Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana

.

.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379#

By Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, January 28, 2012

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted asked that this letter be read at all Masses this weekend. This effort to alert the faithful is being conducted nationwide through the coordination of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and addresses a vital issue regarding religious liberty and our fundamental rights as U.S. Catholic citizens.

Read the letter in English. (Updated Jan. 30, 2012: Higher-quality version of the letter)

 January 25, 2012

Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people – the Catholic population – and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the insurance policies they write. Almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their health insurance plans.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. As a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Pray the rosary, asking Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of our Nation, to intercede for us. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

United in prayer and in confidence in God’s mercy, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ Thomas J. Olmsted

Bishop of Phoenix

.
On Wednesday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) took to the floor of the Senate to condemn a recent Health and Human Services rule that forces Catholic hospitals, colleges and charitable organizations to offer health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs and contraception, a direct assault on the right of Roman Catholics to practice their faith as they see fit.
.

.

http://www.breitbart.tv/new-hampshires-ayotte-first-woman-senator-to-condemn-obamas-contraception-law/

.
Speaking with Salem Radio’s Hugh Hewitt, Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted from the Phoenix Archdiocese discusses American Catholics and voting for president in relation to the recent rule set forth by the Obama Administration forcing religious hospitals to pay for contraception to patients.
.

.

http://www.breitbart.tv/bishop-catholics-will-be-instructed-how-to-vote/

.

The Time Is Now Defend Religious Liberty for All

By Chuck Colson, February 7, 2012

This is a special broadcast. To maintain religious liberty, citizens must be eternally vigilant. Today, our freedom is in grave peril. Chuck Colson draws a line in the sand.

,

.

MANHATTAN DECLARATION: A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

SOURCE:  By Charles Colson, Catholic Exchange, January 30th, 2012

EXCERPT:

I’m reminded of the famous saying of German pastor Martin Niemoeller, referring to the horrors of Nazi Germany:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.”

Folks, all Christians speak out against this latest attack — and every attack — on religious liberty. Please, I plead with you, sign — and get your friends to sign — the Manhattan Declaration in support of religious liberty. Do it today at ManhattanDeclaration.org.

Because pretty soon no one will be left to speak out for us.

This update courtesy of BreakPoint.

http://catholicexchange.com/2012/01/30/141872/

.
Underwater footage shot while scuba diving in the Fiji islands and Tonga. Featuring colorful coral reefs, huge schools of tropical fish, sharks, humpback whales, underwater caves, scuba divers and much more marine life from the south Pacific.
.

By Jim Meyers, NewsMax, 07 Feb 2012

Mitt Romney is vociferously attacking a provision in Obamacare requiring religious employers to cover birth control in employee health plans — but the healthcare bill he enacted as governor of Massachusetts also contained that requirement.

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe that Romney’s criticism of President Obama is hypocritical because as governor he did not lift the state-level requirement of contraception coverage.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration, but from the Romney administration,” Doyle said.

“President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Gov. Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.”

On a presidential campaign swing in Colorado, Romney told a crowd on Monday night that the Obama administration “said that the churches and institutions they run, such as schools and adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees free of charge contraceptives, morning after pills — in other words abortive pills and the like — at no cost.

“Think what that does to people who are in faiths that do not share those views. This is a violation of conscience.”

Romney GOP presidential rival Newt Gingrich also has attacked Romney over the birth control provision.

“The Obama administration is raging a war against the Catholic Church,” Gingrich said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” last week. “Well guess what? Mitt Romney’s Romneycare — he specifically refused to exempt Catholic hospitals, he specifically cut funding for kosher meals for Jewish senior citizens in Medicaid in Massachusetts.

“There are a lot of parallels between these two guys. Romneycare and Obamacare are essentially the same.”

Gingrich also has gone after Romney for including Planned Parenthood “in the language of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts,” Politico reported.

Gingrich said: “In the long run, the Republican Party is not going to nominate the founder of Romneycare, a liberal Republican who is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-tax increase.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romneycare-Obamacare-Catholic-birth/2012/02/07/id/428686

Coming Persecutions

16 “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. 17 But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, 18and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. 19When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. 20For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. 22You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end^* will be saved. 23When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master. 25It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, for the slave that he become like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household!

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/10

.

Obama tells 8th grader, inventor of the Marshmallow cannon: “I’ll keep your card ‘just in case’ “
.

.

READ STORY: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-inner-geek-robots-to-flying-marshmallows/

.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *

.
SOURCE: REAL CLEAR POLITICS

Michelle Obama and Jimmy Fallon hula hoop, do push-ups and run around the White House

CLICK TO WATCH: Michelle and Fallon Play Chase and tug of war

In celebration of her “Let’s Move!” campaign to curb childhood obesity First Lady Michelle Obama engaged in a “fitness challenge” with “Late Night” host Jimmy Fallon. In the White House. In an official photo provided by the White House Michelle Obama is seen competing in a tug of war with Fallon in the Diplomatic Reception Room.

The two also hula hoop, do push-ups and run around the White House.

Last week, the First Lady visited the set of the “Tonight Show” and made Jay Leno eat exclusive healthy food from the White House. Michelle Obama also competed in a push-up contest with Ellen DeGeneres during the Los Angeles leg of her trip.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/07/michelle_obama_plays_tug_of_war_with_late_night_host_in_the_white_house.html

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, admitted Tuesday that the “seeds” of Romneycare can be found in Obamacare.

“Were there seeds for these policy ideas in Massachusetts? Sure I think there were,” Ryan told CNSNews.com Tuesday, during a conference call to preview a major address he will give later this week to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington

But Ryan said that presidential hopeful Mitt Romney “has done a pretty good job of suggesting” that he would not impose on the national level any individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance.

Moreover, regardless of whomever becomes the GOP nominee, Ryan said, “We’re not going there” — meaning that Republicans would not support imposing an individual mandate

CNSNews.com had asked Ryan:

“Congressman, a lot of people, including President Obama, have said that Romneycare, which mandates people buy health insurance and provides subsidies for up to 300 percent of poverty level, was the model for Obamacare. Do you agree?”

Ryan replied: “Well the mandate is, I’d say – first of all, I think Mitt Romney’s done a pretty good job of suggesting that he wouldn’t do that at the federal level, he clearly is against Obamacare. I don’t think mandates – first of all I don’t think they’re constitutional, especially at the federal level. And so, what matters is whover our nominee is, whether its Mitt or Rick or Newt, that they’re opposed to Obamacare.”

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW:  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-paul-ryan-there-were-seeds-romneycare-obamacare

Ryan said the Congress had spent the last year “passing various versions of repeal of Obamacare.”

“We’re going to show how we would not only repeal, but replace Obamacare. Clearly, I think the Supreme Court, I’m knocking on wood here, is going to strike down – I’m hoping and thinking – the individual mandate. So were there seeds of these policy ideas in Massachusetts? Sure. I think there were.

“But I think it’s very clear that we’re not going there – meaning we’re not going to take the country down that path. We disagree with that policy architecture. I think the policy architecture of Obamacare has to be pulled out root, branch, and everything if we’re going to save this country.”

Ryan said if we don’t “fix” the health issue, the nation can’t solve the debt crisis.

“The debt crisis really is a health care issue,” he told CNSNews.com. “And the question we have before us is whether or not we go back to toward a market-based consumer-directed health-care reforms where the individual patient is in the nucleus of the health-care system, or we go down the path of a government-run and rationed program. That’s really the choice we have in front of us.

“And again, I think be whoever our nominee is going to be perfectly capable of carrying this torch, especially if House Republicans are already advancing this torch and blazing that trail, which is exactly what we intend on doing.”

Romneycare, the Massachusetts health-care insurance reform law created in 2006, mandates that almost every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of health-care insurance coverage.

It provides total insurance subsidies – free coverage — for residents earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level – and partial subsidies for those earning up to 300 percent of poverty level.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-paul-ryan-there-were-seeds-romneycare-obamacare

.

   By Phyllis Schlafly, Catholic Exchange, February 8th, 2012

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 2 on a straight party-line vote. That proves again that the feminists control the Democratic Party, and it’s also a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands.

VAWA was originally passed by Congress in 1994, with Bill Clinton pushing the law as a payoff to the feminists for supporting his election as president. Joe Biden claims credit as a major sponsor and likes to say it is the legislation he is most proud of.

In its 17 years of operation, it has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations.

Despite rigid feminist dogma that there are no gender differences, VAWA is totally grounded in feminist-created gender stereotypes. Starting with its title, Violence Against Women, its fundamental assumption is that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.

In other words, men are always guilty, and women must always be believed without fear of being punished for perjury. VAWA assumes there is no violence against men, and it doesn’t provide services for men who are victims of domestic violence.

The feminists have so broadened the definition of domestic violence that it doesn’t have to be violent and can usually be whatever a woman alleges. Definitions of domestic violence include vague and overbroad concepts such as emotional distress, harassment, annoyance or merely unpleasant speech.

Feminist recipients of VAWAs handouts use the money to train legislators, judges and prosecutors in feminist ideology and goals. This has resulted in dozens of state laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone, so guess who) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., the man must be prosecuted even in the large percentage of cases where the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

Instead of promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men, VAWA should be revised to encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary. Some VAWA money should be used for programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs and reduce the use of alcohol.

Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms.

The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help. Continue reading →

  By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews, February 8, 2012

You can now divide Americans into two groups: Those who believe government rightfully has the power to force people to purchase goods and services they do not want and those who don’t.

Among the former are two subgroups: Those who believe only state governments have this coercive power and those who believe the federal government has it, too.

President Barack Obama is in the latter subgroup. He signed a health care law that forces Americans to purchase health insurance.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in the former subgroup. He signed a health care law that forces people in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance.

In a debate last August on Fox News, Romney tried to explain his constitutional vision on when and where government can coerce people to buy goods and services they don’t want.

Host Chris Wallace asked Romney: “Do you think that government at any level has the right to make someone buy a good or service just because they are a U.S. resident? Where do you find that authority, that mandating authority, government making an individual buy a good or service, in the Constitution?”

Romney initially seemed confused and answered an unasked question about Obamacare.

“The answer is, I think, you have to repeal Obamacare, and I will, and I’ll put in place a plan that allows states to craft their own programs to make those programs work,” said Romney.

“But, sir,” said Wallace, “I’m asking you where you find that authority in the Constitution.”

Romney responded: “Where do I find it in the Constitution? Are you familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution? I am. And the Massachusetts Constitution allows states, for instance, to say that our kids have to go to school. It has that power. The question is: Is that a good idea or bad idea?”

Note that Romney did not directly say: The Massachusetts Constitution authorizes the government to force people to buy health insurance or any other good or service. He defended forcing adults to buy health insurance by saying Massachusetts can constitutionally force children to go to school.

Supposing it is true that the Massachusetts Constitution authorizes the state government to force children to go to school, how is that relevant to the question of whether it authorizes the state to force adults to purchase health insurance? Is telling a 13-year-old girl she must attend the eighth grade the same as telling a 32-year-old woman she must buy health insurance? Are both covered by the same provision in the Massachusetts Constitution? If so, what is that provision?

The word “insurance” does not appear in the Massachusetts Constitution. However, that Constitution’s “Declaration of Rights” says: “All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

How does a mandate that forces a man to surrender some of his liberty and some of his property in purchasing a government-approved health-insurance policy comport with the natural rights to liberty and property expressly protected by the Massachusetts Constitution?

Remember, Romney told Wallace at the Fox News debate: “The question is: Is that a good idea or bad idea?”

Is Romney arguing, then, that when the government of Massachusetts decides to coerce a citizen into buying a good or service that person does not want, the relevant question is whether a majority of the state legislature and the governor agree that it is a good idea for that person to be compelled to buy that product?

If so, what limit is there on the power of the state government to compel individuals to buy things they don’t want? Why couldn’t the legislature simply prescribe exactly how an individual must spend his after-tax income? For example: 20 percent on housing, 15 percent on food, 12 percent on transportation, etc.

More to the point:v

In fact, when Romney enacted his Massachusetts health care law he complained on more than one occasion that one of the mandated insurance benefits under the program was in vitro fertilization.

“There are a number of things I think could be done better,” he told David Asman of Fox Business Network last year.

“Like?” said Asman.

“For instance, I vetoed a provision in it that said insurance offered in our state has to have all sorts of mandates, mandated coverages,” said Romney.

“You have to include … everything from in vitro fertilization to unlimited chiropractic and so forth. I said, no, no, no. Let the private market sort those things out. But, if you will, my Democratic friends said no, no, no, we want to mandate these things.”

As Romney himself might have put it, the Democrats thought it was a “good idea.”

The Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization — in which human embryos are created outside the womb and frozen for future use — is not just a bad idea, it is profoundly immoral. But in Massachusetts, Catholics have to buy insurance that covers (in vitro fertilization) because their state government thinks it is a good idea.

On the federal level, Obama has now decided to force Catholics to buy health insurance that covers sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortifacients — all of which the church teaches are immoral.

Is Obama wrong here because he is usurping a power reserved for the states?

No, he and Romney are both wrong. They are wrong because the idea that government — at any level — can force a person to buy something against his will is not only a bad idea, it is repugnant to the foundational idea of our republic: that we all have a God-given right to liberty.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/did-mass-constitution-authorize-romney-mandate-health-insurance

By John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily, Feb. 8, 2012

The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank’s annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were “traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families.”

The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

“You can’t get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index,” said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.

The report also found that spending on “dependence programs” accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.

At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn’t pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.

Other findings:

The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.

In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country’s per-capita disposable income.

The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.

Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.

But Beach says his team’s research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

.

During his victory speech in Missouri, Rick Santorum spoke passionately about religious freedom and targeted the Obama Administration’s controversial policy of forcing Catholic hospitals to purchase contraception for patients.
.
.
.

http://www.breitbart.tv/calling-all-catholics-santorum-campaigns-on-obamacare-contraception-controversy/

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Feb. 7, 2012

Churches Walk a Fined Line

People in Pennsylvania were shocked to hear that Shippensburg University is selling the morning-after pill in campus vending machines. It’s a shocking way to normalize a drug like Plan B, which can abort a pregnancy in its earliest stage. Starting next year, President Obama’s team has an equally outrageous way of dispensing the pills: ordering religious schools, hospitals, and charities to pay for them. Under his insurance mandate, faith-based groups will be the administration’s new vending machines, forced to dish out drugs and procedures that clash with their most fundamental beliefs.

And if they refuse? The Wall Street Journal estimates that the penalties to an organization of Catholic Charities’ size could be as much as $140 million a year in fines. “That means millions less for struggling families, for refugees, for the sick and elderly and for the other needy Americans who benefit from their good works.” The rest of America wouldn’t be off the hook either. “This is far more than a ‘Catholic’ issue. At a minimum, it means higher taxes and less efficiency for all if the government picks up the slack.” One in six U.S. hospitals has Catholic ties, and if the church is as serious about resisting the policy as it says it is, that would mean a massive void in medical care. The government–and by extension, taxpayers–would have to shoulder even more of the financial burden.

But the faith community won’t go quietly. Yesterday, Catholic League President Bill Donahue said he is willing to bring the church’s 70 million voters to bear on the President in November if the mandate isn’t overturned. “Never before, unprecedented in American history, [has] the federal government line[d] up against the Roman Catholic Church,” he said. One hundred sixty-eight Catholic bishops are going to the mat on the rule, about 90% of all U.S. dioceses. And more than 154 Congressmen are lining up beside them, thanks to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). Dozens of Republicans and Democrats signed his letter to the White House, demanding the President reconsider. “This radical mandate… is an attack on the religious freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights. Religious organizations and hard-working taxpayers should not be forced by the federal government to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, or sterilizations in their health care plans… I’m proud to stand with the vast majority of Americans who respect religious freedom in demanding that this mandate be reversed.”

Faced with red-hot opposition–even within the administration–White House spokesman Jay Carney hinted Monday at a possible modification to the policy. But if this is anything like the administration’s “compromise” over taxpayer-funded abortion in ObamaCare, the church should know better than cutting a deal. When the White House is ordering Americans to choose between government and God, nothing but a complete repeal will do.

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/churches-walk-a-fined-line

Does not this very moment represent the proverbial “teaching moment”?

By Peter J. Colosi, Catholic Exchange, Feb. 7, 2012

.

In the January 25, 2012 First Things A Time for Catholic Action and Catholic Voices, Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles argues against the recent HHS mandate that every U.S. employer must provide health insurance coverage for birth control, sterilization, and even abortion-causing drugs. As of this writing 145 Bishops have also made excellent similar statements. One recurring theme I find in these articles is expressed by Bishop Gomez when he states: “But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church.” He goes on to argue for our national identity and a true notion of freedom of religion.

His arguments are good ones, and I, like many Catholics, am thrilled to see the bishops making such strong statements on the issues. Nonetheless, I do want to raise one simple question, not as a challenge, but as a way to bolster the cause: Why downplay the question of contraception? Why not seize this moment to engage the culture with boldness on the issue? Pope Benedict, quoted by Bishop Gomez, urged the US Bishops just days before the HHS ruling that the presentation of “a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society” is “a primary task of the Church in your country.” Does not this very moment represent the proverbial “teaching moment”? The entire country has just now had the idea jostled about in their minds that the Catholic Church thinks something about contraception; and I might add, it may be the first time in a while that Catholics have thought of it as well. St. Peter urges, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.” (1 Pt 3:15). In contrast, Thomas Merton warned, in No Man is an Island, that “One of the moral diseases we communicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to a question we are afraid to ask.” At this moment will we take the route urged by St. Peter and Pope Benedict or the route predicted by Thomas Merton?

Furthermore, a main argument against the Bishops goes that the Catholic view is a religious position, and since many employees at Catholic hospitals and universities are not Catholic, those employees’ insurance should cover their contraception. As used in that argument the term “religious” implies the meaning “irrational.” And so, if the Bishops grant the point that it is exclusively a religious reason and move directly to questions of national identity, this will be perceived as a tacit acceptance by the Bishops of the hidden premise that to oppose contraception is irrational.

The reasons for Church teaching on procreation are well-founded and full of common sense, and now is the moment to explain them to fellow Catholics who may be foggy on the issue, as well as to those non-Catholics whose ears are currently perked up. Will we as a Church (Bishops, priests and laity) use this moment not only to assert our view that contraception is immoral, but also to explain the reasons? Or will we remain silent, skirting the real issue at hand?

For those who want to take the former path, there are very many solid resources out there for making the case philosophically. My own modest contribution to this effort is here.

Peter J. Colosi taught for nine years for Franciscan University of Steubenville at their program in Gaming, Austria as assistant professor of philosophy. In the fall of 2009, he joined the faculty at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania as assistant professor of moral theology. He earned his BS in mathematics from Franciscan University, an MA in Franciscan Studies from St. Bonaventure University, and his MPhil and PhD from the International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein.

http://catholicexchange.com/2012/02/07/142703/

By Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews, Tue Feb 07, 2012

ATLANTA, GA – After a week of bruising rhetoric and intense pressure from Planned Parenthood, Karen Handel resigned from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation this morning.

Pro-abortion organizations pressured the private charity to fire Handel as vice president for public policy and publicly said she instigated the decision to defund the abortion provider.

Karen Handel

This afternoon, she broke her silence.

Speaking to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly, Handel said the Komen foundation was subjected to an unprecedented attack by the nation’s leading provider of abortion. “What was unleashed over this past week was a vicious attack against a great organization and…individual attacks against [Komen founder] Nancy Brinker, an individual whom I admire greatly – and I would think all of us should be saddened that an outside org should put this kind of pressure on another organization.”

“The last time I checked, private non-profit organizations have a right and a responsibility to be able to set the highest standards and criteria on their own without interference, let alone the level of vicious attacks and coercion that has occurred by Planned Parenthood. It’s simply outrageous,” she said.

The intimidation campaign led Handel to resign from the foundation and decline a severance package. “I was too much of a focal point,” she said. “I really felt I had a responsibility to just step aside so they could refocus on their mission.”

Handel ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a pro-life platform and publicly described herself as a Christian. Pro-abortion forces highlighted her candidacy, claiming Komen was bowing to political pressure – an allegation Handel strongly rejected. “Absolutely not,” she said. “For Komen, for myself the mission was always foremost on our mind.”

“The only group here that has made this issue political has been Planned Parenthood,” she said.

Some are finding discrepancies between her interview and statements made last week by Nancy Brinker.

“I clearly acknowledge that I was involved in the process, but to say I had the sole authority is simply absurd,” Handel told Fox News.

But Laura Bassett of The Huffington Post wrote, “Handel’s statement directly contradicts what Komen executives have been telling the public since the decision was announced last week.”

Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker had told MSNBC’s Andrea Mtichell on Thursday that “Karen did not have anything to do with this decision.”

““This was decided at the board level and also by our mission.”

In her resignation letter Handel wrote “the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen.” She told Megyn Kelly she “was asked to look at options” to distance Komen from an organization that was mired in controversy “long before my time” and had since come under Congressional investigation.

Clarifying the explanations Komen gave last week, Handel said the investigation was not the only reason Komen had reduced its grants to the abortion provider. “I think the Congressional investigation, along with the various state investigations, were a factor in the decision,” she said. “But make no mistake about it, it was a bigger picture than that. There was the granting criteria, as well as the controversies that were surrounding Planned Parenthood.”

Despite her resignation, Handel had only positive words for the Komen foundation, its mission, and its personnel. She repeatedly declined to provide internal details about how the Planned Parenthood decision had been made, saying she hopes her decision to step down will aid the foundation’s efforts to combat breast cancer.

“I wanted to do the right thing on my own terms, and that’s what I tried to do.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fmr-komen-vp-blasts-planned-parenthoods-vicious-attacks-and-coercion

.

Santorum said that “tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and Tea Party… who are out there every single day… building the conservative movement in this country… building the base of the Republican Party and building a voice for freedom in this land.”

.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49383

…Politicians who support abortion are “as guilty of abortion as those who choose it themselves”…

Bishop Vasa, Courageous Priest, Feb. 2012

California Catholic Daily: When Sonoma County Pro-Life advertised its annual Rally for Life held last Sunday, it promised that its keynote speaker — Santa Rosa Bishop Robert Vasa — “is sure to challenge and inspire us all.” Bishop Vasa did not let them down.

“Any government leader, particularly those who claim to be Christian, who claim to be pro-choice, is unworthy of public office,” Bishop Vasa told the rally at Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa on Jan. 22. “Absolutely unworthy and absolutely unfit for public office.”

Politicians who support abortion are “as guilty of abortion as those who choose it themselves,” he said. And Roe v. Wade, said Bishop Vasa, was an “illicit and invalid” decision.

Because of its pro-abortion policies, said Bishop Vasa, the U.S. is no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s a land of the imprisoned and the home of the cowards.”

The bishop’s remarks, reported the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, brought cheers from a crowd of about 100 people who gathered in the afternoon rain to hear his speech.

“Vasa suggested such leaders who publicly hold such a position shouldn’t accept communion at Mass,” reported the Press Democrat. “He also said they could be excommunicated, or banished from the church through their actions.”

“In some ways, they excommunicate themselves,” the Press Democrat quoted the bishop as saying in an interview following his speech.

“If he learned a politician expressed a position so out of line with Catholic beliefs, then he would first try to have a ‘face-to-face’ with that person and urge them to recant their remarks,” said the Press Democrat. “If they did not, then that person would be ‘on thin ice.’”

According to the Press Democrat, Bishop Vasa conceded that the Church “tends to resist” the explicit excommunication of pro-abortion Catholics, but in an apparent reference to automatic self-excommunication, the bishop was quoted by the newspaper as saying, “I, for one, if someone wants to put hot coals on their own head, I say fine.”

http://www.courageouspriest.com/catholic-pro-abortion-politcians-excommunicated

By Thomas Sowell, Patriot Post, February 7, 2012

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor has been treated as a gaffe in much of the media, and those in the Republican establishment who have been rushing toward endorsing his coronation as the GOP’s nominee for president — with 90 percent of the delegates still not yet chosen — have been trying to sweep his statement under the rug.

But Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor — because they “have a very ample safety net” — was followed by a statement that was not just a slip of the tongue, and should be a defining moment in telling us about this man’s qualifications as a conservative and, more important, as a potential President of the United States.

Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. To many people, that would seem like a small thing that can be left for economists or statisticians to deal with.

But to people who call themselves conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.

It is not written in the stars that young black males must have astronomical rates of unemployment. It is written implicitly in the minimum wage laws.

We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.

How could this be?

The economic reason is quite plain. The inflation of the 1940s had pushed money wages for even unskilled, entry-level labor above the level specified in the minimum wage law passed ten years earlier. In other words, there was in practical effect no national minimum wage law in the late 1940s.

My first full-time job, as a black teenage high-school dropout in 1946, was as a lowly messenger delivering telegrams. But my starting pay was more than 50 percent above the level specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Liberals were of course appalled that the federal minimum wage law had lagged so far behind inflation — and, in 1950, they began a series of escalations of the minimum wage level over the years.

It was in the wake of these escalations that black teenage unemployment rose to levels that were three or four times the level in 1948. Even in the most prosperous years of later times, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was some multiple of what it was even in the recession year of 1949. And now it was often double the unemployment rate for white males of the same ages.

This was not the first or the last time that liberals did something that made them feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake, especially among the poor whom they were supposedly helping.

For those for whom “racism” is the explanation of all racial differences, let me assure them, from personal experience, that there was not less racism in the 1940s.

For those who want to check out the statistics — and I hope that would include Mitt Romney — they can be found detailed on pages 42 to 45 of “Race and Economics” by Walter Williams.

Nor are such consequences of minimum wage laws peculiar to blacks or to the United States. In Western European countries whose social policies liberals consider more “advanced” than our own, including more generous minimum wage laws and other employer-mandated benefits, it has been common in even prosperous years for unemployment rates among young people to be 20 percent or higher.

The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don’t get hired. It is not rocket science.

Milton Friedman explained all this, half a century ago, in his popular little book for non-economists, “Capitalism and Freedom.” So have many other people. If a presidential candidate who calls himself “conservative” has still not heard of these facts, that simply shows that you can call yourself anything you want to.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2012/02/07/a-defining-moment/

SANTORUM:  “Freedom is at Stake in this Election!”

The Republican presidential contest is a two-man race no more.

FoxNews.com, February 08, 2012

Republican candidate Rick Santorum upsets rival Mitt Romney to win the Colorado caucuses as he sweeps Tuesday’s GOP contests, also winning the non-binding Missouri primary and the Minnesota caucuses

WATCH SANTORUM’S VICTORY RALLY:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/santorum-romney-gingrich-paul-colorado-minnesota-missouri-republican/

Rick Santorum proved that the 2012 primary election still has a few surprises left, after he went three for three in Tuesday’s contests and once again shook up the GOP nomination battle.

Santorum, in perhaps the biggest upset of the night, was declared the winner of the Colorado caucuses — a contest Mitt Romney had been leading in recent polls and won in the 2008 race. The former Pennsylvania senator also won the Minnesota caucuses and the non-binding Missouri GOP primary.

The candidates head next into Maine, and later in the month to Arizona and Michigan. Santorum’s performance stokes questions about Romney’s appeal in some corners of the Republican Party but also puts the pressure on Newt Gingrich – as he challenges Santorum’s claim to be the “conservative” alternative to Romney.

Santorum, though, said Tuesday night in Missouri that he wasn’t looking to be the alternative to Romney.

“I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama,” Santorum said.

The three-for-three finish marked the best night of Santorum’s campaign since Iowa, in which he was belatedly declared the winner.

Santorum said at his victory rally in Missouri that the night’s results showed conservatism is “alive and well.” Santorum used the victories to build his case that the Republicans need a nominee who can demonstrate “sharp contrasts” with President Obama — something he claims the other candidates cannot do.

Santorum went after Romney, accusing him of holding the “same positions” as the president on several issues, but largely glossed over the other GOP candidates in his remarks.

Romney is still ahead in the delegate count, despite Santorum’s big night. But Santorum’s victories disrupt the narrative that the GOP presidential contest had become a two-person race between Gingrich and Romney.

With all precincts reporting in Colorado, Santorum led with 45 percent of the vote. Romney was in second with 35 percent, followed by Gingrich and Paul. 

With 95 percent of precincts reporting in Minnesota, Santorum led with 45 percent. Ron Paul was pulling in second with 27 percent, followed by Romney and Gingrich. 

A total of 70 delegates are up for grabs in those two states Tuesday, though the caucuses are just the start of a lengthy delegate-allocating process. 

In Missouri, the primary is effectively a statewide straw poll, as it sets the stage for the delegate-awarding caucuses a month from now. Still, more than 240,000 people voted in the contest, and Santorum cruised to a crushing victory. With all precincts reporting, Santorum had 55 percent of the vote. Romney had 25 percent, followed by Paul with 12 percent. Gingrich was not on the ballot in that contest. 

Turnout in the caucus states was smaller. About 66,000 showed up in Colorado; turnout in Minnesota appeared slightly lower. 

Gingrich, though, hardly competed in any of the three states Tuesday, instead focusing his attention on other contests down the primary calendar. He campaigned Tuesday in Ohio, which holds its election on March 6, “Super Tuesday,” as the other candidates made last-minute appeals in Colorado and Minnesota.  Continue reading →

There’s a saying in Africa that a swarm of ants can take down an elephant. This may be proving true in the case of the Protestants vs. Catholics.

VIEW ONLINE:  http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2012-02-07

 Read the script for this program

 


This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

–James Madison, Federalist No. 51, 1788

By Don Schwager

 ”Out of the heart come evil thoughts”

Scripture:  Mark 7:14-23

14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of  you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

Meditation: Where does evil come from and can we eliminate it from our personal lives? Jesus deals with this issue in response to the religious leaders’ concern with ritual defilement – making oneself unfit to offer acceptable worship and sacrifice to God. The religious leaders were very concerned with avoiding ritual defilement, some no doubt out of reverent fear of God, and others because they wanted to be seen as observant Jews. Jesus points his listeners to the source of true defilement – evil desires which come from inside a person’s innermost being. Sin does not just happen from external forces. It first springs from the innermost recesses of our thoughts and intentions, from the secret desires which only the individual mind and heart can conceive.

When Cain became jealous of his brother Abel, God warned him to guard his own heart: “Sin is couching at the door; it’s desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7). Cain unfortunately did not take God’s warning to heart. He allowed his jealousy to grow into spite and hatred for his brother, and he began to look for an opportunity to eliminate his brother alltogether. When jealously and other sinful desires come knocking at the door of your heart, how do you respond? Do you entertain them and allow them to overtake you? Fortunately God does not leave us alone in our struggle with hurtful desires and sinful tendencies. He gives us the grace and strength we need to resist and overcome sin when it couches at the door of our heart.

The Lord wants to set us free from the burden of guilt and from the destructive force of sin in our personal lives. He wants to purify our hearts and renew our minds so we can love and act in every situation as he would love and act. The Lord is ready to change and purify our hearts through the grace and help of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Like a physician who probes the wound before treating it, God through his Word and Spirit first brings sin into the light that we may recognize it for what it truly is and call upon his mercy and grace for pardon and healing. The Spirit of truth is our Consoler and Helper. His power and grace enables us to choose what is good and to reject what is evil. Do you believe in the power of God’s love to heal, change, and transform your heart and mind?

“Lord Jesus, fill me with your Holy Spirit and make my heart like yours. Strengthen my heart, mind, and my will that I may freely choose to love what is good and to reject what is evil.”

Psalm 37:5-6, 30-31,39-40
5 Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act.
6 He will bring forth your vindication as the light, and your right as the noonday.
30 The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.
31 The law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip.
39 The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; he is their refuge in the time of trouble.
40 The LORD helps them and delivers them; he delivers them from the wicked, and saves them, because they take refuge in him.

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

American Catholic, February 08, 2012

  For many years, Josephine Bakhita was a slave but her spirit was always free and eventually that spirit prevailed.

Born in Olgossa in the Darfur region of southern Sudan, Josephine was kidnapped at the age of seven, sold into slavery and given the name Bakhita, which means fortunate. She was re-sold several times, finally in 1883 to Callisto Legnani, Italian consul in Khartoum, Sudan.

Two years later he took Josephine to Italy and gave her to his friend Augusto Michieli. Bakhita became babysitter to Mimmina Michieli, whom she accompanied to Venice’s Institute of the Catechumens, run by the Canossian Sisters. While Mimmina was being instructed, Josephine felt drawn to the Catholic Church. She was baptized and confirmed in 1890, taking the name Josephine.

When the Michielis returned from Africa and wanted to take Mimmina and Josephine back with them, the future saint refused to go. During the ensuing court case, the Canossian sisters and the patriarch of Venice intervened on Josephine’s behalf. The judge concluded that since slavery was illegal in Italy, she had actually been free since 1885.

Josephine entered the Institute of St. Magdalene of Canossa in 1893 and made her profession three years later. In 1902, she was transferred to the city of Schio (northeast of Verona), where she assisted her religious community through cooking, sewing, embroidery and welcoming visitors at the door. She soon became well loved by the children attending the sisters’ school and the local citizens. She once said, “Be good, love the Lord, pray for those who do not know Him. What a great grace it is to know God!”

The first steps toward her beatification began in 1959. She was beatified in 1992 and canonized eight years later.

Comment:  Josephine’s body was mutilated by those who enslaved her, but they could not touch her inner spirit. Her Baptism set her on an eventual path toward asserting her civic freedom and then service to God’s people as a Canossian sister.

She who worked under many “masters” was finally happy to address God as “master” and carry out everything that she believed to be God’s will for her.

Quote:    During his homily at her canonization Mass in St. Peter’s Square, Pope John Paul II said that in St. Josephine Bakhita, “We find a shining advocate of genuine emancipation. The history of her life inspires not passive acceptance but the firm resolve to work effectively to free girls and women from oppression and violence, and to return them to their dignity in the full exercise of their rights.”

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