Thursday, October 30, 2008
From Students for Life of America.
Update: YouTube banned this video last Monday. This link is from Eyeblast.tv.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
"I could give you almost 50 million reasons why...50 million dead, unborn children," I replied with aplomb.
My acquaintance blinked. Then he said "Oh yeah...the abortion thing. Got ya." Then the discussion—there were other people involved—veered into other directions.
Clearly, my "aplomb" was not deserved. And just as clearly, my reply meant nothing, did nothing, influenced nobody.
And for perhaps the millionth time, I wondered:
Why are so many otherwise decent people so casually disinterested in the fact that human life, in certain stages (e.g., the unborn, the very old, the incurably ill) is evidently worthless, or, at least, of very little value?
This morning I remembered a "Bonanza" episode I saw a few months ago.
I was laid up with a broken foot and watched a lot of TV. My favorites were the old shows of yesteryear...like "Bonanza."
Anyway, I remember a show in which The Ponderosa Patriarch—that thrice-widowed, amazingly gallant and loving father, that law-abiding model of generosity—killed three men. In one episode!
Oh, surely, the men were, no doubt, villains. I don't remember the plot, but they probably tried to rob a bank, or kill Hoss or Little Joe or both. But what struck me at the time and still does is that Ben didn't seem at all shattered by the experience. Nobody did. Why not?
Because that was the way it was in the Wild West?
From my brief, old Western education, I learned that men toted guns as a matter of course, whet their whistles regularly at the saloon, fought duels over fancy ladies, formed posses on a whim and, that, all in all, life was cheap.
Okay, I realize I'm talking about an old television show, sheesh.
But I'm trying to get to at least a modicum of understanding here. Why isn't abortion viewed with horror by most Americans? It isn't, you know. It might've been, at one time, but it isn't now. Why not?
Have we, like the Cartwrights, like the folks living in the days of the wild, wild West simply become numb to violence in the womb? Are the numbers of dead babies so huge—50 million is a BIG number, after all—that the whole thing has lost it's sense of repugnance? Are we a nation of folks that, faced with the wholesale destruction of innocent human life, are able to simple shrug it off as "that abortion thing" and go on to other matters?
I have a uneasy feeling that I'm spinning my wagon wheels, here, but I sure would like some understanding.
Monday, October 27, 2008
"We recognize a holocaust when we see one." An open letter to "pro choice" candidates from Father Frank Pavone, with an introduction from the pew lady
Even if the Democratic Party candidates held numerous positions with which I could be comfortable—which they emphatically do not—their fanatical embrace of the "right" to scrape, suck, suffocate, burn or otherwise torture and kill innocent children would trump all that. As it would any human being with a shred of humanity.
Or maybe not!
Here's the weird thing. I know some—many!—who, incredibly, to me, simply do not seem to connect Obama with the murder of children! I feel, often, like Alice confronting the Red Queen in discussions about this. And utterly unable to make sense out of it all.
And so I give you Father Frank Pavone.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
While American bishops are usually circumspect about declaring their electoral preferences, at least one African prelate currently attending the Synod of Bishops in Rome feels no such scruples. Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, said today he would “obviously” vote for Barak Obama if he could cast a ballot on Nov. 4.
“The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life,” Onaiyekan said in an interview with NCR. “You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions through war, through poverty, and so on.”
Where to begin? Perhaps, believe it or not, with some U.S. Catholic Bishops!
Many, many thanks to the great folks at Unborn Word of the Day for this encouragement.
And prayers—big time—for the African prelate, and his flock. Please.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Congratulations to Tampa Bay! Go, Rays!
(And who sez the lady isn't a good sport?)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
You know, that reminds me...one of the pets had an "accident" earlier today...and it's still there! (Nobody picked it up.)
The small group of women [and the AP means small...maybe 25/Kelly] representing Catholic organizations from around the world marched across the Tiber River close to St. Peter's Square, some wearing signs with the names of prominent women in the early days of the Roman Catholic Church.
This perplexes me. I'm not sure that there were any "prominent people," female or male, in the early days of Christianity.
"Dear brothers and sisters, we are still all very saddened by the death of the very dear Pope John Paul I. And now the most eminent cardinals have called a new bishop of Rome. They called him from a far-away country, ... far, but always near in the communion of faith and the Christian tradition. I was afraid in receiving this nomination, but I did it in the spirit of obedience to Our Lord and with total trust in his Mother, the Most Holy Madonna."
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Read the whole thing here. Some highlights:
...it’s clear that had the Dred Scott decision been allowed to stand, our world would be a far different place right now and there would be no black candidate serving in elected office anywhere in this nation, let alone running for president. Indeed, Senator Barack Obama, who claims it was the Civil Rights movement of the sixties that is responsible for his being conceived, may never have been born. How ironic, then, that Mr. Obama is such a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that did the same thing to children in the womb that Dred Scott did to people of African descent – stripped them of “personhood” status under the law.
As noted, in the Dred Scott case, blacks were classified as non-persons. Roe v. Wade classified pre-born children as non-persons. In the slavery era, we were told that slaves were the “property” of the slave owner. Now, we are told that the unborn child is the “property” of the mother. The “choice” argument was used to defend slave owners as strongly in the slave era as it is used now in the abortion era. Abolitionists were told they should not “impose their morality” on slave owners. It was even said that it would be cruel to free the slaves because they were deemed to be unable to make it in the world without the “benevolent” care of the slave masters. This is reminiscent of the argument that children shouldn’t be born to poor women.
Fast forward to the current century. Constitutional scholar Barack Obama, a serious candidate for president of the United States, now seeks to strip “personhood” status from an entirely new class of people – those who have survived an abortion. Mind you, Obama has arguments on his website defending his actions on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Unfortunately, those arguments don’t align with the facts. Barack Obama can say what he will about his actions in the Illinois legislature but the bottom line is that if he had his way, doctors performing abortions would not be required to provide medical care to infants that are born alive after an abortion. Not even Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer opposed the Born Alive law at the federal level.
Definitely worth the read.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
I am weary of having to delete posts. I'm also somewhat surprised that my request to close the thread went largely ignored. (HaloScan allows comment deletion and editing. However, I can't figure out if there's a way to actually close comments without deleting the entire post.)
In any case, I am grateful to commenter Justin for giving me a reasonably written clarification on Cardinal O'Malley's actions.
Thank you all for your participation. And please consider, on this blog at least, the topic of Cardinal O'Malley's petition signature closed. (You may, o' course, feel free to discuss it on your own blogs.)
God bless you.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Father Bob Lowrey, O.M.V., of Boston's Saint Francis Chapel, reflects on the Psalm from the perspective of his former parishioner Italy — a shepherd — and his own knowledge and reading.
"In ancient Palestine, shepherds led their sheep to pastures where they could graze. But with the advent of the summer heat, the grazing land would dry up. Then the shepherd would bring his flock to higher ground and look for new grazing lands. In order to arrive at this higher ground, the shepherd and the flock would sometimes pass through a canyon—the valley of darkness where wild animals would threaten the sheep. It was here in particular that the shepherd would have to `go to the wall for his sheep' and be ever vigilant for their protection."
Read this remarkable piece by going to the Saint Francis Chapel Bulletin area and downloading today's (2008-10-12) PDF file.
God bless you!
Do you or anybody you know have any experience with those "air beds" I've seen advertised on TV? You know the ones I mean...they inflate easily via a foot pump (I think) and are supposed to be very comfortable. I'm expecting some overnight guests, God willing, and I'm running out o' room. I've googled them and the prices seem to be all over the place. Are they as good as they claim to be? Any help or advice would be appreciated.
Friday, October 10, 2008
From a reader who forwarded the following update from pro-family activist group MassResistance: (edited slightly...very slightly)
Archdiocese bans marriage petition in all MA Catholic churches -- days after Cardinal O'Malley signs it! Claims Archbishop signed in "moment of weakness." Catholics stunned!
This is a truly unbelievable. It's as if the world is turning upside-down.
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC), acting through Cardinal O'Malley, has banned Catholic churches in the state from supporting the signature gathering effort for the Marriage Referendum Petition on the "1913 Law" repeal. This action came days after Cardinal O'Malley himself signed the petition, which MCC Executive Director Ed Saunders told MassResistance was done in a "moment of weakness."
Catholic activists working with MassResistance had planned a big push for signatures in Catholic churches this weekend, Columbus Day Weekend, the last weekend before the Oct 15 deadline. When the Archdiocese found about it on Wednesday, they immediately instituted the ban, effectively crippling these efforts.
Exporting "gay marriage" across the country
In July, the Legislature repealed the "1913 Law" which had prohibited out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would be illegal in their home state. This was purposefully done to allow homosexual couples to come here and get "married" and then go back to their home states and sue to have their marriages recognized, using the US Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, and thus nullify the various "defense of marriage" amendments recently passed by 44 states.
In August, MassResistance filed a Referendum Petition to force this to be voted on by the people - if we can get approximately 40,000 signatures by next Wednesday, Oct. 15. This is the last opportunity to stop the outrageous Goodridge decision from being exported across the country. Inexplicably, the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has opposed the petition and, up until now, the Archdiocese had not made a public statement on it.
Here's what happened
On Sunday, October 5, at the Walk for Life event in downtown Boston, Janet Aldrich of Comflm Registry [Commonwealth of Massachusetts Freelance Media/Kelly] and others approached Cardinal Sean O'Malley and asked him if he would sign the petition. He agreed, took the clipboard, and signed it. Janet had previously discussed it with the Cardinal. Immediately afterwards, one of the Cardinal's assistants tried to take the petition sheet from Janet, but she refused to give it up. (We're in the process of getting the video of that.)
Cardinal O'Malley signed the Referendum Petition as several people watched.
On Monday, October 6, a group of Catholic activists at MassResistance planned the big Columbus Day weekend push to get signatures in churches. They prepared a mailing of petitions and instructions to all 680 churches in the state. The activists wrote a letter about the Cardinal signing the petition, signed by Brian Camenker, which they included. It was mailed on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, October 8, Brian Camenker received a phone call from Ed Saunders, director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC). Saunders ordered us to "cease and desist" any efforts to communicate with parishes (an order which, of course, has no legal standing). He said that the Archdiocese had just sent out an email to all the churches in the state instructing them not to participate in the petition effort.
Saunders said that the letter by Catholic activists was "disrespectful" (you can judge for yourself). [Or, you could if I were able to upload the letter...it didn't seem "disrespectful" to me, for whatever it's worth/Kelly] He said that the Cardinal signed the petition "in a moment of weakness" and that he did it "privately" - even though he signed it at a public event in front of several people.
We asked Saunders why the Archdiocese opposed the petition effort. He gave two reasons, both rather strange:
He said the Archdiocese opposed petition drive because the Legislature could simply overturn it. But that's been true of everything involving petitions -- including the Marriage Amendment -- since the Massachusetts Constitution was ratified in 1780. That's the way the system works. Do they thus oppose all Referendum Petitions, Initiative Petitions, and Constitutional Amendments? That's absurd. This sends a strong message. Look at Proposition 2 1/2, which has stood solid for over 25 years!
He said that the Archdiocese is instead trying to elect a majority of Legislators so good legislation can be passed. Well, we've all seen how difficult it is to unseat an incumbent. This is obviously a very long-term project. And how legal is it for the Church to be pushing candidates for public office? In any case, doing this doesn't exclude supporting the petition drive.
Here's the email the Archdiocese sent to all the churches in Massachusetts on Wednesday morning:
Sent: 10/8/2008 11:44:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Clarification on MassResistance effort
It is has come to our attention that you may be receiving a letter from the organization MassResistance, signed by Mr. Brian Camenker, concerning Cardinal Seán having signed a petition pertaining to Massachusetts' "1913 Law", which deals with out of state couples seeking to marry in the Commonwealth. The letter also solicits your help in gathering petition signatures at masses this coming weekend.
Please know that the Archdiocese was not contacted about this letter prior to its having been mailed. Additionally the letter presumes to speak of Cardinal Seán's personal disposition and activities he would undertake as a private citizen. Neither the Archdiocese nor the Cardinal were consulted about these matters at any time. Further, the Archdiocese would not ask pastors or any other persons to gather petition signatures at masses.
The Archdiocese's position concerning political matters is that materials shall not be distributed unless authorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), or the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC), or the ordinary of the diocese. Regarding the Archdiocese of Boston, none of these has authorized the MassResistance mailing.
If you have any questions about this matter, please be in contact with Ed Saunders, Executive Director of MCC, at 617-367-6060 or via email at email@example.com.
Secretary for Communications
There's more in the forwarded email but this is enough for one Lady in the Pew post.
Okay, at the top I'm showing the picture of Cardinal O'Malley's signature on the petition in question. Something about it bothers me, frankly.
For one thing, the signature itself looks weird. Right now I'm looking at a note, to me, from the Cardinal. Okay, he probably didn't sign it at a rally surrounded by bunches of people, but the signature just doesn't look the same. I'm not at all saying it's a fake...it just looks different.
Secondly, is it possible that the Cardinal doesn't know his own address? He doesn't live at "70" Union Park, but "75" Union Park.
Odd. And confusing. Anybody with more clarification, feel free to jump in.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
"I watched the Republican Convention on TV and as far as I'm concerned Trig Palin stole the show...when I saw his sister use her spit to smooth down his hair, I stood up and applauded!"
The Cardinal went on to describe how 90% of unborn children diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome were killed.
Later on, at the rally preceding the walk, the Cardinal gave an edited version of his sermon. This time, many in the crowd cheered, and some of us cheered the names "Palin" and "Trig."
During the walk, the usual nuts turned out...on both sides of the issue, in my humble opinion.
Of course there were the "keep your Rosaries off my ovaries" crowd. But this was expected, and quite frankly, the group seemed far more subdued than in other years. Maybe my imagination.
Then there were the pro-life nuts. (And yes, Virginia...sad to say but the pro-life movement, hard as it may be to swallow, has its own share of nuts.)
As the walk ended, some folks collared me, demanding to hear what the Cardinal had "said 'politically' about Sarah Palin." I explained that the Cardinal spoke mostly about her son, but added that I was happy that Governor Palin's pro-life stance had been acknowledged.
All hell broke loose.
I was informed that Sarah Palin was NOT PRO LIFE!!!!! And to vote for her (and McCain, one presumes) IS A SIN!!! Because she is NOT PRO LIFE!!!
Once the foam of spittle evaporated from their mouths, I was informed that the Governor believed in contraception and would allow abortion where the mother's life was in danger. (Uh...I knew that.)
The only moral choice, I was told, was to reject McCain/Palin and vote for an independent. Or sit out the vote altogether.
You know, I respect that notion. I really do. I don't buy it, but I respect it.
I don't buy it because it doesn't make sense to me. Vote for an independent means not voting for McCain/Palin. And not voting for McCain/Palin—to me, anyway—means ultimately electing Obama. Who would murder any kid for any reason whatsover. Unborn or born alive. That's my opinion. You may disagree. You may, and I applaud you for this, truly believe that Jesus wants you to vote for an independent who unambigiously supports every single solitary dogma of the Catholic Church. Good. Good for you. I don't know who this person might be, but if you know him or her and wish to exercise your right to vote for him or her, God bless you! Or you might believe that your only moral prerogative is to opt out of voting. Do it! Vote—or don't vote—your conscience! I might not think you're doing the right thing, but I respect your convinction.
But dammit, don't label me a sinner because I don't buy into your strategy. Thank you.
Friday, October 03, 2008
"I Beg You Not to Be Misled by Confusion and Lies:"Bishop Joseph F. Martino's homily for this Sunday
Please read the whole thing. Like most truths, it's short and to the point.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
"By God's providence angels have been entrusted with the office of guarding the human race and of accompanying every human being so as to preserve him from any serious dangers...Our Heavenly Father has placed over each of us an angel under whose protection and vigilance we are."
-Saint Pius V Catechism, IV, 9, 4
-Saint Josemaria Escriva
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Of course the saints are loved by so many but truthfully I can't think of anybody who loves them more—indeed, considers them all his best friends—then Father Dennis of Saint Francis Chapel in Boston. Today he chose the Proper Readings of the memorial of Saint Therese of Lisieux.
From the Gospel:
"Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Before the final blessing, Father Dennis announced a surprise for us!
"I am happily in possession of first class relics of Saint Therese," he told us. "And for those of you able to stay, you may venerate them."
Not a soul moved. Father Dennis, after the blessing and dismissal, moved over to the ambo. "When I lived in Manhattan," he said, "a lady taught me this simple prayer to Saint Therese: 'Little Flower, in this hour, show your power.' Now, let's pray this together." And a packed chapel of adults suddenly melted into children as we repeated the simple prayer.
What an honor to be able to venerate these relics! I know I wasn't the only one who approached them with tear-filled eyes. Thank you, Father Dennis. And thank you, God's Little Flower, for using your God-given power to turn a chapel filled with grownups into the children of God we were born to be.
"Sometimes, when I'm in such a state of spiritual dryness that I can't find a single thought in my mind that will bring me close to God, I say an Our Father and a Hail Mary very slowly indeed.
How they take me out of myself then!"
--Saint Therese of the Child Jesus