Rhode Island Governor Calls Kennedy’s Remarks “Outrageous”
Published November 30, 2009 | 
Catholic News Agency (EWTN), November 25, 2009
Waren, N.H. - On a local radio show Wednesday morning, Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri commented on the recent publicity of Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, saying that Kennedy made “outrageous statements about the Catholic church.”
Rep. Kennedy was confronted by Bishop Tobin for his attacks on the Catholic bishops’ opposition to abortion funding in health care legislation. Kennedy then revealed that Bishop Tobin had asked him to refrain from receiving communion because of his public, pro-choice stance.
In addition to calling Rep. Kennedy’s remarks “outrageous,” Gov. Carcieri, a Republican, told WPRO-AM that they were also uncalled for.
According to his government website, Gov. Carcieri is a self-professed “family man” with four children and 14 grandchildren. A Catholic, Gov. Carcieri was elected as Rhode Island’s 57th governor in January of 2003.
QUOTES FROM RUSH
Published November 30, 2009 | - Rush
- Rush
- Rush
Yes. Of course. Everything is the fault of talk radio.
7 Stories Obama Doesn’t Want Told
Published November 30, 2009 | By John F. Harris, Politico, November 30, 2009
Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.
No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.
A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.
The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.
But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.
Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:
He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.
Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.
The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer – the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia – coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.
Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge-since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.
Too much Leonard Nimoy
People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”
The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions – he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.
Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.
Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.
The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.
That’s the Chicago Way
This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.
It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”
The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode.
The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal – to the distaste of many congressional Democrats – that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans.
The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.
He’s a pushover
If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.
It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines – then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News – which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization – then got interview time for its White House correspondent.
In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.
He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe
That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist.
Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country – because of its power and/or the hand of Providence – should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.
On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.
His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.
On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.
President Pelosi
No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.
The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude – as some already have – that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense.
This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.
But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal – and far from a subordinate – than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.
He’s in love with the man in the mirror
No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?
It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.
White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media.
But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.
That is why the next couple of months – with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage – will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4486A8EE-18FE-70B2-A8143B2A4DFA6780
Climategate: Let the Investigation Begin
Published November 30, 2009 | 
But investigative forces are gathering that clearly indicate the issue will not go away. And if we have to depend on Fox News, Talk Radio, and the Internet to get the facts out, so be it. It may take time, but information will circulate by word of mouth until at some point, the kept-media’s stubborn refusal to report the story will make them look stupid.The Mr. Magoo metaphor again would be relevant. Except Mr. Magoo in fact is stupid. The man can’t help himself. Those imperial deciders of what the public does and does not have a right to know who withhold vitally-important information are fully complicit in a cover-up. They know what’s going on, they just don’t want to let us in on it, or they play it down and blur its significance.
The investigations begin
On Capitol Hill, Senator James Inhofe has taken steps toward a full-fledged investigation. The Oklahoma Republican has fired off letters to several scientists who were caught up in the revelation of manipulated data — supposedly to prove a “consensus” — notifying them to retain documents related to the release of the damning emails.
The senator, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, says lawmakers “have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.” A spokesman for Mr. Inhofe affirmed that he “will be working closely with Senator [and committee Chairman Barbara Boxer] on an investigation.” (This column did an interview with the Oklahoma lawmaker about his planned trip to the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference as part of a “truth squad.” More on that below.)
And this
Senator Inhofe is not alone is pursuing an investigation of what has all the earmarks of yet one more betrayal of the public trust.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute took legal action during Thanksgiving week against several government agencies to force public disclosure of the relevant documents in the case.
CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner (author of Red Hot Lies) says he is after information that would reveal “document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and the U.K. to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, [as well as] apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of information climate science bodies” that has been going on “for years.”
As in Watergate, a Climategate cover-up
As you and I were sitting down to our turkey dinners last week, stories in the un-kept media (Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Fox News, this website, and precious few exceptions in the main media) were reporting that someone (details of this writing are not clear) apparently had hacked into the e-mails of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in England, whose temperature models (according to its own claims) form the basis for the climate proclamations from the high priests of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Smoking guns abound
Phil Jones — head of the CRU — says he “accidentally” deleted some raw temperature data that was used to define aggregate temperatures in the temperature information CRU distributed. If people in those responsible positions only made “mistakes,” why don’t they occasionally make one in our favor?
Further, in one e-mail, it is admitted that the methodology for determining aggregate temperatures “renders the station counts totally meaningless.” Continue reading
‘The Blind Side’ Should Trouble As Well As Inspire
Published November 30, 2009 | 
Star Parker, TownHall.com, November 30, 2009
But I hope that the many who see it do not simply walk out all aglow. It should also produce concern.
This story about hopelessness transformed into achievement should be a typically American story. We should be concerned that, increasingly, this is not the case. That this is the exception that should be the rule.
Michael Oher’s story has already received much attention. How a homeless black 15-year-old winds up in a Christian private school and how a white Christian couple adopted him and helped him develop to get the grades to stay in school, become a star athlete, an All-American football player and a multimillion-dollar NFL draft pick.
Our wake-up call should be that the factors that saved and transformed Michael Oher’s life stand in stark contrast to the government solutions we hear from Washington about dealing with our problems relating to poverty and education.
Oher’s story is about private individuals, about personal choices and responsibility, and about Christians.
And it’s not just about white Christians. The decision that started the chain of events that changed Oher’s life came from a black Christian woman.
Oher, fatherless, with a drug-addicted mother, bounced from one foster home to another, and then moved from one private home to another, sleeping on friends’ floors in a Memphis, Tenn., ghetto. While Oher was sleeping on the floor at “Big Tony” Henderson’s place, Henderson’s mother died. Her dying wish was to get her grandson, Steven, out of the public school where he was enrolled and into a “Christian school.”
The film opens with Tony making his pitch at the Briarcrest Christian School (called Wingate in the film) in Memphis to enroll his son. And, to also admit his son’s friend “Big Mike.”
Steven’s acceptance wasn’t problematic, because he had good grades. But Oher, with a 0.6 GPA, demanded all the Christian grace the admission team could muster. It came through.
Michael Lewis’ book, on which the film is based, discusses Oher’s public-school experience before Briarcrest, which the film skips over.
He’d been in 11 different schools. The public schools were pushing him through to get rid of him, not to educate him.
His records showed that in ninth grade he missed 50 days of school, yet he was passed.
The film also ignores the IQ issue, which in the book is an eye opener.
Shortly after his enrollment at Briarcrest, Oher, struggling to make it, met Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, a self-made couple of means. They took him in and soon adopted him.
By his senior year, making a final push to get his grade-point average to meet NCAA standards for college admission, they took him to psychologists for intelligence testing.
They found, incredibly, that in his few years at Briarcrest, his IQ increased almost 30 points. When he was admitted, his IQ measured 80. Now tests showed him as between 100 and 110. This, according to Lewis, “wasn’t supposed to happen. IQ was meant to be a given, like the size of one’s feet.” The psychologists were dumfounded.
Michael Oher achieved this. But he couldn’t have done it without a Christian school and his caring Christian adopted parents who loved him and respected his uniqueness.
President Barack Obama’s $4.5 billion in new education spending will not fix our education crisis. Government and moral relativism never has been the answer and will not be.
School choice and traditional values are the answers. It’s freedom, not bureaucrats, that produces miracles. Michael Oher may be an exceptional individual, but his story need not be an exceptional story.
Glenn Beck Skewers Scientists Involved In ClimateGate
Published November 30, 2009 | Fox News’s Glenn Beck took on the global warming e-mail scandal known as ClimateGate Monday, and really laid into all the high-profile scientists involved.
By Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters, November 23, 2009
As NewsBusters reported Friday, hacked e-mail messages to and from folks with direct access to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show a concerted effort on the part of these powerful scientists to manipulate temperature data in order to exaggerate average global temperatures.
As Beck pointed out Monday, those involved also conspired to prevent viewpoints counter to their own from getting published in scientific journals or becoming part of IPCC reports.
“Think about that next time you hear about, oh, ‘the consensus,’ and ‘the science is settled,’ and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals” (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Anthony Watts via Bob Ferguson):
GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn’t too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let’s start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it. Continue reading
Rep. Gohmert: ‘We Don’t Have Forensic Wagons To Gather Evidence on the Battlefield’ for Civil Court Trials of Terrorists
Published November 30, 2009 | ….Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told CNSNews.com that U.S. troops do not have “forensic wagons to pull up on the battlefield when we’ve got people in harm’s way” to collect evidence as is done for civil court cases . . . “They’re [The Obama administration] putting a desire to look good in foreign countries ahead of the oath we take to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic and it comes back to the pink slip issue,”….
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter, CNSNews, Monday, November 30, 2009
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind, shown shortly after his capture in Pakistan in this March 1, 2003 photo. He and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court. (AP File Photo)
CNSNews.com – Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who opposes the Obama administration’s decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, told CNSNews.com that U.S. troops do not have “forensic wagons to pull up on the battlefield when we’ve got people in harm’s way” to collect evidence as is done for civil court cases.
“[T]o require the same types of standards of a civilian court to be applied to a war setting where our guys, our men and women are in harms way, is to require our military to lose their lives to gather evidence like DNA, finger prints,” said Gohmert at a Nov. 17 press conference. “We don’t have forensic wagons to pull up on the battlefield when we’ve got people in harm’s way.”
At the press conference, held to discuss Republican criticism of big government, CNSNews.com asked the following question: “You mentioned the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism and national security issues. The Obama administration has announced it will try the alleged mastermind behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in a military commission. Do you believe he can get a constitutionally legitimate and fair trial in a military commission?”
In response, Rep. Gohmert said: “To say that these guys cannot get a fair trial is to say that anyone who is tried in a military court does not get a fair trial and that is simply not true. When I was at Fort Benning for four years, there were acquittals there.”
“There’s a different standard for a reason,” he said. “And this administration and those in Congress who would encourage this have so little regard for the people in New York City that they would bring terrorists to the most densely populated areas in this country, and it is outrageous.”
Gohmert, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former Texas appeals court judge, said the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court derives from the Obama administration’s “desire to look good” in foreign countries.
“They’re [The Obama administration] putting a desire to look good in foreign countries ahead of the oath we take to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic and it comes back to the pink slip issue,” he said.
“[W]e have some people who are in Washington, both in the executive and legislative branch who have deaf ears to what Americans are saying,” said Gohmert. “We want you, they say, to be more concerned about your oath to follow the Constitution and to protect us than to go feel good in front of some liberal at some foreign cocktail party. The obligation is here in America and that’s why people are fed up with it.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57709
FOUNDER’S QUOTE DAILY
Published November 30, 2009 | 
“It will not be doubted, that with reference either to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance. In proportion as Nations advance in population, and other circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent; and renders the cultivation of the Soil more and more, an object of public patronage.”
–George Washington, Eighth Annual Message to Congress, 1796
‘Reign Day’ to Commemorate Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Louisiana
Published November 30, 2009 | 
“The entire day focuses on family, faith, and fun in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe,” said Donna Fox, Fundraising Chairperson for the Sacred Heart Apostolate, who is also chairperson for the event.
“Our Lady of Guadalupe is the only depiction of Mary pregnant with the infant Jesus. This is why we have decided to have proceeds also go to helping the DesOrmeaux Foundation Maternity Home in Lafayette, which helps pregnant mothers in their time of need,” she added.
According to a press release, the day of celebration will begin with Mass celebrated by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., President and Founder of Ignatius Productions and EWTN television and radio host as well as a procession in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Featured “Reign Day” attractions include face painting, a fun jump, a show by Catholic entertainer Rob Evans “the Donut Man,’ and a rock concert in the afternoon for teens, featuring the popular Louisiana band “L’Angelus” as well as the Christian band “Ayleron.”
“The family fun event is really all about celebrating and sharing Christ with the families.” Fox explained. “We are trying to keep Christ in Christmas during this busy season.”
More information can be found at www.sacredheartapostolate.com
Gospel – Mt 4:18-22
Published November 30, 2009 |
18. And Jesus, walking near the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen).
19. And he said to them: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
20. And at once, leaving behind their nets, they followed him.
21. And continuing on from there, he saw another two brothers, James of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a ship with their father Zebedee, repairing their nets. And he called them.
22. And immediately, leaving their nets and their father behind, they followed him.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/reading.php?n=5485
ST. ANDREW, APOSTLE
Published November 30, 2009 | 
Saint Andrew was a fisherman from Bethsaida and the brother of Simon Peter. Andrew, Peter, and John the Evangelist were the first of the disciples of Christ. While a disciple of John the Baptist, Andrew, who was still a young man at the time, showed his ardent desire to give himself to a radical search for and service of the truth.
He demonstrated his willingness to leave all and follow God the day after the Baptism of Jesus: “John was there again with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’ The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.” (Jn. 1:35-37)
Andrew also showed his love for his brother as well as his apostolic zeal when, convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, he sought out his brother: “Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah.” Then he brought him to Jesus.” (Jn. 1:40-42)
Saint Andrew is said to have spread the Gospel in Russia and Asia Minor after Pentecost. He was crucified by the Romans in Greece on an X-shaped cross which is now his distinctive symbol as well as the symbol of Scotland, of which he is the patron.
Some of his remains were brought to Scotland in the fourth century though parts of his skeleton lie in the crypt of the cathedral in Amalfi, Italy, where they are removed twice a year and produce a clear, water-like substance called “manna” which is said to have miraculous attributes.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=403
Veni Veni Emmanuel
Published November 29, 2009 | 
L’Accorche-Choeur, Ensemble vocal Fribourg
Veni, Veni Emmanuel is a synthesis of the great “O Antiphons” that are used for Vespers during the octave before Christmas (Dec. 17-23). These antiphons are of ancient origin and date back to at least the ninth century.
To Begin Again: Why we Need Advent
Published November 29, 2009 | ….In a culture where the influences of Christian traditions are waning many are again asking ‘Why do Christians celebrate Advent?’….
This Sunday the Season of Advent begins! Millions of the faithful throughout the world, will bring the advent candles out of storage and set it them in a prominent place.The formal celebration of Advent dates back to the fourth century but the practice of preparing for the coming of the Lord by living as though he is always coming goes back to the very beginnings of the Church.
Now, the Catholic Church, good mother that she is, focuses the faithful on a beautiful liturgical season which calls us to live in anticipation of a new beginning, a new coming of the Lord. That season of joyful preparation – when we will be constantly invited through our liturgical readings and practices, to clear away all that entangles us and open a space in our hearts, our homes, our relationships and our lives – is called Advent.
The focus in the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours, the official prayer of the Church, during this Advent season will be on preparing for the coming(s) of the Lord. One of my favorite readings is taken from an Advent homily given by St. Bernard of Clairveaux. His insight unveils the special truth of this wonderful season of beginning again. He reminds us of all the Lord’s comings. He then situates us where we live our daily lives, on the road of continual conversion, the heart of the Christian vocation:
“We know that there are three comings of the Lord. The third lies between the other two. It is invisible while the other two are visible. In the first coming He was seen on earth, dwelling among men; … in the final coming “all flesh will see the salvation of our God and they will look upon Him whom they have pierced”. The intermediate coming is a hidden one; in it only the elect see the Lord within their own selves, and they are saved. In His first coming our Lord came in our flesh and our weakness; in this middle coming He comes in Spirit and in power; in the final coming he will be seen in glory and in majesty. Because this coming lies between the other two, it is like a road on which we travel from the first coming to the last.” (St. Bernard of Clairveaux)
This Sunday the Season of Advent begins! Millions of the faithful throughout the world, will bring the advent candles out of storage and set it them in a prominent place. Over these weeks preceding Christmas, families, religious communities and all of the faithful will gather, pray and sing together- inviting the coming of the Lord into our lives, our homes, our Churches – and into the world which God still loves so much that He sends His Son, through all who have been Baptized into the Body of Christ. We live in a new missionary age. In a culture where the influences of Christian traditions are waning many are again asking, ‘why do Christians celebrate Advent?’
The word “Advent” is derived from the Latin words, ad-venio or adventus, which both signify a coming. It is a liturgical season in the Catholic Church that has birthed customs and practices in daily Catholic life meant to be filled with living faith. These customs form a framework, a pattern that moves us forward in the process of continual conversion that is meant to be what the Christian life is all about. We are always invited to begin again. That is the heart of the message which Christians can bring to an age often staggering in the existential sadness which is one of the horrid after effects of the dictatorship of relativism. The Advent candles we will light symbolize Jesus Christ, the True Light which can dispel the dreariness of an age which has all but lost real hope. The message we are to proclaim during this wonderful season is that Lord is always coming for those who look for Him!
The formal celebration of Advent dates back to the fourth century but the practice of preparing for the coming of the Lord by living as though he is always coming goes back to the very beginnings of the Church. Through the history of the Western Church the season of Advent has become a significant part of the pattern of life, faith, culture and worship that is Catholic Christianity. During the weeks which precede the Nativity of the Lord Jesus, (“Christ-Mass”), Christians (Catholics and others) will be invited by the Church to prepare, to “get ready”, to make a place for the Lord in our lives and in our homes, to anticipate His coming(s).
Beginning with the Sunday Vigil Mass, we will sing the ever-familiar hymn “O Come, O Come Emmanuel”. That song will become the backdrop of the season, sticking in our minds – both individually and collectively. I know the tune will be hummed incessantly and do what music does when it is repeated, get down deep into our subconscious. It may even become “annoying”- as music also can. However, even that annoyance, gets to the root of Catholic life and faith. It is, as they say in the Internet world, “granular” Christianity, filled with practices that root themselves experientially into your bones. Catholicism is “earthy”, “real”, “incarnational” Christianity for “earthy”, “real” believers who understand that the Incarnation of Jesus Christ has changed everything and everyone. . Continue reading
For the Vatican it’s Clear – Pro-Abortion Politicians ‘Must’ be Denied Communion
Published November 29, 2009 | ….Cardinal Antonio Canizares stated: “The strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, ‘he eats his own condemnation.’ This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement.”….
By John-Henry Westen, November 27, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com
With the Patrick Kennedy Communion flap and the recent action of the Bishops of Spain having opened up the issue of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, it is worthwhile to review the position of the Vatican on the matter.
Since the controversy came to a head in 2004, the stance from the Vatican on the matter has been clear and consistent. For the Pope and top Curial Cardinals in charge of the matter there is no question about the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who obstinately support abortion. In fact, the issue was closed as early as 2004 with a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
The then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith intervened into a debate among the US Bishops on the issue. Simply put, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter titled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion,” that a Catholic politician who would vote for “permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” after being duly instructed and warned, “must” be denied Communion.
Ratzinger’s letter explained that if such a politician “with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”
The letter even answered common objections such as how to deal with politicians that supported war or the death penalty in light of denial of Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
The man who is now Pope, explained: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Since then, Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed this position speaking as Pope. Answering a reporter on an in-flight press conference in 2007, Pope Benedict addressed a question on the Mexican bishops excommunicating politicians who support legalizing abortion. “Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” said the Pope.
In the comment, the Pope was referring to the Church’s Canon law 915, which states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
The highest authority on the subject in the Vatican, next to the Pope, is the head (or Prefect) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Canizares. The head of that Congregation, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI a year ago, quoted the Ratzinger document on the question in a LifeSiteNews interview earlier this year.
In addition, Cardinal Antonio Canizares stated: “The strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, ‘he eats his own condemnation.’ This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement.”
This line is not only coming from Pope Benedict and his appointees, however. The Cardinal who preceded Cardinal Canizares in heading the Congregation was Nigerian-born Cardinal Francis Arinze.
Already in 2004, Cardinal Arinze said a pro-abortion politician “is not fit” to receive Communion. “If they should not receive, then they should not be given,” he added. Cardinal Arinze was asked the question so frequently he began to joke about the matter. One such question and answer session even made it to youtube.
Arinze is seen on the video as saying that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, “Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that? Get the children for first Communion and say to them, ‘Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.’ And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, ‘I’m a practicing Catholic’, should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don’t need a cardinal to answer that.”
Former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke who has been appointed to head up the highest court in the Vatican remarked on the need for bishops to uphold this canon since without doing so they undermine belief in the truth of the evil of abortion.
“No matter how often a bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow,” wrote Burke. “To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112709.html
Over 150,000 Sign “Manhattan Declaration” in Less than a Week
Published November 29, 2009 | By John Jalsevac, November 26, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com
The unprecedented pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-religious freedom Manhattan Declaration, unveiled in a press conference last Friday, has already been signed by over 150,000 individuals in less than a week, and the numbers are continuing to rise by the second.
The 4,700-word “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience” was drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson. At the time of its release last week it was signed by more than 125 prominent religious figures, including figures from Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian denominations. That number has now risen to over 170, including 18 Roman Catholic bishops, in addition to the 150,000 ordinary Christians.
Colson says he hopes that the document will eventually be signed by more than 1,000,000 individuals, which, given its current momentum, hardly seems out of the question.
The Declaration is a non-denominational statement that throws down the gauntlet to a secular culture that is increasingly encroaching upon the rights of Christians who hold to traditional moral values, especially on the issues of marriage and the right to life. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers,” says the document, “that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”
The document goes on to challenge the growing movement to silence Christians by force of the law in the strongest terms, going so far as to intimate civil disobedience. “Unjust laws degrade human beings,” says the document. “They lack any power to bind in conscience. [Martin Luther] King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.” Continue reading
Obama Makes History: Thanksgiving Proclamation First Ever to Omit Direct Mention of God
Published November 29, 2009 | By Kathleen Gilbert, November 27, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Obama’s brief proclamation of Thanksgiving Day on November 26 was unique among all recorded Thanksgiving proclamations by his predecessors: it is the first one that fails to directly acknowledge the existence of God.
The beneficence shown by God to America is a theme that traditionally defines the Thanksgiving holiday, and this theme is strongly emphasized in the original Thanksgiving Day proclamations and consistently acknowledged even by modern presidents.
Obama’s unprecedented proclamation, however, only makes indirect mention of God by quoting George Washington, stating: “Today, we recall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed ‘by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.’”
The proclamation goes on to call Thanksgiving Day “a unique national tradition we all share” that unites people as “thankful for our common blessings.”
“This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our Nation throughout the year,” it continues.
All other presidential Thanksgiving proclamations directly refer to “God,” “Providence,” or another appellation for the divine being.
But Obama’s historic decision to avoid directly mentioning God in the Thanksgiving proclamation doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise. Earlier this year Obama similarly made history on Inaguration Day by explicitly referencing “non-believers” in his speech, which, according to USA Today, was the first time in history that a President had done so. Obama has also said on more than one occasion that the United States is “not a Christian nation.”
The second weakest reference to God in a Thanksgiving proclamation was issued in 1975 by Gerald Ford, who in his second year as President exhorted Americans to “reaffirm our belief in a dynamic spirit that will continue to nurture and guide us.” But in his first address, Ford characterized Thanksgiving as a time “all Americans join in giving thanks to God for the blessings we share.”
In 1969, President Richard Nixon’s address referred to the “Source of all good” who “constantly bestows His blessings on mankind.” In 1978, Jimmy Carter hailed the bounty provided by “Providence”; Ronald Reagan’s 1982 proclamation mentioned “a divine plan” that established America.
Even President Bill Clinton affirmed in his first such proclamation that, “From the beginnings of our Nation, we have sought to recognize the providence and mercy of God with words and acts of gratitude,” and called the spirit of Thanksgiving “acknowledging God’s graciousness.”
Throw the (Liberal) Bums Out! 11-24
Published November 29, 2009 | As long as liberals are left unchallenged in the Church, nothing will improve!
“WE ARE CHRISTIANS”! Unprecedented Coalition of Religious Leaders Call Americans To Stand for Sanctity of Life, Marriage, and Religious Freedom
Published November 29, 2009 | Catholic News Agency, Nov. 20, 2009
Washington D.C. (CNA) – An unprecedented coalition of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars has crafted a 4,700-word declaration addressing the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. The declaration issues “a clarion call” to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not “under any circumstance” abandon their Christian consciences. The statement, called “the Manhattan Declaration,” has been signed by more than 125 Catholic, Evangelical Christian, and Orthodox leaders, and will be made fully public at a noon press conference in the National Press Club in Washington DC on Friday.
“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” the statement says.
“We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral,” the signatories explain.
But they also made clear that “we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”
The Manhattan Declaration is the result of several months of dialogue among Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christian leaders culminating in a gathering of approximately 100 leaders in New York City on September 28, 2009.
Attendees considered an early draft of the “Manhattan Declaration, A Call of Christian Conscience,” but the document was entrusted to a drafting committee that included Dr. Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University, Dr. Robert P. George of Princeton University, and renowned Evangelical leader Charles Colson.
The signatories explained that they speak now because in order “to defend principles of justice and the common good that are now under assault.”
“We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”
The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration explain that although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, “pro-abortion ideology prevails in many places of power and influence.”
“Our government promotes and funds scientific research in which the lives of tiny human beings in the early embryonic states of development are treated as disposable research material.”
They also contend that “public policies contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce,” while “influential individuals and organizations are seeking to redefine marriage to embrace same-sex partnerships and to recognize multiple-party sexual unions that are beyond same-sex marriage.”
Signatories of the declaration include:
Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia;
Cardinal Adam Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit;
Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver;
Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York;
Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.;
John J. Myers, Archbishop of Newark;
John Nienstedt, Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis;
Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City;
Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville;
Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix;
Michael J. Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs;
Salvatore Joseph Cordileone, Bishop of Oakland;
Richard J. Malone, Bishop of Portland; and
David A. Zubik, Bishop of Pittsburgh.
Other signatories include:
Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America;
Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria;
Jody Bottum, Editor of First Things;
Chuck Colson, Founder of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview;
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List;
Dr. James Dobson, Founder of Focus on the Family;
Dr. William Donohue, President of the Catholic League;
Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan, Primate of the Anglican Church in North America;
Fr. Joseph D. Fessio, Founder and Editor of Ignatius Press;
Maggie Gallagher, President of Institute for Marriage and Public Policy;
Dr. Robert P. George;
Fr. Chad Hatfield, Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary;
Jerry Jenkins, Chairman of the board of trustees for Moody Bible Institute;
Jim Kushiner, Editor of Touchstone;
Dr. Richard Land, President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC;
Rev. William Owens, Chairman of the Coalition of African-American Pastors;
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council;
Michael Timmis, Chairman of Prison Fellowship International;
Juan Valdes, Chaplain of Florida Christian School and George Weigel, Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
The full document is available at www.manhattandeclaration.org
Cardinal Adam Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit;
Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver;
Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York;
Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.;
John J. Myers, Archbishop of Newark;
John Nienstedt, Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis;
Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City;
Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville;
Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix;
Michael J. Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs;
Salvatore Joseph Cordileone, Bishop of Oakland;
Richard J. Malone, Bishop of Portland; and
David A. Zubik, Bishop of Pittsburgh.
Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America;
Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria;
Jody Bottum, Editor of First Things;
Chuck Colson, Founder of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview;
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List;
Dr. James Dobson, Founder of Focus on the Family;
Dr. William Donohue, President of the Catholic League;
Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan, Primate of the Anglican Church in North America;
Fr. Joseph D. Fessio, Founder and Editor of Ignatius Press;
Maggie Gallagher, President of Institute for Marriage and Public Policy;
Dr. Robert P. George;
Fr. Chad Hatfield, Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary;
Jerry Jenkins, Chairman of the board of trustees for Moody Bible Institute;
Jim Kushiner, Editor of Touchstone;
Dr. Richard Land, President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC;
Rev. William Owens, Chairman of the Coalition of African-American Pastors;
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council;
Michael Timmis, Chairman of Prison Fellowship International;
Juan Valdes, Chaplain of Florida Christian School and George Weigel, Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
TODAY’S GOSPEL
Published November 29, 2009 | | Luke 21: 25 – 28, 34 – 36 |
|
| 25 | “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, |
| 26 | men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. |
| 27 | And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. |
| 28 | Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” |
| 34 | “But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; |
| 35 | for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. |
| 36 | But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.” |
Freedom Isn’t Free
Published November 25, 2009 | This single reminds us of the foundations upon which our country was founded and the sacrifices made by those that have enabled us to be One Nation Under God.
As the Battle Rages Over Life Pray for the Unborn That They May Live
Published November 25, 2009 | 
Baby at 5 months gestation
Almighty God, our Father, you who have given us life
and intended us to have it forever, grant us your blessings.
Enlighten our minds to an awareness and to a renewed conviction that all human life is sacred because it is created in your image and likeness.
Help us to teach by word and the example of our lives that
life occupies the first place, that human life is precious because it is the gift of God whose love is infinite.
Give us the
strength to defend human life against every influence or action that threatens or weakens it, as well as the strength to make every life more human
in all its aspects.
Give us the grace…When the sacredness of
life before birth is attacked, to stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life.
When a child is described as a burden or is looked upon only as a means to satisfy an emotional need, to stand up and insist that every child is a unique and unrepeatable gift of God, a gift of
God with a right to a loving and united family.
When the institution of marriage is abandoned to human selfishness or reduced to a temporary conditional arrangement that can easily be terminated, to stand up and affirm the indissolubility of the marriage bond.
When the value of the
family is threatened because of social and economic pressure, to stand up and reaffirm that the family is necessary not only for the private good of every person, but also for the common good of every society, nation and state.
When freedom is used to dominate the weak, to squander natural resources and energy, to deny basic necessities to people, to stand up and affirm the demands of
justice and social love.
Almighty Father, give us courage to proclaim the supreme dignity of all human
life and to demand that society itself give its protection.
We ask this in your name, through the redemptive act of your Son and in the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=1125
Prayer of Thanksgiving
Published November 25, 2009 | After prayers of petition, we must remember to pray in thanksgiving for all favors received.
O God, of Whose mercies there is no number,
and of Whose goodness the treasure is infinite;
we render thanks to Your most gracious majesty
for the gifts You have bestowed upon us,
evermore beseeching Your clemency,
that as You grant the petitions of them that ask You,
You will never forsake them, but will prepare for the reward to come.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.This prayer can be said in conjunction with the novena to St. Isidore.
Prayer Source: Novena in Honor of St. Isidore: Patron of Farmers by National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Catholic Rural Life Conference
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=835
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=835
The Bad Business of Planned Parenthood
Despite profits of $85 million in 2008, Planned Parenthood is facing serious financial difficulties. According to a recent Harvard Business School case study, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is structured as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with multiple affiliates, each of which is also a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The national entity lobbies on national policy, sets affiliation standards, and leases its “Planned Parenthood” brand to affiliates, each of which has its own independent board and management structure, and so enjoys independence in its day-to-day operations.
Internally, Planned Parenthood’s difficulties stem from the uneven strength of its affiliates, and President Cecile Richards is worried. According to the Harvard case, her organization faces “tough economic times, a hostile political environment, and limited ability to raise philanthropic dollars in a resource constrained area of the country.”
What does a “hostile political environment” entail? For one thing, past government funding of crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only sex education programs. No industry likes a product that can become a substitute for the one it sells. From this perspective, abstinence is a substitute for contraception, and adoption is a substitute for abortion. Unable to grasp that these are morally superior options to abortion, Planned Parenthood sees them only as threats to their established position. It’s not difficult to understand why: Young women seeking contraception account for 60 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total clientele, while abortion is provided to 10 percent of its female customers. Even allowing for overlap, that’s 60 to 70 percent of Planned Parenthood’s customer base.
Happily, in some regions, Planned Parenthood is failing badly at its goal of countering the “hostile political environment.” The Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates (FAPPA) laments that “while we worked hard this session to zero-fund the $2 million appropriation for so-called crisis pregnancy centers in Florida, we were not successful in its defunding.”
Difficulties such as these are driving down the number of Planned Parenthood affiliates, from 163 15 years ago to 91 in late 2009. And according to the Harvard case study, this consolidation is expected to continue with several of the remaining affiliates discussing mergers. Continue reading →