Sebelius Flees Sinking ObamaCare Ship

Thursday, April 10, AD 2014

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her resignation today.  Her signature achievement is the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare.  She is fleeing a sinking ship as the elections in the fall are shaping up to be a disaster for the Democrats, much of it based on reaction to ObamaCare.  That Sebelius has helped destroy the Obama administration, or at least neuter it, I find to be richly ironic.

Sebelius throughout her political career has been a strident, one might say fanatical, supporter of abortion.  In 1992 as a member of the Kansas House of Representatives, her support for pro-abortion legislation brought this rebuke from Archbishop Ignatius Strecker.  After she was elected as governor, she constantly clashed with Archbishop James Keleher over abortion.  On May 9, 2008, Archbishop Naumann announced that Sebelius should refrain from taking communion until she repented of her position in favor of abortion and went to confession.

Sebelius is no ordinary supporter of abortion.  She was a close ally of the late Tiller the Killer, otherwise known as Dr. George Tiller, the foremost practitioner until his murder of late term abortions in this country.  The ties between Sebelius and Tiller are outlined here.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Sebelius Flees Sinking ObamaCare Ship

  • Amen!

    . . .and there was rejoicing in the village. . .

  • It will be interesting to see what cushy sinecure has been arranged for her.
    Who wants to bet it will be something in the abortion industry/

  • If the bishop has the authority to forbid pols who are pro-abortion or who manifest any other grave sin to receive communion, they need to use it. This saying they “should” refrain from communion is meaningless, especially when you consider the fact that everyone knows such suggestions are routinely ignored.

  • When one diabolical person leaves the Obama Administration, Obama appoints a replacement twice as diabolical.

  • The term diabolical is misused here Paul. I assure you that if Satan were involved with staffing in this administration the competence factor would rise dramatically!

  • Ms. Sebelius in her testimony before Congressional committees on the health care rollout debacle was both defiant and scornful She deliberately stonewalled and refused to provide necessary factual information to enable Congress in its duties to oversee her work and to remedy the scandalous mess created by professional bureaucrats and Congress. May I add that she appears to suffer from overweening pride [hubris] and that upon her designation as HHS administrator she was socially promoted under the Peter Principle and rose to her level of incompetence.

    Evidently Ms. Sebelius has now been thrown under the bus at this precise time in contemplation of upcoming mid-term elections, and to preserve Obama’s grandiose vision of his place in American history?

    This entire presidency seems to be predicated on the assumption that We the People will forget about her resignation and her absurd behavior, and that a month or two from now few will remember any of this scandal, including the obvious fact that the President is not a leader at all but an adept fund raiser and reader of a teleprompter.

  • Perhaps you are correct, Donald, However, if I were going to emasculate a country’s national power, the three things I would neuter would be not its military, but its health care system, its energy supply system and its educational system. The Democrats – and particularly Barack Hussein Obama – have been singularly successful at this.

    Now I do not know much about health care or education, but I do know what has happened in nuclear energy where Obama has appointed anti-nuclear activist after anti-nuclear activist into the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There was under George Bush much planning that went into the Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP), and third generation passively safe Pressurized and Boiling Water Reactors were going to be built all across the nation. We were even going to have advanced molten salt thorium breeders and high temperature helium gas reactors having greater than 50% efficiency and able to burn up the long lived actinides in used nuclear fuel from today’s light water reactors. Now we have the two PWRs at SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station) (the NRC deliberately stalled restart efforts after S/G tube leaks for which SoCal Edison had developed resolution), the PWR at Crystal River in Florida, the PWR at Kewanee out west in Wisconsin and the BWR at Vermont Yankee in Brattleboro, Vermont all being shutdown during the Obama Administration – that’s about 5000 megawatts of safe, clean, low cost electricity permanently removed from the grid. And Obama appointed anti-nuke Gregory Jackzo as NRC Chairman, but when his woman-abusing antics became an embarrassment to the Administration (his fellow 4 Commissioners protested his actions to the White House) he was forced to resign and Obama replaced him with Allison MacFarlane whose husband works in anti-nuclear organizations.

    Just think – Obama is using the EPA to stop coal fired power plants that supply 50% of US electricity, and he is neutering nuclear that supplies 20%. So natural gas has to step in. Then the Russians invade Ukraine, make a deal to sell natural gas real cheap to communist China, and jack up the prices everywhere else in the world so that the now gas-dependent Europe, Canada and the US are hung on ropes. Is Obama capable of planning sabotage like that world-wide? No. But the devil sure is, and really competent Putin is no fool – he knows Germany has de-nuked itself out of hysterical fears of Fukushima which killed only 6 people outright (compared to 33 thousand deaths annually from coal in the US). So Putin takes advantage of Obama’s incompetency.

    But I digress from the topic of this blog post. I really do not know a darn thing about health care or education (can you spell Common Core?), but I do know that that son of a snake in Washington, DC is emasculating our energy system as well as heath care and education, and without access to low cost energy, we cannot afford our technical civilization. So maybe Obama is incompetent, but the Devil who inspires him is entirely too competent.

    The stories I could tell about stupid, useless regulation that contributes not one iota to either safety or quality but ensures the continued prosperity of the federal bureaucrat. You are a lawyer, Donald. You have even more stories than I to tell because you (I suspect) see this up front close and personal every day.

  • Paul: Thanks for your fascinating post. We observe this strange man and his Administration and speculate on motivation and mission. What is the endgame? The means to whatever end are there for all to see. They are abortion -which kills about 15% of the next generation every year, the health care takeover -which will surely reduce survival at the other end of life, the indoctrination of such children as are permitted to live -who will easily swallow fabrications of science and history and growing up docile subjects of a new order. Perhaps, we kooks who during the 50s and 60s feared the UN become a global tyranny were right after all. It all makes sense to atheists who see people as no more than highly evolved and troublesome hairless apes but people of faith can discern the devil in the details. We cannot read minds or peer into the windows of souls and many misdeeds are the product of ignorance. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. So perhaps the strange man is no more than a clueless socialist seeking an imaginary justice but the modern movement in its totality reeks of sulfur.

  • Let her get herself to a cloistered convent, confessing and doing penance, until her remaining years are numbered.

  • As the root word of diabolical can be traced to the Castillan word for the devil – diablo – it’s a fitting term for Sebelius’ political actions.

    An alleged Catholic, she has been an open and notorious abortion supporter.

    I am tired of alleged Catholics who enter politics on the Democrat side and climb the ladder supporting abortion all the way up. Sebelius was an arrogant and nasty human being, assigned to preside over a monstrosity of a law. I question how much she damaged obumbler. i submit, as before, that Obumbler cares not a bit. He has his nearly three years in the White House left, for his wife and him to vacation, play golf, fill out brackets for the NCAA basketball tournament and provide no leadership for the problems the nation faces.

  • It makes no matter.

    Another Obama leftist puppet will take her place.

  • Who will fail just as spectacularly because ObamaCare is an unworkable fiasco. That is the lesson to take away from this.

  • No one elected Sebelius. No one voted for Sebelius. Sebelius was appointed.
    Congress did not vote for the HHS Mandate. No one voted for the HHS Mandate. The HHS Mandate was drawn up by an unelected official and imposed by a department of government against the will of the people.

  • Kathleen Sebelius’ roll under the bus will surely give pause to the lady (Lois Lerner) from the IRS.
    If this were “Dragnet” it would be time for Joe Friday to step up the intensity of his questioning.

  • My post above contains an error. I estimated the ratio of abortions to live births at 15%. According to the Center for Disease Control, the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births. Ergo, 22.7%. Terrible!

  • In keeping with the particular subtext of this post, let me just say that, when Lois Lerner finds herself in front of the bus, she’ll be the one yelling “it’s all for you Damien!”

  • Everything about the Obama Administration is an unworkable fiasco: energy policy, education, health care, environmental, etch. But the peepul wanted a king like that of other nations. 1st Samuel chapter 8.

    Vox populi non est vox Dei.

  • “when Lois Lerner finds herself in front of the bus”

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot MORE Administration officials going under the bus… if the Obamacare fiasco wasn’t enough, now come revelations that the U.S. Treasury has confiscated hundreds of thousands of income tax refunds to repay decades-old debts from alleged overpayments of Social Security and other benefits. Many cases involve taxpayers whose refunds were seized to pay debts allegedly incurred by their PARENTS 30 or 40 years ago:

    These tax refund interceptions apparently stem from an amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill (vetoed by Pres. Bush but overriden by the Democrat-controlled Congress) that removed a former 10-year statute of limitations on collecting debts to the US Treasury, enabling the feds to pursue any alleged debt no matter how old it was. It isn’t, technically, the IRS doing this, but the Bureau of Fiscal Services, a separate division of the Treasury, though in the public mind that distinction probably won’t mean much.

  • William P Walsh asks, “We observe this strange man and his Administration and speculate on motivation and mission. What is the endgame?”

    Surrealism transferred from art to life. Etienne Gilson described it: “To abolish existing creation in order to create another: that is also the ambition of authentic surrealism, by which I mean the one which Andre Breton defined a short while ago as: “something dictated by thought, released from all control of reason, divorced from all aesthetic or moral preoccupation”. We will then be able to say everything as well as to do everything. If we start by annihilating everything, what limits can stop us? None whatever. Everything is possible, provided only that this creative spark which surrealism seeks to disclose deep in our being be preceded by a devastating flame. “The most simple surrealist act consists in this: to go down into the streets, pistol in hand, and shoot at random, for all you are worth, into the crowd.” Why not? This massacre of values is necessary to create values that are really new. “Everything is still to be done,” affirms Andre Breton, “every means becomes good when employed to destroy the ideas of family, native land, religion.” Now that is not only necessary: since God is dead, it has become possible. The eternal obstructor who has encumbered the heavens ever since the beginning of the world has suddenly disappeared. The terrible interlocutor to whom, during ages without number, man gave only trembling reply — behold he has suddenly vanished, leaving for the first time man, face to face with himself, alone in a world empty of God, and at last master of his destiny.”

  • MPS-
    “Surrealism transferred from art to life.”
    The painting Gilson skillfully creates is disturbing and painfully realistic. The random acts of violence that plague schools homes and public gatherings give life to the gory painting. Life without Jesus Christ is death.

  • Reading TAC is always educational I just read your Tiller link ( article by the now deceased Catholic convert Robert Novak) , Lamentabili, Pascendi and my reading list just keeps growing!

  • Planned Destroyerhood and its blood money supporting politician’s. 🙁
    What a sorry lot.

    The new HHS Czar is another pro-death dolly…but you already guessed that.

    Lord. When you ask for an accounting of ours, have mercy on the blood spilling “do-gooders.”

  • Marco: The innocence of the created soul, infused into the human being, making of him an immortal human being, at conception of the infused soul at the beginning of the existence of a new human being, is denied by Roe v. Wade under oath and is the denying of human rights and is perjury. Aborting the innocent for the sins of his parents is unconstitutional and un-American.
    Too many persons have abandoned their right to vote as they recognize that the process has become corrupt. Freedom from murder, perjury, cheating, lying, stealing and coveting has been vanquished. All that is left to constituents is to offer sacrifice to the powers that be or refuse to affirm their constituency in the office of president to such a regime.
    We have inscribed in our founding principles the saving grace for freedom and for re-establishing law and order in our nation. To those who refuse law and order, let them find three-quarters of the states to ratify any change in our Constitution. Let me assure you, marco, that the passive-aggressive constituents will not ratify any change to our founding principles to subvert freedom under God. To those who have subverted our freedom and truth, there is nothing that will save them from the laws that they inflicted on our true citizens.
    I can hear Sebelius now before the throne of God, pleading: “I was just following orders.”
    Elaine Krewer: “Many cases involve taxpayers whose refunds were seized to pay debts allegedly incurred by their PARENTS 30 or 40 years ago: ”
    Article 1, Section 9 and 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America states that no Bill Attainder and no ex post facto law be made, that no members of a family or friends be held liable for the crimes and actions of another person. Only for his own sins must a man be punished.
    No law may be made after the fact to govern the actions of a person. Indebtedness incurred 30 and 40 years ago must be judged according to the law at that time, 30 or 40 years ago.
    The government is acting as though it owns the citizens and their tax refunds when the government does not even own the taxes and refunds. Taxes are owned by the taxpayers. Communism treats the people as a group, but not as individuals. This move to treat people to “guilt by association” and extraction of payment from relatives harkens back to when a whole family was put into debtors’ prison or sold into slavery. Welcome to the gulag. Prison for us who hold that all men are created equal and answer only to God is in the wings.
    Paul: The military is the only branch of government that can successfully hold a coup and take back America, making the military the most dangerous to Obama.

  • The killers have ratified their freedom to kill.

  • Mary De Voe, you have put into words thoughts I almost dare not think. This country is in great peril but a majority are blithely unaware.

  • Pingback: Philosophy & Morality in Public Discourse - God & Caesar
  • “That Sebelius through ineptitude…”

    Sin makes you stupid-

  • David: “That Sebelius through ineptitude…”
    Sin makes you stupid”

  • The point isn’t the failure to properly implement the thing. The point is the thing (Obamacare) is a gigantic stinker from A to Z.

    To wit, abortion and artificial contraception are now “health care.” Cancer screenings are not. Bring on the death panels.

  • Sebelius throughout her political career has been a strident, one might say fanatical, supporter of abortion.
    –Donald R. McClarey
    Where was her bishop throughout her political career?

  • The name of the bishop escapes me but he did have public battles with Sebelius. She didn’t care. She supported Tiller the Killer.

    There are days in which I wonder if it were better for all of us if we had a Pinochet type pull off a coup and lock up the leftists in prison camps in the Alaskan wilderness. FDR did it to American citizens of Japanese heritage.

    One needs to go to blogs such as this one to get good Catholic news. Recently, the Archbishop of Boston celebrated Mass in the Arizona desert not far from the American border. He yammered on about the “broken” immigration system.

    O’Malley is a fool. Boston is an epicenter of Catholic dissent with regards to abortion and homosexuality and has been for decades. Obumblercare seeks to institutionalize abortion and birth control. Yet, we get whining about immigration.
    Never do the US or Mexican bishops bring up the policies of the Mexican government – to push off their poor people onto the US and to round up and deport any illegal immigrants entering Mexico from its southern border.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: What did Andre Breton do with the devil? And what did Andre Breton do with his Guardian Angel? especially now that he is free of God? And why did Andre Breton do it? Andre Breton described hell.

ObamaCare Crashes, And So Does Obama

Thursday, November 21, AD 2013

One could not ask for a better symbol of ObamaCare than yesterday when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the woman purportedly in charge of this mess, was meeting with ObamaCare “navigators”, and I love the Orwellian implications of that title, and the ObamaCare website crashed.

The remarkable thing about this fiasco on stilts is that the Obama administration knew, or should have known, that the website was not going to work.  Obama could have simply announced that he was going to delay the individual mandate for a time period which would have given time to at least make the website operational.  Why didn’t they?

Overwhelming hubris I think.  Shielded by a sycophantic press from every other disaster that has hit the country under his misrule, I think Obama assumed that this would be the same.  Every problem encountered with the website or implementation of  ObamaCare could be blamed on those obstructionist Republicans.  Indeed, Obama is still trying to do this now, when it is obvious that such an absurd strategy is not working and cannot work.

Obama forgot the first rule of politics:  reality always wins in the end.  A website that does not work, mass cancellations of insurance policies, sky-rocketing premiums and deductibles, less choice regarding doctors and hospitals, these are the reality of the hilariously named Affordable Care Act.  No amount of speeches, no biased news coverage, no liberal true believers on blogs can alter it.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to ObamaCare Crashes, And So Does Obama

  • I entirely agree: it is pride that kept him from seizing the branch with a deal to avoid the shut down by delaying the role out. The President just cannot imagine admitting he is wrong. This is curious to me since the mark of maturity is the acknowledgment that one is all too human and, therefore, flawed. It is interesting that you mention FDR in your piece. I read three biographies and was left with the same impression I have of President Obama now. “Hubris,” a pretty sounding little word for a self-defeating human trait.

  • It is not fair to compare FDR to Obama. The former confronted a far more severe set of challenges than the latter and managed to meet them (with some bad decisions along the way and some other decisions that had unfortunate downstream consequences).

    Megan McArdle, who has never been a political partisan, is someone to read on this question among those who write for general audiences. Her tentative conclusion surveying the landscape is that it looks as if BO & co have managed to ruin the market for household medical insurance policies. Megan McArdle has in the past worked for several start-up firms in the IT sector. She has been shaking her head in dismay at what she hears coming out of the Administration’s flacks and also at the original decision to have the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services manage the project.

    It implicates the President quite directly. He fancied that the person to put in charge of policy in the realm of financing medical care was a woman named Nancy-Ann deParle. She is, of course, an attorney (and a graduate of Harvard Law School).

  • As an agenda, liberalism is a fiasco. However, the oversupply of resentful, dull and illogical people keeps expanding. Ergo the push for “Common Core” brainwashing.

    And, the failures that caused the US to not recover from the Great Depression until 1946 can be traced to FDR and his gang of statist quacks.

    In addition to IRS apparatchniks quashing independent political speech in 2012, the regime lied about unemployment statistics.

  • D.S.,

    The zero’s problems are a hustler’s hubris and the abject absence of arete.

    Only in America: Aeschylus, Homer, Sophocles, et al would not include in their classics such a dud as Ofama.

  • This is great:

    I just hope the backlash is strong enough to get a sufficient number of GOP Ken dolls off their polystyrene backsides and act, that there’s a big enouigh Republican capture in both House and Senate to either snowball the bill or, ideally, override any veto from Poobah Barry.

  • No, wait!

    Homer included at least one obama-like character in The Iliad. See Book I, Thersites.

  • the failures that caused the US to not recover from the Great Depression until 1946 can be traced to FDR and his gang of statist quacks.

    Once more around the block. Real gross domestic product per capita had returned to its 1929 level by 1939. By 1941, this metric was 20% higher than it had been in 1929, which is what you would expect from long-term trends in the growth of real gdp. The labor market remained in troubled condition.

  • The Prince. Written by Machivelli. Our current president is the closest I have seen to the spirit of that book. Just to appear to be like he cares is enough. And the sheeple buy it hook line and sinker. He can do what he wants and gets a free pass. How does this dibacle actually affect him? In all seriousness – it will not. Polls say one thing and if he ran for office tomorrow he would win again because of the blind sheeple out there that will vote themselves to the slaughter. My hope lies in Christ not in politics – thank you Lord.

  • Robert,

    That’s largely a result of the five-year “tongue bath” (see Iowahawk) he’s gotten from the so-called media. He enjoys a 97% approval rate from his cheerleaders. The people have him at 37%.


    I love you, man!

    What was the unemployment rate in 1941?

    Answer: 9.66%. The year prior – 1940 – it was 14.45%.

    Beginning in 1933 when FDR took conrol the u/e rates were: 24.75%; 21.6%; 19.97%; 16.8%; 14.81%; 18.91%; and 17.05%. Plus, the people working often had lower wages, fewer hours.

    Here’s the point. President Thersites and his band of central planners are putting the US through an unnecesary weaker “recovery.”

    Average FDR real GDP growth (1934 to 1940) was 7.33%. Under Thersites it’s been, what (?): 2.1% – not adjusted for regime lies. Reagan’s recovery from a deeper recession averaged 5+% annual real GDP growth.

    Some recovery!

    Remember Einstein’s defintion of insanity.

  • A month before the site went online, the Republican Congress had shut down government in an effort to delay the rollout. If the White House had known what to expect from the website, they should have jumped at the chance. Not looking like they were jumping for it, of course. Let the government shut down for a few days then put out word that they’d be willing to delay Obamacare for six months in exchange for a budget including, say, a 20% increase in Head Start and the removal of the Social Security cap. The President would be called a statesman and a hero and the rollout could have been saved.

    So no, there’s no way they could have known that the system would fail so badly, or they would have acted differently.

  • I like T. Shaw’s reference to Thersites – how apt! We, however, need a modern-day Odysseus to give our Thersites a beating about the back and shoulders, and preferably in just as public a way as was done in those days of yore:

    He is said to be bow-legged and lame and to have shoulders that cave inward. His head is covered in tufts of hair and comes to a point. Vulgar, obscene, somewhat dull-witted, he “got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] . . . Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon’s sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed . . . There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites– the ugliest man who came to Troy– who says what everyone else is thinking”.

  • “So no, there’s no way they could have known that the system would fail so badly, or they would have acted differently.”

    Disagree Pinky. They had every reason to expect that the website was going to fail.

  • Progressivism arrived in the U. S. very early in the 20th century and has colored our politics ever since. I can imagine it will continue to do so for quite some time irrespective of any repercussions.

  • T. Shaw, the salient metrics are production metrics. By those metrics, the economy had recovered and recovered prior to the war. Also, the unemployment statistics of the time do not include those working for the Works Progress Administration and like agencies.

    Roosevelt’s policies exacerbated trouble in the labor market extant when he took office, but even without that, it is a reasonable counter-factual that the labor market was going to take time to recover. Again, recall that Britain had a liberalizing ministry under Margaret Thatcher and yet elevated unemployment rates for nearly 20 years.

  • Pinky, I suspect that the hands-on technicians knew quite well the system was a mess, but the institutional culture of the Valerie Jarrett Administration is such that information does not travel up the hierarchy very readily, because bearers of bad news are ignored if not punished.

  • From the post:
    Obama forgot the first rule of politics: reality always wins in the end.

    Ah, but sometimes you get to die in harness first and have the entire nation participate (by command, with bullets for the disobedient) in a gigantesque travesty of a hero’s funeral. So it was for Stalin; so it was for Mao. Is Obama less worthy than they?

    From the combox:
    “So no, there’s no way they could have known that the system would fail so badly, or they would have acted differently.”
    Disagree Pinky. They had every reason to expect that the website was going to fail.

    Actually, you’re both right. They had every reason to see the failure coming; but because reason is not a tool used by the modern Left, they had no way of knowing. That would have required them to be sane and sapient, two qualities in which they are eminently lacking.

  • Mr. Simon. Thanks for passing the First Rule of Politics on to a grunt in the trenches. It fits BO.

    Damage control to our beloved Free United States is going to take time, however we are one nation indivisible and Under Our Gracious God.

    We will have leadership that is truly worthy of the blood poured out by our patriots of long ago. We will because the tide will turn. So help us God.

  • As I reread Dante’s Inferno I think BO. BO, BO and all the rest of the ilk that wants us dead and limited in numbers and under the rule of socialism/fascism(fine lines there) I never slept a wink the night of the first election of this scoundrel, nor the second, and with the same fervor hounded heaven for guidance. Ah yes, Dante.

  • For decades, the Democrats craved control of the health care system – all of it. A perfect disaster, brought about by mortgages handed out to people who could never afford to pay them – instigated by Democrats – caused the perfect disaster. then they took full advantage of it.

    The Democrat Party is the single worst organization of people ever to take root in the Western Hemisphere – organized crime and political suppression rolled up in one – and yet there are mindless lemmings who still vote for them.

    FDR was a crook. He used the IRS to attack his political adversaries. He left the Army decimated before WWII. He ordered the concentration camps of American citizens. He blatantly lied about Katyn and bent over backwards to help Stalin – a useful idiot if Lenin ever described one.

    The day he died he was in the company of his mistress.

    Obumbler is nothing but an empty chair as Clint Eastwood so aptly portrayed him. He is a puppet for people like Soros and Jarrett and Reid and Pelosi and he doesn’t even know it. His wife is the ultimate mooch.

    If Texas ever became independent I would be there the next day.

  • Evidently, Obama believes his own lies, but does he have Obamacare health insurance?
    About Katyn: Stalin blamed the Katyn massacre on Hitler and it was believed that Hitler was responsible (and Hitler was capable). About internment camps of the Japanese. They were more protective custody under martial law than anything else in times of war. I was born in 1940 and the animosity was ferocious. There was a picture in the newspaper with a Chinese man wearing a sign that read: “CHINESE”. In addition, there was the possibility of spying, after all, Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. Nobody, but nobody smart a$$ wisecracked in those days. The churches were full morning, day and evenings.

  • Charlie has it…”Complete Denial..”
    Referring to this sloppy mess obamacare.

    The dem’s built it sold it and now cower under a “seat” that supports the largest buttocks that is ready to evacuate the vilest waist material known to man…obamafece’s.

    As they wallow in their new form of mud bath’s, claiming that the scent is Wicca friendly, we believer’s of free enterprise and smaller govt. can only pray that the rainwater will sweep the stench away….far far away…..say Kenya.

4 Responses to Kathleen Sebelius Explains It All

  • Impaling Obamacare on ridicule may be the only thing they understand and the only thing that may work.

  • Getting a shut down on the video.. “This video is private.”

    Oh well.

    Sebelius might have been the preverbal “last straw” according to Catholic radio host Al Kresta. Today he reported that a formal request to remove “Catholic” from Georgetown University identity will be delivered to the Vatican. It seems the latest slap in the face of good practicing Catholics at Georgetown was when they honored K. Sebelius recently.
    A well documented complaint spanning twenty three years of abuses that appose Catholic teaching is making its way to Rome.
    TAC. Please inquire.

  • May 21st 2012 you did report William Blatty complaint regarding Georgetown.
    I apologize for not looking in your archive sooner.

  • I posted a new version of the video which links to watch it on Youtube.

Crazy Times

Wednesday, October 9, AD 2013

You know that you are living in crazy times when the major domestic initiative of a Democrat administration since the inaptly named Great Society has a disastrous roll out and the only “journalist” to grill the woman in charge, HHS Secretary Kathleen “Tiller-the-Killer-was-my-friend” Sebelius , is liberal clown Jon Stewart, doing the job the “professional” “journalists” refuse to do.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Crazy Times

  • Silver lining department: That liberal clown is a main source of “news” for low-IQ, Obama voters (I repeated myself, again).

    If he’s lost Jon Stewart . . .

  • What’s strange about this is that there has been little self-criticism from
    anyone in the media. It’s obvious to anyone with eyes to see that there is
    precious little journalism being practiced anymore– but no one in the
    profession has called his own colleagues out. How is it that thousands of
    journalists could be suborned without a few going down fighting?

    I don’t doubt that the profession, as a whole, has sold out. I’m just puzzled
    to understand how it was done without anyone putting up resistance.

  • Clinton: Galloping credentialism means that most newspapers and media outlets won’t consider hiring a reporter who hasn’t got a degree specifically in journalism or, Heaven help us, ‘communications’. Journalism schools have been dominated by the Left for decades, and do a ruthlessly efficient job of weeding out anyone who won’t sacrifice the facts for the party line. They’re taught not to report the truth, but to be advocates for causes — always Leftist causes.

    Now, some of these J-school grads do eventually grow up; but by that time they don’t dare stray from the party line, because they fear for their jobs. Massive layoffs, newspapers and magazines folding, media ownership being consolidated year by year — there’s always plenty to fear. The ones who overcome that fear and speak the truth don’t, as a rule, stay employed for long.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EDITION | God & Caesar
  • Tom, Clinton– doesn’t that make you twitch a little when various politicians have been muttering about a legal definition of “journalist”?

    When a fat little housewife has done more actual investigating than “journalists,” it’s a scary, scary day….

  • Y’all, I had reason to re-read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 address to the
    graduating class of Harvard. It was an astonishing indictment of Western
    civilization at the time– especially coming from a man so familiar with the
    brutalities of communist Russia. If anything, it is even more accurate today.
    Here’s what he said about the press in the West 35 years ago:

    …”The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom (I shall be using the word
    press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

    Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no
    moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsi-
    bility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If he has misled public
    opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do
    we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes
    by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No. It hardly ever happens,
    because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake,
    but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will
    start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

    Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary
    to resort to guesswork, rumors, and supposition to fill the void, and none of
    them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the reader’s memory. How many
    hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgements are expressed every
    day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate
    public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we see terrorists made heroes, or
    secret matters pertaining to one’s nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may
    witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the
    slogan “everyone is entitled to know everything”. …

    … Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century, and
    more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. …

    … There is another surprise for someone coming from the East, where the press
    is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences
    within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion, there are generally accepted
    patterns of judgement and these may be common corporate interests, the sum
    effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the
    press, but not for the readership, because newspapers mostly give emphasis
    to those opinions that do not too openly contradict their own and the general

    Without any censorship, in the West, fashionable trends of thought are care-
    fully separated from those that are not fashionable. Nothing is forbidden, but
    what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books
    or be heard in colleges. …”

    Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard address was true in 1978, and even more true today.
    “Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership…”. Indeed.

Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops?

Sunday, June 3, AD 2012

 I would like some help in identifying the most active, passionate, orthodox American Catholic Bishops currently serving. It is a cultural thing that we seem to love rating everything- not a bad thing- and I have a personal interest in this topic because I want to offer my services to a Bishop who needs someone who gets the following Big Three Realities that I have been focusing on in my last three postings here at American Catholic.


1. The Obama Administration is threat #1 to the continuance of our Hierarchical Catholic Church- here in America and since we are a Superpower in worldly terms this could damage a big chunk of Christendom. I do not speak as an Obama-basher with Republican talking point tie-ins- I was a lifelong Democrat who only recently gave it up to become an Independent, not Republican. My realization about the Obama threat emerged slowly after being absorbed in a national Catholic Democrats listserve with some of the real heavyweights- like FOB (Friend of Barack) Vicki Kennedy. It was clear to me that Kennedy with her fellow travelers in Catholic universities, and liberal Catholic political organizations, have been intent on much much more than just getting more traction in American policies and legislation for a few political issues often neglected by the conservative-Right. There is blood in the water for the Church Hierarchy due to the notorious Minor Abuse Scandals. These prominent Catholic Dems seem intent on using whatever power they can muster to force changes in the Church to cut the Hierarchydown to size- replace the Teaching Authority with liberal Catholic college professors and liberal political activists who will “save” the Church from irrelevance among the youth. We have seen that President Obama has been systematically assisting in this process- not openly- but consider his choice of Joe Biden as VP with his pro-choice, pro-gay marriage beliefs, and Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary who is pushing contraceptives down everyone’s throats, and I suspect we’ll see that Justice Sotomayor is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage eventually. The threat to religious liberties will hit the Catholic Church Hierarchy first, with the contraceptives mandates and then gay marriage will turn the Catholic Church Catechism into Hate Literature and every orthodox Catholic into a bigot along the lines of the old school racists back in the 60’s. No one wants to be a racist- so I’m sure that Vicki Kennedy et al are counting on most American Catholics to simply abandon their Bishops’ leadership and embrace her brand of progressive Catholicism which is Obama-cool. So- me thinks the Bishops need a few folks around who see this danger and are willing to stand with the Bishops and the Catechism. I’m here to help.  Here’s a link to my piece on the Catholic Dems/Obama “conspiracy”-


2. Having this information about the Obama-Catholic Dem elite battleplan is useful- but I am also interested in assisting a good Bishop at the parish level with practical steps- all perfectly legal- for assisting the process of cultivating a new breed of orthodox Catholic political leaders. Pope B teaches us to free ourselves from ideologies in his last encyclical- the social doctrine of the Church is the stuff we need more of in America- the reason we keep swinging wildly from Republican to Democrat in the races for political power is that at the gut level most people get that each Party has got some things right and some things wrong. There is no Party of God- even if right now the mainstream Democratic Party represents the greater threat to the Church/Christ- we are still talking about lesser evils. The Catholic social doctrine is about building civilizations of love- this is the positive vision that is the corrective of narrow ideologies which feed on anger for the most part. The way to bring Christ’s Way into the marketplace of ideas in American political thought and debate is for more fully informed and inspired Catholic voices to emerge and assume the responsibilities of leadership at every level of our society. There is so much that we could do in every parish and school-  here is my POA (Plan of Action) which I would love to bring into a parish in a diocese where the Bishop is aware and involved to guide the development- I’m not interested in being a lone ranger or riding against the wishes of the local Bishop.  Here’s the Plan-


3.  Finally, my long experience in the trenches of Catholic high schools has left me with many thoughts on how to inculcate a genuine Catholic identity which has a chance of being transmitted to our very distracted youth. I would love to be part of an orthodox Bishop’s team to help select passionately orthodox Catholic administrators/teachers/staff to be in place to give life witness, along with instructional guidance, to budding disciples of Christ. You can’t give what you don’t have- so if we want Catholic students to come out the other side in love, or more in love with Christ and His Church- then you don’t load up the schools with adults who are full of dissenting views from the Catechetical teachings of the Church. I’m not saying everyone has to be some kind of a stepford-wife cheerleader type of Catholic- we all have our personalities- but if you are an adult working in a Catholic school you should be someone who is thirsty to know what the Church teaches and why- especially if it pertains to your particular discipline or area of responsibility. I get into a lot more detail beyond just the staffing issue in my article below.  I am open to returning to the teaching field or entering new territory in administration under the right Bishop in a diocese that really wants to play it straight-up as a passionately Catholic institution -without being satisfied with a PR-level Catholic Identity which produces nice dog and pony shows for visiting bishops and parents- but scratch the surface and where is the love for the Church? If you fall in love with the Church you will just want to know more and more and to share more and more with the youth and everyone you meet- am I right?  Here’s the last link-


OK- if you are still with me- here is how you can help- write out up to 10 names(and email addresses if you have them!) of Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops here in America- with the name of their Diocese.  You can order them according to your own rating system. I want to follow the science here and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line- I want to begin a new mission in using whatever talents I possess for the sake of Christ and His Church- I have tried to use these talents to produce something helpful to preserve and protect the Hierarchical nature of our Catholic Church- If Christ didn’t desire a Hierarchy why bother with Apostles- He could have just had disciples with no leadership inherent in the Church- but He didn’t- evidence from Scripture, history and logic all persuaded me in my Truth Quest. I don’t want to just apply for jobs blind to the leadership in a given Diocese. Leadership matters, that’s why leaders get targeted all the time, and why assassinations are so unfortunately common throughout human history. I want a meaningful mission within the Church and short of that I will do whatever I can do to provide for my wife and four young children- this is my story and why I need our Reader’s Input. Brother (Sister) can you spare a moment and share what you know? God Bless you.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops?

  • Perhaps we should remember the wise words of Abbé Henri Brémond, whose life (1865-1933) spanned the Jules Ferry laws of 1882 and 1886 laicising public education, the law of 1901 suppressing many religious orders and the law of 1905 on the separation of Church and State, which vested all church buildings and other property in the nation.

    “No law can affect those who believe, those who pray; prayer is silent, prayer offends no one, prayer attacks no one.” – [La prière est silencieuse, la prière n’offense personne, la prière n’agresse personne]

    His response to the Anti-Clericalism of his time were his essays, “Prière et Poésie”[ Prayer and Poetry] and “Introduction a la Philosophie de la Prière”[Introduction to the Philosophy of Prayer] His monumental work “Histoire litteraire du sentiment religieux en France depuis la fin des guerres de religion jusqu’a nos jours” [A Literary History of Religious Sentiment in France from the end of the Wars of Rekigion to our own day] published between 1913 and 1936 in 11 volumes, was based on his unrivalled knowledge of mystical writings and devotional works. His writings on poetry, symbolism and romanticism earned him election to the Académie française in 1923 and a eulogy from the French Symbolist poet, Paul Valéry.

    His influence was incalculable.

  • The current head of the USCCB, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of NY and his I-95 brother (my Archbishop) in Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles J Chaput. (Lori of Baltimore and Aquila of Denver deserve mention as well in my VERY short list.)

  • My only input is cautionary; the plan of action is a good idea, BUT I’d give it about a week before it’s taken over by the same folks who use “social justice” to promote abortion, theft, etc. At the absolute least, it would claim binding teachings where they don’t exist. (I recall one discussion I was having with another Catholic, who pulled the death penalty vs abortion thing– even offering a letter from the man who would become Pope saying there was a valid variety of views didn’t sway him.)

    I do love the idea of equipping people to find out what the Church teaches for themselves, and enthusiastically endorse the answer-religious-questions-kids-as/thirsty-for-theology thing. That would have made my youth a lot more interesting, and might have kept several friends from falling away from the Church. (it would also have meant I could find a babysitter from the Parish– but that’s another rant!)

    If there was a group for something like “Catholic Q&A- Last Wednesday Of The Month Snack and Chat” I’d do it. If I thought I could pull it off, I’d start one myself. (Wed because it’s the middle of the week; schedule it about 6pm. It would have to be sort of small to start with, and a computer with one of those books-on-CD collection EWTN sells would be wise; has soup to nuts of decrees, etc.)

    … Dang it, now I’ve got a post bubbling in my head for designing theology groups. Thank you.

  • Bishop Ronald Gainer of Lexington KY: not as high profile as Dolan etc, but methodically rebuilding an orthodox and dynamic diocese. Yesterday ordained 23 deacons: 3 transtional and 20 permanent.

  • Bruskewitz, Finn, Olmstead, Morlino, Aquila, Sample, Cordlione, Nienstadt, Slattery, Chaput

  • My only input is cautionary; the plan of action is a good idea, BUT I’d give it about a week before it’s taken over by the same folks who use “social justice” to promote abortion, theft, etc. At the absolute least, it would claim binding teachings where they don’t exist.

    I would go a step further Foxfier – or backward actually. I think the other side has already been doing this for many decades. The chanceries and USCCB were chock full dissenting activists with a socialist agenda who were either supported or tolerated by their bishop. I would venture to guess that even with ascension of a large number of orthodox bishops, there are still a large number of these folks in important and influential positions. Even when an orthodox bishop takes over a troubled see, he doesn’t do a housecleaning so to speak. He pushes his agenda of reform with the people he has and tries to lead the chancery operatives to fulfill his mission. The bishops have to lead, but that doesn’t mean all will follow – and many of those people still have power and influence enough to do damage.

  • Sounds good, Tim. I would echo both MichaelP71’s and Jim’s lists, adding only three more solid bishops with whom I’ve had contact: 1) Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa, CA (and formerly of Baker, Oregon); 2) Bishop Kevin Vann of Ft. Worth, TX; and 3) Arch-bishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta. There are undoubtedly many other good, solid bishops and auxiliaries around in the US, but they simply don’t have as high of a public profile as do these aforementioned bishops.

  • Oops! One glaring omission did just come to mind (how could we forget?) Cardinal George of Chicago, of course!

  • First of all I think Masculinity has been beat down passive aggressively both in the American Church as well as society, so if we are not willing to reject bad laws and smash the Serpents head to mush than we are bound to lose with the communist attitudes of Obama and other democratic leaders.

  • The dioceses of Wilmington Delaware seam to be getting somewhat more Orthodox but still need improving and the general public of Delaware seems very secular and the cops tend to act like gangsters in their attitudes.

  • By lose I meant lose temporarily.

  • Possibly the most important philosophical law is that because God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good we should take what he tells us seriously rather than throwing his words around like protestants who use his words to justify whatever they fancy.

  • If worst comes to worst there is just war but it would be much better if it did not have to come down to that.

  • One. I’m curious, why did it have to come to your being a Democrat “insider” before you realized your choice of political party clashed with your Catholic religion? I knew it for me when the Democrat Party officially supported and acted to make abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land.

    Two. When are people like you going to start showing some “love” your talking about to those of us who have been battling people you have been electing to keep abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land? And, now, thanks to Catholics like you, we have to fight to keep marriage the institution it has always been since God enacted it at the beginning of man-kind. And thanks to the 54% of Catholics like you, the U.S. bishops (equally responsible for what has continued for almost 4 decades) have to sue the President and his Administration they helped put in office just to keep our First Amendment Rights. How about showing some love to Catholics like me for realizing straight on that any organization that supports and defends the murder of innocent human beings, especially infants in the protection of their mother’s womb, could never be serious about “caring for others,” especially the “little guy?”

    Three. How about finding out why almost all the U.S. bishops adopted Cardinal Bernardin’s proposal to change the definition of “prolife,” a word coined by prolifers to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice?” And then, contacting those bishops still alive who voted against that change, to get their recommendations on who should be on that list of bishops you want to put together. While doing that, you ought to read the 1989 favorable biography called “Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts -and battling for the soul of American Catholicism” by the cardinal’s long time friend (30 years) Eugene Kennedy. You’ll learn that that name change was a lot more political than it was spiritual. This is a quote of Bernardin’s motivation for expanding the definition to include prudential judgment issues so-call “social justice.” Page 243,244: “Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others but it would keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming it dominant sponsors.” How about that?! I don’t know where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the “good” cardinal found that some how being a “right wing conservative” was evil. Maybe you know where that is?

    Anyway – how about showing some “love” for the millions of us who have removed ourselves from the sin of being in the Democrat Party, the main organization responsible for denying the right to life of God’s greatest creation – a human right by the way; and maybe perhaps an apology as well for making people like us have to fight people like you for so long?

  • Stilbelieve:

    Hold on, friend. There’s a parable about that. “Take what is yours, and go your way: I will also give to this last even as to you.” (Mt 20:14)

  • Stilbelieve:

    I’m with you!

    Nd, those people need to stop employing presumed moral superiority to advance evil and to start supporting Church teachings.

  • My own Bishop Leonard P. Blair of Toledo should be on that list. He is the bishop who conducted the recent investigation of the women religious. He is an outstanding and holy and orthodox bishop, and I am shocked, frankly, that he hasn’t been picked in the last few years to lead a higher-profile diocese. The fact that he was chosen to lead the investigation of the women religious indicates that he is at least on someone’s radar in the Vatican.

    Were it not for the fact that Bishop Blair was the Bishop of Toledo, I doubt I would have moved my family to this part of Ohio almost 7 years ago.

  • @Escolonn

    “Hold on, friend. There’s a parable about that. ‘Take what is yours, and go your way: I will also give to this last even as to you.’ (Mt 20:14)” The text in bible has the last sentence of 20:14 reading: “What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?”

    First of all, I’m not looking for “reward.” I’m looking for evidence that this author has obtained wisdom from his experience to be of help to any bishop. The question was raised in my mind soon into reading his article. He says this in the 4th sentence:
    “I do not speak as an Obama-basher with Republican talking point tie-ins- I was a lifelong Democrat who only recently gave it up to become an Independent, not Republican.”

    Talking in a dismissive way about the only major organization that has been trying to save the babies, protect our country militarily and economically, fight for our right to pick our own doctors and make our own decisions on our medical care, defend marriage as God created it, and now have to save our First Amendment Rights to freedom of religion isn’t being a “Obama-baser” using “Republican talking point tie-ins.” It’s being an American who has “eyes to see and ears to here.”

    Second, you would think that someone who contributed with their decision-making and votes all this time to prolonging the evil of abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land, and to these newer attacks on our safety and freedoms, would be a little more contrite and humble towards those who were wise enough to see the sin of remaining in the Democrat Party much sooner in their lives then he did.

    Third, I think the verse you chose is a parable better suited for the rights of ownership to do with one’s property as one chooses and pay the wages as agreed. Verse 15 completes that thought saying: “[Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?”

  • Jay, it just so happens that my own bishop, Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Ill. is assisting with that investigation as well. He too is known for his orthodoxy and has been on the Vatican-watchers’ radar for some time, so he probably won’t be here forever!

  • Stillbelieve- I can defend my previous Democratic party membership on the grounds that I was quite active as a pro-life candidate and leader in Dems for Life- the fact is that until the 80’s the Dems were more pro-life than the Repubs- I was a Democrat long before I was Catholic- being drawn into politics at the age of 13 by the first Jimmy Carter campaign- and then basically became a believing secular liberal in my 20’s. My introduction and conversion to Catholicism came as I neared 30- in becoming Catholic I gave up previous beliefs on abortion et al- but there has always been two thoughts in my mind- first- the Republican establishment has always been like shifting sand on the issue of abortion since Reagan – lukewarm belief is never attractive as Jesus indicated in Revelation- and second- there has long been the hope that Catholic pro-life Democrats could lead the charge within the Democratic party to restore traditional moral beliefs on social issues- I took up that challenge since I figured I was well-placed as a lifelong Dem who became a Catholic convert- but identified more or less along the FDR-Democratic coalition lines- recall that American Catholics as a community tended the Democratic party way before social issues and the sexual revolution began destroying the Dems from within. Reagan was an FDR Democrat but said that the party moved away from him not the other way around.

    So- in any case- I never publicly supported any pro-choice candidates- and typically voted for third party/populist no-bodies to get around my conscience- and our hierarchy instructed us that we could not vote for a candidate because of his/her pro-choice position on abortion- but it was left open to conscience if there were other compelling reasons to vote for someone who was unfortunately pro-choice- since we are not to be single-issue voters. So- if one supposed that voting for a Republican candidate would bring on potentially nation-ending war or economic ruin and thus render the legal abortion question (in effect) moot in such an environment since no movement focused on a social issue would gain any traction during crisis times- well that would be a paradigm of thought whereupon someone with a Catholic conscience may have voted for a Democrat in some paticular national office like president.

    My own experience with being exposed to the really influential Catholic Democrats was one where I tried my best to evangelize for the orthodox teachings of the Church- to follow the Magisterium and the Bishops on all fronts and not to continue in a heterodox direction- but alas I was confronted by the truly powerful forces that drive those who have actual weight in Democratic party power politics these days- and I was asked to depart from my place of opinion sharing- and at that stage I openly left the Party and my role as a leader for florida Dems for Life- and became a NPA- non-party-affiliation- as Archbishop Chaput did according to what I read in his great book- Render Unto Caesar. So- stillbelieve- I don’t know what to apologize to you about- I think my personal history explains why I chose the paths I took- if the Church had clearly indicated that working from within the Democratic party to try to reform the party on social issues was an immoral choice- then I would have abandoned the effort years ago- I have given up on that front- but I have many good Catholic and Christian friends who are still battling from within and taking the abuse from the dominant sexual revolutionaries – I’m not of a mind to join you in heaping more abuse their way- but if this is how you interpret WWJD in your time on stage blogging then it is something that Jesus Christ will have to determine at the time of our personal judgments- and I look forward to my time with Him so that I can see where I missed His cues and promptings, or just was blind- so that I can apologize to anyone or any group of persons that I did wrong by. I am trying to “live clean” and I have been trying to follow the orthodox directives from Christ’s Church- my wish now is that the American Bishops will now make perfectly clear to all of us that taking public positions opposed to granting the right to life for the unborn, and protecting traditional marriage definitions, and respecting religious liberties- all make any candidate unfit for any Catholic to vote for or support in any capacity- and political leaders who call themselves Catholics who vote for any of the Big Three will have to forego reception of Holy Communion due to the scandal they are producing among law-abiding American citizens. That, I think, would clear up any confusion about the morality of our political choices- given the unusual extremity of our times. I still hope to be of service to our Church and to serve a strong Bishop and take guidance from him- but if you are correct and the Holy Spirit agrees then I will accept another role in my life’s work- at the end of the day I just want to be one of those ‘unprofitable servants’ in the eyes of the Lord- if digging ditches is my true talent then so be it- I will carry a shovel for Christ- that’s my heart-that is something I can know even if many who know little about me doubt it- those in my home know me and from them I draw the human consolation that helps keep one’s spirit from being taken away by the naysayers always to be found.

  • It is important to realise that, for professional politicians, party labels are largely a sham.

    In any democracy, they inevitably group themselves into two parties (or coalitions), the friends of corruption and the sowers of sedition; those who seek to profit from existing abuses and those who seek to profit from the disaffection those abuses naturally produce.

    The policies either faction espouses, primarily to attract funding, but also as a sop to the rabble, is a matter of chance and circumstance.

  • I don’t have much experience with bishops, but I would suggest two: Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO and Archbishop Charles Chaput, currently Archbishop of Philadelphia (formerly of Denver, CO). Both have been a strong voice for authentic Catholic teaching and activism.

Obama Working Willfully To Undermine Hierarchical Catholic Church

Thursday, May 31, AD 2012

A few years ago I would have thought the title of my piece was too extreme- I bought into the charisma of Barack Obama- never publicly supported him- but I thought he was someone who could bridge some of the serious difficulties that pro-life Democrats faced within my political party. I read his books, I thought he respected the Catholic Church as much as a secular political liberal could be expected to. Around that time I was trying to work from the inside of the Democratic party- running for Florida State House as a pro-life Democrat, and later serving as Vice President for the Florida Democats for Life organization. This was also the time period where I was invited to become part of a national Catholic Democrats listserve which included such notaries as : Vicki Kennedy, Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College, Rev. William D’Antonio and Rev. Anthony Pogorel of the Catholic University of America, Peggy Steinfels of Fordham University, Rev. Thomas Reese of Georgetown, Vincent Miller of Georgetown/U. of Dayton, Dan Maguire of Marquette, Doug Kmeic of Pepperdine, Suzanne Morse of NCR, Chris Korzen of Catholics United, Alexia Kelly of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Steve Callahan of the AFL-CIO, and others (Eric LeCompte, Nicholas Carfardi, James Salt, Morna Murray, Fred Rotondaro, Kari Lundgren). I never agreed to keep all that passed before my eyes confidential, but I never publicly revealed the basic content until now.

My reason for going public now is due to the recent event where the Worcester Bishop Robert McManus weighed in to prevent Vicki Kennedy from speaking at the Anna Maria College commencement. The press I read portrayed the Bishop as being overly vindictive and Kennedy milked the rejection, playing innocent, as though she is doing nothing to try to upend the Catholic Church as we know it- as a Hierarchical Institution. It was my experience on the Catholic Dem listserve that Vicki Kennedy was essentially my nemesis. I defended the Church as a Hierarchy, and the official teachings on abortion et al, and she took me to task almost every time I wrote pro-orthodox Catholic commentary- with plenty of Amens from her fellow travelers on the listserve. I did receive a few positive private emails from some on the listserve, but on the whole it was a very discouraging experience trying to defend the Church as a convert, who would be at a total loss if the Catholic Church put no stock in the teaching authority of the Pope and the Bishops, and taught that contraceptives, legal abortion, and gay marriage were just fine and dandy things. So Soon after posting this on the listserve-

“It is deeply troubling to me that this Catholic Democrats listserve membership seems more intent on finding reasons to pull some kind of palace coup against the Catholic Church Magisterium and Hierarchy in general, than to address specific issues related to the Catholic interests in American politics. I am a convert to Catholicism, I knew what I was signing up for in becoming a Catholic, I accepted the teachings and authority lines as prescribed by the latest Catechism. I simply cannot understand why those who seem to relish openly trashing the Apostolic successors retain membership in the Church- that is something that I can only address as an appeal to someone else’s good conscience. Most of my family is of the Protestant variety, I understand that thinking and worldview but reject it, but they are acting in good conscience- they don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches about her role, so they don’t invest in the Catholic narrative and authority line. Maybe what I’m finding here at Catholic Democrats are many good protestants but not orthodox Catholics as I understand things?

You can remove me from your rolls if it displeases many here that I don’t conform to the groupthink on display here, otherwise I will continue to offer my two bits to challenge the establishment views of liberal, anti-Catholic Hierarchical voices which parallel the hard Catholic Right- in their wrongheadedness- in my humble opinion anyway. One is certainly free to criticize the clerical/Hierarchical handling of sexual abuse cases over the years- but how this all fits in with being a Democratic Party member is something I can’t fathom. Tim Shipe”

My offer to leave was accepted after Vicki Kennedy wrote a smack-down on me; and shortly thereafter I severed my own Democratic party membership and ended my leadership role with Florida Dems for Life- I took Archbishop Chaput route of becoming a political Independent and remain such today.

To come up to speed- back a couple of years ago- I knew that the most powerful and connected Catholic Democrats in our country were interested in more than just getting more traction on Catholic social justice issues in our American political system- I would describe the agenda/mind-set of Vicki Kennedy et al for the most part as the following:

 1. Obama embodies the Catholic social tradition- he’s a better guide than the out-of-touch Pope/Bishops 2. Democrats for Life leaders were not welcome – despite my own inclusion for a time- Kennedy seemingly successfully squashed the idea of Kristen Day being invited to be part of the listserve 3. The Bishops who were outspoken for advocating the primacy of the right to life for the unborn were demonized, mocked, ridiculed, and at times the idea of trying to bring on an IRS investigation on these type of Bishops was being encouraged by some ( especially if they dared to consider withholding Communion from Pro-choice Dem leaders) 4. Bishops were described as “self-designated custodians of ‘the tradition’”. 5. Catholic Dems could aptly be self-described for the most part as “intra-Catholic warriors” 6. The Clergy Scandals were to be used to help bring the end of the Bishops line of authority- teaching and otherwise 7. This authority should pass to those who know best- the secular-minded Catholic professors and their liberal political activist friends- since there really can’t be such a thing as a Holy Spirit-guided Catholic Church with Popes and Bishops playing a key role- I suppose they could still hold onto ceremonial roles like the Kings in Europe.

I can see clearly now that President Obama has been very conscious of this war for control within the Church- and his choice of Vice President and HHS Secretary- Biden and Sebelius, respectively, was a conspicuous power move to set in place the acceptability of dissenting Catholic leaders and thought into the mainstream of American societal structures and popular imaginations. The fact that Obama “evolved” on Gay Marriage with help from his Catholic buddy Joe Biden, and his determination to mandate contraception as a must-have “medicine” through the offices of Catholic Kathleen Sebelius- all of this plays right into the larger goals of the Catholic Democratic party elite. There has been no such evolution in his comprehension and compassion for the thousands of unborn humans killed every day in abortions, and the threat to religious liberties is finely focused on the authority of Catholic Bishops and the official teachings of the Catholic Magisterium. I believe the Catholic Dems elite would like to re-make American Catholic Bishops in the image of the Anglican church in England- with Obama playing a kind of King Henry VIII role in forcing power transfers ( counting on public/Catholic lay apathy).

My conclusion is this- I am not in disagreement with the Catholic Dems elite on an across-the-board basis- I am not a conservative ideologue any more than I am a liberal one. There are political issues where I go left and others where I go right or down the middle- I make the honest effort to stay as close to the official social doctrine teachings of principles, and even the prudential judgment application of those principles as the Bishops and Vatican officials advise. I find that the same powers-that-be that are given Holy Spirit assistance to teach firm principles, are also pretty darn good at putting forth ideas for applying those principles into the real world of political legislation and the like- but I acknowledge it’s not an exact science with one formula fits all simplicities, however. That’s how I would describe my own efforts in being a wanna-be orthodox, faithful Catholic on matters of social doctrine. Others may disagree- I have no doubt that the Catholic Dem elites I list above are well-intentioned- but I believe they are threatening great harm to many souls and to the future of our Catholic Church as the Hierarchical Institution – founded by Jesus Christ. Reforms should be taken up in a spirit that respects the obedience of Faith. I don’t abide by clergy abuses and incompetent administrative decisions made by Catholic bishops- but you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater- just as you don’t kill babies in the womb to solve the problems of women and their mates.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama Working Willfully To Undermine Hierarchical Catholic Church

  • Bravo Tim! The Obama administration is clearly the most anti-Catholic administration in our nation’s history. Now Obama is attempting to play up his supposed ties to the Church:

    The linked to story above requires a strong gag reflex.

  • N.B. The majority (votes democrat) of American Catholic clerics and laity are undermining the Church’s Mission: the salvation of souls.

  • Excellent statement – “…you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater- just as you don’t kill babies in the womb to solve the problems of women and their mates.”

  • Tim, this is a really good post. Thank you for writing it. I never understood the “agenda” of the elite Catholic Democrate. I never saw the big picture that you describe so well.

    I guess my main question regarding your post is in the last paragraph you said that liberal Dem Catholics are well-intentioned. It is really hard for me to believe that.
    In my mind good intentions would mean they are trying to positively change the Church for the salvation of souls, and I just don’t see that.

    Could you go into a little more detail that?

  • The unfortunate truth is that the attitudes you encountered and described are not just those of the Catholic Dem elite, but far too many of the Catholic rank and file.

  • C. Matt is right. I daily interface with many fine, upstanding and wonderful people who are everything a Catholic should be, except when it comes to contraception, abortion and homosexual marriage. The dissent is profound, widespread and almost un-eradical. I have written pages and pages of explanation on what the Bible says, what Humanae Vitae says and what the Catechism says. I have had many discussions with these persons. I even in certain cases went back to the real meaning of certain Greek words that St. Paul used in his Epistles in my verbal discussions and writings. Each one to a person fully acknowledged that I know more about Church teaching and what the Bible says than they do. But they insist on contraception as women’s health, abortion as a woman’s right to choose and homosexual marriage as a civil right. Nothing I have said or done makes even the slightest dent in their obstinacy. With such a sweet smile on their faces, they imply that I am the close-minded and intolerant one, though that’s not how they word their objections. Now they are entirely polite and diplomatic and respectful. And they do acknowledge WHAT the Church teaches with regard to these issues. But they won’t ACCEPT that teaching as applicable to themselves or anyone else who “by right of conscience” disagrees. They REFUSE the authority of both the Church and the Bible, and they do so in such a loving and kind and nice and tolerant and non-divisive way that I just want to scream.

  • chris- I do believe what these folks are doing is willful- but I don’t think anyone is motivated by a consciously-evil paradigm- these are intelligent people but I find that even the very intelligent get tripped up over the supposedly easy stuff. One connective tissue seems to be that general difference between converts to Catholicism and “birthright” Catholics- Mark Shea has written about how converts tend to see the doctrines as being absolutely essential to being a good Catholic- while cradle Catholics such as most of the people I encountered in Cath Dems – seemed proud of their rights of ownership as Catholics and fail to see through perhaps pride or habit- that they could be just re-making the Church in their own image- instead of being transformed they try do all the transforming- when they should be obedient reformer saints- they instead go the route of tearing down the authority lines within the Church and thus causing ruptures rather than repairing the damage of poor administration.

    So- I have to give people the benefit of the doubt in their intentions- even when they are flat out wrong in what they determine as beliefs and course of action- and of course you don’t allow people to do whatever they want based on good intentions- you have to put up resistance and try to convince them to reconsider- that is what I tried to do from the inside of the Democratic Party and within the CathDem listserve- but at a certain point you don’t just allow yourself to become a floor mat- you come to a point where you separate and kick the dirt off your sandals and move on..I reached that stage..and now I am hoping to do some damage control by alerting the Faithful of the real dangers to our Church by these Catholic intellectuals and activists who see themselves as great alternatives to the Pope and Bishops in leading the flock in terms of moral theology/social doctrine. What is the saying- the road to hell is paved with good intentions..

  • Very interesting post. Thanks for writing.

    As I look back in history and at current events, I see the Democrat party as anti-Catholic in principle (pro-slavery, anti-women suffrage, anti-civil rights, pro-abortion, anti-First Amendment, etc.) and in demonstration (KKK, HHS mandate, etc.). They are a party of hate and death.

  • In my reading about Cardinal Mindzenty I am learning how in Hungary, committed Communists divided Hungarian society into groups that could be pitted against each other, how a few so-called “progressive” Catholic priests and intelligentsia were duped into misleading their flock, how criminal anti-establishment types were used, how diminishing the unity of the Church weakened it’s resistance against the plans of the atheistic left, how government subsidies and so-called help kept various constituencies in line.
    Mindzenty: “Our psalm is the ‘De Profundis’, our prayer is the ‘Miserere’; our prophet is Jeremiah; our world is the Apocalypse”
    He knew the tactical cunning and deceit of the Communists and the reality that there must be no compromise.
    “The collaboration of leftist Catholics caused trouble immediately.” p 54

  • One more point to Chris- one thing that stood out for me was that vicki kennedy defended her brand of Catholicism when I made the above charge that this was really another form of protestantism- she claimed that she was upholding the manner in which she was brought up at home and in Catholic schools she attended. This would be a typical cause and effect which I have witnessed to in my previous posting on Education- the schools are often bastions for lukewarm and dissenting adult Catholics as administrators and teachers- and orthodox Catholic parents are few and far between- so with so much company in the ranks of the heterodox it is no wonder to me that various ideologies have become the replacement religion for many cradle Catholics. The biggest threat from the Cath Dems elite is that they have real access to real earthly power and they don’t just have some differences of opinion over some key political issues with the Catholic Hierarchy and Social Doctrine- they want to usurp proper authority within the Church and re-direct the moral authority unto themselves- this is what I am warning about and why I am trying to get a more organized response that goes beyond the partisan Republican-conservative v. Democratic-liberal battlelines. The Bishops themselves need to address this through the USCCB and through the parishes and schools- I would love to help since I am not a partisan- and thus tainted by ideological allegiances of my own.

  • Thanks again for the article, it is very informative. I often find myself in agreement with Democrates on most economic issues (current administration excluded) but am solidly Republican because of social issues.

    I will say you are much more charitable than me giving many of these Catholic Dems the benefit of the doubt. Something I need to work on I guess.

    RE Paul- I have written pages and pages of explanation on what the Bible says, what Humanae Vitae says and what the Catechism says

    Would appreciate any information you could pass along. Especially regarding homosexual marriage as this is a topic that comes up often within my sphere of influence

  • Completely messed up that last post, but didn’t mean to have that last sentence italicized. Guess that’s what happens when attempting to write a post as my two year old daughter is pulling on my shirt!

  • @ Chris,

    In answer to your request, here is the six page letter I wrote back in February to one of these “right to choose” Catholics. The person said that she read the first three pages and then stopped. All further conversation of a religious nature between us has likewise stopped at that point. There is nothing to be had in common with a liberal. We live on different worlds. What planet they come from I know not.

    Dear XXXXX,

    The following discusses the subject of the HHS mandate with which the Administration is compelling Catholic institutions to comply, and the background behind the teaching on homosexuality….The opinions expressed herein when Sacred Scripture or the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not referenced are my own. There is no obligation for you to agree or disagree with me outside of what Holy Mother Church teaches.

    The Church instructs us that abortion and contraception are intrinsic evils. The reason for this teaching is simple: life begins at conception and man does not have the authority to say when life may begin and when it may end. Three verses of Scripture bear upon this.

    1. First, Genesis 1:28 says, “And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’” It does NOT say, “Abort and contracept until you are ready to be fruitful and multiply.”
    2. Second, Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This means that even from conception the embryo is a human being.
    3. Third, Deuteronomy 5:17 states, “You shall not kill.” Abortion kills a living being and is contrary to God’s law.

    Genesis chapter 3 records that in the Garden of Eden the serpent tempted Eve with the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and both Adam and Eve succumbed. They were then driven out of the Garden of Eden lest they also partake of the Tree of Life and live forever in a state of sin. Today, humankind has decided to partake of that Tree of Life and determine when life begins and when life ends. The Church teaches that this is evil.

    Now Kathleen Sebelius (who describes herself as a Catholic) has issued a regulation that requires Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, halfway houses, etc., to provide insurance coverage for drugs that act as contraceptives or abortifacients (i.e., drugs which dislodge the embryo from the uterine wall and cause its ejection from the body, which in turn results in the death of the embryo). President Obama offered a so-called compromise to Catholic institutions by saying that they themselves would not under the regulation be paying for contraceptive or abortifacient drugs. But this ignores the fact that Catholic institutions would still have to pay insurance premiums that cover the cost of these drugs, so the compromise is mere sophistry and changes nothing. The regulation forces Catholic institutions to either stop their social service work or to pay for insurance premiums that cover the provision of intrinsic evil.

    What the US Council of Catholic Bishops has to say about the HSS mandate is available at the following web link:

    Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty

    The First Amendment to the Constitution states:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Note that the phrase “freedom of worship” is NOT used. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and is explicit in stating that Congress shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means that the Catholic Church (or any religious community for that matter) cannot be boxed into the walls of its house of worship; rather, religious people are allowed to practice their religion in the public square. In the case of Christians – especially Catholics – this means that its institutions which heal the sick (hospitals), feed the poor (soup kitchens) and teach the young (schools) may refuse to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives without legal penalty. Indeed, the regulation from HHS against the same is blatantly unconstitutional.

    There is another point that bears on this. The normal functioning of a female body is to reproduce. To stop that functioning is unnatural and against the health of the woman. Therefore, to claim that the provision of abortifacients and contraceptives are in behalf of woman’s health is disingenuous at best and mendacious at worst.

    Now some will at this point declare that a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body without interference from any external agency. That is true. Yet we have to remember that it takes two people to cause conception (the Blessed Virgin Mary being the only exception). I must be perfectly plain here. If a man does not want a baby, then he should keep his pants zipped up. And if a woman does not want a baby, then she should keep her legs closed. Abstinence is 100% preventative 100% of the time. There are going to be no second Virgin Mary’s. Once a person has made a decision to engage in sexual intercourse, then that person has acted on the right to choose and a baby results. God created us in His likeness and image, and having given us sentience, He expects us to act like human beings and not like wild animals. That means that we need to exercise self-control and refrain from sexual activity outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. No one has any right to commit fornication, adultery or homosexual intercourse (a topic which I will deal with later). Too many people nowadays claim to revere science, logic and reason, but when it comes to the titillation of their genitals, they are wholly given over to the lust of the flesh and for them sexual pleasure becomes an addiction no different in essential substance from addiction to heroin or cocaine. St. Paul explains this in Romans 7:15-25:

    15* I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22* For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23* but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24* Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

    There is a secondary argument that some people raise to justify abortion. They claim that abortion must always be available in cases such as rape or incest. This is illogical. Since when did committing a second crime right the wrong in the first crime? Why should the resultant baby be the victim of capital punishment for a crime that the father committed? The right solution is to make that father support mother and child for the next 18 years and nine months. Furthermore, the percentage of all cases of unwanted pregnancy being due to rape or incest is less than one per cent. The overwhelming majority of reasons given are similar to the following: “I wasn’t ready to have a baby.” The person making that declaration was, however, entirely ready to have sexual intercourse. Thus has abortion murdered 54 million unborn babies since the Roe v Wade decision by SCOTUS on January 23rd, 1973.

    Now a tertiary argument comes. Some claim that while they are personally opposed to abortion, they will vote for an abortionist politician because he claims that he will serve social justice and the common good. This argument is illogical. A man who will sacrifice an unborn baby’s life on the altar of political expediency for social justice and the common good serves neither social justice nor the common good. If he refuses to save the life of an unborn baby, then he will refuse the lives of the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, and the destitute.

    A fourth argument comes, namely that those who oppose abortion support capital punishment or war. Romans 13:1-4 bears on this:

    1* Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3* For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4* for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

    God gave the State the power to execute the wrongdoer and to defend the people. Yes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does urge the State to forgo the use of capital punishment (and I agree with that). It also encourages the avoidance of recourse to war (and I agree with that also). But there is no comparison between these and the murder of 54 million innocent babies since 1973. Abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, euthanasia and human cloning are intrinsic evils. Recourse to capital punishment and war, always to be avoided, are not intrinsic evils.

    One other thing needs to be explained here and that is the warning which Pope Paul VI gave regarding the contraceptive mentality in Humanae Vitae in 1968. The pertinent paragraphs are contained in section 17 of this encyclical and they essentially explain that (1) the contraceptive mentality causes the man to disrespect the women into being a mere sex object, and (2) that same mentality renders unto the State the power to mandate the use of contraceptives contrary to religious conscience. Both of those things are happening today. We see women paraded around as mere sex objects on the television and across the internet, and now our own government is trying to force Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients on the specious pretext of women’s health care. The actual statements made by Pope Paul VI are given below:

    Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

    Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

    Let us now discuss homosexuality. Paragraphs 2357 through 2359 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church best explain this.

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    Now 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 is quite clear. Because many modern translations incorrectly translate these verses of Sacred Scripture, I will start with the original Greek:

    9 ? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ???????????????; ?? ????????: ???? ?????? ???? ???????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? 10 ???? ??????? ???? ??????????, ?? ???????, ?? ????????, ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ???????????????.

    In typical translations into the English, these verses are rendered as following:

    9 Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? Be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

    The word ??????? in the Greek was used to designate the male who acted as receptor in the act of homosexual intercourse, hence its translation as “effeminate.” The word ???????????? in the Greek was used to designate the penetrator in the act of homosexual intercourse, hence its translation as “sodomite.”

    However, knowing what we now know, we see that these verses actually state:

    9 Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? Be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexual receptors, nor homosexual penetrators, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

    We modern people get a sanitized version of what St. Paul was writing to the Church at Corinth, yet what he actually wrote was anything but sanitized. Sacred Scripture is clear with regard to homosexual intercourse. Now yes, one may be a homosexual (that is to say, afflicted with same sex attraction). Such persons are never to be discriminated against merely because of a predisposition. Indeed, I have a predisposition to drinking alcohol alcoholically. Being an alcoholic will not send me to hell. Giving in to my alcoholism will, however, send me to hell. The applicable word that St. Paul uses for people like me in the aforementioned verses is ??????? which means “drunken or intoxicated.” Thus, just as I am to remain abstinent of alcohol because of my disease of alcoholism, so also is the homosexual person to remain abstinent of homosexual intercourse. Sacred Scripture cannot be annulled. Romans 1:18-32 states:

    18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

    People at this point may cry that it is unfair that a homosexual person be denied the pleasure of sexual satisfaction. This is a false cry. Homosexuals are subject to the same rules that any heterosexual person is subject to: no sexual intercourse outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. God does not play favorites. But God does allow us to bear our crosses. In my case, the cross may be alcoholism. In the homosexual’s case, it may be same sex attraction. Romans 8:18 states:

    For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us.

    And Colossians 1:24 states:

    I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body…

    We are called, whether single mother or father, alcoholic, homosexual or whatever, to unite our suffering with those of Christ on the Cross. As the old adage goes, no Cross, no Crown. The Gospel is not about social justice and the common good (though those are important). As Jesus in John 6:26-27 told the crowd who followed Him about after the feeding of the 5000 with loaves of bread and fishes:

    …Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were satisfied; work not for the food that is perishing, but for the food that is remaining to life age-during, which the Son of Man will give to you, for him did the Father seal — [even] God.

    When politicians promise social justice and the common good, we should remember the example of Judas Iscariot in John 12:1-7

    1* Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4* But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii * and given to the poor?” 6* This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7* Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

    Too many politicians are lying thieves in the tradition of Judas Iscariot. When we look to the State to provide what we need, even what we want, then we render unto the State to take away from us everything we have: house, wife, husband, child, mother, and father. It happened under Maximillien Robespierre in France during the 1790s. In the name of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” he murdered tens of thousands of Catholic clerics and laity using Dr. Guillotine’s “merciful instrument” of euthanasia. Like many in our government today, he was rabidly atheist, and his spiritual descendants today do to unborn babies what he did to the born a little more than two centuries ago. Thus does Jesus declare to Pontius Pilate in John 18:36:

    My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.

    Anyone who thinks (like Robespierre) that he can create a kingdom of Heaven on Earth is guilty of the worst sort of hubris, and that is the exact reason why adultery, fornication and homosexuality run rampant today. 2nd Chronicles 7:14 states:

    If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

    Matthew 6:33 is consistent with this:

    But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

    Conversion and repentance come before, not after social justice and the common good. Sadly, Robespierre had to die by his own guillotine because he refused to learn that lesson.

    Again, you are under no obligation to agree with me. And if you have questions on these matters, then you should give this letter to [ your priests ] to ask them to explain the truth. I am only a lay person and I do not speak for the Church. I can only tell you what Sacred Scripture and the Catechism state [and perhaps give a lesson in Koine Greek every once in a while! 😉 ]

  • Thank you for that link Robert Klein Engler. Please, every American Catholic read it.

  • @Robert, The author seems to say the Church has been willing to cooperate with those in power looking to cheat on the field as long as it advances the ball. And now, it has reached a point where it can continue to look the other way and play both parties or take a stand and become martrys. I can agree to a point, but I think some are taking advantage of this situation by going too far in its accussations against the hiearchy.

    An example is Paul’s Richochet article where it accuses the bishops of giving an endorsement of Obamacare. They never did. The lack of pro-life protections was always a road block to endorsement. While they did not endorse it, they also didn’t reject it. I had problems with the latter, but a lack of rejection does not equal an endorsement. I don’t recall a pro-Obamacare campaign by the bishops, which Paul claims.

    American Thinker article does ask an interesting question. How far will the bishops and the flock go to stand by their principles? Got the guts to take it all the way?

  • “An example is Paul’s Richochet article where it accuses the bishops of giving an endorsement of Obamacare. They never did. The lack of pro-life protections was always a road block to endorsement.”

    Though it was almost endorsed. The Bishops wanted conscience protections and coverage for illegal immigrants. If they got that then Obamacare would be fine. Cardinal George was actively lobbying Republicans not to vote against the Stupak Ammendment (in order to spike the Bill). This in the hope that the bill would ultimately pass.

  • Richochet, “A Pact With the Devil” was good grist… I think the Bishops led by Card. Dolan are taking this kind of goad seriously and instead of looking back, are doing their best to make good decisions now. The need is for unity, clarity and shared effort.

  • Thank you Paul, once I get through all of this material know that it will someday go to good use. I do not have to “re-invent” the wheel so to speak and thank you for the readily availible info to use

    RE: Tim

    Regarding Catholic schools, unfortunatly what you say is very true. I am sure some excellent ones exists, but I have several real horror stories myself regarding Catholic schools. It’s one of the reason why I currently struggle with the idea of sending my son to one. I want to give him every opportunity to learn about our faith. Ultimately he learns the faith at home. It’s sad to say but I am worried about more harm than good being done to him.

  • I’ve seen it on the bumpers of cars in the parish parking lot before Mass: the Obama bumper sticker. It astounds me that any faithful Catholic can even consider voting for a Democrat…even a pro-life Democrat, let alone someone as effectively pro-abortion as Obama. And yet, there they are – my fellow parishoners; some of whom I know from personal experience to have a deep love of Our Lord and his Holy Church. Though I guess its wrong, I do envy them their faith being, at least as I can perceive it, deeper than mine.

    Part of it has to be ancestral – my late father didn’t switch his voter registration from Democrat to Republican until 2008, and that was only about a year before he died. But he also warned me – they are coming after the Church. They want to make an “American Catholic Church” to stand in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and bid for the support of American Catholics. Ultimately, there really is only the Church, and Her enemies. And the enemies of the Church know one thing for certain: the only thing on earth which stands in the way of their victory is the Church.

    And there’s the other part of it – people who are willing to remain Democrats while still trying to remain faithful Catholics. The trick can’t be done – no matter how solidly Catholic you are if you are also a Democrat then you are magnifying the power of those who wish to destroy the Church, even if (and especially) if the destroyers have found a Bishop who won’t refuse them communion and who continue to pretend to the Catholic faith.

    I understand, Mr. Shipe – you wanted to be a good liberal and a good Catholic. You look at the GOP and, correctly, see many glaring errors, not least of which is the rote defense of “capitalism” in spite of the clear need for an alternative (Distributive) economic system. You’ve now learned a hard lesson – the only thing liberal leaders will allow you to be is a good liberal and that means mindlessly following whatever the leadership dictates, and if you don’t you’ll find yourself attacked until you either knuckle under or depart.

    I’m not asking anyone to give up their political views – but political allegiances must conform to reality. Any Catholic simply must, for the time being, vote Republican – not because Republicans are all wonderful…but because only Republicans offer the chance for faithful people to affect government policy. We can look for a day – hopefully not too far distant – when wise liberals will break completely with their leaders and form a Christian Democrat party to scoop up all those who are not enamored of the GOP but who cannot be faithful Catholics – or, indeed, Christians or Jews – within the Democrat party. I’m a Republican – have been my whole life; but if ever I see the GOP become a party hostile to my faith, I’ll drop it like a bad habit. If our faith does not drive our political actions then what use is our faith?

  • “Regarding Catholic schools, unfortunatly what you say is very true. I am sure some excellent ones exists, but I have several real horror stories myself regarding Catholic schools. It’s one of the reason why I currently struggle with the idea of sending my son to one.”

    I have some real ones too. This because my wife taught in Catholic schools for years. The level of knowledge and/or practice of the Faith is limited among most teachers. Some co-habitating. Some with Gay “marriage” stickers on their cars. Most actively communicating this very “modern” life to students.

  • There are too many blank spaces in the Obamacare contract where Sebelius can write in a prison term as Hillary Clinton did in Hillarycare, criminalizing and penalizing the very act of healing and the practice of medicine. Hilliarycare criminalized the practice of medicine with a TWO year federal prison sentence for every doctor who treated a patient not in his group.
    Obamacare promises everything a person might need, if one does not mind waiting a year or more for an emergency. The only surgery that will be done is abortion because the baby grows and is born according to the nature of the human being. In Canada, socialized medicine brought many people to the United States for heart surgery because the wait in Canada was over two years. My friend’s brother moved to Texas where he had the heart surgery.
    It would be interesting If Obama was a doctor poised to go to Federal prison for as long as Sebelius sends him, otherwise, the blank contract without informed consent is entrapment of the taxpaying citizens and a violation of civil liberties. Not those civil liberties endowed by the American Civil Liberties Union or Obama, but of those First Amendment Freedoms guaranteed by our founding principles and endowed by God, our God Who has been removed from the public square. How convenient.
    How very convenient. In this instance, Obama is taking advantage of the devil’s evil genius.

  • Evil is as evil does. Intentions pave the road to Hell. It is good that some are crossing over into the light, but forces of Darkness are many. Giving them any credit at all only weakens our defenses and strengthens thier resolve.

    There can be no compromise.

  • Pingback: Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops? | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Sr. Margaret Farley Vatileaks NeoCatechumenal Way Dawn Eden | Big Pulpit
  • Prior to the 2008 election, many of us had serious problems with Obama’s voting record and his promises for the future. We were ridiculed and called racists and hard-hearted, among among other names not printable here.
    It does now seem like the incubation of time has proven the concerns of 2008 to be real as the plans of this administration move forward.
    Subtle evil is still as evil as openly displayed evil.
    We must not allow this administration to control the bishops – and thus the Catholic Churh – in this country.

  • In my opinion, these heretics have been tolerated for way too long. Everything about them is “un-Catholic.” They have interpreted Vatican II as a license to make up their own Magisterium if they don’t like the Church’s official one. They openly mock the Pope, the Bishops, the Church. To them, it is the “faithful” that determine the Catholic Magisterium, not the Holy Father in conjunction with the heirs of the apostles. They openly declare that the “patriarchal” heirarchy has lost its legitimacy and they see the doctrinal “retrenchment” of Blessed JP II and BXVI as perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the Church since the Reformation. They believe the Pope and Bishops are dead wrong on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, women’s ordination, etc., etc. and that they are “destroying” the Church by holding fast to their positions on these issues. These heretics should be excommunicated, en masse, immediately. The situation has gotten so dire that, in my humble opinion, every Catholic should be required to pledge an oath of loyalty to the Pope, their local Bishop, and the Magisterium of the Church or face excommunication. The “Catholic” population of the United States would be cut in half almost immediately, but at least those who remained would be true Catholics. This would certainly mean closing many parishes, schools and hospitals. It would mean supposedly Catholic universities formally breaking from the Church. It would mean dramatic loss of political influence. But, it would rid the Barque of Peter of these servants of Satan who are intent on destroying it from within and re-molding it in their own image. We know what happens when the route of accomodation to popular culture that they propose is taken – just look at the rapidly approaching extinction of Mainline Protestantism.

  • Donald, I have to disagree with your statement the “Obama administration is clearly the most anti-Catholic administration in our nation’s history.” If you look back in our nation’s history, the Masonic influence and the nativist movement of the first half of the 19th Century was clearly more anti-Catholic than the Obama admistration.

  • Disagree Chuck. One of the friendliest of the Founding Fathers to Catholics was George Washington, a mason. The Know Nothing Party prior to the Civil War had some influence, but never succeeded in electing a President. No, when it comes to the White House, the Obama administration is clearly the most anti-Catholic administration by far.

  • Wow! Excellent article.
    Thank you for explaining to me what is really happening.
    It’s all clear now.

  • In the beginning of this article you talk about your piece being important are talking about your gun or was that a typo?

  • From my own experience I can tell you that you shouldn’t hang out with poisonous people especially if you are a convert.

  • valentine- the reference was to the title of the “piece”- not my gun or a typo!

    Maureen- thank you so much- I wrote this for those who have leaned Left or Independent- those who have long been on the Right were already on the attack of anything Obama. I wanted to believe that Catholic Democrats were more faithful, not less. I really tried to make a dent in what I found was an extreme belief that the Magisterium- the Pope and Bishops- really weren’t not the proper teaching authorities for the Church. That role apparently is to go to the majority of Catholics- or perhaps society- with the critical role of authority going to the academic and the politician- the professors and political activists are the ones who know and care the most- more than distant popes and bishops- so the thinking goes. The consequence of this twisting of Christ’s will is that we have Catholics supporting legal abortion, widespread contraception, anything goes marriage definitions, and who dare say that women and active homosexuals can’t be priests, bishops or even the pope?? So- I am one who is sounding the alarm- I think I have credibility because I entered into this debate with an open heart and mind- I really tried to find a way to influence the Dem Catholics- but now I see that they are dead-set on something much more than moving the country a bit to the Left on the economy and environment- they are palace revolutionaries in their willingness to use the powers of state to push through an agenda that goes decidedly against basic and obvious official Catholic teachings. We need to talk about this in circles larger than the die-hard Republican grouping. I want politically-independent orthodox Catholics to get more facts to use for their own understanding and to help move the national discussion/debate on religious liberty

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The public square, all public places belong to the people in joint and common tenancy. You own it all and I own it all. Government is called upon to keep the peace. Government may not usurp the public square that belongs to the people to be used by the people for any legitimate purpose, public prayer, public politicking, recreation, education, leisure, work, any good thing. To ban the Person of God and to ban the acknowledgement of the Person of God from the public square is unconstitutional. If persons desire to be acknowledged as persons, all persons must be acknowledged, beginning with the Person of our Creator. Now that the Person of God is banned, the people of God are being banned and soon all human life will be indicted as unfit to live.

Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University

Monday, May 21, AD 2012

William Peter Blatty, well-known novelist, author of the Exorcist, a Georgetown graduate, class of 1950, is spearheading an effort to force Georgetown to reform, or to cease to call itself Catholic.  Here is his letter:

Dear Friends,

I invite you today to join me in The Father King Society to Make Georgetown Honest, Catholic, and Better by signing on to a very special effort here. I ask you also to curtail your donations to Georgetown University for one year.

The late Jesuit Father Thomas M. King was a good friend. I had the privilege of lecturing his theology class, which started the rumor that he had inspired my priestly character in The Exorcist. Father King inspired many other things; and our effort now.

On May 5, 2012, in a speech to American bishops, Pope Benedict XVI called on America’s Catholic universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity. The Pope noted the failure of many Catholic universities to comply with Blessed John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae. The Pope said that preservation of a university’s Catholic identity “entails much more than the teaching of religion or the mere presence of a chaplaincy on campus.”

For 21 years now. Georgetown University has refused to comply with Ex corde Ecclesiaie (“From The Heart of the Church”), and, therefore, with canon law. And, it seems as if every month GU gives another scandal to the faithful! The most recent is Georgetown’s obtuse invitation to Secretary Sebelius to be a commencement speaker.

Each of these scandals is proof of Georgetown’s non-compliance with Ex corde Ecclesiae and canon law. They are each inconsistent with a Catholic identity, and we all know it. A university in solidarity with the Church would not do these prideful things that do so much harm to our communion. (You can pen a heartfelt letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington and the Holy Father offering your own experience here.)

In the months to come, The Father King Society will ask Georgetown and the Church for explanations and decisions. In 1991, in an effort led by courageous Georgetown students, my dearly missed classmate, GU Law Center Prof. Richard Alan Gordon, took the awesome step of submitting a canon law petition asking the Church to remove Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic. Then Dean of Students John J. DeGioia had authorized the funding of a pro-abortion student advocacy group. A contemporaneous secret memorandum from the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities to the presidents of all Jesuit institutions showed us that Dr. DeGioia’s decision was part of a larger scheme: GU was to be the dissident leader for others to follow. Dean Gordon’s effort was provocative and drastic, but within months of the filing, Rome required Georgetown to reverse itself, and Georgetown did.

Father Tom King was actively involved and submitted an essay to be used in support of the canon law action. (We post it here.) Soon after the 1991 “GU Choice” funding, a meeting took place on campus that collected the students, teachers, alumni and parents who had reacted to the University’s scandal in diverse ways. Fr. King listened intently, and then the mild-speaking priest told us of a call the night before from his brother, also a priest. His brother had said, “Tom, you have to choose sometimes — either you fish or cut bait.” Father King told us that he had decided to fish. And now, at long last, so have I. I ask you to join us!

For almost two decades, The Cardinal Newman Society has pursued with true inspiration and devotion its unique ministry to strengthen Catholic higher education in America. CNS has agreed to help us. Likewise, the St. Joseph’s Foundation, a Texas charity that focuses on canon law, has been a source of valuable information. We appreciate the help of both apostolates.

We may choose to file a canon action again, one much larger in scale and seeking alternative forms of relief that will include, among others, that Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic and Jesuit be revoked or suspended for a time. We will ask for lesser relief as well. Of course, what we truly seek is for Georgetown to have the vision and courage to be Catholic but clearly the slow pastoral approach has not worked. I invite you to sign the “Mandate of Procurator” on this website so that I, and other alumni, parents, teachers and students, may represent you in this special and historic Church petition.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University

  • This is a sad article for me. I didn’t realize that Father King had passed away. He was a good priest. He was one of those old people who can relate to the young in a natural way. He had a taste for Teilhard that I never understood, but he was as orthodox as the day is long.

    I remember one day when I and three other guys were the only attendees at a Mass of his. There was a point in the text where he was supposed to make a reference to “brothers and sisters”. He said “brothers”. I got such a kick out of that.

    For so long it’s been a truism that most Jesuits are unimpressive, but the good ones are fantastic. I hope the order has seen an influx of new, devout priests the way some other institutions have. It’d be a tremendous loss if the last pillars of Jesuit greatness disappear and go unreplaced.

  • It is sad how at a so called catholic university you get kicked out of a room for calling out a tyrant murderer. It is a lot more like the fake catholic church in China which is in accord with the government and calls itself catholic but is not in accordance with the Vicar of Christ. Liars need to be pointed out and cleared from the ranks.

  • As a member of the class of ’62 I just skipped my 50th Reunion for all of the reasons stated by Mr. Blatty. I believed that I would have been a hypocrite to attend and appear by my presence to be tacitly condoning Georgetown’s steady march to the ‘dark side’. My only comment to my friends is that “Georgetown has lost its soul”

Archdiocese of Washington Speaks Out Against Georgetown

Sunday, May 13, AD 2012

Msgr. Pope linked to this editorial from the Catholic Standard.  It condemns Georgetown’s decision to invite Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a commencement, and does so in unequivocal terms.  Here’s one key graph:

Founded in 1789 by John Carroll, a Jesuit priest, Georgetown University has, historically speaking, religious roots. So, too, do Harvard, Princeton and Brown. Over time, though, as has happened with these Ivy League institutions, Georgetown has undergone a secularization, due in no small part to the fact that much of its leadership and faculty find their inspiration in sources other than the Gospel and Catholic teaching. Many are quite clear that they reflect the values of the secular culture of our age. Thus the selection of Secretary Sebelius for special recognition, while disappointing, is not surprising.

And then this:

With all of the people struggling so hard to preserve freedom of religion, and with all that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said in defense of this important value, Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops.

The editorial is not mincing words.  It is plainly stating that Georgetown is, for all intents and purposes, no longer a Catholic university.  As Msgr. Pope notes, these words come from the Archdiocese’s official newspaper, and therefore had to be signed off on by the Cardinal’s senior staff.

There’s much more, and Msgr. Pope also adds his own take on the editorial.

Continue reading...

47 Responses to Archdiocese of Washington Speaks Out Against Georgetown

  • This is good news, Paul Z. Thanks!

  • I think it was a wise conclusion made by the pope it is still none the less such a shame that Goergetown is filled with such dissent. Please take a look at the comments I posted on the article called “Hard Truths for Grads”.

  • *growls about it being DC, not Washington*

  • The story doesn’t make something clear. Is the Secretary being given an honorary doctorate or similar honor as well as being invited to deliver the Commencement address? If not, then is she not the exact type of person you would want to speak before the best and the brightest at a time when these State/Church debates about such fundamental issues have come to the fore?

    Absolutely, Georgetown should not honor her with an award. But if the fruits of 4+ years of Catholic education is insufficient to sustain graduates from losing their Catholic convictions after hearing one speech ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ so to speak, God help our Catholic faith in North America north of the Rio Grande.

    If Kissinger, at the time of the Vietnam War, were to give such a commencement address, would have been wrong to listen to him lest he corrupt Catholic teaching obliging us to be artisans of peace? Or would be seen as a Catholic institution of learning’s role to facilitate a full and frank exchange debate of such fundamental issues as confront the American Church head-on, with confidence in our hearts of the rightness of our cause.

    As a Canadian, I’m not entirely sure regarding the nuances and customs as to how such commencements are organized in colleges south of the 49th and it is required to bestow such an honor to any invited speakers. If so, that would be a shame for Mme. Secretary should never have been invited. But as Catholic I have sufficient confidence that if Georgetown graduates, armed with faith and knowledge to able to benefit from the exchange, believe she most certainly should be allowed to speak. After all, were we not told to be as wise as the children of this world? How can we do so if we only hear from the one voice? Preaching to the choir exclusively is a poor preparation for life. Mature Catholics need to hear all voices if they intend to live out their faith through a long life, successfully defending the faith in the Public Square.

    Fr. Tim Moyle

  • Fr. Moyle, I disagree with you for several reasons. Secretary Sebelius is, in fact
    being given an honor by Georgetown– the honor of addressing the graduates of one
    of its schools at their commencement. That is very different from being invited to be
    one of several persons participating in a symposium or a debate. She is, in effect,
    being presented by Georgetown to the students as someone who embodies what the
    university seeks to instill in its graduates.

    This won’t be an academic exercise where Madame Secretary’s views will be examined
    and discussed. She will not be taking questions from the assembly. While that would
    be a true exercise of academic freedom, I don’t imagine such a symposium holds much
    interest for her.

    If, as you say, mature Catholics need to hear all voices, would you then have any
    objection if next year Georgetown invited a Klansman or the president of NAMBLA
    to give a commencement address? If so, please explain how theirs are voices that
    should not be given a pulpit at a Catholic college, yet Sebelius’ is.

  • Clinton: All good points. However there is a difference between inviting Mme. Sebelius and the KKK or NAMBLA representative is that the former is someone who is shepherding a revolutionary change in your society whereas the latter two are criminals and/or thugs. One leads your government. The others are dedicated to overthrowing your inclusive government and replacing it with a white-only body (KKK) or proposing the wholesale sexual abuse of children by adults. There is clearly a qualitative difference between them.

    Please do not misunderstand me. I am not au courant as to academic traditions in your country, nor am I up to speed as to all the nuances of your struggles in the health care debate. It only seemed to me that given her role at the center of this debate, she seemed an ideal candidate to address a convocation.

    Fr. Tim

  • Clinton: Sorry for the typo. The 2nd sentence should read: “Mme. Sebelius and the KKK or NAMBLA representative IN that the former is someone…” I guess I shouldn’t start typing away before I’ve had my morning coffee…especially on a Monday morning. I miss my own spelling and grammar errors.

    Fr. Tim

  • “Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops” …and certainly not for FREEDOM.

  • Father Tim: ‘she seemed an ideal candidate to address a convocation.’ Isn’t a convocation a prayer for the Holy Spirit?

  • Fr. Moyle, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I brought up the hypothetical
    Klansman/NAMBLA characters to demonstrate that there are in fact voices that
    mature Catholics don’t need to hear– at least, not in the capacity of commencement
    speakers, an honor which implies the endorsement of the hosting college.

    It would be entirely reasonable to invite the woman to Georgetown to participate in
    a public discussion of the HHS mandate. That would be a legitimate exercise of
    academic freedom, and I would agree that sensible Catholics would be interested to
    hear Secretary Sebelius defending her position in a civil discussion with her critics.

    Such a discussion is not what Georgetown is proposing. Secretary Sebelius is being
    given the honor (and implied endorsement) of an invitation to give a commencement
    address. She will not be fielding questions, there will be no opportunity for rebuttal.
    This is nothing less than a deliberate thumb in the eye of the bishops by the admin-
    istration of Georgetown.

  • “However there is a difference between inviting Mme. Sebelius and the KKK or NAMBLA representative in that the former is someone who is shepherding a revolutionary change in your society whereas the latter two are criminals and/or thugs.”

    With all respect, Father, I see no difference between the criminal activity of Mme. Sebelius in supporting and advocating the murder of the unborn, and the criminal activity of the KKK in its murderous racism, or the criminal activity of NAMBLA in paedophilia. That the immoral “laws” in the United States make Mme. Sebelius position of infanticide “legal” is no different than immoral laws in Germany which made the genocide of Jews before and during WW II not only legal but a matter of government policy.

    Mme. Sebelius, her boss (President Barack Hussein Obama), and the members of the current Administration are criminals, thugs and gangsters. Again, while the details are not relevant to the discussion of this post, the behavior of the Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a case in point:

    Therefore, not only should Mme. Sebelius be barred from speaking at any Catholic institution, but the example of St. Paul in dealing with both Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:19-20, and the man living with his father’s mother in 1st Corinthians chapter 5 should and must be emulated by our Bishops. These people are as utterly evil as King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, and they must therefore be (in St. Paul’s own words in 1st Corinthians 5:5) delivered “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that [their] spirit[s] may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

  • There is no doubt that, as an institution, Georgetown is no longer Catholic (and probably as not been for a long time). While the strongly worded editorial is welcome, is there something more official that can be done? Is there a way to revoke the ability of Georgetown to officially present itself as a Catholic institution?

  • Mary: Clearly Mme. Sebeluis would be in inappropriate choice to give the benediction at the event. Is that not the time in the service when God’s Holy Spirit is called down upon the gathered assembly? Does that necessarily invalidate her in addressing the convocation assembly with an address?

    Please understand: I am not saying that she is the best choice for the event. I can think of dozens of others who would do a better job. I’d vote for George Weigel for he is probably the preeminent American voice addressing these same important issues. Even Cardinal Dolan would have been an inspired choice. If I had the opportunity to attend, I’d much rather listen to them than Mme. Sebelius. I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to prove an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church.

    Perhaps an organized debate or symposium would be a better forum than a convocation, but I suspect there would be as much concern about anyone from the current administration speaking on a Catholic campus. It would be a tragedy if I am correct, for it seems to demonstrate a belief that Catholic teaching cannot stand against counter opinions. Clearly, this is NOT the case. I guess I just see this as a question of confidence in the Church and not in the stark political terms that grips your nation these days.

    Do we as Catholics see the ‘other side’ in these debates as enemies instead of opponents? Could it be that the passion of the times is overwhelming the reason of our faith leading to closing ourselves off against voices we see as hostile? I fear this is the case. It does not seem to me that such a position can be squared with the example that Jesus, Paul, and the early Church Fathers offered. They actively engaged the world to argue for the proposition of the new covenant of salvation through the ‘folly of the cross’. Yes, if the audience could not accept the message they moved on to others who would and did not waste time debating with those closed to the salvific truth of the cross. But they tried. They listened, thought, prayed and responded. They engaged. They were not afraid to do so. We shouldn’t be afraid either.

    It is unbecoming for a people called to be evangelists of the gospel to the world for them to shy away from doing the same as those who passed on the faith to us. To quote Fr. RJN, it’s the ‘challenge of embracing orthodoxy and bringing to the world.’ We can’t do that if we don’t interact with the world in the first place.

    Hope this helps to put my earlier comments into a fuller perspective for you. As I’ve said, I suffer from not being directly involved in current American issues and speak as an outsider. I hope I’m humble enough to be open to correction by you and others who are living through these events. It’s just that there is truth in the maxim: ‘When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s hard to remember that your objective is to drain the swamp.’ Perhaps an outside voice can offer a different perspective. I thank you for the chance to offer such a perspective.

    Fr. Tim

  • “Do we as Catholics see the ‘other side’ in these debates as enemies instead of opponents?”

    Yes, especially when they mandate that Christian institutions must pay for abortifacients and contraceptives contrary to religious conscience. Kathleen Sebelius, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Kennedy, Andrew Cuomo, et al., are self-professed Roman Catholics who publicly support the infanticide of the unborn, the sanctification of the filth of homosexual sodomy, the distribution and use of contraceptives, and the cohabitative life style of adultery and fornication. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

    “It does not seem to me that such a position can be squared with the example that Jesus, Paul, and the early Church Fathers offered. They actively engaged the world…”

    Jesus was beaten and whipped half to death when He stood before and engaged Pontius Pilate. St. Paul was in chains when he stood before and engaged Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa. St. Ignatius of Antioch engaged the Roman tyrants by willingly going to the lions. These testimonies are in stark contrast to the elevation of apostasy and heresy being given to Kathleen Sebelius. That elevation isn’t a witness to the world. It’s the same kind of disgrace that Jesus identified when He said to Simon Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan.”

    “It is unbecoming for a people called to be evangelists of the gospel to the world for them to shy away from doing the same as those who passed on the faith to us.”

    I agree. jesus whipped the money changers out of the Temple. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” Jesus told the crippled man he cured who was carrying around his mat, “Stop sinning lest worse happen to you.” Jesus put the Pharisees and Sadducees in their place on multiple occasions. St. Peter confronted Anannias and Sapphira for lying and the Holy Spirit dropped them dead where they stood. We’ve already discussed how St. Paul dealt with the sex pervert in 1st Corinthians 5 and with the blasphemers in 1st Timothy 1:19-20. St. John wrote sternly about that Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-23, how Jesus was going to put her onto a sick bed and strike her children of adultery dead.

    The only dialogue to be given Sebelius, and the heretics and apostates like her, is what is written in verse 9 of the Epistle of St. Jude:

    “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.'”

    A Christian doesn’t dialogue with the devil or his minions.

  • While the strongly worded editorial is welcome, is there something more official that can be done? Is there a way to revoke the ability of Georgetown to officially present itself as a Catholic institution?

    I’m unaware of how the process plays out exactly, but Msgr. Pope suggests that it is a rather complicated procedure that would certainly entail something more involved than the Cardinal making a simple declaration. So while many of us would like to see Georgetown rebuked in a much sterner fashion, it is not as easy as we would like.

  • As was so tremendously posited in a previous post, if a Catholic institution wishes to offer a perspective for fair consideration other than the Church’s own teachings, why settle for half-measures?

    Just have Satan himself give the commencement speech. It’s one thing to “interact” with the world, but something else entirely to give it voice so that we then become corrupted.

    “In the world but not of it,” I believe is the phrase that pays. Slicing Ms. Sibelius to bits in an honest, open and fairly-moderated debate would be perfectly acceptable. Legitimizing her views at an ostensibly Catholic institution, in contradiction to Church teaching and without rebuttal or deliberation, is slow suicide.

  • WK, Paul: I bow to your assessment of your own situation. Again, as a Canadian I do not understand your concerns about what you call ‘socialized medicine’. It’s something that we proudest of as a mark of our civilization as a society. I do not presume to claim that I know for certain that the Mme. Secretary is an appropriate speaker at such an event.

    However, as a believer I cannot reconcile labeling other people in such demonic contexts. It implies a judgment of character and soul that I am incapable of making, blinded as I am by the plank in my own eye. I will defend and debate as forcefully and vociferously as I can for the propositions of the Church. Injecting such confusion between one’s opinions and the character and standing of others before God will serve to do no more than impede the chances of having our propositions being heard or accepted by those who we need as allies if we hope to change the course of our respective societies and nations.

    PLEASE… do not take what I offer as a rebuke or refutation of what you state regarding the immorality of what Mme. Secretary supports and promotes. I simply believe that minds formed with Catholic values would only benefit from hearing directly from the person tasked by government to make and implement public policy. I admit that perhaps a graduation ceremony may not be the appropriate forum for such an exchange and apologize if I’ve offended anyone who believes that I think them wrong for believing and expressing a different opinion. No offense or insult was never my intention, nor do I wish to walk where it is not my place to be.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Fr. Tim

  • New campaign slogan: “Obama/Biden 2012. We got your back.”

  • “It implies a judgment of character and soul that I am incapable of making, blinded as I am by the plank in my own eye.”

    Jesus told us to take the plank out of our own eyes, not leave it in. I am NOT suggesting, Father, that YOU are leaving the plank in your own eye. Rather, I am suggesting that we take Jesus at his word: let us remove the plank from our own eyes so that we can see clearly enough to remove the offending splinter from another’s eye. Regardless of plank or splinter, to fail to take Jesus at His word leaves everyone blinded.

    Ezekiel 34:1-10 places an even greater responsibility on the cleric (for which reason I am grateful to God that I do not have your job, Father). You have to fight the wolves, and one of the them is Kathleen Sebelius.

    As for national health care, it is NOT the job of Caesar Augustus to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, care for the sick, clothe the naked, etc. That is our job as members of the Body of Christ, and everytime we abdicate our responsibility and evade our accountability to do that, then we sacrifice on the altar of political expediency our freedom as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven and our adoption as children of that great King. Why is it that so many of us want government to take care of the needy instead of ourselves? Since when has Caesar ever been more capable than God’s own children? Are we afraid to get our own hands dirty, as it were? Yet under the threat of having to provide abortifacients and contraceptives, even that avenue of serving the least and lowliest will be cut off from Catholic medical institutions in these United States. The same is true in your own Canada, Father. A government that mandates that abortion of the unborn and euthaniasia of the aged and infirm are health care is a government which cannot be entrusted with health care under any circumstances. A people too busy to help the least and lowliest – so busy that they have to shove the responsibility onto nanny government – is a people that deserves neither health care nor good government. Since when are politicians to be trusted?

    Lastly, the example of John chapter 6 rings loudly and clearly. Jesus fed the 5000 with the loaves and fishes, and then with His disciples went to Capernaum on the other side of the lake. The “peepul” awoke the next day and finding him missing, went themselves to the other side of the lake. They asked Jesus why he left. Jesus responded that they sought him not because of the signs and miracles, or because of the preaching, but because their bellies were filled. Jesus told them not to seek the bread that perishes, but the Bread of Eternal Life. Many left Him that day.

    The Gospel isn’t one of social justice and the common good (yes, those are important, but the goal is Heaven). Rather, the Gospel is one of conversion and repentance. Do we want health, safety, and prosperity? Then we need to stop coddling demonic women like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius (and yes, they are demonic – but their fruits ye shall know them). We need to start repenting and right now. 2nd Chronicles 7:14 speaks to us:

    “…if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

    All the machinations of government sponsored health care plans cannot save us when we murder over 1 million unborn babies every single year. As a priest of the living God, you, dear Father, have the awesome and frightening responsibility to preach this.

  • “I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to provide an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church. ” HELL, YES.

  • Some of us opine: it isn’t charity if you do it with someone else’s money.

    Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Mme. Sibelius, et al are among a long (not unbroken) line of social justice Christians beginning in the days when Jesus was with us.

    I think (I could be wring!) I discovered the first social justice fanatic in St. John’s Gospel. See John 12: 1 – 8.

    Like their forebear, these people do not care about the poor and sick. They do it because they crave power and they are pure evil.

  • Paul: On your points regarding the essential task of defending the Church’s teaching on life, we are in 100% lockstep and agreement. I joined with others from my and surrounding parishes who last week boarded buses and traveled for 6 hours on the highway so we could participate in our annual National March for Life in Ottawa. I regularly preach on the subject of promoting the culture of life over the current aegis of the culture of death. I write letters to editor, politicians, and hospital administrators and health care professional to make the case for life. I write about the issue regularly on my own blog. Catholics, irrespective of their convictions imperil their souls if they ignore the Church’s teaching on life. This is BLUE LETTER LAW and we have no right to violate the right to life and still.

    If having a member of the Obama administration is a clear and present threat to the belief of the graduates, then she should not be allowed to speak. I would hope, that as Peggy Noonan (another excellent choice that Georgetown could have made) did in a similar situation of controversy when Obama was previously honored by Notre Dame and graciously decline the invitation so as to quell any troubles for those who invited her in the first place. But that too is perhaps too Canadian an attitude to become caché in your country. Up here we have no need to cast opponents in such deadly terms. We don’t see each other as a threat. Given your nation’s belief that God intended you to have free access to guns, you’ve formed a societal reality where one would certainly tend to nurture a more reticent view of an opponent I suspect this comes from our different revolution/evolution paths to statehood: your being born of blood… ours being born by compromise and accommodation.

    Fr. Tim

  • Thank you Fr. Tim. We mostly agree. With respect to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (i.e., “Given your nation’s belief that God intended you to have free access to guns…”), Luke 22:36-38 does say:

    36* He [ Jesus ] said to them [the disciples ], “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. 37* For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

    I fully agree, however, that those who live by the sword (or the gun) will perish by the sword (or the gun). Nevertheless, in these terrible times as the US Government emulates the freedom-restricting policies of the German government of the 1930s (just look at what Sebelius is doing in requiring Catholic institutions to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives – soon we’ll be force to officiate homosexual weddings!), Jesus’ admonition to buy a sword applies as well to buying a gun. Indeed, one of the first things that dictators like Hitler and Stalin outlaw are individual possession of firearms. Thus, the lesson of 1st Maccabees chapter 2, or better yet, 2nd Maccabees chapters 6 and 7, cannot be forgotten. That said, I do NOT advocate the initiation of force. But just as Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner, so also is freedom (or liberty) a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

    I shall pray for your ministry, Father, and that God may send us more holy priests who do what you do.

  • Paul: Thank you for your gracious words. The conversation with you enjoys the benefit of having been educational and pleasurable. I look forward to talking with you again.

    Fr. Tim

  • – these people do not care about the poor and sick. They do it because they crave power and they are pure evil. –

    & accolades of the graduates and parents who will be cemented in confusion of power and glamor where the ‘good’ jobs are.
    & money from donors who need their nods
    & protection from the edge of the cliff where supporters are partying
    & exemptions galore from the jokes and those they incite …
    What’s worse is that these self-righteous exemplaries don’t even understand what Judas the Iscariot did – the value of the money in the bag which he held.
    12:5 “why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”
    12:6 “He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.”

    This not so sober administration has No Budget yet; only demoralizing distractions, promises to world leaders, drones, and fund-raisers.

  • PM I don’t think they can be pure evil since any evil is evil because it is lacking good and so if they were pure evil we would not have to worry about them. They are simply twisted and tempted by the devil.

  • My family has several graduates of Georgetown University. Thank heavens they have gone to their eternal reward and not see how far the school has fallen.

    I am ashamed that Georgetown University chooses unwisely in its choice of speakers, programs that attack the beliefs of our Roman Catholic faith.

    Where are the Jesuits? What are they doing? Who is running the school? Has everyone taken leave of their senses?

    There are fine Catholic men and ladies who are of substance and thought, who keep the Church teachings that are qualified to speak to a graduating class. Choose one of them.

    I always admired Georgetown University. I was heartbroken to be rejected for under graduate work and for the law school. I always respected the school as the best of Roman Catholic education. I went to another Catholic institution for undergraduate work and a secular law school. My rejection by Georgetown may have been a blessing.

  • “I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to provide an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church. ” HELL, YES.
    To rephrase my response. Since the Bishops in America have instructed Catholics (all) to refuse platforms to evildoers, Georgetown is in direct violation of the bishops’ authority, unless you Father Tim, judge Sebelius’ advocation of abortion, violation of conscience and enslavement of America’s soul as a good. The Honorable Mary Ann Glendon, law professor at Harvard, former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, and pro-life advocate did indeed turn down an honorary degree from Georgetown, but I had not heard of Peggy Noonan. I had heard that Peggy Noonan had slipped below the waves of the pro-life movement and i was grieved as she was a product of Ronald Reagan’s generation.
    Again, the graduating students at the Political Policy Center of Georgetown are not equiped, nor ar they commissioned by their Sacrament of Confirmation to go forth to do exorcisms, as only the bishops can commission exorcists, in the first place, and Georgetown has already dumped the Bishops and their decree to avoid abortion advocates and those who would deny us our God-given freedom of conscience. Sebelius, Obama, Georgetown and the like need exorcism…and all your kind words in their defense cannot save them. Better to pray unceasingly Father Tim, as you have promised at ordination, and always the ROSARY.

  • Let’s see. Judas Iscariot: “Would have been better had he not been born” Jesus “Throwing money changers out of the temple”, Mary Magdelene, ” Go and sin no more” Sebilius has been been asked “not to present” for Holy Communion. I was taught, The Holy Father is infallible in matter of “faith and morals”. KKK killing innocent blacks, SS killing millions of innocent Jews and anyone who got in their way. U.S. Supreme Court Jan 22, 1973 abortion on demand has killed 4,000 unborn a day all day long every day since. We have had no guidance, no leadership, no direction. Just a lot of warm fuzzy gobbledegook. Infantacide and euthansia, and suicide rampant. I go to Mass for the Sacraments. I will never leave this Church but I do feel the Church left me. If I would have raised kids the way the Church has so called passed on the faith, I doubt that there would be one of them left in it. I feel like I am in a really bad dream that I can’t wake up from. We have been infiltrated and now what’s right is wrong and what’s wrong is right.

  • Mary & Jeanne: My apologies if my comments have led you to despair but I can assure you it is without reason.

    1) I freely admit that I have a 2nd hand understanding of the American political system. As a Canadian I see events from a different perspective – that as a from a neighbor, not from within the family as it were. There are details of your health care and government systems seem arcane (or at least not very comprehensible) from one who has lived his entire life benefiting from womb to tomb medical coverage without cost thanks to what you might describe as ‘socialized medicine’. For us, if a hospital owner/board doesn’t want to provide a particular procedure, it doesn’t have to as their will always be a public hospital or clinic where a patient could access the desired service. Catholic hospitals do not need to pay or provide abortions or procedures that contravene their beliefs.

    2) I as a solid a pro-life priest as you can know. I’m one of the first members of Priests for Life Canada. I participate in every pro-life initiative I can from Life Chains to letter campaigns. I preach on our Catholic obligation to promote the Culture of Life every chance I get. I post and write about the subject on my own blog and in national newspapers.

    3) I have been a regularly pray-er of the rosary and other forms of prayer all my life. I was ordained on 13 May 1989. I revel in having Mary as my spiritual mother as I was taught to do at my mother’s knee as a child.

    PLEASE do not despair for the state of the Church or the priesthood because of what I write here. I promote no agenda other than the Catholic proposition of faith as an answer to the world’s issues and am not fighting for the forces that oppose her. I framed this entire discussion in the form of an inquiry, a question. I would feel terrible if what I have asked or raised leads you in any way to lessen your faith in the Church or her priests.

    Know this: I am not unusual in any way among the majority of priests. Most of us do our best to faithfully fulfill all of our obligations as both Christians and priests. There are a few among us who have scattered the flock with their predations. There are others who lack the courage to embrace what RJN called the ‘wonderful challenge of orthodoxy’. But almost all of us are trying to the best of our abilities. We are wounded all the further when we realize that our human failings to meet the standard set by the eternal priest has wounded the faith in others.

    PLEASE pray for us. Don’t use the internet to calumniate or wound us. Far more of us than you may believe deserve the benefit of your doubt. Pray for holy priests. We need the support and grace prayer brings to us when we face well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag us when we poke out heads out in the public square.

    It may be quintessentially Canadian, but I believe that we will win more souls for God with encouragement, not condemnation. The Kingdom of God will be all the more present when we strive to win the hearts of others, not close their mind to what we have to offer by packaging it with insult and accusations. I sincerely believe that you may be doing more harm than good for the communion of believers if you are unwilling to appreciate the good in others simply because they don’t match the purity of your convictions.

    Fr. Tim

  • Sorry for the typo’s. I don’t have the needed time to do your thoughts justice. I pray it’s clear enough for you to appreciate the points I am respectfully offering.

    Fr. Tim

  • While I may not agree with Fr. Tim regarding the virtues of socialized medicine, I am united with him when he writes, “Pray for holy priests. We need the support and grace prayer brings to us when we face well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag us when we poke out heads out in the public square.” Regardless of our differences with respect to Caesar providing social services, we all face the roaring lion of rampant secularism, atheistic humanism, sexual immorality and the infanticide of the unborn gone wild. We can differ on what’s the best means to provide social justice and serve the common good; but we cannot differ when it comes to the Gospel of conversion and repentance, righteousness and holiness.

    OK, now that that rare moment of mental lucidity and sanity has passed, I shall return to being the incorrigible reactionary conservative to the right of Attila the Hun. 😉

  • The US health care system has its problems. But so does the Canadian health care system:

    No system, private or govt. will completely solve the problems of health care. Having worked in the largest US public health system (the US military) and currently having 85% of my patients in govt. insurance (Medicaid) I prefer a private system.

  • Father – I understand that you’re just asking a question, not defending the choice of commencement speaker or the positions that she’s taken. And I agree with you that overheated rhetoric doesn’t help anyone.

    I think you need to make a stronger distinction between having someone participate in a debate and having someone speak at a graduation. The former involves intellectual engagement. The latter implies an endorsement. No institution would have a Bernie Madoff or a Joe Shmoe speak at a graduation. To choose a person as a speaker implies that he has something of value to say, that he’s a person to be looked up to. The person in this case has been forbidden from receiving Communion due to her public defiance of Church teaching; the main thing she’s known for is her public defiance of Church teaching.

    The first thing every commencement speaker says is “it’s an honor to be here” – and it is. The speaker is chosen to receive the honor of addressing the graduates. The speaker gives the final words that a student hears as a student. The role is that of a keystone. There’s simply no way that a person who would be asked to give a commencement address would look upon it as anything other than a sign of respect.

  • Father Tim Moyle: If you are who you say you are, please repeat in writing this prayer: “Jesus Christ, true God and true man, Lord of all.”

  • Paul W. Primavera: ““Pray for holy priests. We need the support and grace prayer brings to us when we face well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag us when we poke out heads out in the public square.” “well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag(y) us when we poke out heads out in the public square.” are us, the defenders of the Faith, apologists and the bloggers on this blog.

  • Mary De Voe,

    I have no evidence that Fr. Tim Moyle is anything other than what he says he is:

  • PS, I agree that you are a most eloquent defender of the Faith once delivered unto the Saints, Mary.

  • Mary: 1) Just click on my name. I’ve linked to my own blog (which contains a short biography ) when I registered on this site. If the link doesn’t work, the URL is You can also read articles published by the National Post in the online edition’s religion blog, The Holy Post. You can find out all you want about me via those sites.

    2) The version of the Jesus prayer that I usually find being chanted in my head and heart is: Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. I believe that this daily focus of occupying my mind with this prayer suffices to achieve what you suggest with yours.

    3) Why are you so angry? Even as a child I knew that a faith that makes you feel sad or mad… definitely NOT glad… was bad. Jesus wants that his joy should fill you. What did you do with yours? I have offered no insult or injury yet you feel the need to attack, chastise and belittle me? Why are you so mad and sad? That’s not how a disciple of Jesus is to live and act.

    Fr. Tim

  • Dear Father, The thing is I do not despair of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for I know that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her”. I too am an original member of the Wi Right to Life before there was a National. For fourty years I have taken six kids with me to meetings and rallies all over this country. I have taught religious education for eighteen years and been horrified at the “lessons” we were presented with to “educate our children in the faith”. They don’t know the truths of the faith. They don’t know their commandmants, and they are confirmed without the slightest knowledge of what this committment means. I have watched as countless numbers of them have never stepped foot in a Catholic Church again. I took it upon myself with the Catechism to do the best I could with every class I was given responsibilty for. When speaking about the “sins of the flesh” they were taught what the church teaches. I always told them, “This is what the Church teaches. You can never say when you are standing before the Lord on judgement day that you never heard or knew any of this.” You will see my face and remember my words”. My teachers in Catholic as well as public school were tough. Did I like hearing the truth? heck no! But I wouldn’t trade my soul for eternal damnation. My students also learned that “the sins of the flesh” were not the most damning of sins, but those of greed. When we will pass laws and rules and regulations putting money before all forms of human life destined for the Kingdom we have to be ready to die for our faith. Also what about the latest DePaul speaking scandal? Don’t the monies that are collected here in the states at various times of the year go for our colleges and universities. I would like to know that.

  • Mary: Have you ever read the book “Well Intentioned Dragons”? It’s a standard among evangelical pastors and has great resonance for Catholic clergy as well. It was not an insult. It was a reference that I hoped might act as a nexus with others who are familiar with the book… kind of a short-hand metric to place my comment in its proper perspective. Clearly you have never read the book or you would not have taken such offense. My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. If there’s one thing that you should know about me is that if I intend to insult you – you will know it. I think of myself as being a patient person who strives to always find the best way to interpret what is hurled at me but I am after all born of Ottawa Valley Irish and Northern Ontario French stock – two of the most tenacious peoples in the land. A enclave of English refusing to learn to speak the majority French of the rest of Quebec and a group of francophones who refuse to give up their language in the midst of English Ontario. I’ve learned well the lessons of my ancestors and can acquaint myself well everywhere from the bar room to the board room and from pulpits large or small. I can dish it out as well as I can take it, although I always leave it to others to set the tone of the conversation.

    Fr. Tim

  • Father Thomas Mannion, a dear friend of mine from County Cork Ireland, used to tell the kids this story. “How many airliners take off througout the world every day? Hundreds! The only time they are reported on is when one crashes. So it is with the priesthood. There are thousands of good and holy priests but you don’t hear about them only the ones who bring shame and scandal to our dear Church”. We know that, and pray daily for our priests and for vocations. I also have had the priviledge of serving under Raymond Burke who has been harrassed as no other for his strong and firm stand. Will not Our Father be firm with us? even though He is all merciful and all loving? That’s all I am getting at. If we are lukewarm He would just as soon vomit us our of His mouth. Peace

  • Paul W. Primavera: Thank you for your kind words. One Hail Mary, said in Latin as I have been and I am trying to learn Greek. Thanks again.

  • To the teflon don: Tim Moyle: Why do you profess to be a Catholic Priest and agitate for Georgetown to disobey their bishops directives to avoid giving a platform to scandalous abortion advocates? Why did you not say the small exorcism prayer you were asked to say in humility? Sugar does not melt in your mouth as you go about sowing seeds of doubt, despair, disobedience and outright heresy against the Catholic Church. If you love Sebelius so much you ought to quietly pray for her soul and not campaign for her canonization as the heroine of Georgetown and martyr of political correctness, as you have for you own soul with academic credentials. Do not tell me that you are wonderful Catholic priest and then applaud Sebelius and Georgetown for their heretical dissent from Church teaching. It does not wash.
    “I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to provide an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church. ” HELL, YES. The serpentine tongue asked Eve “I am only asking whether its actually inappropriate for you to disobey the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church.”
    “Suffer the little children to come to ME” Sebelius will not follow Jesus Christ and Tim Moyle follows Sebelius.

  • Alright, this back and forth between Mary De Voe and Father Tim Moyle is getting tiresome and way too personal. I am shutting comments down on this thread, and reminding all commenters to stick to commenting on the posts here at TAC.

  • Pingback: Ambrosian Rite Bishop Fellay SSPX Society of Saint Pius X | The Pulpit
  • Pingback: Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University | The American Catholic

Would it Be Such a Big Leap From Inviting Sebelius?

Tuesday, May 8, AD 2012

Yet another controversial speaker at a Catholic college:


In a move already denounced by Catholic bishops & other leading religious conservatives, St. Sincerus University, the nation’s 84th largest Catholic university, has invited Satan to deliver its commencement speech later this month. Also known as the Prince of Darkness, Lucifer, &, more popularly, the Devil, Satan is a divisive figure among Catholics & other Christians. Several Catholic universities have upset religious conservatives in recent years by inviting controversial figures to deliver commencement speeches, as when the University of Notre Dame, the nation’s largest Catholic University, invited President Barack Obama, who supports a woman’s right to abortion, in 2009. The invitation to Satan by SSU president Fr. Thad Despereaux comes at a time when many Catholics are highly critical of the Obama administration’s attempts to reform health care, which some claim would force Catholic institutions to violate their Church’s teachings by providing contraceptives as part of their health insurance plans. Fr. Despereaux, in comments made to the Daily Sham, SSU’s student newspaper, said that having Satan on campus gives bold witness to a central Catholic principle that God can be found in all things. “The continuing politicization of the faith indicates just how important it is for us to build bridges,” Fr. Despereaux said. “Our whole mission as a university is to bring people together. Satan is badly misunderstood by many people, & we hope to show our graduates that stereotypes, & the hatred they engender, have no place on a Catholic campus. As Catholics we are to hate hate.”

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Would it Be Such a Big Leap From Inviting Sebelius?

Georgetown Invites Sebelius to Deliver Commencement

Friday, May 4, AD 2012

If you’re still clinging to the fiction that Georgetown University is a Catholic institution then this should disabuse you of that notion.

In what can only be interpreted as a direct challenge to America’s Catholic bishops, Georgetown University has announced that “pro-choice” Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and lead architect of the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom through the HHS contraception mandate, has been invited to speak at one of Georgetown’s several commencement ceremonies.

The Cardinal Newman Society has posted a petition to protest this outrage here:  It has also alerted Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl and sent a letter to Georgetown President John DeGioia urging him to immediately withdraw the invitation.

It is a scandal time any time a Catholic politician who so publicly breaks with Church teaching is invited to speak at a nominally Catholic institution.  That Georgetown has decided to invite Sebelius after all that has taken place can only signal that Georgetown is laying down the gauntlet, and they are firmly in the camp of the dissident left.

H/t: CMR.

Point of Clarification: Sebelius will be addressing the Public Policy Institute, not the university generally.  This hardly diminishes the university’s guilt.  Somebody high up still had to approve of her speaking to the school, and her appearance at any university function as an invited speaker is a disgrace.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Georgetown Invites Sebelius to Deliver Commencement

  • Lord have mercy,
    Christ have mercy,
    Lord have mercy!

  • There is a petition on the Cardinal Newman Society web site, asking Georgetown to withdraw the invitation to Sebelius. The link is below:

  • Is there any other route than to excommuniate Sebelius? Catholics, everybody are entitled to the truth. That Sebelius would deny almighty God the power to create the sovereign person at conception, when two become one, denies that God is existence and BEING, and Sebelius is an atheist, and embraces the Universal Declaration of the United Nations on human Rights that states the the human being comes into existence at birth. Pretty retrograde for a scientific community. What could Sebelius possibly say to the Public Policy graduates? That government gives life, sovereign personhood and creates the rational soul? Sebelius is telling these individuals that they were not persons until after they were born, that she, Sebelius was not a person until after she was born. The person is immutable. the person is a person always. If Sebelius claims that she was not a person until after she was born, then Sebelius is not now, or was ever a person. Even aliens from outer space are who they are forever and always. Now, even the aliens from outer spece will not come here because Sebelius will abort them. Not very conducive to inter-galactic relations or public policy. The Coneheads do not like Sebelius’ public policy.

  • Mary has a valid point (as always). Sentient extraterrestrials will avoid this planet if only for their own personal safety.

  • I think you are right, it seems they are laying down a direct challenge… I wonder if they relish the fight; if they think this is the way they are going to move their ball forward. This action is certainly not shrinking back or evidencing any self-doubt. So we can’t shrink back either.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | The Pulpit
  • Think positive – maybe Sebelius, in addressing the Public Policy Institute, will explain how badly the administration has erred especially in the HHH mandate. On second thought, if you believe that, I have some swamp land in Louisiana for sale.

    Somehow, inviting Sebelius to speak doesn’t seem to fit the Jesuit motto “All for the greater glory of God (AMDG)”

  • Paul W. Primavera: One Hail Mary in Latin.

  • Disgusting.
    After watching Sebilius’s callous disregard for the Constituion she swore to uphold:
    any university should shudder at the thought of recognizing this woman’s contempt for freedom of expression.
    For a so-called Catholic institution to do so, in the midst of the struggle for the freedom of the Church, is even worse.
    Why are people talking about excommunication of Sebelius? (She has already been told by her bishops, in Arizona and DC, that she is unworthy of Holy Communion.) It sounds like someone should be having such a conversation with the leadership of Georgetown.

  • Who’s the Archbishop responsible for overseeing Georgetown?


    Never mind.

  • They received the memo detailing the Bishops’ have a beef going with the regime and Sibelius’ diktat to fund mortal sin.

    Notwithstanding, GU here demonstrates it is run by the society of judas.

    No, wait!

    I apologize.

    I am uncharitable to Judas.

  • It’s not during the Fortnight of Freedom, so it’s okay. Right?

  • There’s a petition to click on at the link above …
    Commencing public policy students like lemmings off a cliff.

    Ezekiel 13: 1 – 21 (the whole book is good to read, it’s 48 chapters of “Thus says the Lord GOD:” to Ezekiel so that he can help the rebellious people with many, varied wake-up calls.)

    Verse 10 – 11: For the very reason that they led my people astray, saying, “Peace!” when there was no peace, and that, as one built a wall, they would cover it with whitewash, say then to the whitewashers:

    Last Sunday, I heard a sermon about how the Old Testament prophets from Abraham to David were shepherds chosen to speak the mind of God until Jesus (one with God) taught about shepherds in the Gospels to the Church He established. It was noted that Ezekiel served to warn bad shepherds and their people for the Lord God.

  • God made all things and keeps them in existence. Lucifer knows God made him. Without informed consent Lucifer’s “Non serviam” is innocent. Lucifer is a person. Lucifer has no body because Lucifer has no soul. Jesus does not die to redeem Lucifer. Jesus has a rational soul. Lucifer is an evil spirit and needs man, body and soul to do his evil.
    God gave Kathleen Sebelius His Name: “I AM” when she came into existence at conception, and God keeps her in existence. Sebelius’ parents gave her the name Kathleen on her vital statistics, her birth certificate, when she was given birth.
    The sovereign authority Sebelius wields at the Department of Health and Human Services is exercised through the sovereign personhood endowed by our Creator from her first moment of human existence. When Sebelius appears before the Public Policy graduates of Georgetown University and tells them that she has no soul endowed with sovereign personhood by our Creator, from the first moment of her existence, Sebelius will have forfeited her sovereign authority to operate the Department of Health and Human Services and to be listened to as a sane person.

  • Mike Tefft: “Why are people talking about excommunication of Sebelius? (She has already been told by her bishops, in Arizona and DC, that she is unworthy of Holy Communion.) It sounds like someone should be having such a conversation with the leadership of Georgetown.”
    Because Georgtown will not sit up and take notice until the ax, truly the ax of excommunication severs Kathleen Sebelius from the Body of Christ.

  • Hey–in the competition to become the nation’s outstanding Catholic institution: Seeing Notre Dame, and raising one . . .

    Actually, at the time of the Notre Dame fiasco, some made what is possibly the sensible point that asking a public official to address questions of public policy (including policies repulsive to faith and morals) in an academic setting is one thing: It is sometimes helpful to know just what the enemy says, or what tack the enemy will take in front of different audiences. What was obnoxious about Notre Dame’s behavior was the bestowal of a university honor on Obama; and, unless I’ve read carelessly, I don’t see that this is the case here.

  • PRM, I see your point, and I’d have no objection if Secretary Sebelius were merely
    invited to Georgetown to talk about her views on public policy. However, she’s been
    invited to give a commencement address, which is in itself the bestowal of a
    university honor. After all, it’s safe to assume that a university would only have a
    person it regarded as somehow embodying its ideals address its graduates on such
    an occasion.

    This invitation is nothing less than Georgetown displaying its contempt for our
    bishops and for all Catholics in this country.

  • Georgetown has turned its back on the Catholic Church. Now The Church must revoke Georgetown’s Catholic identity or must remove those in power to prevent another scandal.
    Cardinal wurhl has neither the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT not the moral fortitude of an ordinary, father of a wayward child, to perform what the situation calls for. Wurhl is merely the politcian (pontius) turning Christ’ Bride over to the media to be crucified. May GOD have mercy on the Cardinal’s soul.

  • A travesty. Also very sinful. Continued scandal and dissent. An embarrassment to true Catholics everywhere. Jesuits: who is your god?

  • When was the last time an entire order was excommunicated? Historians?

  • Georgetown is Catholic? I thought it was Jesuit 🙂

    Seriously though, we shouldn’t let the 77% of the bad Jesuits spoil the other 23%.

  • Remove their Catholic designation; Georgetown isn’t anymore!!!

  • The Catholic Church is in serious decline my friends. It simply lacks the backbone to uphold the faith and its own rules. The head of the Jesuit order should have been promptly summoned by Rome and told in no uncertain terms that they need to disinvite Sebelius and Victoria Kennedy (BC Law commencement) otherwise the order would be precluded from its affiliation with the Church. The credibility of Rome and the Bishops has been greatly wounded by liberal Jesuits who only wish to be Roman Catholic when it is agreeable to them. Who enforces the rules of the Church among its own? The answer is apparently nobody.

  • what would happen to jesuits like Fr Pacwa?

  • Fukowi There is the Pope and anybody who does not act Catholic or believe their faith has to have integrity is simply not being Catholic. We also have the Holy spirit guiding the Hierarchy of the Church. So stop acting like the Church has no backbone. The reason for which not all of the problems of the world have been dealt with yet is because there are so many which the Church is still dealing with.

The HHS Mandate: It Was Never About Healthcare

Sunday, February 12, AD 2012

Daffyd at the blog Big Lizards has a post which spells out what everyone should understand now:  ObamaCare in general, and the HHS Mandate in particular, was never about healthcare:

Never was it about health insurance for the poor and uninsured; it was always about the federal government seizing control not only of the health care of individuals but also nationalizing those state and local health programs already in place.  ObamaCare was, first and last, a power grab by the federal government at the expense of states, local governments, and individual Americans.

So please, let’s not imitate Captain Renault in Casablanca — shocked, shocked to discover that Barack Obama has violated our First-Amendment right to freedom of religion!  In fact, that specific mandate was at the heart of ObamaCare tyranny:  a frontal assault on the Catholic church in particular, which is so virulently hated by the gay-activist and feminist wings of the Left.

The only element of this policy that should shock anyone is the unbelievably hamfisted way that Obama decreed it:  A politically savvy politician would have patiently held off until after the election, giving himself two years to allow the furor to die down.

Instead, the president once again mistook unanimity among his left-liberal friends for a Progressivist “consensus” among the American people; he lives in a bubble of epistemic closure, talking only to true-blue believers on the left.  I formerly gave him the nickname “Lucky Lefty,” because (a) he is left handed, (b) he is left-leaning, and (c) he was extraordinarily lucky.  Well he’s still (a) and (b), but not so much (c) anymore, so I can no longer call him that.

Obama’s new nickname is “Bubble Boy,” honoring his world view.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The HHS Mandate: It Was Never About Healthcare

  • Pro-Church is it. It is both pro-choice and pro-life. It is where unchanging, all encompassing Word does bring hope and change when that becomes one’s choice.

  • “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force; like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington, Farewell Address

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” J. Adams

  • Obamacare was a power grab? I knew that in 2009 and wrote a little blog entry to record my thoughts on it.

    I would like to see American Catholic’s thoughts on George Will’s comments over the weekend. I can’t say I entirely disagree with him.

  • Government can only testify to the NO commandments. No killing, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting, because at this point, another citizen’s civil rights are being violated, but there is no civil law being broken in not loving a neighbor. We wish the High Priest, and the Levite stopped to help the man who fell among robbers, but it took a Samaritan.
    If government could heal the sick and raise the dead, then, and only then, could government mandate insurance coverage to pay for these works of mercy.
    Obamacare cannot mandate that the Catholic Church buy Obamacare and then make non-participation a criminal offense with penalties, because a crime has not been committed. If Obamacare could heal the sick and raise the dead without Divine Providence, then Obamacare could mandate coverage, but Obamacare cannot. All healing and raising the dead is accomplished through Divine Mercy, through the laws of nature and nature’s God, the works of mercy and charity. The bronze serpent from the desert of sin on a pole is the symbol of the medical profession. Government cannot mandate healing, nor raising the dead, nor works of mercy, nor of charity. Government can only mandate what government can do- civil obedience to the laws of nature and nature’s God.
    In Hillarycare, a doctor was to be sent to federal prison for two years for healing a sick person not authorized by Hilliarycare, thereby criminalizing the practice of medicine. If Hillary care could have healed the sick and raised the dead, then there might be a penalty for not adhering, but Hillarycare could not. Likewise, Romneycare penalized non-participants for supposedly not healing the citizens, but Romneycare could not heal the citizens nor raise the dead, either.
    Obamacare is trying to mandate a penalty for not healing the sick and raising the dead. Obamacare cannot heal the sick and raise the dead. But the Catholic Church through the Sacraments of healing and reconciliation, and especially the Holy Eucharist, prayers and petitions to God can heal the sick and raise the dead. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is not mandating any penalty for the government for non-compliance. The penalty must be commensurate to the crime. If the Catholic Church refuses to comply with an unlawful mandate, so too, the government can refuse to comply with an unlawful mandate.

    This is one step away from Hitler ordering the massacre of Jews and if one did not obey one suffered the penalty of death, like treason in war. The Catholic Church has never taken an oath to buy Obamacare and cannot be held to disobedience or treason.

  • T. Shaw
    The crown of king was offered to then President for two terms, George Washington. George Washington turned down the crown as king, nor would George Washington accept a third term as president.

  • It never was about healthcare and the Bishops were wrong to support ObamaCare. This was entirely foreseeable. It is time to pay the piper.

  • Obama once said he’d rather be an effective one term president than an ineffective two term president. This was one of the few times he wasn’t lying. By effective he means, of course, advancing (er, imposing) leftist ideology. And at that he has been amazingly effective. He has done more toward that end in just over three years than Reagan ever could in advancing conservatism in eight years, no matter how hard he tried.

    Obama, like any other good bully (and that’s what he is a leftist bully), is a master at preying upon the fear of his victims. And the right in this country are, by and large, to use a childhood term, frady cats. I mean, Obama openly attacks the First Amendment and the best the one who many conservatives look to as the futire, Marco Rubio can do is come up with is to propose a “Conscience Protection Act” that is an erroneously unwitting admission that the First Amendment doesn’t mean what it says. Furthermore, for this “act” to become, it would require the president’s signature. And you can forget about overriding his veto in Harry’s Hellhole, aka the U.S. Senate.

    He also knows that he is gonna be running against an empty suit in Novemeber. Okay, Santorum is probably the best empty suit, but an empty suit nonetheless.

    And he also knows the USCCB are nothing but a bunch of empty cassocks, whose collective episcopal motto ought to be “Ideology Runneth over my Theology”.

    And when you consider that leftist bureaucrats run all the important government agencies, including the Pentagon (after 27 years working in DoD if you include my eight years of active duty in the Navy), the left runs the government no matter who gets elected.

    So, against theis backdrop, you really don’t have to be all that politically saavyf you’re a commtted leftist like Obama.

  • We are at war. The left in this country must be put under the figurative ” ban “. It is a fight to the death weather we Catholics realize it or not. Obama and the democrats are for real, people! Even now I am afraid that most people cannot or will not see this reality. Oh well, what to do?

  • Tom,

    You have a good idea. For the Church it would be “interdict.” I looked it up.

    Here is a part of the blurb. “Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment.”

    The clerics, especially the society of judas dastards, and laity that signed that petition supporting the state denial of Church liberty need to be placed under interdict.

  • The original “debate” over health care reform, ie, the propaganda, was to about portability, accessibility and affordability. It was never about those things, nor about ‘health care’ reform. This was all along a power play and Sebeilius and others are given unfettered and unreviewable powers to impose slavish adherence to their statist principles. Instead of accessibility, you now or soon will have “coercive self rationing” and government control over the human person and the subsidiary institutions entrusted with care; instead of efficiencies leading to cost savings, you will see onerous taxation and penalties; instead of portability you will soon have the private sector intentionally put out of the health care business and full, complete and dominant control by HHS committee over what will be covered—so that portability will no longer be an issue.

    This was all in the original house bill which CHA and USCCB advocated—with of course the lip service to protecting conscience and excluding public funding for abortion. You are playing a game with marxists so it’s important to understand that the broader issue concerning ‘health care’ is about control. Soon, as in a mere few years, “Catholic” will be removed from every hospital, and then next they will be coming for your schools.

  • T Shaw,
    I was actually thinking more of the ban as in Joshua conquering the promised land. Every last vestige of leftism needs to be rubbed out with extreme prejudice. Leftism is extreme and is in the business of rubbing out the Church in the US. I know this sounds perhaps a bit intense, but we are really facing an existential threat and have been for close to forty-five years at least. One could argue the threat goes all the way back to the Enlightenment, or Eden for that matter. My point is that the response of many in the Church right now is inadequate to the challenge. We are not responding with the same level of ” fight ” with which we are being attacked.

  • Tom and CTHEMFLY25,


    This HHS mandate is about control and malice toward Holy Mother the Chruch.

    Paul A. Rahe at, ” . . . reason why Sebelius, Pelosi, and Obama decided to proceed. They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss. They wanted to make those who think contraception wrong and abortion a species of murder complicit in both. They wanted to rub the noses of their opponents in it. They wanted to marginalize them. Humiliation was, in fact, their only aim, and malice, their motive.”

    There are not enough bullets.

  • Tom & T Shaw,

    How does one without recourse to violence stomp out liberal leftism, progressivism, liberal democracy (two wolves & one sheep voting on what’s for dinner) or whatever term we may use to describe this phenomenon. I do not support initiating force to achieve that end. In the times of the ancient Israelites, God did order the initiation of force, but those times and circumstances were different. If we initiate force today, then we become as evil as those whom we seek to replace.

    That being said, I do think that even should we be successful in ejecting Obama from the Oval Office in the November elections, the liberals won’t go quitely. They will evenutally initiate force against us and I think we have to let them. It would be far preferrable to convince them of the rightness of our position, but I fear they have gone too far down the path to be persuaded. Even if SCOTUS were to reverse Roe v Wade, they will not give up abortion without a physical fight. But once they initiate force, then we have every right to defend ourselves and the game changes. That game of course would be civil war and that’s not something any of us should work towards or even want. Yet it took a civil war to free the slaves (and with all due respect to Catholic Knight, regardless of whether or not that was the original reason for the war), so I think (based on that history alone) one might sadly be required here (please, dear God, no!).

  • Paul and T. Shaw,
    Although I love to use violent metaphors, mostly because it tweaks so many noses out of joint, I am not advocating civil war. I am afraid though, history and culture being what they are in this country, there is a very real possibility of our ” culture war ” turning hot. It is quite evident from the history of radical secularism that the rhetoric eventually turns to action. The secularists preach an intolerant brand of atheistic humanism, which is used in a public way to ostracize and separate the opposition. They have no allies and allow no neutral parties. We as Catholics have a great heritage of facing these kinds of totalitarians and that history can serve us well in dealing with the current crop of tyrannical wanna-bees.

    So I think we should never advocate to initiate violent means as long as so-called civil society is in place ( kind of ). Will we have to face violence in America in our struggle with the culture of death? Yes, I believe we already are, just ask the millions of dead children. The culture of death is not just a metaphor for bad actors misbehaving. It is a description of the enemy. Our weapons are fasting, praying, self-denial and obedience to the Majesterium. We must also fight the good fight in the arena of politics, friends and family. The workplace too is an area where we can bring on the struggle. Every day in every way.

Sebelius’ Morning After Pill Decision: Politics or ‘Anti-Science’ Pro-Life

Friday, December 9, AD 2011

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled an expert panel at the FDA which had recommended allowing children under 17 to purchase the “morning after pill” Plan B One-Step over the counter. Under current regulations, Plan B is available without a prescription to people 17 and over, but those 16 and under would need a prescription in order to purchase it. The pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours after having “unprotected” sex and is claimed to reduce the chances of pregnancy from such sex from 1 in 20 to 1 in 40. It does this by preventing ovulation through a boost in hormones. Like other forms of hormonal birth control, it also serves to make the uterine lining more resistant to implantation by a fertilized egg, so even if ovulation does occur (or has already done so) it can make spontaneous miscarriage/abortion of the zygote far more likely. As such, it is often considered potentially a form of early abortion, though the frequency with which it acts through preventing a zygote from implanting (versus acting through preventing ovulation) is not known.

In prior policy moves in relation to Plan B, the Bush Administration had originally overruled a request that the pill be made available over the counter, but eventually allowed it for purchasers who were 18 or over. The Obama administration acted in 2009 to make Plan B available to those 17 and over, but until now has continued to require a prescription for those young. This means that the pill (which costs around $50 per dose) is generally held behind the pharmacy counter and provided without a presciption to those who show ID proving they are 17 or over.

This latest move on Plan B has many left leaning commentators up in arms, accusing the Obama Administration of ignoring ‘science’ and bowing to the interests of the religious right. James Fallows at The Atlantic compares the move to something one would expect from a Michelle Bachman administration and suggests Sebelius and Obama should be criticized accordingly.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Sebelius’ Morning After Pill Decision: Politics or ‘Anti-Science’ Pro-Life

  • “If he wins, this decision may well get reconsidered in 2013.”

    We can bank on that! The reaction of the Left is interesting as they completely miss the moral element involved here, which is intriguing as no group in our society uses more morally drenched argument, at least rhetorically, than the Left, except in one area, sex. If sex can be brought into the picture all moral arguments are to be banished to the nether regions. This is the one area of life where moral calculus seems to completely dissipate, unless it can be dressed up as sexual harassment, and even there the moral aspect flies right out the window if he harasser, Bill Clinton is the prime example, is a powerful Democrat elected official who is a pro-abort. I recall Alexandra Kollantai, a Bolshevik contemporary of Lenin thought that under the Bolshevik regime sex would have no more moral significance than drinking a glass of water. Lenin, even though he had a mistress earlier in his life, was shocked and Communist official morality in regard to sex was fairly straight-laced, but the view of Kollantai has ultimately triumphed on the Left.

  • This analysis sounds about right. Obama has to know that no decision on his part is going to garner a vote from social conservatives already opposed to him. A politically-calculated appeal to moderates makes much more sense.

  • Four moral concerns are brought up.

    1. Contraception is immoral. This point isn’t within the realm of science so it’s not anti-science. However, only a small minority (very conservative Catholics) actually take this view. This doesn’t explain why Protestants would want to restrict access to Plan B.

    2. It may prevent implantation. This is a legitimate concern though, since it isn’t intended to prevent implantation, one may not be morally culpable for abortion. If contraception is morally permissible and it isn’t used as a method of abortion, though abortion may unintentionally result, Plan B is morally permissible. This is probably the view of most Americans including religious Protestants.

    3. It encourages promiscuity. Empirical data says otherwise. This is part of the “anti-science” criticism.

    4. Parental rights. What right is being infringed? The right to deny medical treatment for your children? If none of the previous points apply, why would you want to deny it for your children? It would be completely irrational.

    Basically, if you aren’t Catholic, opposition is probably irrational or anti-science.

  • RR if you are ever around Pontiac, Illinois, I could introduce you to the staff and volunteers, all evangelical women, at the crisis pregnancy center that I have the honor of serving as chairman of the board. They would explain to you that they are neither irrational or anti-science and that they oppose this human pesticide. When you have kids, my daughter is 16, perhaps you will understand why most parents would not want anyone dispensing either abortifacients or contraceptives to them behind their back.

  • RR,

    2) Actually, Plan B is intended prevent implantation. That is an effect which the makers seek to achieve and specifically describe as a purpose of the medication, as the NY Times article describes. I’m not clear how often it happens, as (as the NY Times article also notes) studies have not shown Plan B to actually reduce either pregnancy rates or abortion rates to any measurable degree. So although in controlled test environments it does reduce the chance of pregnancy, when you actually throw it out there into the realm of real human behavior it appears that if it’s being taken by the right people at the right time, it’s happening infrequently enough that it’s now showing up clearly in the final data. But preventing implantation is an intended and advertised effect of the drug, however infrequent.

    3) I’m not clear where you get the idea that increased promiscuity is a claim. Certainly, there has been a significant increase in promiscuity in coordination with the wide availability of birth control in general, but I am not aware of anyone (certainly not the Department of Health and Human Services) making the claim that Plan B in particular measurably increased promiscuity in a way distinct from other forms of birth control.

    4) This is where your argument simply doesn’t make any sense. The purpose of requiring a prescription for a medication is simply to get a responsible expert or adult involved in the dispensing of the medication, it’s not necessarily to “deny treatment”. The DHHS ruling did not say that children under 17 cannot be given Plan B at all, it said that they can’t buy it without a prescription. In many states, it’s legal for a pharmacist to write a prescription right there. In other cases, a doctor would have to be consulted, or the minor would have to get someone 17 or older to go buy the prescription for them. That’s a pretty low hurdle. Sebelius’ stated rationale was that the studies conducted did not satisfy her that the medication was safe for girls as young as 11, and that girls that young could be relied on to use it safely. Also operative, however, I think, is that most Americans would simply be much more comfortable with a doctor, parent, or other adult being pulled in to a situation in which a girl that young (in many cases, under the legal age of consent) is given a medicine which is only needed once she has already had sex under conditions which may suggest poor judgement or abuse. There’s certainly nothing irrational (even from a strictly secular and pro-birth-control point of view) in not liking the idea of actively helping to cover up the kind of situations that would lead to very young teens wanting to get hold of the Morning After Pill.

  • “This is a legitimate concern though, since it isn’t intended to prevent implantation, one may not be morally culpable for abortion.”

    Aside from the question of whether it prevents implantation or not, one would be morally culpable if it does and one does not intend the abortion. Just as someone who sets fire to a building to get the insurance money is culpable for murder if he knows someone is in the building when he sets fire to it.

    Perhaps there would be mitigation of the moral culpability due to the person being ignorant of the full effects of Plan B (if it is indeed also an abortifacient) but the material aspect of the sin would remain.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION |
  • I completely agree with DarwinCatholic– if (God between us and evil) Obama is
    re-elected, this decision will be reversed. It’s merely a sop to the center, and costs
    the administration nothing politically. Freed from the need to give lip service to
    any voters, a re-elected Obama would probably try to have Plan-B One Step passed
    out in elementary schools.

Archbishop Burke's appointment to the Congregation of Bishops

Monday, November 9, AD 2009

200px-Archbishop_Raymond_Leo_BurkeArchbishop Raymond Burke has long been held with disdain (or outright revulsion) by liberal Catholics for his penchant to speak bluntly on various issues — from his cautioning the Democrats that they risk becoming “the party of Death” for their grievous stance on bioethical issues), to his disapproval of Obama’s appointment of Kathleen Sebelius to Secretary of Health and Human Services to his weighing in on the matter of reception of communion by publicly disobedient Catholics (see The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin Periodica de Re Canonica vol. 96 (2007)). His appointment by Pope Benedict XVI to the office of Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura was interpreted both as sign of the Pope’s favor (by conservatives) as well as perhaps a “punishment of sorts” by liberals, who hoped that his outspokenness on American political affairs would be muted by geographical distance.

Guess again. From National Catholic Reporter‘s “man in Rome” John Allen Jr. comes the news that, with his Oct. 17 appointment to the powerful Congregation for Bishops, Burke’s influence is set to grow:

When a diocese becomes vacant, it’s the job of the papal nuncio, or ambassador, in that country to solicit input on the needs of that diocese and to work with the local bishops and bishops’ conference to identify potential nominees. The nuncio prepares a terna, or list of three names, which is submitted to the Congregation for Bishops, along with extensive documentation on the candidates.


Members of the congregation are expected to carefully review all the documentation before meetings, and each is expected to offer an opinion about the candidates and the order in which they should be presented to the pope. Ultimately, it’s up to the pope to decide who’s named to any given diocese, but in most cases popes simply sign off on the recommendations made by the congregation.

To be sure, Burke’s nomination doesn’t mean he can single-handedly control who becomes a bishop, whether in the United States or anywhere else. … on the other hand, Burke’s influence may grow with time.

He’s by far the youngest of the current crop of Americans on the congregation (the next youngest, Levada, is 73, and Rigali is 74). Since appointments are for five-year terms and may be renewed until a prelate reaches the age of 80, Burke could be involved in bishops’ appointments for the next two decades. At some point he may well become the senior American in the process, with a correspondingly greater impact.

As Allen concludes: ” If anyone suspected that the decision to bring Burke to Rome last year was a way of muzzling him, or limiting his influence in the United States, it certainly doesn’t seem to be playing out that way.”

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Archbishop Burke's appointment to the Congregation of Bishops

  • Yeah, pretty funny the way ideology or personal hang-ups drives thought. Given that most of what made Absp. Burke a talked about bishop was his interpretation and enforcement of canon law. To most it would seem that his being made Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is a huge vote of approval. After all, in the secular world we don’t look to the worst lawyer in the land to make a Chief Justice, do we? Well, let me rephrase that – other than pro-abort Democrats, we don’t look for the worst lawyer…

    On the other hand, you have a the situation with Cardinal Law. It’s hard for me to see his move to Rome as a vote of confidence or appreciation, yet there are those who consider a reward.

  • This is a major victory for orthodoxy! With Archbishop Burke as the head of the Congregation for Bishops, it should add another hurdle to poor appointments that are submitted by papal nuncios.

    Question: Does this means that His Excellency is no longer the Prefect for the Vatican ‘Supreme Court’?

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2009

Pro-abort Catholic PolsFather Roger J. Landry concludes here that the strategy of the Church to privately persuade Catholic pro-abort pols of the errors of their ways has been a flat failure.

“Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

In the initial years after Roe versus Wade, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 pro-choice defense at Notre Dame. We’ve now come to a situation when pro-choice Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List;  scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic Senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.”

Father Landry ends by suggesting a new approach, perhaps we might call it the “more than hot air” approach:

“Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing. This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.”

Hattip to my friend the ever vigilant Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia,  and please go here to read his comments on Father Landry’s argument.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

  • Finally, someone has the courage to state what must be done.


  • Yes, I agree with the idea of not considering them part of the community anymore but I think we need to voice that more. We need to let our congregation, the nation and the world know that we do not tolerate abortion support….and that Catholics who support and advocate it are excommunicated. We need to literally stand up and state what our Catechism says:

    “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

  • Well stated Simon. I was disappointed that Caroline Kennedy was pro-choice, repulsive, it’s incompatible with Catholic beliefs. Isn’t their someone in the Kennedy clan who bolts from this philosophy and ideology? Isn’t it good to know, of course, that Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece is pro-life.

    I have never wavered being pro-life though I have considered the question in full when younger, I respect an argument. Now, I consider how central and pivotal of an idea is it for the Church to be pushing.

    It was an interesting editorial in the UK, by a spokesman for the Tories I believe in the Daily Telegraph that grilled Ted Kennedy for voting for the partial birth abortions. England, can’t speak for the total UK because abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland like the Republic of Ireland, but one would think England is a bit like the USA in this regard. However, many in England find our “partial birth” abortions very evil. Okay, I would find fault with all abortions but I have met others from England who do not accept the late terms abortions that occur in the USA even though they are pro-choice. The Tories by the way in the above articles did not want Ted Kennedy to get Knighthood since basically, he’s had long term ties to supporting the IRA or something of this nature. I apologize for any of this being offtopic.

  • Don:

    Totally agree with your post and the comments of Jay Anderson and the good Father. People forget that there were even limits to Christ’s spirit of charity and inclusiveness such as when he tossed the money changers out of the temple.

    That being said how can one justify actions by other “Catholic” laity and politicians in promoting other activity that runs contrary to Catholic teaching, i.e. torture, pre-emptive war, the death penalty, divorce? How can one be a “Catholic” divorce lawyer? How can one be a “Catholic” judge or prosecutor that encourages or enforces the death penalty? How can one be a “Catholic” public official that allows or attempts to justify torture and pre-emptive war?

  • Like most things in life awakaman you deal with each issue on its own merits. The Church has spoken with one voice on abortion since the time of Christ.

    On the issue of preemptive war on the other hand, well, I assume some of the popes have had interesting discussions on that topic in the next life. For example John Paul II and Urban II on the First Crusade. I would love, and I mean that sincerely, to listen to that discussion.

    On divorce John Paul II seemed at one point not to want Catholic attorneys involved in them, but then in a clarification said that Catholic attorneys could be involved if their aim was to secure a good custody outcome for any minor children involved. That is one area where I personally would like some clarification since, although it makes up a miniscule portion of my practice, like most small town attorneys I am confronted with these cases from time to time.

    In regard to the death penalty we have the problem of Church teaching basically being reversed on that question under John Paul II, with a great deal of confusion now as to when the death penalty is licit and when it is not.

    I have no problem with holding the feet of Catholic pols to the fire on any number of issues, but I believe that Church teaching is the clearest on abortion, it is the issue that involves the greatest death toll each year for the innocent, and for me, as it has been since 1973, abortion will always be the overriding moral issue of our time.

  • Don:

    In regards to the 1st Crusade it is debatable as to whether it truly was pre-emptive war. First, it went beyond its initial objective of defending the Byzantine Empire and the West from the expansion of Islam and became more of a war of aggression with the reconquest of Jerusalem. Secondly, saying the 1st Crusade was fought by those exclusinvely seeking to protect Christainity is like saying the Civil War was fought exclusively over the issue of Slavery – total nonsense. It was extremely interesting that Jerusalem was a major trading center as well as an important city to Christians – just as it was an amazing coincidence that Iraq happened to have a lot of oil as well as a nasty dictator. Finally, even if we regard it as a pre-emptive war to prevent the spread of Islam given the current status of Islam in the middle east (and Europe) I would hardly say that it speaks well for pre-emptive war.

    In regard to the Death penalty did church teaching on the death penalty reverse or did it develop as a result of the growth or evolution of the modern prison system? Your argument reminds me of those offered by the Church of Christ as to why they do not have instrumental music at their services – because the early Christians did not – of course they didn’t have air conditioning or heating either. As prisons have become relatively “escape proof” and we have developed systems of rehabilitation (as I assume you agree that it is our Christian duty to do) the death penalty has become less necessary unless you want to engage in pure retribution. I know, I know . . . the deterance argument . . . but given that countries and states without the death penalty generally have less crime then those with the death penalty this is not a very good argument.

    Finally, given that JPII was rather adament in his denunciation of Catholic lawyers being involved in divorces “Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said.
    He said divorce was ‘spreading like a plague’ through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the ‘evil’.”

    Yes, one can engage in some self rationalization such as one is doing some good such as getting children into a good custody situation, but isn’t that the type of rationalization used by pro-choice politicians and those who vote for them, i.e. ignoring the great evil you are doing by pointing ut the small amount of good that may result.

  • well, we as catholics are so stupid. If you work, for example for Pepsi, but you don’t like Pepsi, and talk the whole day about the wonders of Coke, and try to sell Coke at every chance you have … what would your boss do? Fire you!!

    Off course, if you were coherent and a normal and rational person, you would leave Pepsi and move to Coke asap.

    This is how ratio works, this how the world is, this is how everybody in this planet feels. And what does the hierarchy do, not only in the States but anywhere else, without some honorable exceptions? They are SCARED, because the sheeps will leave the flock.. so WHAT?

    It is better to be fewer but real,rather than have many who disturb, who don’t leave us do the work of our Heavenly Father!

  • I believe the Catechism [2383] expresses well the Church’s position. Separation [divorce] is not immoral. Indeed it may be for the benefit of both parties.

    It is remarriage which is wrong.

  • Exactly, Gabriel. No off the cuff statement, even by a pope, even by a saint, can change that.

  • TomSVDP,
    The late Eunice Kennedy Shriver was notable for her pro-life advocacy within the Democratic party and her activism outside it. Her passing several weeks ago was noted on this blog and elsewhere, though there was little mention of her pro-life associations outside pro-life sources.

  • Awakaman in regard to divorce cases and Catholic lawyers this is where the ambiguity enters in:

    “Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383). In this way, with their work of assisting and reconciling persons who are going through a marital crises, lawyers truly serve the rights of the person and avoid becoming mere technicians at the service of any interest whatever.”

    In this area I wouldn’t mind at all if the Pope told me that I could never take such a case again as it would give me an excellent reason not to do so when clients press me for my services in these types of matters. These cases are time consuming, emotionally draining, and, as I noted in my earlier comment a miniscule portion of my practice, and the only reason I get involved with them now is when a client convinces me that the kids would be better off with them, or they are being denied visitation, or they want an increase in child support, or they wish to attempt to change custody because the kids are begging to live with the client, etc. I would cheer a papal ban as giving me a good conscience deafness to their pleas, but I do not think the Pope has done that yet.

    More on your other points in a day or so when I am no longer shackled to my desk in my law office.

  • But how can civil divorce really be “contrary to justice” in cases where an innocent spouse is merely trying to remove herself or himself and any children from a situation that gravely endangers their physical, mental, or spiritual health or safety?

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

  • On the other hand, if it’s just a case of a man or woman having fallen in “love” with someone else and wanting to divorce their spouse to marry their partner in adultery, that’s another story, and a case in which I would think no observant Catholic lawyer would want to get involved.

  • You can also add into the complexity mix Elaine that clients are often less than forthcoming in this area of the law, and will frequently tell their attorney all about the misdeeds, real or imagined, of their spouse while not mentioning their own. Not infrequently this is being done in a high state of emotion, especially when the custody of children is at stake, and quick decisions often have to be made by the attorney. In hotly contested custody cases sex abuse allegations regarding the kids not infrequently enter into the case, and often the attorney has no way of knowing if the allegations are true. This is a difficult area of the law for an attorney concerned about following a moral path, and, unfortunately, not difficult at all for an attorney completely unconcerned with the morality of what is going on.

  • Pingback: digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: Obama’s Speech on Health Reform
  • Elaine,

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

    divorce is still an “evil”, but it is the guilty party who is culpable. In the same sense, war is an “evil”, and the unjust aggressor is culpable.

  • And what of Catholic priests and bishops who encourage divorces when they know that one of the parties is opposed to the divorce and they, the Catholic priests and bishops, flatly refuse to listen to them as they plead for action to support their marriage? What when this goes on for twenty years and the Holy see has completely ignored the same please?

    Some of us have seen this and have chosen to leave the Catholic Church over this. Why is there no support among “rank and file” Catholics for the plight of abandoned spouses who have to defend their marriage against both civil courts and marriage tribunals? And why, when one has defended one’s marriage before the highest courts in the Catholic Church, and watched those courts uphold that marriage, is their no action on the part of priests, bishops and the Roman Curia to canonically hold to account a spouse who has abandoned, wrongly, a faithful spouse, when the evidence is clear and in the possession of the Catholic Church(and has been for twenty years) that the marriage was usurped with the full cooperation of priests(to this day) and bishops(to this day)with mostly complete disregard for the valid, sacramental marriage?

    I think the politicians should receive a bye on this divorce/annulment issue while the Catholic Church tends to the clergy whose actions are far more harmful in this regard. Only after the Catholic Church has tended to its own, in house, facilitators of adultery and all the crimes that unjust divorce entails should it take the time to attempt to call to order catholic politicians. the house should be in order before that house attempts to call others to order.

    Just my two cents.

Government Health Care Means Rationed Health Care

Monday, August 17, AD 2009

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air for the above video which was produced by the Independence Institute.  As Barabara Wagner learned, the Oregon Health Plan would pay for her to kill herself but will not pay for Tarceva to fight her lung cancer.  But that’s just Oregon, maybe ObamaCare wouldn’t ration health care?

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Government Health Care Means Rationed Health Care

  • Pingback: Let Us Prey « docweaselblog
  • Pingback: Ass-end of Health Care Socialism? « docweaselblog
  • While I admire Dr. Pollard for providing the necessary antibiotics out of pocket, this is a purely anecdotal example of the inefficiency of Medicaid. These same horror stories exist for private insurers, and many equally moving success stories for Medicaid also exist, yet somehow you conclude that a reformed health care system would result in more rationing of care. The story is touching, but it doesn’t support your conclusion in the slightest.

  • There’s a troublesome topic that hasn’t been discussed much which is that part of the bill that would give the government access to a person’s bank account. Consider this scenario: If a person, be he elderly or otherwise, goes to the ER for a life-threatening event and is subsequently denied coverage, would there exist the possibility that all assets of that person could be confiscated by the government in order to reimburse the health care providers for care rendered? There is a particularly evil man, George Soros, who contributes mightily to several humanitarian foundations that Zeke Emanuel also happens to author health care articles. A real stretch on my part perhaps, but I am reminded that Soros had no qualms with confiscating property belonging to those being led off to the death camps.

  • “The story is touching, but it doesn’t support your conclusion in the slightest.”

    Wrong on both counts. I find Dr. Pollard’s statements alarming rather than touching. His statements also indicate a clear intention to deny treatment by medicaid. If such attempts are made by a private insurer to do this, a consumer always has recourse to the courts and to not give their business to insurers with a poor track record of paying for treatment. When the government is the insurer, no such options are available for ill treated consumers.

  • Having legal recourse after an insurance company has denied coverage is virtually no recourse at all unless your emergency medical condition is courteous enough to wait up to several years while you pursue a (hopefully) favorable verdict. Private insurers are also largely immune to having their customers vote with their wallets, since most people can only feasibly afford the insurance their employer has chosen to offer. There seems to be some implication that the scenario encountered by Dr. Pollard can’t or doesn’t happen when private insurers are involved despite the fact that it can and does all the time.

  • djr,

    a reformed health care system would result in more rationing of care.

    Not a reformed health care system – a GOVERNMENT health care system.

    The difference with private insurers is that the coverage limits are written into the policy agreement, if the insurer does not abide by them, you have recourse to the government. If you’re on a government health care program, your recourse is “the hospice chute”.

  • djr,

    can you provide an example where a health insurance company has offered to kill it’s customer?

    Problems with enforcement in the current system do not get solved by throwing “the baby out with the bathwater”. The current system works for the overwhelming majority, the problems need to be fixed but that doesn’t mean it’s flawed in general.

    since most people can only feasibly afford the insurance their employer has chosen to offer.

    There’s a “change” we can all believe in right? Allow individuals to economically purchase a state approved plan for themselves? Wait…. the Republicans proposed this plan several times and the big “O” and all his cronies voted against it.

    ps. I’m unaware of any euthansia promotors at the top levels of private insurance companies…apparently you are, or you would see the difference.

  • “Having legal recourse after an insurance company has denied coverage is virtually no recourse at all unless your emergency medical condition is courteous enough to wait up to several years while you pursue a (hopefully) favorable verdict.”

    Actually verdicts in wrongful denial of coverage suits are frequently astronomical and many insurance companies will authorize treatment soon after receiving a letter from an attorney threatening such a suit. Having written several such letters that has been my experience.

    “Private insurers are also largely immune to having their customers vote with their wallets, since most people can only feasibly afford the insurance their employer has chosen to offer.”

    A consumer in moderate to good health can usually get an insurance policy for rather low rates, especially if he is willing to take on a high deductible for non-emergency care. I pay for my family’s insurance out of my own pocket and have done so for the past 23 years and have been able to get good rates with various insurers through careful shopping.

    “There seems to be some implication that the scenario encountered by Dr. Pollard can’t or doesn’t happen when private insurers are involved despite the fact that it can and does all the time.”

    No such implication was made by me. My point is that when the Government runs health care the consumer has no options to rationing and frequently shabby service.

  • Matt,

    Again, legal recourse is not particularly meaningful when (as in the ten day example given in the original article) you require treatment immediately. Granted, if your insurer is simply and blatantly in breech of the terms of your policy, you (or maybe your estate) will probably trounce them in a courtroom one day. But your insurer may also have conditions associated with your coverage that prevent you from getting the treatment you actually need within the timeframe you actually need it. Perhaps before agreeing to antibiotic treatment for your eye infection, you’re required to undergo some less expensive treatment that takes 10.1 days and fails. This is rationing of care, and it happens today in a perfectly legal manner without any help from the government.

    Regarding euthanasia, I’m not entirely sure where that is coming from or where it is going. I suppose I don’t know of any private insurance companies that offer to kill you (although there are many who would be happy to let you die), but I don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not health care is rationed to any greater or lesser extent under any of the proposed plans.


    I’ll defer to your expertise on the topic of wrongful denial of coverage, since it sounds like you have some experience there, but I think ‘wrongful’ is the operative word. Care doesn’t necessarily have to be wrongfully denied to be effectively rationed, it simply has to be limited to the point that it isn’t of any use to you at the time you need it. I can attest personally (anecdotally, I admit) to the hurdles and hoops private insurance will ask you to jump through before agreeing to a procedure or settling a claim. Given the right circumstances, that is every bit as much rationing as the situation described by Dr. Pollard.

    I’ve also had personal experience trying to secure affordable insurance without the help of an employer, and I’m honestly amazed to hear how successful you’ve been. The numbers I was quoted for a fairly modest plan (including eye care and dental, admittedly) were outrageously high, even in my mid-20s and with no pre-existing conditions. Maybe with enough time and agreeing to a high enough deductible, I could have found something acceptable, but there is just no comparison to the plan and pricing I’m able to get through my employer. I would have to be extremely angry and willing to sacrifice a huge amount of money to stick it to my current provider, and in the end, I don’t think they would miss me enough to really reflect on why they lost me as a customer. I think my situation is fairly common, and it effectively prevents me from taking my business elsewhere to any great effect.

    It may be true that government-run health care will lead to greater rationing and shabbier service, but I don’t think the article supports that argument at all. It just tells a story where adequate care wasn’t provided, and Medicaid happened to be the insurer involved. You could find a story just like this in any hospital in America where the insurer is a private company.

  • The prime problem drj with giving government a monopoly over health care, which is what the proposed House legislation would do, is just that. In a monopoly situation there is no incentive for the holder of the monopoly to provide good service. Dr. Pollard’s experience attests to what happens now in regard to Medicaid, a service provided to the poor who have no other alternative due to lack of funds. ObamaCare would put us all in that leaky boat.

  • I don’t disagree that a monopoly is terrible for consumers, and I would hate to see a government monopoly over health care. I’m not thoroughly convinced that any mechanism by which the government provides insurance necessarily leads to a government monopoly, either. But in either case, Dr. Pollard really only successfully makes the case that people without any options have no options, something that is true whether your health care comes from the government or from a private insurer. The rationing argument he makes doesn’t hold because it is in no way unique to Medicaid. Private insurance rations very clearly already and often in the exact same way, so it isn’t fair to assert that Medicaid is a leaky boat (in regard to rationing of care) and that private insurance is something different.

  • When private insurers are driven out of business drj, and that would clearly be the ultimate result of the House bill, only the government would be left as a monopoly. A multiplicity of private insurers today prevents such a monopoly. A single payer system is merely another way of saying government monopoly.

  • My folks have private insurance, have my entire life– it’s expensive, but ranches don’t offer insurance.

    Mom’s had breast cancer, two orthoscope knee operations, a knee replacement, some sort of operation on the joints of her thumb…. all with the pre-existing wear and tear of a high school track star.

    Dad has a lot of skin problems, an incorrectly healed wrist since he was in high school and a pretty solid history of stuff-spiked-through-his-foot.

    Both in their fifties, both with family histories of rather expensive medical problems.

    Private insurance hasn’t been *perfect,* but it’s been pretty dang good.

    It’s also telling that mom is the only one that we know in the valley who has had any of those surgeries and paid for them herself, and that dad’s medical massage therapist had to raise her rates (she previously had a “monthly member” style discount club for valley residents with medical problems) or she would have to stop seeing Medicaid/Medicare customers.

    From where I stand, it sure looks like the idiots who are proud and honorable enough to pay for their own dang insurance need some protection from the folks that won’t, and they sure don’t need something that a politician is promising will be as good as the Post Office!

  • djr,

    First of all, you haven’t responded to the objections about the character of government which clearly is an important element of this.

    I’m not thoroughly convinced that any mechanism by which the government provides insurance necessarily leads to a government monopoly

    we don’t need to convince you that it will absolutely happen. You support a massive expansion of government power, it is your side that must prove that it will absolutely not happen in order to justify it.

    people without any options have no options, something that is true whether your health care comes from the government or from a private insurer. The rationing argument he makes doesn’t hold because it is in no way unique to Medicaid. Private insurance rations very clearly already and often in the exact same way, so it isn’t fair to assert that Medicaid is a leaky boat (in regard to rationing of care) and that private insurance is something different.

    The problem you’re having is the “insufficient options” fallacy. The only options are not to leave the health insurance system as it is, or a “government option”. The fact is that numerous improvements to the current system do not involve the great risk that we’re concerned about but the democrats oppose them… tort reform, separating insurance from the employer, cross-state line competition… these things would solve the problem of rationing by giving people options. Appropriate oversight to ensure people get the procedures they need is important, and if it’s not happening then EACH STATE should work to resolve this as quickly as possible, there’s no need for federal infringement on this state level authority.

  • Matt,

    I guess I don’t fully understand what you mean by the ‘character of government’. Is this on the topic of euthanasia? If so, I honestly don’t give much credence to the argument that the government wants to euthanize old people, and I’m amazed and disappointed that the idea has gotten any traction. Compared to the ethics and character of private enterprise, which I think we can all admit is only interested in your health care to the extent that they can wrangle a profit from you as you try to afford it, I think it’s a wash at best.

    I don’t feel like I need to defend a massive government expansion because I’m not a proponent of government-run health care – that’s just something you’ve assumed because you see the entire issue as Us vs. Them and because my initial post was about how the content of this article doesn’t support its headline in any reasonable way. Still, it does seem clear to me that the government could be involved in health care to many different degrees, most of which don’t require the takeover that you assume would result. This should be evident by the fact that the government already is involved heavily with health care and has not thus far managed to take over the entire system.

    As for the insufficient options fallacy, you’re again assuming that I’m only interested in a government-provided solution. The argument I’m making is not for a government option, it’s against drawing bad conclusions from anecdotal accounts in an effort to convince people of something you hope they’ll believe without being offered any real evidence.

    As far as the other options you mentioned are concerned, I don’t disagree with any of them. I’m not a democrat or a republican, so I don’t find myself at odds with any political ideology for thinking that they’re good ideas. But they’re not incompatible with government intervention either, so I don’t consider it an either/or proposition. One thing the government can bring to the table that private industry can’t is a service driven by and focused on something other than quarterly profits, and I recognize that there might be a place for that somewhere in the health care industry.

    I don’t want to wander too far from the point, though. I haven’t seen any credible evidence that government care means rationing above and beyond the level we see today (especially if you treat being unable to afford or obtain insurance at all as rationing, which I think you can legitimately do), and you can’t simply tell a bad story about Medicaid, conclude that Medicaid is bad, and call that a meaningful argument.

  • Is this on the topic of euthanasia? If so, I honestly don’t give much credence to the argument that the government wants to euthanize old people, and I’m amazed and disappointed that the idea has gotten any traction.

    Well, when we have multiple examples of Gov’t healthcare doing exactly that, in this country…. What else are we supposed to think? “It can’t happen to me”?

Sebelius and Specter Respond

Wednesday, August 5, AD 2009


Hattip to the ever reticent Lads and Lasses at the Lair of the Catholic Cavemen. Yesterday I had a post celebrating the warm reception that Secretary Sebelius and Senator Specter received at a town hall meeting.  Now the indispensable Iowahawk has thoughtfully penned here, a response to the voters for Secretary Sebelius and Senator Specter.  No doubt they will be duly appreciative of his efforts, and Iowahawk will probably enjoy his time on the no-fly list.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Sebelius and Specter Respond

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

Tuesday, August 4, AD 2009

Ah, it does my heart good to see Senator Arlen Specter (D.Pa) and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services exposed to the verbal anger of the public!  Now why is that?

Well as to Snarlin’ Arlen, he was for decades a pro-abort Republican and now is a pro-abort Democrat.  My reaction when he jumped parties earlier this year was good riddance.  He jumped parties of course because he was an almost certain loser to pro-life Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.  The hilarious thing is that Specter will face a Democrat primary challenge from Congressman Joe Sestak who announced his candidacy yesterday.  If he survives the primary challenge he faces an up-hill fight against Toomey.  In a Quinnipiac poll on July 22, Specter leads Toomey by a single percentage point 45%-44%.  This is a devastating poll for an incumbent facing a well-known challenger.

As for Sebelius, she is a fanatic pro-abort, as I detailed here, and a close political ally of the late Tiller the Killer.  Just before her confirmation it came out that she had received three times the donations from Tiller than she had claimed.    Of course this is only the tip of a large ice berg of campaign funds that Tiller used to aid Sebelius as this letter here from Tiller indicates.  Her ties to Tiller were outlined by Bob Novak last year here. When confronted about Tiller she was always in full ” Tiller?” mode:

Yep, I can watch these two being booed with a fine enjoyment!  Schadenfreude?  Indeed!

Continue reading...

36 Responses to It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

  • I too take some comfort in knowing the likes of Specter and Sebelius are being challenged. However, my real delight was in the substance of those two clips from the town hall meeting. They demonstrate the common sense of the common man, and the futility of trying to stump it. The common man may not be slick or sophisticated like those who desire to lord over them, but he is far wiser because he chooses to deal with reality rather than delude himself.

  • Agreed Rick. This was the classic case of two con artists suddenly learning to their dismay that “the marks” of their con weren’t quite the rubes they thought!

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

  • I’m confused… Your theory is that Donald will burn down the administration and then get himself elected chancellor of the US in a tight three way election?

    Or is it some sort of vague aspersion that although the Democrats may be bad, the Republicans are infinitely worse?

  • It’s funny that MZ is getting his “talking points” from a website where the main contributor (Marshall) in 2005 openly stated that the social security reform package should be “demagogued” to death. So now it’s four years later and suddenly the left is upset about passionate rhetoric and instilling fear as a method of squashing reform. Convenient.

  • That being said, the comparison to Hitler in this context is revolting, but it’s MZ so it’s not surprising that he said something intentionally inflammatory. His hair shirt has to be chafing.

  • I could be wrong, but didn’t M.Z. vote for Obama?

    Also remember that when people start comparing Republicans or Conservatives to anything Nazi or Hitler, that’s a strong indication that they are losing (or have lost) the argument.

  • Oh, I get it… The point is supposed to be that the booing is orchestrated and therefore doesn’t count. (And the Nazis are simply thrown in for extra rhetorical spice.)

    Of course, the booing could be orchestrated. These things happen. Goodness knowns, given the much greater preponderance of bored students on the liberal side of the aisle we’ve been dealing with this for decades. But given that support for the health plan has dropped solidly in the polls, it’s hardly surprising if adverse reactions are seen regardless of whether they’re orchestrated or not.

  • Does that mean we can call liberals communists when they use the same tactics?

  • I thought that’s how you say communist in American?

  • We have no idea whether or not the lady in the audience who spoke up was there to be a disruption or was there due to her own concern. Nothing in what she said would indicate that she was trying to be a trouble maker – unless of course, one considers challenging the wisdom of the ruling elite as being such.

    Oddly enough it was Specter’s own words, voluntarily given, that were damning. Anyone who thinks it is good or appropriate to ram through legislation of such magnitude without studying what effects it may have or to do it so it can’t be scrutinized really has no business making such decisions. Alas, I know we elected them, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to keep them in check.

    Personally, I’m suspect of any decision made by someone who would classify abortion as health care. Even if the proposed reform was mostly a good and workable idea, I’d be against it because of the inclusion of abortion. One absolute mandate of the justification of the state is to defend innocent life – not take it. While the state has a duty to the common good, properly understood, forcing people to buy health insurance and creating alternative insurance organizations is not mandatory – especially when the state considers abortion health care and a right and starving the infirm to be a private matter. These moral and intellectual faults make for horrible foundation to build “health care” upon. It is easy to see how euthanasia and the disabled could easily become marginalized by these people.

  • Hey, what ever happened to dissent being patriotic?

  • Phillip,

    It’s ok to dissent if you’re an extremist liberal. It’s not ok if you’re an ordinary American.

  • I encourage people on the Left to engage in the fantasy that these eruptions of citizen rage taking place at townhall meetings are simply the work of some grand right-wing conspiracy. Reassure yourselves that all is well, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are on the right course, and that there is absolutely no chance that in 2010 angry voters will be clambering over each other to register their displeasure at the polls.

  • I seem to remember that just last week at VN they were claiming that conspiracy theories are a characteristic of the right but not the left. Huh.

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

    It’s a bit early in the day for the sauce, MZ.

  • Art Deco,

    M.Z.’s a teetoler, he drinks only Kool-Ade.

  • Donald,

    There is absolutely no chance of any change™ occurring in 2010.

    For example, ACORN at this time are combing cemetery’s to register new voters in order to prevent change™ from happening.

    They’ve even began discrediting Tea Party protesters as ‘right-wing-tea-baggers’ with Janeane Garofalo leading the cheers.

    What next? Cow-towing to dictatorships that imprison innocent Americans such as the two journalists in North Korea or the three hikers in Iran? So we can be sensitive to our enemies, but damn American voters for voicing their disagreement with government run health care?

  • It was a stupid comment, but let’s not go overboard on the inside baseball jibes.

  • I’m actually enjoying all the comments. True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

  • Darwin,

    This gentleman’s explanation you may find more persuasive.

  • Consider it community organizing.

  • True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

    We know, MZ. All those uppity people speaking back to their superiors. They should know better.

  • MZ,

    Not really.


    My apologies. Resume pummelling.

  • On a side note, I’m amused that some on the progressive side are claiming to be shocked (shocked!) that criticisms voiced at “town hall meetings” are not sufficiently learned from their point of view.

    Does anyone really imagine that getting a bunch of random voters to ask politicians questions about a complex and contentious topic will produce learned questions — or answers for that matter? “Town hall” meetings to discuss anything other than how to run a local town are unlikely to result in deep analysis from either the citizens or the politicians involved. To get upset that it’s not your pat and simplistic arguments being aired seems odd.

  • Are you pawning yourself off Paul as the everyman?

  • MZ:

    Yes, MZ. Clearly walking by the SEIU headquarters every day on my lunch break is finally getting to me.

  • The rift between the common people and the know-it-all’s widens…

  • From the comment MZ linked to:

    “These town hall shut downs have been orchestrated by the same Washington lobbying firm that was behind the tea parties. I assume those of who who don’t depend on Fox know that by now.”

    I rejoice that such a complete misreading of the current situation is what passes for analysis on the Left. Of course the proposals of Obama and the Democrats in Congress can’t really be unpopular with the public; this all has to be orchestrated by a sinister right wing cabal.

  • Hillary Clinton nailed it over 15 years ago as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” Donald.

    Why people are incapable of making up their own minds without help from “others”.

    Frankly, if this is what the White House offers as an objective analysis, then President Obama is in for a real awakening come 2010.

  • Hmmm Republicans lead by 5 points on the Rasmussen generic Congressional ballot:

    “Support for Republican congressional candidates has risen to its highest level in recent years, giving the GOP a five-point lead over Democrats in the latest Congressional Ballot and stretching the out-of-power party’s lead to six weeks in a row.
    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

    Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead on the ballot for the first few weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and from mid-April through June the two political parties were roughly even. Republicans have held a lead on the ballot since the last week in June, the first time they’d been on top in well over a year.

    Women who have consistently favored Democrats now prefer the GOP by a 40% to 39% margin. Men continue to favor Republicans over Democrats 47% to 36%.

    Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Republicans two-to-one – 43% to 22%.”

    Well Rasmussen must obviously be in the pay of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Of course that doesn’t explain why NPR shows Republicans ahead on their generic Congressional ballot poll by one point. Even the full mooners of the Left will have some difficulty portraying National Public Radio as in any sense right-wing.

    There is a long way to go of course until November 2010, but this is a crucial time for recruiting candidates and raising war chests, and this type of news gives a big boost to the GOP and a big problem for the Democrats.

  • Oh, I’m sure Toomey’s campaign manager danced a jig around the office when he (or she) saw that clip. PA voters are going to see the sound bite helpfully provided by Arlen “I don’t actually read the bills” Spector over and over in the fall.

    Look, in your own personal life you know you’re a darn fool if you don’t bother to read important documents you put your name to, whether they’re mortgages, leases, wills, insurance policies or what have you. Every responsible adult understands that what’s in the fine print might come back to bite you. And yet we have the surreal spectacle of our lawmakers pushing for a momentous change – and yet they haven’t even read the bill (or else it hasn’t been written yet, so they don’t know the specifics.) And yet we’re just supposed to trust them to do the right thing? This is ridiculous.

  • Pingback: Sebelius and Specter Respond « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi, Are Senior Citizens “Well Dressed Nazi’s”? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: We Are Americans, Not Europeans « The American Catholic