Father James Farfaglia is pastor of St. Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Catholic Church in Corpus Christi, Texas. May 29, 2009

By Kathleen Gilbert, May 22, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com

SOUTH BEND, Indiana – Dozens of pro-life protesters arrested at the University of Notre Dame on May 17 for protesting President Obama’s commencement speech will be heading back to Indiana in coming weeks from all across the country to stand trial.  While Notre Dame had pro-life demonstrators summarily arrested for “criminal trespassing,” witnesses say that pro-Obama demonstrators were given free roam of the campus – a fact that the pro-lifers’ attorney says violated the Equal Protection clause.

Among those arrested that day was Karen Torres of Virginia, who told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) how, after getting lost trying to reach the highway from Notre Dame, she and her husband stumbled upon what appeared to be President Obama’s motorcade route.  The couple parked at the Notre Dame Federal Credit Union, pulled out a sign that read “Shame on Notre Dame,” and headed toward the sidewalk, but a South Bend policeman quickly ordered them to leave. 

Unaware that the Credit Union was part of Notre Dame’s campus, Karen decided to stand her ground, and was arrested and charged with criminal trespass.  Karen’s husband, who stayed behind to call relatives, says the area where Mrs. Torres had been arrested was soon “filled with people holding pro-Obama signs,” who were permitted to remain at the curb near the motorcade route to cheer the president.

The couple told LSN that when they asked why the other people were not getting arrested, the policeman “just shrugged and … said that you refused to leave.”

“So basically, I got arrested for holding the wrong kind of sign,” said Mrs. Torres. The couple says they had been the only pro-life protesters they could discern in the area.

Mrs. Torres was later released after posting bail. The couple will return to Indiana on June 3 for an arraignment.

This is not the first time the Torres have made waves in the pro-life world: they are the parents-in-law of Susan Torres, the Alexandria woman who in 2005 attracted headlines around the world by miraculously giving birth after three months on life support, following a cancer-induced stroke.  

Concerning Notre Dame’s conditions for criminal trespass, Torres explained to LSN that pro-lifers were warned during the commencement that they were only allowed to enter the campus if they carried no signs.  “We could not go in with any signs or any t-shirts or anything that spoke badly of Notre Dame or Obama,” he said. 

Most of the pro-lifers arrested that day purposefully entered campus grounds to be arrested, carrying symbols including a large cross, photographs of aborted children, and images of Mary.

Catherine Wilson, the media relations director at the South Bend prosecutor’s office, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today that none of the charges against those arrested have been dropped. Wilson declined to give further information on the cases, citing “ethical restrictions.”

Notre Dame Spokesman Dennis Brown did not return a request for comment from LSN.

Attorney Tom Dickson, who will represent the cases, told LSN that, “It’s a constitutional law question.”

In the 1886 case Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the attorney noted, the Supreme Court ruled that selectively arresting individuals violated the Equal Protection clause.  Dickson also pointed to the 1946 Marsh v. Alabama case, in which it was decided that to the degree that a private institution opens its grounds to the general public, its right to curb their free speech activities is limited.

“Those are both issues that are going to be fully aired in these cases, if the matters aren’t properly disposed of,” said Dickson.

Dickson confirmed that all his clients have returned to their home states, including New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and Texas, but will have to return to Indiana in coming weeks for their trials. 

Asked whether Notre Dame had been involved in the cases, Dickson said: “the only response I got from Notre Dame was that they weren’t interested in sitting down and trying to discuss these matters, that they were … out of their hands.”

While Obama addressed Notre Dame’s commencement and received an honorary law degree, over 40 pro-lifers were put in jail or police custody for trespassing.  Among those arrested were Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of Roe vs. Wade, Alan Keyes, and Fr. Norman Weslin, the Founder of Lambs of Christ.

To contact University of Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins:

Office of the President
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN
46556
Phone: 574.631.3903
Email: president@nd.edu

By Glenn McCoy

“Facts to Liberals are Like Crosses to Vampires.”

….“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior… This is really, really dangerous, and it is going to get a lot of people killed, if we don’t call a halt to it.”….

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, May 29, 2009

“We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” Pelosi emphatically told the American people on April 23. Three weeks later when that statement unraveled, Pelosi’s behavior became bizarre, insisting her congressional colleagues, the director of the CIA and government personnel are all lying…while only she is telling the truth. “They mislead us all the time,” she said referring to the CIA. However with that statement, she tightened the noose on her own career.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich described Pelosi’s actions as “despicable” and “dishonest”, calling for her to step aside from Congress. “I think she has lied to the House, and…I think this is a big deal. I don’t think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters.”

Gingrich went on to say: “She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior… This is really, really dangerous, and it is going to get a lot of people killed, if we don’t call a halt to it.”

CIA records show Pelosi and Congressman Porter Goss, along with the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were briefed in September of 2002 on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (including waterboarding). The CIA’s version is verified by Goss, who later became the head of the CIA from 2004-2006. Goss writes in The Washington Post, “Since leaving my post as CIA director….I have remained largely silent on the public state. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage.”

Pelosi then admitted that she was briefed by an aide in 2003. This is an abrupt change from her previous statements about water boarding, but she still alleges the CIA was lying about the September 2002 briefing.

Increasingly, Pelosi is caught in a web of deceit of her own spinning. Current CIA Director Leon Panetta’s statements also confirm what she knew, and when she knew it. “As the agency indicated previously in response to congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”

Why is this discussion significant? George W. Bush and his people did what their hearts and heads told them was essential to protect American lives in 2002. Aggressive interrogation was absolutely essential to getting information that would keep Americans from being slaughtered by mass murderers like Zubaydah and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who was also water boarded with good results.) The Democrats’ storyline says the Bush administration was secretly practicing “torture” by water boarding, without any congressional oversight or approval. Liberal Democrats are portraying the Bush administration as rogue war criminals, while their party bears no responsibility, and had no knowledge of what was going on.

But as the old expression goes, “Facts to liberals are like crosses to vampires.”

Rather than addressing the issue and apologizing for lying about our intelligence professionals, Pelosi is hoping the public will forgot about the whole controversy and it will fade into the night. Yet that is not likely.

Pelosi is quickly becoming a political liability. Her approval rating stands at 39 percent, well below her party’s congressional approval rating of 51 percent. Pelosi has weathered political scandals in the past, but this time her luck may have run out.

If Obama and Democrats in Congress don’t force her to vacate her post, they are being incredibly hypocritical. They will be standing by a woman in leadership who passively supported enhanced interrogation techniques, “torture” — and then lied about it — while blasting a former president who was truthful about his support for water boarding.

Bush, Cheney and the CIA protected American lives. Pelosi has attempted to undermine the credibility of those who kept us safe, in order to save her own job and status. Furthermore, her behavior flies directly in the face of Obama’s promise of a new era of integrity in politics, and he shouldn’t stand by her while she lies. Pelosi needs to step down, or the Obama administration and their allies in the House should end Pelosi’s disgraceful political career.

http://floydbrown.com/?tag=speaker-of-the-us-house-of-representatives

Father Paul Campbell, LC

John 21:20-25

Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.” So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours?” It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe in you and all that you have revealed for our salvation. I hope in you because of your overflowing mercy. Every single act of yours on this earth demonstrated your love for us. Your ascent into heaven before the eyes of the Apostles inspires my hope of one day joining you there. I love you and wish you to be the center of my life.

Petition: Lord, increase my faith, hope and love.

1. The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved Peter is walking with Jesus along the shore where Jesus has just foretold his future martyrdom. He turns to ask Jesus about John, who was following them. Throughout his Gospel, John designates himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It is as if the most striking point of John’s life and experience with Christ was that Jesus loved him. It became his identity. How often do I reflect on Christ’s love for me? How often do I cherish it?

2. What About Him? Jesus responds to Peter’s question with a question of his own. What concern is it of yours what happens to John? Christ’s relationship with his disciples is deeply personal. Each has a mission to complete in life. We can get distracted thinking about and comparing ourselves to others, or whether they may or may not be following Christ. However, these comparisons with others (or their gifts, or their mission) can frequently be a sign of our pride. We have our own mission to fulfill, and no one can take our place. We need to concentrate instead on that part of our mission which is still ahead of us, yet to be fulfilled.

3. We Know That His Testimony Is True John is a witness to all that has taken place in his Gospel. His testimony was entrusted to a community of believers and has come down to us under the guarantee of the Church. The Gospel presents us with what Jesus actually said and did. We need to hold fast to our faith in the Gospel and not get sidetracked by modern interpretations that cast doubt on everything. When we read the scriptures we hear God’s voice. Do I read them with such faith?

Conversation with Christ: Lord Jesus, thank you for the testimony of your life that I find in the Gospel. Increase my faith. Help me to read the Scriptures and meditate on them with greater fervor. I know that you want to speak to me through them. Help me to follow you today.

Resolution: Today I will help another person  read a passage of the Gospel prayerfully.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Lovely Lady dressed in blue –
Teach me how to pray!
God was just your little boy,
Tell me what to say!

Did you lift Him up, sometimes,
Gently on your knee?
Did you sing to Him the way
Mother does to me?

Did you hold His hand at night?
Did you ever try
Telling stories of the world?
O! And did He cry?

Do you really think He cares
If I tell Him things-
Little things that happen? And
Do the Angels’ wings

Make a noise? And can He hear
Me if I speak low?
Does He understand me now?
Tell me —- for you know?

Lovely Lady dressed in blue —-
Teach me how to pray!
God was just your little boy,
And you know the way.

 

 

By Christopher Chantrill, American Thinker, May 29, 2009

Sarah Palin’s speech to the folks at Vanderburgh County Right to Life last month didn’t seem to get on the national political radar.  But if you get a chance to review the YouTube video, it’s worth it.

Governor Palin (R-AK) may have been giving a speech to  conservative pro-lifers in Evansville, Indiana, on April 16, 2009, but the speech was an arrow aimed right over the heads of the conservatives present towards the hearts of moderate women voters everywhere.

And that, if you ask me, is the future of conservatism.

Palin’s first big theme that night was “gifting.”  You men all know how important gifting is to women.  If you don’t stop home at the store on the way home tonight and buy her a bunch of flowers, because you are already behind the 8-ball.

Palin told her audience that it was the gifts that persuaded her to come to Evansville.  First it was the chocolates on her birthday.  Then it was the donuts and the pastries.  Finally, it was the hockey stick from the Evansville Youth Hockey Association.  And try to guess husband Todd’s favorite movie?   Of course, it’s Hoosiers.

Then there was Palin’s home-state boosterism, her “teacher” theme.  With a disarming reference to her school-teacher parents she reeled off a host of facts about Alaska to her Hoosier hosts.  I hadn’t really thought about it before, but women do participate, as enthusiastically as George F. Babbitt, in the boosting of their homes, their hometown, and their home state.   Home is where the heart it.

Finally, when Palin got down to the pro-life part of her speech, she explained her beliefs using a “dilemma” theme. 

But moderate women have dilemmas.

Palin talked about finding out she was pregnant in her forties, about finding out that her baby had that extra chromosome.  She talked about the love that flooded her when she finally had Trig in her arms.  Disarmingly, she spoke about how she thought, for a fleeting moment, about getting rid of her little problem when she out of town.  Nobody would know.

Fortunately, our liberal friends didn’t publicize the speech.  So the MSM missed the chance to tell moderate women what to think about it.  And unless moderate women are carefully taught, they’ll receive the speech, and the ones that come after, as a conversation over coffee.

They will get to appreciate the moment when Palin mentions how they are criticizing her for leaving Alaska to come talk to the folks in Indiana.  They will get to hear about a couple of disastrous sit-down interviews.   Women are good at this faux self-deprecation — when they mean, between the lines, how dare they!

Some of you alert readers may recall that I called for a woman-centered conservatism in 2007 here, in 2008 here, and this year here. 

There’s no rocket science about the need for a woman-centered conservatism.  It stares at you out of the numbers over at usgovernmentspending.com.  Our rulers are spending about a trillion dollars a year on health care, a trillion dollars a year on education, and half a trillion dollars a year on welfare.  Health care, education, and welfare are things that women care about. 

But there’s a problem, a problem that, in a world without an MSM, would have women up in arms.  The trillions of dollars are not being spent in sensitive, compassionate ways that respond directly to the needs of mothers and adult daughters.  Instead, it is spent in rigid, compulsory, government programs devised by experts and administered by workers with lifetime tenure.

You may have noticed that the purpose of this administrative system is not to help people.  It is to reward its servitors.  That is how a vertical system of social organization is supposed to work, whether it is a feudal system, a political machine, or a welfare state.

If conservative are ever to break the back of the welfare state, and introduce a horizontal and sociable society in place of the cruel and rigid liberal administrative state, then our task is clear.  We have to persuade moderate women that the present setup does a terrible job of helping them care for their children, their mothers, and themselves.

It shouldn’t be that hard.  After all, the current system does do a terrible job of caring for people.  It puts the children that women care for in custodial institutions for most of their childhood.  Its assault on marriage subjects adult women to frightening insecurities when they need security most during their child-raising years.  And it puts the aging mothers that loving daughters worry about in custodial institutions.

But every message needs a messenger.  The question confronting conservatives is: who is to be our messenger?

Who will talk to moderate women and talk their language? 

How about a woman with executive experience who knows all about “gifting” and “dilemmas” and can fearlessly skipper a fishing dory right through the surf up onto the beach?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_palin_seminar_on_moderate.html

Gov. Palin’s Indiana Right to Life Speech – Part 1 of 7

Fox News: President Barack Obama wrapped a west coast swing by hitting up donors for big money Wednesday night in Los Angeles, providing a progress report on his presidency and telling supporters they, “ain’t seen nothing yet.”

           The reason 1950s kids could be successfully taught in overcrowded classrooms (I’ve met women who in that decade taught as many as 95 first graders, by themselves, and with relatively few problems) is because they had been and were being properly disciplined in the home. They were not the center of parental attention in their homes; rather, they were expected to pay attention to their parents. They were not the object of great doing on their parents’ parts; rather, they were expected to do, to carry their share of the weight (Does anyone remember when children had chores and were expected to find their own entertainment after school?) They were expected to do at school what they had been trained to do at home—pay attention and do what they were told. (Did I mention that these kids were also expected to do their own homework, without their mothers’ help?) This training obviously paid off. The good news is that this same training will pay the same dividends today.

The problem, of course, is that few parents realize the solution to American’s education woes lies in their hands. They have been persuaded that the reformers, given enough money, will solve the problems. When his efforts fail, they demand that he carry water faster, to which he responds with demands for even more money. And the beat goes on.

          

           Call it trickle-down edu-nomics.

http://www.rosemond.com/view/389/21577/Quotation-of-the-Day.html

…..Jon and Kate are much more than a study in living with multiples. They’re a lab experiment for the effects of fame, money and ambition on the health of a marriage and the well-being of a family. Incubating in their Pennsylvania petri dish, the Gosselins seem to be growing the fungus of celebrity, and clearly it is corrupting the very thing that caused the cameras to take up residence in their home in the first place . . . The best thing we could do for the Gosselins is to boycott their show, cause their ratings to plummet and give them the gift of a failed series in favor of a successful marriage…..

By Marybeth Hicks, Catholic Exchange, May 29th, 2009

Updating you cave-dwellers, Jon and Kate Gosselin are The Learning Channel (TLC) parents of eight children – a set of 8-year-old twin daughters and sextuplets, age 5. Their raucous home life has been chronicled for four seasons as they adjusted to, and then mastered, their roles as parents of multiple multiples.

Along the way, the reality show “Jon & Kate Plus 8″ has offered voyeuristic glimpses into the Gosselins’ marriage and extended-family relationships. Their personality traits – both grating and endearing – are the stuff of candid “couch talks” with the show’s producers, offering viewers the reassurance that even an unusual family such as this one faces the day-in, day-out struggles that confront the rest of us.

I get why the Gosselins allowed TLC to create a show around their unique family. Diapers and formula aren’t cheap, and heaven only knows what college will cost in 2022. But somewhere in the equation, this couple didn’t count the real cost of this “reality” job.

Season 5 began Monday with an hourlong episode featuring the sextuplets’ fifth birthday party. The cake wasn’t the only thing you could cut with a knife, as the marital tension between Jon and Kate was palpable even on screen. They are both suspected of unfaithfulness, and only they know what is true. Suffice to say, Jon seems remorseful, while Kate is hopping mad.

Jon and Kate are much more than a study in living with multiples. They’re a lab experiment for the effects of fame, money and ambition on the health of a marriage and the well-being of a family. Incubating in their Pennsylvania petri dish, the Gosselins seem to be growing the fungus of celebrity, and clearly it is corrupting the very thing that caused the cameras to take up residence in their home in the first place.

On Monday night’s show, in separate couch chats, Jon and Kate took pains to express their commitment to their children’s happiness, regardless of their future together. The kids come first, or so they said. Unfortunately, this couple thinks happiness is about birthday parties with pinatas and a magician.

Meanwhile, Jon and Kate have learned the self-deceptive vocabulary that allows them to dissociate their marriage from their role as parents. What they haven’t learned is that lifelong marriage is the surest way to put their children first.

It may be tough to admit, but the best parents understand that a stable marriage is the only true way to protect the interests of their children. The marriage is the foundation on which this family rests – not the financial security of future seasons on TLC, or syndication fees or additional book deals and speaking gigs.

America doesn’t need a reality show about a failed marriage and eight children shuffling back and forth between their parents’ separate homes. The best thing we could do for the Gosselins is to boycott their show, cause their ratings to plummet and give them the gift of a failed series in favor of a successful marriage.

People magazine’s unscientific poll offers this couple the only answer – step back and re-prioritize. That’s my vote.

In the end, Jon and Kate face the same question that every married couple confronts as they work to maintain a strong and healthy bond: What will they give up in order to have what they say they want most of all?

It’s not scientific, but it’s telling nonetheless that 80 percent of those who took People magazine’s online survey about reality-TV stars Jon and Kate Gosselin say the couple’s current struggles aren’t just the typical ups and downs of married life, but instead are reason for them to “step back and re-prioritize.”

Columnist Marybeth Hicks, a wife of 20 years and mother of four children, lives in the Midwest. She is the author of The Perfect World Inside My Minivan — One Mom’s Journey Through the Streets of Suburbia, a compilation of her columns. She uses her column to share her perspective on issues and experiences that shape families nationwide. She currently writes a column for the Washington Times. This column first appeared in and is reprinted with permission from the Washington Times. Visit her Web site, www.marybethhicks.com or send e-mail to marybeth.hicks@comcast.net.  

By Monsignor Dennis Clark, Ph.D., Catholic Exchange, May 29th, 2009

Acts 25:13-21 / Jn 21:15-19

SOURCE:  “Obama Appoints Sibelius Supporter Miguel Diaz as United States Ambassador to Holy See”, By Alex Bush, LifeSiteNews.com

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052811.html

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz

Washington D.C. - The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) praised as “eminently reasonable” the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Proposition 8, a successful ballot measure that restored the definition of marriage to “the union of one man and one woman.”

Archbishop of Louisville Joseph E. Kurtz, chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, spoke on behalf of the U.S. bishops in a Wednesday statement.

He said the court’s decision has respected “the eminently reasonable decision” of California voters to retain “the perennial definition of marriage.”

“This respects the uniqueness of the marital relationship and its service to the common good by respecting the value of procreation and the good of children as well as the unique complementarity of man and woman. Advancing the truth and beauty of marriage enhances, rather than diminishes, the intrinsic dignity of every human person.”

Archbishop Kurtz expressed concern and disappointment that the court failed to apply this definition to the nearly 18,000 same-sex “marriages” contracted between May and November 2008 after the California Supreme Court mandated their recognition.

The court ruled that Proposition 8 did not apply retroactively and could not invalidate the legal unions.

“Attempts to change the legal definition of marriage or to create simulations of marriage, often under the guise of ‘equality,’ ‘civil rights,’ and ‘anti-discrimination,’ do not serve the truth,” the archbishop said, charging that such attempts “undermine the very nature of marriage and overlook the essential place of marriage and family life in society.”

“The state has a responsibility to protect and promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman as well as to protect and promote the intrinsic dignity of every human person, including homosexual persons,” he added, saying that “sacrificing marriage” does not promote that dignity.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16139

Father Walter Schu, LC

John 21:15-19
After Jesus had revealed himself to his disciples and eaten breakfast with them, he said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe in you and all that you have revealed for our salvation. I hope in you because of your overflowing mercy. Every single act of yours on this earth demonstrated your love for us. Your ascent into heaven before the eyes of the Apostles inspires my hope of one day joining you there. I love you and wish you to be the center of my life.

Petition: Lord, help me to respond with love to your self-giving love.

1. “Do You Love Me?” The moment that Christ has been preparing ever since his Resurrection has arrived. He is alone with Peter. Their last encounter before Jesus’ death was that sad occasion when Christ looked at Peter, forgiving him after his threefold denial. Now Christ takes Peter a little apart from the others and gives him the opportunity to affirm a threefold pledge of his love. The one, supreme condition for Christ to renew Peter’s commission to tend his sheep is Peter’s love for his Master. Love is the one, supreme condition for each of us who aspires to be an apostle. Peter’s love has been purified by his betrayal of Christ during the Passion: It has been chastened and humbled. Now Peter entrusts everything — even his love — into Christ’s hands: “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Do my failures enable me to love Christ more, with greater trust?

2. “Can Love Be Commanded?” Pope Benedict XVI poses a provocative question in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love). How can Christ demand love from us in order for us to be his followers, his apostles? Pope Benedict clarifies, “Love cannot be commanded; it is ultimately a feeling that is either there or not, nor can it be produced by the will” (no. 16). The response to this apparent quandary is twofold. In the first place, love can be commanded because it has first been given. “God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has ‘loved us first,’ love can also blossom as a response within us” (no. 17). Secondly, “it is clearly revealed that love is not merely a sentiment. Sentiments come and go. A sentiment can be a marvelous first spark, but it is not the fullness of love” (no. 17).

3. “Love in Its Most Radical Form” What, then, is the essence of love, that love which Christ first gave to us and which he in turn demands of us as his followers? “It is characteristic of a mature love that it calls into play all man’s potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God’s love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the ‘yes’ of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all-embracing act of love” (Deus Caritas Est, no. 17). As Pope John Paul Great has phrased it so many times, true love is the gift of one’s entire self.

Conversation with Christ: Thank you, Lord, for helping me to see, through Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI, the meaning of authentic love. Thank you for your limitless love for me. Your love is the standard to which my own poor love must rise.

Resolution: I will give myself to Christ today in acts of love that embrace my whole person: intellect, will and sentiments.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302

….Helping students achieve this synthesis between religion and daily life, between academic excellence and moral excellence, between rendering to God the things that are God’s, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to the world what is truly at its service, is what should set Catholics educational institutions apart….

Fr. Roger J. Landry, The Anchor, Editorial, May 29, 2009

Ever since Jesus’ brief valedictory address when he said, “Go … and teach all nations” (Mt 28:18), education has always been among the Church’s highest priorities and greatest glories. Christian monks painstakingly preserved the learning of antiquity from barbarian destruction and neglect. Cathedral choir schools developed into the first universities. Religious orders were the first systematically to try to educate boys whose families were incapable of affording tutors and girls who previously had been culturally prevented from receiving an education.

But the Church’s system of education has always been distinguished in at least two ways from the secular models that eventually developed in imitation and competition with it.

First, the Church’s educational system took place in the context of the overall teaching mission of the Church. “Only one is your teacher,” Christ once said (Mt 23:8), and in all subjects Catholic education tried to help people seek the truth knowing that all truth comes from that one Teacher.

 Second, the Church’s educational system sought not just to train the mind but to form the entire person to come fully alive in the image and likeness of God in which the person was formed.

In those times and places where Catholic education has lost its way, it has generally not been through the weakening its intellectual standards, but rather through isolating the pursuit of academic excellence from its connection to the fullness of truth taught by Christ through the Church or from its mission to form the whole person in accordance with the truth.

During his visit to the United States last year, Pope Benedict suggested to Catholic educators that some of our country’s Catholic institutions, which have “sought diligently to engage the intellect of our young, perhaps … have neglected the will.” Young people have the need to be trained to use their free will to seek, find, love and live by the fullness of truth. “The exercise of freedom in pursuit of the truth is very much a part of integral education,” the Pope said. “If a Catholic College or University does not help in this way, should we not say that it has failed in one of its important roles?”

The importance of the integral education of students in Catholic educational institutions was the subject of a very candid May 10 commencement address by Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Nigerian Prefect Emeritus of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, at Thomas More College in Merrimack, NH. His words took on added significance in the wake of the symbolism of the University of Notre Dame’s actions in doubly exalting before graduating seniors a president who believes that free will may be legitimately exercised to take the life of unborn human beings.

“A serious and authentic Catholic College or University,” Cardinal Arinze stressed, “has to strive to provide its students rigorous education on relations between faith and reason, on specialization and orientation, and on science and ethics. Students need a realistic and dynamic philosophy of life that shows them how to make a synthesis between religion and daily life. There will thus result an acceptable integral development of the human person and the Catholic College or University will have succeeded in forming and turning out model Christians who are good citizens.”

Helping students achieve this synthesis between religion and daily life, between academic excellence and moral excellence, between rendering to God the things that are God’s, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to the world what is truly at its service, is what should set Catholics educational institutions apart.

Catholic institutions are called to remember that “before being a neurosurgeon or a legal luminary, a person is first of all brother, sister, spouse, parent, citizen or colleague. A basic orientation of the human being to human love and life, to family, to citizenship, to work, to solidarity and interdependence, and indeed to life on earth in general, is necessary. It is not optional.”

In some places, though, this integral formation is done poorly, mainly because of a failure on the part of institutions adequately to form students to make a coherent synthesis between learning and life. Citing the strong teaching of the Second Vatican Council’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” Cardinal Arinze described one of the causes and most important consequences of such a failure: “The split between the faith that many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age… Therefore, let there be no false opposition between professional and social activities on the one part, and religious life on the other. The Christian who neglects his temporal duties neglects his duties towards his neighbor and even God, and jeopardizes his eternal salvation.”

Cardinal Arinze illustrated the Council Fathers’ point about integral unity between faith and daily life by referencing a memorable Irish jingle. “Paddy Smyth always went to Mass; he never missed a Sunday. But Paddy Smyth went to hell, for what he did on Monday.” The Cardinal commented, “For Paddy Smyth, religion was an affair of one hour in church on Sunday. But on Monday where he was in parliament or Congress, or in the trade union meeting, or in the medical unit, he did not allow his religion to influence his action. He had not learned to make a vital synthesis between religion and life.”

He then brought home the duty Catholic colleges and universities have toward their students to not form future Paddy Smyths. “In the complicated world of today, where all kinds of ideas are struggling for the right of citizenship, a university student needs a clear and viable orientation on the relationship between religion and life. The Catholic College or University is ideally positioned to help him see the light and equip himself for a significant contribution in society. Too often people equate education with certificates, or with what can be tested in written or oral examinations. No doubt, we absolutely need intellectual development. But what does it profit us if a student is an intellectual giant but a moral baby? If he or she knows the year of the Battle of Waterloo and the amount of rainfall in Brazil, if he or she can shoot out mathematical or historical facts like a computer, but is unfortunately a problem for the parents, corrosive acid among companions in the College, a drug addict and sexual pervert, a disgrace to the school, a waste-pipe in the place of work and Case number 23 for the Criminal Police? It is clear that intellectual development is not enough.”

A Catholic college or university has the “vocation,” Cardinal Arinze said, to “be educating, forming and releasing into society model citizens who will be a credit to their families, their College, the Church and the State. It will prepare for us members of Congress or the Senate who will not say ‘I am a Catholic, but…’; but rather those who will say, ‘I am a Catholic, and therefore…’ They will be coherent both as Catholics and as citizens. Their religion will not be just a matter of an hour or two on Sunday, but will also provide a vital synthesis for their activities on Monday through Saturday, and from January to December.”

Integral Catholic education is meant to form coherent Catholics, those who do not compartmentalize their faith, but are equipped to be the salt, light and leaven needed to transform culture to be compatible with the integral good of man. Integral Catholic education is supposed to form not just the brain to know the truth but the heart to desire and choose the good. It is meant to form people to pass the final exam of life summa cum laude.http://www.catholicpreaching.com/index.php?content=articles&articles=20090529anchor

By Sam Youngman, The Hill, 05/27/09

LOS ANGELES — Even as he conceded there is still much hard work to do, President Obama was in a boastful mood Wednesday night, telling a star-studded crowd at a fundraising dinner that he “would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR.”…..But Obama said in promising to continue to work hard, “Los Angeles, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-in-l.a.-confident-but-not-yet-content-2009-05-27.html

EDITOR’S NOTE:  There is no mention on how this expanse of programs will be paid for. 

SOURCE:  ACORN  http://acorn.org/index.php?id=2741&L=

Health care must be:

• Affordable.
• Accessible.
• Of equal quality for all.
• Controlled by the people of the community, not by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies.

To achieve this:

I. Introduce a set of immediate reforms in the present health care system.

A. At hospitals:

a.Prohibit hospitals from turning away any patient who needs medical care.

b. Give low- and moderate-income members of the community a proportional share of seats on the governing boards of all hospitals.

c. Force hospitals to concentrate on providing basic quality care instead of wasting huge sums on showcase buildings and technological gadgets.

d. Enforce federal legislation that requires uniform minimum standards of operation for nursing homes.

B. In the medical professions:

a. Require doctors – whose education is subsidized by the federal government – to work for three years in an area where there is a shortage of personnel.

b. Prosecute local chapters of the American Medical Association if they continue to fix prices for doctors’ services.

c. Permit doctors and dentists to advertise prices and require price posting.

d. Prohibit doctors and dentists from refusing Medicaid and Medicare patients, and from billing more than Medicaid and Medicare recommended prices for the services they provide.

e. Place members of the community on all medical licensing boards.

C. At the health insurance companies:

a. Throw doctors and hospital administrators off the boards of directors, and replace them with a low- and moderate-income majority.

b. Require insurance companies to control hospital costs and medical fees rather than passing them on to their customers.

c. Prohibit discrimination by health insurance companies on the basis of race, sex, geography, income, age, or health status.

d. Provide all women with the services of midwives without the constraints and restrictions of the medical profession. Require all third party reimbursement to provide direct payment to certified nurse midwives.

D. In the government:

1. Reform Medicaid and Medicare by:

a. Raising income and assets limits for eligibility and removing the spend- down requirement.

b. Financing in-home care for the elderly as an alternative to nursing home care.

c. Including dental care and other preventative treatment in all Medicaid and Medicare plans.

d. Allowing Medicare and Medicaid recipients unlimited nursing home care.

e. Providing direct competitive payments to non-physician health care providers.

2. Charge state governments with setting maximum prices for basic hospital and medical services.

3. Require proportional representation of low- and moderate-income people on all health planning boards.

4. Require generic substitution options and price postings of subscription drugs.

5. Require the federal government to provide for the health care needs of recent immigrants.

II. Create a national health care system, along the following lines:

A. All medical costs are covered, by a combination of insurance, health maintenance organizations, free public health service. and sliding scale payments based on income.

B. The system is progressively financed.

C. The system is controlled by democratically elected community-based committees.

D. There is a 24-hour, 7 day-a-week medical care / emergency room available in every neighborhood, based in neighborhood clinics. The clinics provide all types of basic care, including ob/gyn, pediatrics, and preventative care, as well as the following types of services.

1. House calls.

2. 24 Hour telephone service.

3. Ambulance service.

4. A mini-bus to bring neighborhood residents to the clinic.

5. Mobile paramedics.

E. Doctors are on set salaries.

F. Medical education is financed by the government, in exchange for which doctors are required to serve in the public health service for a period of at least ten years.

G. Special emphasis is placed on preventive health care with free universal care and more adequate research on the most important facets of preventive medicine, including dental care, chiropractic, nutrition, prenatal care and vaccination.

H. Special emphasis is placed on maintaining a healthy environment, with the public health service responsible for strict enforcement of standards on: environmental quality, occupational health and safety, sanitation, foods, and drugs.

http://acorn.org/index.php?id=2741&L=

SOURCE: ACORN

We stand for a People’s Platform, as old as our country, and as young as our dreams. We come before our nation, not to petition with hat in hand, but to rise as one people and demand.

We have waited and watched. We have hoped and helped. We have sweated and suffered. We have often believed. We have frequently followed.

But we have nothing to show for the work of our hand, the tax of our labor. Our patience has been abused; our experience misused. Our silence has been seen as support. Our struggle has been ignored.

Enough is enough. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America’s door. We will not be meek, but mighty. We will not starve on past promises, but feast on future dreams.

We are an uncommon people. We are the majority, forged from all minorities. We are the masses of many, not the forces of few. We will continue our fight until the American way is just one way, until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom.

This is not a simple vision, but a detailed plan.

Our plan is to build an American reality from the American rhetoric, to deliver a piece of the present and the fruits of the future to every man, to every woman, to every family.

We demand our birthright: the chance to be rich, the right to be free.

Our riches shall be the blooming of our communities, the bounty of a sure livelihood, the beauty of homes for our families with sickness driven from the door, the benefit of our taxes rather than their burden, and the best of our energy, land, and natural resources for all people.

Our freedom is the force of democracy, not the farce of federal fat and personal profit. In our freedom, only the people shall rule. Corporations shall have their role; producing jobs, providing products, paying taxes. No more, no less. They shall obey our wishes, respond to our needs, serve our communities. Our country shall be the citizens’ wealth and our wealth shall build our country.

Government shall have its role: public servant to our good, fast follower to our sure steps. No more, no less. Our government shall shout with the public voice and no longer to a private whisper. In our government, the common concerns shall be the collective cause.

We represent a people’s platform, not a politician’s promise.

We demand the changes outlined in our platform and plan. We will work to win. We will have our birthright. We will live in richness and freedom. We will live in one country as one people.

http://acorn.org/index.php?id=2743&L=

SOURCE: ACORN.ORG–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now  

The Reagan Era (1980-1985)

This period witnessed dramatic changes in American politics and social life. ACORN also had its own concerns, especially the consolidation of its growth of the previous five years. For ACORN, this period would be one of adaptation, survival, internal consolidation and, surprisingly, growth.

By the end of the 20/80 Campaign, ACORN’s staff was stretched thin by the demands of meeting the goal of expanding to twenty states by 1980. Much of its resources and energy had been dedicated to participating in the presidential primaries and national conventions of the Republican and Democratic Parties.  ACORN now had to return to the work it had done to organize and cope with the changes occurring in American life with the election of Ronald Reagan.

The 80′s proved to be a time when the political elite in America was less concerned with the needs of low- and moderate-income people than ever. The goal of the Reagan Administration was to redistribute wealth upward, away from those with little and toward those with lots. It emphasized “looking out for Number One” and ignored the concerns of the needy or the long-term general welfare of the American people. The immediate impact of Reagan’s presidency was a severe recession with increased unemployment, a rapid increase in the cost of necessities and serious economic hardship for the lower end of the income scale.

Reagan also set about changing the shape of American politics by taking important responsibilities away from national control and placing them at state and local levels. Tax cuts, vastly increased defense spending and dramatic cuts in social spending saddled state and local governments with severe social problems. Meanwhile the federal government piled up unheard-of budget deficits.

ACORN was not about to fold up its tents and go home in the face of such an assault. Rather, it was uniquely prepared and positioned to deal with it.It had the hearts and ears of low- and moderate-income people in twenty states, understood the problems of grassroots political activism, and had solid roots at the local level.

Turning adversity into opportunity, ACORN launched a campaign to obtain affordable housing. Long before it became fashionable to be concerned about the homeless, ACORN was fighting for homes for low- and moderate-income people. Noting that economic upheaval had forced many people to default on mortgages, ACORN sought to place needy people in the resulting vacant homes. This required the forceful and illegal (though logical and moral) seizing of the properties – squatting.

The squatting campaigns involved personal, community and political dimensions. The personal needs of people without homes attracted many to advertisements ACORN placed in papers asking “Do you need a home?” The squatting campaign required a personal commitment to move into a vacant, usually poorly kept house and refit it for comfortable living. It also involved the risk of arrest if local authorities refused them the legal occupation of the home. Nevertheless, the response was great.

The community response was strong as well. Vacant houses meant opportunities for rape, drug-dealing and arson. Residents of communities in which houses stood vacant wanted responsible neighbors to inhabit and maintain the homes. Before squatting sites were approved, neighborhood approval was obtained. Moreover, neighbors frequently participated in the entry and refitting of the houses.

Squatting did not occur under cover of darkness. It was well publicized. This was a part of the political dimension of squatting. First, local officials had to agree not to evict or prosecute squatters. Second, ACORN attempted to legalize the act. Then, local officials were asked to subsidize the costs of squatting in an effort to improve the quality of life of the squatters and their neighbors. Through these campaigns ACORN gained national exposure on housing issues and cemented its reputation as the leading authority on low-income community development.

Squatting was not ACORN’s only response to the Reagan assault on low- and moderate-income Americans. Fifteen thousand ACORN members and their allies established “Reagan Ranches” in over 35 cities to protest Reagan policies of massive military spending and meager social spending. Tent cities symbolizing the homelessness Reagan’s policies created sprang up in city after city, including Washington, DC., in June of 1982 in the shadow of the White House. The national action, lasting two days, met serious resistance from the National Parks Service who tried time and again to run ACORN tenters off the grounds. Despite harassment and intimidation, ACORN protesters held their ground, marched on the White House and testified before a Congressional committee about the housing crisis in America. The Republican Convention in Dallas in 1984 was the culminating Reagan Ranch. This protest and voter registration drive, despite extremely hot weather, involved 15,000 Dallas voters.

http://acorn.org/index.php?id=2752&L=0%3Fid%3D8144%22%20onfocus%3D%22blurLink%28this%29%3B

TO READ MORE ON ACORN History Click on Headings Below.

  > Roots of a Social Justice Movement (1970-75)
> Early Growth
> Electoral Campaigns
> The Growth of the Movement (1975-1980)
> ACORN 80 Results
> The Reagan Era (1980-1985)
> Organization Building
> Maturity and the Future (1985-90)
> Sharing the Dream
> Lessons Learned and Applied
> Opportunities and Threats (1990-95)
> Insider Opportunities
> New Threats
> New Victories, 1995 – 2002