes to the choice to have sex, women are simply slaves to passion; when it comes to killing the unborn, then they suddenly have the ability to exercise choice.…

By Ben Shapiro, Patriot Post,  January 25, 2012

This week marked the 39th anniversary of the greatest American moral tragedy of the 20th century: Roe v. Wade. And yet the left cheered this anniversary with the enthusiasm of an intoxicated teenager stumbling on a free copy of Penthouse. Planned Parenthood, which rakes in millions each year by performing abortions, asked via Twitter, “How has #Roe changed your life?”

The sample answers were horrifically fascinating. “Because of Roe, I have grown up knowing that my girlfriends won’t die from back-alley abortions,” one young man wrote. The young man might as well have written, “Because of Roe, I don’t have to use condoms.” It’s certainly easier to sleep after a night of unprotected sex knowing that the girl you just impregnated can always have her uterus scraped. One young woman wrote, “Because of Roe, I get to go to college, instead of bearing a child who wouldn’t.” And, as we all know, a child who won’t go to college isn’t worthy of life. The true value of human life can only be justified by attending a Modern Dance in Lesbian Thought course taught by an otherwise unemployable 45-year-old harpy.

Most of the posts, though, were not quite as foolish. Most employed the hackneyed expressions of the abortion crowd.

They spoke about women’s choice — a powerful euphemism never deployed when discussing a woman’s choice to refrain from having sex. When it comes to the choice to have sex, women are simply slaves to passion; when it comes to killing the unborn, then they suddenly have the ability to exercise choice.

They spoke about women’s health — another euphemism implying that pregnancy is a disease of some sort, a cancer eating away at the mother’s vitals. (President Obama himself used this analogy.) Women rarely have therapeutic abortions — they almost always have abortions because they simply don’t want the responsibility of bringing up a child, and they don’t want the guilt of having to give up a child to adoption.

They spoke about the right to control their body — but neglected to mention the living, breathing being inside it. Until that being was there, pro-lifers were perfectly happy to leave these women and their uteruses to their own devices. Nobody was clamoring to examine these women’s reproductive organs until they decided to begin sucking the living contents into a waste can.

The great moral evil that is abortion-on-demand — and it is a moral evil — has been papered over in the public mind by euphemisms. That’s why it’s considered impolitic to show actual photographs of abortion — we mustn’t offend the sensibilities of those who think of it as a clean, quick “termination.” No more biologically involved than a polyp removal. That’s why pro-lifers are derided as benighted apes when they have the temerity to call fetuses babies — we should never remind mothers that they themselves call the being in their wombs babies. No mother I have ever met — or have ever heard of — has ever referred to her child as either a fetus or an embryo, except by conscious militant choice.

The euphemistic thinking of liberals on the abortion issue ends in logic so twisted it should be sold by Wetzels.

Liberals scream “right to privacy,” but seem to throw that euphemism out the window when they demand that taxpayers pay for their birth control (Obama announced this week that we’d all been drafted into the War on Unprotected Sex) and abortion (Planned Parenthood is government-funded), and sanctify any sexual relationship they choose to engage in that day.

Liberals suggest that they aren’t pro-abortion — they just want it to be “safe, legal and rare.” If they want it to be safe and legal, they clearly don’t want it to be rare, and the numbers show it: nearly 55 million abortions since Roe. If liberals hadn’t been quite so concerned about keeping abortion safe and legal, they’d have an entire generation of youngsters ready to support their enormous entitlement state. Instead, they have millions of morally-scarred young women justifying the mass murder of the unborn.

The real liberal argument for abortion is simple and requires no euphemism. It states that babies are not babies until some unspecified time when they become babies — and until that time, they are entirely disposable.

The only problem with the argument is that it requires that we ignore both science (a fetus’ heart begins to beat within three and a half weeks of embryonic fertilization) and basic human decency in favor of a callous selfishness that sears our collective soul.

The left’s Orwellian recasting of abortion as an issue about “freedom” is only its latest attempt to defend the indefensible. And it has worked. Clarity of language is important. Those who defend life must not be afraid to use the language of truth — and life — to fight the emanations and penumbras of ethical falsehood.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2012/01/25/the-euphemisms-of-pro-choice-evil/

A contraceptive mandate provokes an unnecessary war.

  By WILLIAM MCGURN, WALL STREET JOURNAL, JAN. 24, 2012

When Barack Obama secured his party’s nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.

These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party’s sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed.

With Mr. Obama, all this looked to be in the past. In 2006, the Illinois senator delivered a speech declaring that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.” He followed up by appearing at fund-raisers for the anti-abortion Bob Casey Jr. during Mr. Casey’s successful run for Sen. Rick Santorum’s senate seat.

Sen. Casey went on to co-chair Mr. Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Council. Sixteen years after the snub to his dad, he was given a prime-time speaking slot at the 2008 Democratic convention. And Mr. Obama would go on to capture a majority of the Catholic vote.

Now, suddenly, we have headlines about the president’s “war on the Catholic Church.” Mostly they stem from a Health and Human Services mandate that forces every employer to provide employees with health coverage that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but makes them free. Predictably, the move has drawn fire from the Catholic bishops.

Getty Images - An HHS mandate requires employers to provide health coverage that covers birth control.

Less predictable—and far more interesting—has been the heat from the Catholic left, including many who have in the past given the president vital cover. In a post for the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters minces few words. Under the headline “J’ACCUSE,” he rightly takes the president to the woodshed for the politics of the decision, for the substance, and for how “shamefully” it treats “those Catholics who went out on a limb” for him.

The message Mr. Obama is sending, says Mr. Winters, is “that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us.”

Mr. Winters is not alone. The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he “cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience”—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of “civil disobedience” and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That’s the same understanding two of the president’s own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school’s First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an “unnecessary government intervention” that puts many organizations such as his in an “untenable position.”

Here’s just part of what he means by “untenable”:   Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to “shove my rosary beads” down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party’s positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?

Catholic liberals appreciate that this HHS decision is more than a return to the hostility that sent so many Catholic Democrats fleeing to the Republican Party these past few decades. They understand that if left to stand, this ruling threatens the religious institutions closest to their hearts—those serving Americans in need, such as hospitals, soup kitchens and immigrant services.

Conservatives may enjoy the problems this creates for Mr. Obama this election year. Still, for those who care about issues such as life and marriage and religious liberty that so roil our body politic, we ought to wish Catholic progressives well in their intra-liberal fight. For we shall never arrive at the consensus we hope for if we allow our politics to be divided between a party of faith and a party of animosity to faith.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

By Michelle Bauman, CNA/EWTN, California Catholic Daily

An 80 percent abortion rate of those with disabilities shows the need to restore a fundamental respect for human dignity in America, said Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia.

He underscored that the plight of disabled babies highlights “a struggle within the American soul” that will shape the future of the nation.

“These children with disabilities are not a burden; they’re a priceless gift to all of us,” the archbishop said. “They’re a doorway to the real meaning of our humanity.”

Archbishop Chaput delivered the keynote address at the 13th annual Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life on Jan. 22.

The conference, which was held at Georgetown University, took place one day before the March for Life, at which hundreds of thousands of Americans annually gather in the nation’s capital to protest abortion and show their support for the dignity of all human life.

“Abortion kills a child, it wounds a precious part of a woman’s own dignity and identity, and it steals hope,” the archbishop said. “That’s why it’s wrong. That’s why it needs to end. That’s why we march.”

He warned that without a strong foundation of faith and morals, America becomes “alien and hostile” to its founding ideals. This threat is clearly demonstrated in the country’s treatment of the poor and disabled, which the archbishop said “shows what we really believe about human dignity.”

In his talk, Archbishop Chaput focused on children with Down syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects development, appearance and cognitive function, and can cause other health problems.

He observed that prenatal testing is now able to detect up to 95 percent of pregnancies that have a strong risk of Down syndrome, and more than 80 percent of the unborn babies who are diagnosed with the disorder are aborted.

These babies are killed because of a flaw in their chromosomes that is “neither fatal nor contagious, but merely undesirable,” he said.

The archbishop lamented the growing tendency of medical professionals to emphasize the possible defects of Down syndrome, thus steering expectant mothers of children with the disorder toward abortion.

Parents and doctors should be realistic about the challenges, understanding that raising a disabled child will involve “some degree of suffering,” he said. However, they should also see the potential and beauty of children with special needs, realizing that no child is perfect.

Archbishop Chaput noted that today, individuals with Down syndrome have longer life expectancies than ever before and can generally “enjoy happy, productive lives.”

“The real choice in accepting or rejecting a child with special needs is between love and un-love; between courage and cowardice; between trust and fear,” he said.

This is a choice that must be faced on both an individual level and as a society, he added, emphasizing that “God will demand an accounting” of how we have used our freedom.

If we really “take God seriously,” we will work to uphold the sanctity of human life and dignity of sexuality in our daily lives, he said.

This means that public officials should live out their Catholic faith in the laws that they support; doctors in the procedures they perform and the drugs they prescribe; and citizens in their actions on public issues, he explained.

He praised the work of people and organizations who aid those with disabilities, recognizing in them “an invitation to learn how to love deeply and without counting the cost.”

Archbishop Chaput urged those present at the conference not to be afraid as they persevere in being an apostle to those around them.

“Fear is beneath your dignity as sons and daughters of the God of life,” he said. “Never give up the struggle that the March for Life embodies,” he added. “Your pro-life witness gives glory to God.”

Although changing the culture is “a huge task,” we must recognize that we are being called by God to do so, the archbishop said. “He’s waiting, and now we need to answer him.”

http://www.courageouspriest.com/archbishop-chaput-accepting-child-special-choice-courage-cowardice

The Catholic Church is learning a hard lesson right now in irony as the acceptance of sex as nothing but a pleasure in society is turning into a war that attacks our right to be Faithful Catholics.

VIEW ONLINE:  http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2012-01-25

• Read the script for this program

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

Thursday, January 26, 2012

“Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction that, after the most industrious and impartial researchers, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions or systems of education more fit in general to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors.”

–John Adams, letter to the young men of the Philadelphia, 1798

http://patriotpost.us/quote/2012/01/26/

By Don Schwager

“The measure you give will be the measure you get”

Scripture:  Mark 4:21-25

21 And he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not on a stand? 22 For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. 23 If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.” 24 And he said to them, “Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. 25 For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

Meditation: What does the image of light and a lamp tell us about God’s kingdom? Lamps in the ancient world served a vital function, much like they do today. They enable people to see and work in the dark and to avoid stumbling. The Jews also understood “light” as an expression of the inner beauty, truth, and goodness of God. In his light we see light ( Psalm 36:9). His word is a lamp that guides our steps (Psalm 119:105). God’s grace not only illumines the darkness in our lives, but it also fills us with spiritual light, joy, and peace. Jesus used the image of a lamp to describe how his disciples are to live in the light of his truth and love. Just as natural light illumines the darkness and enables one to see visually, so the light of Christ shines in the hearts of believers and enables us to see the heavenly reality of God’s kingdom. In fact, our mission is to be light-bearers of Christ so that others may see the truth of the gospel and be freed from the blindness of sin and deception.

Jesus remarks that nothing can remain hidden or secret. We can try to hide things from others, from ourselves, and from God. How tempting to shut our eyes from the consequences of our sinful ways and bad habits, even when we know what those consequences are. And how tempting to hide them from others and even from God. But, nonetheless, everything is known to God who sees all. There is great freedom and joy for those who live in God’s light and who seek his truth. Those who listen to God and heed his voice will receive more from him; they will not lack what they need to live as Christ’s disciples, and they will shine as lights to those who hunger for God’s truth and wisdom. Do you know the joy and freedom of living in God’s light?

“Lord Jesus, you guide me by the light of your saving truth. Fill my heart and mind with your light and truth and free me from the blindness of sin and deception that I may see your ways clearly and understand your will for my life. May I radiate your light and truth to others in word and deed.”

Psalm 132:1-5, 11-14

1 Remember, O LORD, in David’s favor, all the hardships he endured;
2 how he swore to the LORD and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,
3 “I will not enter my house or get into my bed;
4 I will not give sleep to my eyes or slumber to my eyelids,
5 until I find a place for the LORD, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob.”
11 The LORD swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back:  “One of the sons of your body  I will set on your throne.
12 If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies which I shall teach them, their sons also for ever shall sit upon your throne.”
13 For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation:
14 “This is my resting place for ever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.

Go to | Daily Reading & Meditation Index |  (c) 2012  Don Schwager

American Catholic, January 26, 2012

Timothy (d. 97?): What we know from the New Testament of Timothy’s life makes it sound like that of a modern harried bishop. He had the honor of being a fellow apostle with Paul, both sharing the privilege of preaching the gospel and suffering for it.

Timothy had a Greek father and a Jewish mother named Eunice. Being the product of a “mixed” marriage, he was considered illegitimate by the Jews. It was his grandmother, Lois, who first became Christian. Timothy was a convert of Paul around the year 47 and later joined him in his apostolic work. He was with Paul at the founding of the Church in Corinth. During the 15 years he worked with Paul, he became one of his most faithful and trusted friends. He was sent on difficult missions by Paul—often in the face of great disturbance in local Churches which Paul had founded.

Timothy was with Paul in Rome during the latter’s house arrest. At some period Timothy himself was in prison (Hebrews 13:23). Paul installed him as his representative at the Church of Ephesus.

Timothy was comparatively young for the work he was doing. (“Let no one have contempt for your youth,” Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:12a.) Several references seem to indicate that he was timid. And one of Paul’s most frequently quoted lines was addressed to him: “Stop drinking only water, but have a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23).

Titus (d. 94?): Titus has the distinction of being a close friend and disciple of Paul as well as a fellow missionary. He was Greek, apparently from Antioch. Even though Titus was a Gentile, Paul would not let him be forced to undergo circumcision at Jerusalem. Titus is seen as a peacemaker, administrator, great friend. Paul’s second letter to Corinth affords an insight into the depth of his friendship with Titus, and the great fellowship they had in preaching the gospel: “When I went to Troas…I had no relief in my spirit because I did not find my brother Titus. So I took leave of them and went on to Macedonia…. For even when we came into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted in every way—external conflicts, internal fears. But God, who encourages the downcast, encouraged us by the arrival of Titus…” (2 Corinthians 2:12a, 13; 7:5-6).

When Paul was having trouble with the community at Corinth, Titus was the bearer of Paul’s severe letter and was successful in smoothing things out. Paul writes he was strengthened not only by the arrival of Titus but also “by the encouragement with which he was encouraged in regard to you, as he told us of your yearning, your lament, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more…. And his heart goes out to you all the more, as he remembers the obedience of all of you, when you received him with fear and trembling” (2 Corinthians 7:7a, 15).

The Letter to Titus addresses him as the administrator of the Christian community on the island of Crete, charged with organizing it, correcting abuses and appointing presbyter-bishops.

Comment:  In Titus we get another glimpse of life in the early Church: great zeal in the apostolate, great communion in Christ, great friendship. Yet always there is the problem of human nature and the unglamorous details of daily life: the need for charity and patience in “quarrels with others, fears within myself,” as Paul says. Through it all, the love of Christ sustained them. At the end of the Letter to Titus, Paul says that when the temporary substitute comes, “hurry to me.”

Quote:  “But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is trustworthy” (Titus 3:4-8).

Patron Saint of: Stomach disorders

http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintofDay/default.aspx

    Brent Bozell,M Townhall,  Jan 25, 2012

The Brian Williams MSNBC debate in Florida was not only dreadfully boring — I never thought I could ever long for commercials — it was pathetic. Freed of the fear of triggering an avalanche of applause against loaded questions, Williams and his co-moderators couldn’t bring themselves to utter one single question asking the Republican candidates to respond to Obama’s mistakes. For almost two hours, not one Obama failure was cited. Apparently, his record is spotless.

Instead, the candidates (especially Rick Santorum) were thrown four questions surrounding the 2005 legal battle in Florida over pulling the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo, which pushed all the liberal media hot buttons about “far right” religious conservatives throwing their religion around where it didn’t belong. This isn’t breaking news. But like the ABC debate fixated on contraception, it’s evidence that liberal networks are focused on their agenda, not on the voters’ concerns.

Let’s reverse the conversation. How do these same reporters deal with the outrageous left-wing extreme on social issues? They don’t.

Take the order promulgated by Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services on Friday to require virtually all employers to offer insurance coverage of sterilization, abortifacients and contraceptives without deductibles or co-pays in their employee plans by Aug. 1. Churches are exempt, but not religiously inspired hospitals, schools and other charities that hire outside their faith tradition.

“The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” insisted Archbishop (and Cardinal-designate) Timothy Dolan of New York, head of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. “Historically, this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.”

That’s putting it mildly. What it means is that the Catholic Church is faced with closing down its hospitals, universities and charities — or committing mortal sin.

Amazingly, the major media found nothing historic about this. ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC all ignored it. NPR covered it on Friday night — with a positive tone. The headline on their website was “Administration Stands Firm On Birth Control Coverage.” The Washington Post editorialized that Team Obama had made a mistake, but Brian Williams can’t seem to acknowledge that Obama has ever made a mistake, even when Obama boasts of his travels to 57 states.

So at what point do our country’s television networks notice that Team Obama has an ideological agenda against faith-based charitable organizations, most especially the Catholic Church? Across the country, Democrats have been pushing Catholic social workers out of government cooperation. In Massachusetts, the District of Columbia and most recently in Illinois, Democrats have insisted on forcing Catholic Charities to quit its long-time assistance in providing adoption and foster-care services because they refused to place children with homosexual couples.

How militant is their bigotry? Consider: The Catholic providers offered to refer them to other agencies (as they had been doing for unmarried couples), but Gov. Pat Quinn’s government drew a line in the sand, comparing gays to the black civil rights struggle. “Separate but equal was not a sufficient solution on other civil rights issues in the past either,” government spokesman Kendall Marlowe told The New York Times. “The child welfare system that Catholic Charities helped build is now strong enough to survive their departure.”

The Conference of Catholic Bishops lost a federal contract to aid survivors of sex trafficking because Obama’s HHS bureaucrats objected that contraceptive and abortion referrals would not be provided. Steven Wagner reported for National Review that senior officials at HHS, up to and including persons in the office of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “overrode career staff to give federal funds to two organizations deemed by the professionals to be unqualified.”

Despite this open war on religious liberty, the networks haven’t moved a muscle, even after Newt Gingrich denounced their anti-religion bias in a Jan. 7 debate in New Hampshire.

“You don’t hear the opposite question asked: Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done,” Gingrich declared. “Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?”

As Gingrich argued, the accusation of intolerance flows both ways. But Brian Williams and the other major-media “moderators” would rather shave their blow-dried heads than make Obama look bad at a Republican debate.

Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2012/01/25/obama_vs_catholics/page/full/