Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
BIZARRE BILGE FROM THE CULTURE OF DEATH Posted: Monday April 6, 2009 at 10:43 am EST by Judie Brown
Bizarre bilge is news and comments that would be unthinkable in a truly civil society. Once you read the following collection of "news" items you will get a sense of what I mean by relegating anything associated with the deceptions perpetrated by the culture of death as bizarre bilge.
Always the hip and with-it organization, Planned Parenthood is entering the world of techno communication, which is itself unworthy of discussion, but then again this is how the new generation communicates, or so I am told. "OMG" stands for "oh my God," "LOL" stands for "laughing out loud" and now we have "GYT," which stands for "get yourself tested." This is the latest take on a program that is designed to connect with "tech-savvy" young people. As the report states
"Most people would be shocked to hear that, by age 25, one in two sexually active young people will have an STD. This is not just a statistic, but the reality of what Planned Parenthood health centers see every day. The GYT campaign is an excellent opportunity for people to learn what Planned Parenthood knows — that affordable testing and treatment and education are the tools teens and young people need to stay healthy and safe."
In other words, Planned Parenthood is working on another innovative way to rake in the bucks from young people while assaulting their sensibilities with sexual innuendo.
In New York City, the city council approved a bill which, according to the Gotham Gazette,
will ensure patients are not threatened, followed or harassed when attempting to enter a clinic, supporters said. On the other hand, critics argue by supposedly strengthening access to clinics, the legislation cripples protesters' First Amendment rights.
Or, to put it another way, the city council approved a new law that will make sure expectant mothers do not hear the truth about what will happen to their baby when they enter an abortion mill. In the process, the bill will all but silence those caring Americans who are willing to reach out to these mothers and help them carry their children to term. OMG!
There's also the story of the female minister in the American Episcopal Church who has a sermon on the internet that has created quite a stir. Her name is Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, and she had posted to her weblog a message indicating that "abortion is a blessing."
However, one day later, due to all the hoopla, Ragsdale took the speech down from her blog and states:
BTW, and for the record, it is true that I have taken the speech down from the blog – or made it invisible (I'm not really a blogger and don't know how these things work). And, yes, though it is on a sermon collection blog site it was, in fact, a speech, given at a rally to conclude the defense of a clinic under siege, yet again, from anti-choice protestors who harassed and frightened the staff and patients. The clinic had been shot up in the past (the owner still had the bullet-riddled door) and everyone was feeling a bit terrorized by the protestors when they asked me to fly in to stand with, and try to comfort and inspire, the defenders.
Note if you will, that Ragsdale has no problem labeling a pro-abortion speech as a "sermon," and that she has no love in her ordained heart for those who believe that every human being should have a choice, including preborn children.
At the now infamous, barely "Catholic" University of Notre Dame, things have gone from awful to horrific. It seems the new dean of the law school has been identified as someone who has donated money to pro-abortion politicians including President Barack Obama!
The official announcement published on the University of Notre Dame web site contains the following comment:
"In Nell Newton, Notre Dame has gained a superb scholar, a proven academic leader, and a person deeply committed to the University's mission," Father Jenkins said. "She will help us continue and deepen education and research in our law school, and I am delighted to welcome her to Notre Dame."
Could Father Jenkins have simply overlooked Newton's ties to John Kerry, Barack Obama and politicians of a similar stripe?
Nature magazine has published an article with the following headline: "Human rights cannot cover cells that were never in the womb." I could have paid for the full article, but clearly the headline makes a statement that stands on its own. It literally declares that any human embryo either living in an IVF laboratory, or cryo-preserved in a tank or moving through the fallopian tube toward the wall of the womb (the first four to five days of his or her life) is not a human being. He or she, according to this article, is not a person deserving of human rights!
This is but another scientific "fact" designed to dispel the notion that a human being can die if someone is using the birth control pill or that a human being will die in an IVF lab if the embryo is discarded or used for research purposes.
Poppycock!
Hillary Clinton was also on the move, and a week ago told an audience, upon receiving the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood
"Countries with higher infant mortality rates are more susceptible to political upheaval. It's connected to a lower quality of life and a lower quality of life is a byproduct of inadequate health care and inadequate family planning options."
Don't you think that Margaret Sanger would be proud of her latest honoree? Particularly when one considers the fact that what Hillary is really telling her audience is that if mothers in poor nations could abort their babies, be sterilized or otherwise avoid bearing children, there would be no war.
Her dear husband wasn't far behind in his own theories for the brave new world ahead. When CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviewed Clinton, the following exchange took place:
Gupta: Let's talk about something you talked a lot about in the early part of your presidency, stem cells. There was an order today providing federal money for embryonic stem cell research. First of all, let me just ask you, as someone who studied this, is this going to always be as divisive an issue as it is now? Is this going to be the abortion of the next generation? Or are people going to come around?
Clinton: I think – the answer is I think that we'll work it through. If – particularly if it's done right. If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that can – that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it's obvious that we're not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this....
If you cannot believe what you just read, I invite you to visit the web site and listen to Clinton with your own ears. Either Sanjay Gupta slept during his Biology 101 class, or he is in agreement with the Clintons, Ragsdales, Newtons and others who will do or say anything to avoid being associated with the direct murder of an innocent person whose life is no less valuable whether he is a minute old, a year old or a century old.
When I read reports of comments, laws or events such as those being shared with you today, my blood boils, and then my heart breaks. There is a great sadness about all this that should inspire us to intensify our efforts to teach and preach the pro-life story that begins with personhood for one and all and has to eventually end there.
If we are ever to achieve a truly just nation where equal rights, human rights and civil rights are vested in every person at every stage of his life without regard to age, health or condition of dependency, then we must strive with all our might to undo and expose all these wrongs.
Far too many in our midst believe such bizarre bilge; we have to expose it.
Why can't they just teach the truth? Unmarried people having sex is basically why we have STDS, if everyone waited until they were married, and they were faithful to their spouse, we wouldn't have these diseases. Any kind of birth control be it condoms, pills, IUDs etc are not even close to 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy. You can do anything and use everything 100% correctly 100% of the time and still not be 100% "safe". Abortion is not a blessing, its a tragedy. Not only for the unborn baby who obviously dies, but the scar that no medicine or "counseling" can heal for the mother. It may seem as a temporary fix for a "problem" that you did to yourself, but it will eat you alive, maybe not instantly, or even 10 years down the road but it will! I've never met a woman who regretted giving birth, but I know too many women who regret their abortions. elisabeth | April 10, 2009
NORTH DAKOTA BISHOPS NULLIFY PERSONHOOD! Posted: Friday April 3, 2009 at 11:38 am EST by Judie Brown
Every once in a while I find an article that is so superb it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. The following is one such offering by Robert L. Hale, an expert on the law and personhood. As Professor Dianne Irving wrote to us at American Life League when she first read the article:
In these times of "accountability", isn't it time that the American bishops be held accountable for the scandalous anti-life policies that too many of them have been forming and advancing for the last 40 years? No one can get straight answers from them. They should be required to give complete explicit rational reasons for their positions and policies and be ready to fully defend them -- like the rest of us are.
It should also be noted that such "silence" is usually a characteristic of those who very early on adopted the fake scientific term "pre-embryo" in order to "justify" their reticence in reversing Roe. Indeed, the Roe decision was essentially based on briefings from those who were "pre-embryo" advocates. Instead, there has been a constant stream of "pre-embryo substitutes" (use different terms but have the same agenda and goals) spawned not only by the secular society, but also from many in "pro-life" and from many in the bishops' own camps. Could this help explain the failed "incrementalism" policies such "pre-embryos" have advocated for so long – under the guise of being "pastoral"? I have noted before that there was nothing "incremental" whatsoever about the Roe decision. It was simply dumped on the American public almost overnight. Perhaps such "pro-life" incrementalists oppose solid and scientifically accurate "human personhood" bills like the one in North Dakota because they would all be out of a job, or funding, if these bills succeeded.
While some might suggest that Dr. Irving’s comments are harsh, they are totally honest and reflect the feelings of far too many in the pro-human-personhood effort. As you will learn from Mr. Hale, the Bishops in North Dakota did not provide solid arguments for opposing personhood; their position was strictly political. Please enjoy the article entitled "North Dakota Catholic Bishops Opt to Preserve Roe v. Wade" by Robert L. Hale (N.B.: This column is copyright by Robert L. Hale and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved.)
MINOT, N.D.- Rep. Dan Ruby (R-Minot, N.D.) introduced a bill (HB 1572) in the North Dakota House of Representatives that defined "individual, person, or human being" as "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." The intent of the bill was to clarify personhood under the state constitution. The bill was passed by the House and moved to the Senate.
Four days before the Senate hearing on the bill, North Dakota's two Catholic bishops, Paul Zipfel of Bismarck and Samuel Aquila of Fargo, called a news conference to announce they could not support the bill as written. They offered amendments that gutted the bill in its entirety -- striking every word of the original bill, including the operative word "person."
Neither bishop nor staff member contacted Rep. Ruby to discuss any concerns prior to the news conference. Neither testified at the House hearing. At the news conference, they stated, "We have directed the North Dakota Catholic Conference to draft amendments that would preserve the intent of HB 1572 while eliminating unnecessary problems." Rep. Ruby's repeated calls to Bishop Zipfel went unanswered.
The intent of Rep. Ruby's bill was to respond to Justice Blackmun's acknowledgment in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. constitution did not define "person." This was the pivotal basis on which that decision concluded that there was no recognizable life issue. The ruling determined that, since "life" was unknown, the liberty interest of the woman to decide how to deal with her pregnancy must be paramount.
In short, there was no "person" to protect. The Justice noted, however, that if "personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment (14th)."
If Rep. Ruby's bill were to become law, then the question posed by Justice Blackmun would be at issue; the Supreme Court would have a chance to decide whether state sovereignty, relative to the protection of persons, would be upheld. In the event the Court were to decide in the affirmative, each state would be free to legislate as it sees fit, relative to the protection of persons.
Rep. Ruby's bill has put that question before the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time.
The bishops stated their intent was to, "Make the bill more a statement of legislative intent to guide legal interpretation rather than a mandate to revise application of existing laws."
The reality is that Bishop Zipfel opposes anything that would reinstate North Dakota's abortion laws prior to Roe. He has repeatedly opposed bills that would potentially challenge Roe. He believes that women should never be held legally liable for procuring abortions and that the repeal of Roe would do just that in North Dakota.
Bishop Zipfel has used his office and the North Dakota Catholic Conference to gut HB 1572. While he claims his wishes to "preserve the intent of HB 1572," he does no such thing. The bishops totally eliminated every word of the bill, including the critical word "person," and replaced them with 218 words, many of which the courts have rejected.
While Bishop Zipfel and the North Dakota Catholic Conference use the right rhetoric and claim they wish to provide, "a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and its progeny," their actions speak louder than their words. They propose to gut a bill that poses one simple question to the Supreme Court: In the absence of a U.S. Constitutional definition of "person," can a state define "person"? They replace it with confusion and ambiguity, and they leave out the critical term.
Why didn't the bishops introduce their own bill if they believe they know how to challenge Roe? Why are they challenging and gutting HB 1572 after it has passed the House? Why have they refused to talk with the sponsor of HB 1572? Their actions challenging the bill may well ensure its failure.
For those who wonder why abortion, after 36 years, is still taking almost 1.5 million lives each year in the U.S., the bishops' actions in North Dakota help to answer that question.
As we ponder the situation that has arisen not only in North Dakota, but also in states like Colorado, Georgia and Montana, where Catholic bishops have undermined personhood efforts, we really need to inquire of them regarding the substantive reasons why they are literally taking indefensible positions. As Mr. Hale points out, it has been 36 years and to this very day not one United States Catholic bishop has ever publicly advocated for personhood. What could the reason for this silence possibly be?
Bishop Samuel J. Aquila is one of the pro-life heros among the bishops, judging from how often I see him quoted here and at other sites. I have emailed (respectfully) Bishop Aquila, asking about this glaring inconsistency. David Volk | April 3, 2009
Hi Judy... jbrown@all.org
Dear Judy I will send you a YouTube Video that is circulating in the Birthing Community
I am a Birth Doula and help women to have natural births...and VBACs... so we need to know what is at the bottom of this bill..on PERSONHOOD..immediately. Rose Mary | April 4, 2009
Dear Rose Mary
I am not sure you mean by "what's at the bottom" but if you give me some specifics, I can and would be delighted to advise you.
NOTRE DAME SCORE CARD: AMERICANISM VS. CATHOLICISM Posted: Thursday April 2, 2009 at 10:37 am EST by Judie Brown
It's really interesting to witness the ongoing struggle between orthodoxy and malevolence surrounding the University of Notre Dame's invitation to President Barack Obama. The very idea that a Catholic university would honor the world's leading abortion advocate is oxymoronic on its face.
Lining up as supporters of the invitation are such luminaries as Cardinal Francis George, who on the one hand encouraged people to protest the outrage but on the other hand claims that Notre Dame really did not know what it meant to be Catholic:
Cardinal George exhorted the group of Catholics he was speaking with to keep the pressure on Notre Dame, calling on them to "do what you are supposed to be doing: to call, to e-mail, to write letters, to express what's in your heart about this: the embarrassment, the difficulties."
But the cardinal warned that he did not expect Notre Dame to cancel an invitation to the president of the United States, because "you just don't do that."
Etiquette apparently trumps Catholic teaching. Is that what it means to be Catholic?
If the president is forced to withdraw, how will that fact be used? Will it be used to link the church with racist and other extremist elements in our country? Will the banishment of the first African-American president from Catholic university campuses be seen as grossly insensitive to the heritage of racial hatred which has burdened our country for far too long? Will it be used to paint the bishops as supporters of one political party over another? Will this action be seen as proof that the bishops of the United States do not sincerely seek dialogue on major policy questions, but only acquiescence?
These questions are not negligible. Cardinal James Gibbons, when he received the "Red Hat," in a memorable sermon at the church of Santa Maria in Trastevere strongly praised the tremendous benefit that came to the church in our country because of the separation of church and state.
Perhaps the archbishop has forgotten about Cardinal James Gibbons and his response to Pope Leo XIII who, in 1899 condemned Americanism as a heresy, calling it
a "reprehensible" error. He had in mind a set of attitudes and practices intended to adjust Catholic belief and behavior (or in some cases just sweep them aside) to suit contemporary secular standards in unacceptable ways. The existence of such views, Leo said, "raises a suspicion that there are those among you who envision and desire a Church in America other than that which is in all the rest of the world."
Prominent figures in U.S. Catholicism like Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore — to whom the pope's letter was addressed … promptly insisted they held none of the views which Leo had condemned. And thereupon, one historian writes, Americanism "quickly disappeared as a meaningful force in the U.S."
Americanism is alive and well, and statements like those of Cardinal George and Archbishop Quinn simply confirm the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally the praises that are coming forth in support of Notre Dame's olive branch to the treacherous Obama include the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Its president said Notre Dame deserves the respect of all Americans for refusing to rescind the invite to Obama!
Newspaper editorials are calling on Notre Dame's president to stand firm, and the Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross Fathers, the order to which Notre Dame President Father Jenkins belongs, just authored a 13-page letter to Obama that is a cross between chicken gumbo and oatmeal: its content is mush!
On the solidly Catholic side of the debate, we find a host of amazing Catholic prelates who have put their best foot forward in enunciating exactly what it means to be Catholic.
South Bend's own Bishop John D'Arcy, who has valiantly attempted to reign in the powers that be at Notre Dame for the past twenty years, made the news first on this subject.
Bishop John M. D'Arcy said Tuesday he will not attend the University of Notre Dame's graduation ceremony, where President Obama is scheduled to deliver the commencement speech and receive an honorary degree.
"President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred…. I wish no disrespect to the president, I pray for him and I wish him well. I have always revered the office of the presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith 'in season and out of season,' and he teaches not only by his words – but by his actions."
I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.
It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.
Oklahoma's bishops, Most Rev. Edward J. Slattery (Diocese of Tulsa) and Most Rev. Eusebius Beltran (Archdiocese of Oklahoma City) have both sent letters to Father Jenkins protesting the Obama appearance and award. Bishop Slattery's letter states, in part ,"For President Obama to be honored by Notre Dame is more than a disappointment, it is a scandal – especially to young adults."
Archbishop Beltran's remarks are soon to be published in the Sooner Catholic.
As posted by the Cardinal Newman Society on their web site, Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City wrote in the diocesan news outlet The Catholic Globe
This is truly a sad day for the famous university dedicated to our Blessed Mother. … Catholic institutions of higher learning must always be places where the Catholic values we hold so dearly will always be supported and promoted – not where the culture of death is allowed to be honored or valued.
It is a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States. Our USCCB June 2004 Statement "Catholics in Political Life" states: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." No one could not know of the public stands and actions of the president on key issues opposed to the most vulnerable human beings.
Archbishop John J. Myers, Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, issued a statement containing these words, "When we extend honors to people who do not share our respect and reverence for life in all stages, and give them a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other institutions, we unfortunately create the perception that we endorse their public positions on these issues. We cannot justify such actions, and the Bishops have stated so clearly and strongly."
Bishop Gregory Aymond of the Diocese of Austin, Texas, wrote "In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support."
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, wrote in his March 27 column
Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning. The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person.
A distinct line has been drawn in the sand between those who understand what it means to be Catholic in the midst of a secularized culture and those who prefer assimilation into the secularized culture. The events surrounding the Notre Dame Obama travesty tell us something instructive about Catholics in America. The tragic differences that have been created by the heresy of Americanism are now crystal clear thanks to the Notre Dame fiasco. As Father Anthony Brankin said a couple of years ago,
We are cooperating with a genuinely godless secular state – a world regime of people who are not like us and who do not like us – and this state grows bigger and more sinister with each passing day. And it is this entity that has given birth to the global Culture of Death under which we groan and which we try to ignore. …How are we complicit in the crimes and depredations of those we have put in power? By ignoring their crimes, making excuses for them, and by saying nothing of any substance.
And, I would add, we are complicit by inviting the enemy to Catholic institutions, honoring that enemy and pandering to the culture of death in the process.
If you would like to send kind messages of thanks to those shepherds who are teaching us how to live Catholic, feel free:
Bishop John D’Arcy
Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend: Fort Wayne Chancery
1103 S. Calhoun Street
P.O. Box 390
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801
SENATORIAL COURTESY OR FLIMFLAM? Posted: Wednesday April 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm EST by Judie Brown
Senatorial Courtesy, for those who are not familiar with the term, is actually part of the congressional glossary of terms published on line by C-SPAN.
Senatorial Courtesy refers to the practice of consulting home-state senators on a nomination. The Senate rarely confirms presidential appointments if the nominee's own senators disapprove.
The term is not fiction, as I took the trouble to look into it by searching several additional web sites that are known to be credible sources for this sort of political information. It is a term of particular interest to me since the nomination hearings on Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius are scheduled to begin at some point this week. Further, the governor, who rabidly supports abortion, has social and financial ties to America's most infamous abortionist, George Tiller, is also someone who claims she is Catholic. Dubious yes, but a fact nonetheless.
The two United States senators hailing from Kansas are Senator Sam Brownback, a recent convert to Catholicism and pro-life American and Senator Pat Roberts, a Methodist and a pro-life American, though not as outspoken on the tragedy of abortion as Senator Brownback. In fact, the biography of Senator Roberts, published on his web site, tells the reader that: "In 1969, Roberts became Administrative Assistant to First District U.S. Congressman Keith Sebelius. Roberts was elected to Congress in 1980, succeeding Sebelius upon his retirement."
Kansas has, according to voting records published by certain pro-life organizations, two pro-life senators who could have joined together because of their convictions regarding the tragedy of the act of abortion, opposed Governor Sebelius and thereby sealed her fate. Sebelius would not have been confirmed, if indeed she is, if the two senators from her state had opposed her nomination and invoked Senatorial Courtesy. We all know, however, that they did not.
Obviously the courteous thing to do, if one can judge by the inaction of these two senators, was not to stand up for principle and do all they could to stop the Sebelius nomination. Rather they rolled over and played dead, played patty cake with the deadly enemy, and accepted with smiles and open arms a woman who places abortion right at the top of her health-care agenda. To my mind this is a travesty that is beyond the pale, but don't wait to hear about it from those who oppose Sebelius' nomination but would never utter a negative word about the two senators in question, well almost nobody. I just did.
This sort of namby-pamby behavior makes me ill. It is the reason why United States senators who describe themselves as pro-life deserve a great deal more scrutiny than they receive from those in the political end of things who think they know what is best for all of us including preborn children. If a man who claims to be pro-life cannot stand up and declare it at a critical time like this, then exactly how pro-life can he really be?
When Terri Schiavo, whose death we commemorated yesterday, took her last breath, Senator Sam Brownback made a profound statement which said in part
With Terri Schiavo, we witnessed the legally sanctioned death by starvation and dehydration of a living human being. It is now time to look beyond the politics of the debate in order to see clearly what is really at issue in this case.
While many in the media have attempted to portray the events leading to Terri's death as politically motivated, it is much more significant than this. Ultimately, one's position on the matter of Terri Schiavo depends on one's view of the human person. …
If a subjective judgment of quality of life is what determines the value of an individual or the protections accorded to that individual, this has enormous implications for every one of us: both for the way we conduct our own lives and for the way we order our society. If we have a fundamental mandate to protect the most vulnerable among us—not just those with social or political influence or those who are regarded as productive—a reordering of our priorities, and our laws, becomes necessary. Terri's struggle becomes apparent for what it is: the forced starvation of a living human being with a diminished quality of life for the sole reason that her continued existence has a quality that is below some subjective standard put forth by a judge. If this can be true for any living person, then God help us all.
I have added bold emphasis on those phrases from Senator Brownback's statement, which should apply to his actions with regard to the Sebelius nomination. If he is to be believed, if he is consistent, then why is there a double standard?
Brownback's statement on the death of Terri Schiavo, eloquent and I am certain, heartfelt at the time four years ago, makes a mockery of Brownback's current lack of action when it comes to Kathleen Sebelius, who is the antithesis of all that Brownback wrote in defense of life and the "infinite worth" of the human being.
Politics aside, there is no defense for the same man who felt such a deep and abiding love for Terri and all she suffered to stop short of doing all within his power to stop the Sebelius nomination.
To my mind, the utilitarian ethic that formed the foundation for Michael Schiavo's decision to end Terri's life was a tragedy. But what is the ethic that undergirds the decision of a Catholic senator to avoid confronting his state's pro-abortion governor and doing so publicly for all to hear? As LifesiteNews.com reported, Senator Brownback "issued a joint statement with fellow Senator Pat Roberts congratulating Sebelius, whom Planned Parenthood once called a "champion" of their agenda, on the occasion of her nomination by President Obama."
When pro-life politicians extend congratulations to an avowed enemy of preborn human persons, there are no words to describe the disgust I feel. So much for flowery statements and words on paper!
Please let both United States senators from Kansas know exactly how disappointed you are in their latest flimflam.
Judie, this Senatorial Courtesy business simply isn't true. John Ashcroft was confirmed by the Senate despite STRONG opposition from Sen Jean Carnahan from Missouri (Ashcrofts home state). Christopher | April 3, 2009
Dear Christopher
Not sure why you would claim that 'Senatorial Courtesy' is not true simply because one Missouri Senator opposed confirmation for another who was recommended for higher office.
The Sebelius situation is not the same, she is not a US Senator and the two Kansas Senators could invoke Senatorial Courtesy if they so chose.
CONTEMPTIBLE DISTORTIONS AND DELUSIONS Posted: Tuesday March 31, 2009 at 9:52 am EST by Judie Brown
The Catholic Church and her miraculous history of withstanding assaults from within and without is always a source of inspiration for me. Starting with Judas Iscariot himself, there have always been insiders who mouthed platitudes or behaved in certain ways while plotting against the very essence of what it means to be Catholic. Iscariot did, after all, betray Christ for a mere 30 pieces of silver.
Clearly most disgruntled Catholics today are not using money in attempts to destroy the Church; they are using deceptive rhetoric, powerful positions and the ability to dissent from Church teaching to confuse, confound and misinform those who do not understand what is at stake. Those who fall victim to such watered down theology may have been baptized Catholic, but if it ends there, what else can one expect. And this debilitating condition among Catholics spreads to those who are not Catholic.
Non-Catholics are getting so many different impressions of what is acceptable for Catholics that they don't see the value in calling one's self Catholic in the first place. That's how the devil works. Yes, the devil. The seeds of confusion, sown by the father of lies, (Evangelium Vitae 53) are at the core of the Catholic identity crisis today.
The results of a recent Gallup poll are a very good example of Catholics who are either confused or hopelessly lost. Perhaps the Gallup report escaped you, but U. S. News and World Report's blog is the place to go for the details. The headline reads: "Gallup Poll: Catholics the Same or More Liberal Than Others on Moral Issues."
These few words encapsulate the "Catholic problem." There is a notion among members of the media, political organizations, Catholic institutions of higher learning and even a few bishops that those age-old laws known as the Ten Commandments, handed down by God to Moses, which form the basis for Catholic moral teaching, are suggestions, not really commandments at all.
According to Gallup, 40 percent of Catholics believe that abortion is acceptable. I guess Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joseph Biden, among others, can attest to that! However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."
Among Catholics, this should be a teaching that is as clear as crystal, but sadly this is not the case. If it were, some of the problems facing Catholics today would not be confronting us at every turn. Whether it's Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her nomination to Secretary of Health and Human Services, there would be a seamless attitude among Catholics on matters of fundamental truth that would put them squarely at odds with individuals or institutions who are striving to undermine the Church from within. At the same time, among those dissident Catholics like Sebelius, there would be a mass exodus from the Church due to a logical realization that no one can be Catholic and at the same time support abortion, or for that matter contraception, homosexuality or in vitro fertilization.
Not so! Today, rather than clarity and pride in all things Catholic, there is dilution of what it means to be Catholic and an obvious hesitation on the part of those who lead the Church to throw down the gauntlet and demand of Catholics adherence to Church teaching.
On the subject of Obama and the "honorary degree" from Notre Dame, one would have hoped that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would have come down hard on the administration of Notre Dame. The USCCB should make it clear that either Notre Dame rescind the invitation, or remove the word "Catholic" from any description of this football bastion that might have actually been genuinely Catholic at some point.
But no, the USCCB has been eerily silent. Strange, isn't it that Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, met with President Obama on March 17 to discuss matters of mutual concern? One suspects that this meeting may have taken the edge off any thought of trouncing Notre Dame. Perhaps civility appeals to powerful cardinals and bishops, even when souls are at risk.
And then there is the Sebelius flap and the spin that one reporter, Julia Duin put on it in her recent report for theWashington Times. In her report it states
A spokesman for Archbishop Wuerl said church officials in Washington would act in accordance with the admonition from Kansas City. A church official in Washington said the admonition does not prohibit priests from serving Mrs. Sebelius if she does present herself …
This is incorrect. The subject of the "admonition" is Catholic Church law, Canon 915 to be specific.
This is a law of the Church and is not a matter of debate or opinion, regardless of what many priests and bishops may suggest. When a Catholic public figure unapologetically supports abortion, that Catholic is in violation of the Code of Canon Law. Canon 915 makes clear that those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion."
This means that no ordained priest, deacon or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion should give the sacrament to Sebelius.
Lest we forget, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, advised the American Catholic bishops five years ago, in 2004, in his memo "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,"
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."
What the Ratzinger memo states is abundantly clear, and lacks even a suggestion of confusion. But how many bishops acted on this memo? Well, my guess is less than ten!
So when Gallup tells us that 40 percent of Catholics surveyed feel that abortion is acceptable, I say there are plenty of reasons why, and frankly, none of them are wholesome, much less holy. But they all have a common denominator— moral relativism. The failure of those who teach Catholics what it means to be Catholic is obvious. The failure to separate good and evil, truth and falsehood is at the core of the Gallup Poll results. That poll should have shaken every Catholic bishop in this country. I pray it did. But in the meantime …
It's time for Catholics who love their Church and all of her teachings to stand up and proclaim it. It's time for those who don't to either take a refresher course on Catholic teaching or find a new church. Enough already!
The Bishops are afraid to stand up for fear of losing the ability to sustain the Church. They fear the loss not only of money, but of priests. Who will serve the faithful if we lose 40% of our priests?
Are we willing to lose half of our members in the Church? Are we willing to pick up the slack financially?
I believe the Church will survive this. Our seminaries are producing more faithful priests. Thanks in part to restructuring by good Bishops. It will take time. Just as it took time to get where we are.
I agree that we most Bishops are missing some great teaching opportunities. They are afraid. They have forgotten Who backs them up.
Bishop Sheen said years ago that it will be the laity who will save the Church. He was right. Keep it up Judie! I'll back you up!
Rob Hendrix | March 31, 2009
The USCCB is just afraid to confront evil for what it is. Our do nothing Bishops are so afraid of telling the truth, who in the heck trained them? I say we scrape the USCCB cause they are comparable to the UN! This isn't the first time they've done something like this. Remember their blunder with the movie "the Golden Compass" or with the movie "Brokeback Mountain"?
Remember their refusal to address canon law 915? Remember how Cardinal McCarrick burnt Ratzinger's letter to shreds and lied about it? What kind of tasteless trick is Cardinal George trying to pull off? Let me tell you, if the USCCB did condemn ND's desicion to invite to Obama to commencement, the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, would call the Catholic Church racist! That's what would happen. I know what John Paul II would do as he so often did, addressed this same problem with our do nothing U.S. Bishops, and a problem which the USCCB still refuses to confront and call evil for what it really is. EVIL!
We don't even talk about sin anymore from the pulpits. If we do, we are called "intolerant". It's not pastoral to confirm someone in their sin!!! Only a few Bishops spoke out. ONLY A FEW! WHY!!??
Lack of reliance on God's providence. All told lack of faith.
What we need is more Bishops like Burke! Strong, authoritative and not afraid to be shepherd! Lord, forgive these men, they know not what they do. Please strengthen them. Amen Nick | March 31, 2009
The greatest educational resource for Catholics came with the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In addition, EWTN has been presenting the Catechism series given by Father John Corapi continually on Sunday evenings for over ten years. I hope everyone who reads this will invest their time in studying the Catechism!
Thanks and God bless you! Catherine Lemek | March 31, 2009
Beautifully put, Mrs. Brown!!! Kelly Quinn | March 31, 2009
I feel impressed by God, based on extensive study of Scriptures and personal experience, to point out a vitally important fact.
During the 1st century AD, while the Bible was being written, and during the next 200 years, there were no catholics, only born again disciples of Jesus Christ - real Christians. According to Acts 2:38-42, 10:43-48, 11:13-17, 19:1-7, 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, these were (and still are) people who believed the gospel and repented of their sins, and who were born again by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and who received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Greek words translated into English as "remission" also mean forgiveness and washing away guilt of past sins from the conscience, thus saving us from future judgment and punishment for those sins. Receiving the Holy Ghost baptism regenerates the soul and enables us to live holy and overcome temptation, thus saving us from future sins. Charles Sproull | April 2, 2009
Dear Charles
While I appreciate your perspective on this, as a Catholic who believes that all Christians were indeed Catholic prior to the time of Martin Luther, I have to say that I find a bit of a problem in your perspective. Man is by nature a sinful creature thanks to our first parents, and while it is true that Baptism washes away the stain of original sin, it takes all our strength every single day to resist the temptation to sin. We are not saved from future sin simply becase of baptism; it is a full time job to resist the devil, and my experience is that we fall repeatedly, and thus praise God for his merciful love and His patience with us.
POSTERITY'S PLAGUE Posted: Monday March 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm EST by Judie Brown
Star Parker has been a favorite of mine for years; in fact, she spoke at one of American Life League's events in Florida ten years ago and wowed the audience with her insights. She has just had that effect on me again. Her commentary on the valiant Walter Hoye, an African American pastor who was sentenced to 30 days in jail for standing outside an inner city abortion mill holding a sign that said "Jesus Loves You and Your Baby, Let us Help You," hit the nail on the head.
After bemoaning the fact that Hoye was sentenced even though not a single "victim" testified again him for harassing him or her, she points out with clarity that
Abortion clinics such as Family Planning Specialists strategically locate to optimize their deadly business. This means in poor black neighborhoods.
In describing the particular place where Rev. Hoye was standing with his sign, she tells us
A search of the 94607 zip code in Oakland where this facility is located shows that the population is 50 percent black, the median household income is 40 percent that of the median household income in the state of California while 30 percent earn below the poverty line and 58 percent of households with children are single parent households.
The poor black kids from the broken families and communities there go to failing public schools in Oakland where half of them drop out.
In these failing public schools, it is prohibited to teach the most important thing that these children could possibly hear. That there are absolutes in this world – that there is right and there is wrong.
Parker has exposed a serious problem that is clearly becoming worse. Where right is wrong and wrong is right, nothing good can result. As a matter of fact, such topsy-turvy perspectives infect the way people think, the manner in which they treat others and the attitudes conveyed by those who report the facts.
Recently, for example, in Miami, a young woman named Sycloria Williams went to get an abortion. At the time, she was 18 years of age and while she sat in the chair in the abortion mill, Williams gave birth to a little girl. As National Review explains
And here we will quote the Associated Press: "What Williams and the [Florida] Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out. Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips." And Williams is suing the late-arriving doctor. Her attorney said, "I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community." What's the attorney's problem, and what's Williams'? She went for an abortion, and the doctor was a little slow-moving. She wanted the baby gone, and the baby was, indeed, gone. The AP has said that "both sides of the abortion debate" are "shocked." Why? Do five minutes make all that much difference – or 20, or 80? The gruesome cases make us think harder. And, in truth, all the cases are gruesome – some are just less seen than others.
There's a case in Maryland involving a couple of fishermen who accidentally found a trash bag containing the body of an infant girl. The fishermen were astounded of course, but one of them told the reporter, "You don't do it that way – by disposing a trash bag. Hospitals is where you take them."
Another case in Miramar, Florida, involves a grandmother, a mother and a grandchild. It goes like this:
A South Florida mother says she ended her teenage daughter's pregnancy and dumped the infant's body in the garbage. Miramar Police Detective Yessenia Diaz says 39-year-old Tonuya Rainey admitted giving her daughter medication from a Miami clinic to end the pregnancy.
Rainey is not a nurse, but works in the medical field. The daughter told police she gave birth two weeks ago over a toilet. Rainey later said she placed the infant in a bag and dumped the body in the garbage. Rainey said the infant was born dead, but her daughter claimed she saw it breathing.
Rainey was arrested Friday and faces felony charges that include performing the termination of a pregnancy without a physician license, unlicensed practice of health care professional, child abuse and improper disposal of human remains.
Take note, if you will, of the charges being considered against the grandmother, none of which is murder.
Then there is the hotly debated case in Brazil where a nine-year-old girl allegedly was pregnant with twins and received an abortion with her mother's blessing. Lo and behold, an international pro-abortion organization, Grupo Curumim is said to have conspired with the pro-abortion hospital staff to abort the twins even though it has come to light now that the girl carrying those babies was not in danger of losing her life!
It is necessary to point out, by the way, that the Brazilian pro-abortion organization, Grupo Curumim is part of the International Women's Health Coalition. IWHC works very closely with the United States government. In fact their web site is chock full of glowing words about President Barack Obama.
It is no stretch therefore to presume that Grupo Curumim received some of its training in devious tactics, if not direct funding, from groups funded by our tax dollars. Maybe even advisors from the United States Agency for International Development. The culture of death’s tentacles are extremely far reaching, as we all know!
Dr. Elizabeth Kipman Cerqueira, a Brazilian obstetrician, said in a public statement on the case that "I don't know anyone who died because of the young age at which she was impregnated, if she received adequate accompaniment," and that she personally knows of cases of 10 year olds who gave birth and are in good health. She added that the abortion is likely to do serious damage to the girl psychologically, and noted that early labor could have been induced at some point after 22 weeks, rather than an abortion. The twins were already at over 20 week's gestation when they were killed.
Clearly, there is something tragically wrong with the way people around the world perceive the value and dignity of the human being. It is no longer a matter of welcoming those into our midst because of who they are, whether convenient or not, but rather it is a matter of placing personal predispositions ahead of everything. It's all just a matter of what you think versus what I think, we are told.
The conversation goes like this: If you think abortion is bad, you have a right to think that it is bad. But please don't impose your version of morality on others.
We hear such sentiments from politicians, newscasters, family members, pastors, and sadly, far too many young people. The difference between good and evil, right and wrong doesn't exist. The culture has become saturated with selfishness and egoism. It is awash in death. Where will it all end?
Star Parker and I agree: Something is wrong in America today, very, very wrong.
But you know, it won't be people like Star and me who will have to live through the cruelty that is becoming so commonplace, it will our children, our grandchildren, and if things don't turn around, generations to come.
Where is the joy in such violent attitudes that are passed off as factual reporting?
Where is the hope in actions that force someone to die or spend time in jail for attempting to be truthful and loving?
Where is the faith in our fellow human beings when pressure from one ideological group can result in lies, death and devastation?
Such is the substance of the plague sweeping the nation and the world. Something is definitely wrong in America today.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, " admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision." Clinton then said that NGOs like Planned Parenthood are ???one of the great exports that America has..." David Volk | March 30, 2009
Dear Judy,
I read Pat's posting regarding Randall Terry's press conference. I honestly think that Mr. Terry has become an instrument of self-promotion and chooses to deceive people for that purpose. Archbishop Burke gave an interview to Mr. Terry that was consistent with what he has been saying for years and Mr. Terry abused the interview, not to promote the cause of life movement, but to promote himself. I don't know how to charitably say that Randall Terry needs prayers at this time more than he needs a press conference or a public platfom or public support of Randall Terry. If you wish to make my post public, I will leave that to your wise discretion. I fear that Randall Terry's train has left the tracks and he endangers those who have charitably, through the pro-life movement, come to his aid.
Thanks and God bless you!
Catherine Lemek
- Catherine Lemek
Catherine Lemek | March 30, 2009
Hi Judie,
Thank you for the column! I read it daily.
I wanted to let you know Lake Artemesia, where the baby was found by the fisherman, is just across the road from the Metropolitan Family Planning Clinic in Berwyn Heights where abortions take place. If you stand on the sidewalk in front of the clinic, you can see the sign for the lake.
It is sad people find this story repulsive when children being murdered happens daily just across the street.
You can publish this, just please don't use my email. :) Thanks! C | March 30, 2009
Catherine
As Austin Ruse wrote in a column today, Randall Terry does not speak for Catholics. I am of the opinion, as are you, that his train is derailed; nobody should treat bishops with such disrespect. Nobody!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 1, 2009
"please don't impose your version of morality on others."
The proper pro-life response:
When a woman has an abortion, she is imposing her morality on her baby."
NOTRE DAME: ZEALOTS VS. ZOMBIES Posted: Friday March 27, 2009 at 10:41 am EST by Judie Brown
Depending on which account of the events surrounding the tragic invitation extended to President Barack Obama by the University of Notre Dame, one gets the impression that those of us who oppose the invitation are nothing but religious zealots who are out of step with modern day accommodation and compromise. I, on the other hand, strongly believe that those who have permitted this invitation to move forward, or have actually facilitated it, are Catholic zombies. These are people who have apparently grown spiritually dead to the truths of Catholic teaching, the things that make being a Catholic special and the teachings that separate us from the world so that we can be God’s salt in the world.
I guess in this day and age each person has to choose which sort of Catholic he wishes to be, and we are all grateful that Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall is one of us zealots!
Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President, Notre Dame University
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Dear President Jenkins:
I write to you as a Catholic, an l8-year legislator and as a graduate of Benedictine Belmont Abbey College regarding your invitation to Barrack Obama as a Commencement speaker.
You claim that Notre Dame's invitation for the President to address graduates "should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research."
John Cardinal O'Connor deliberately refused to invite democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, then running for re-election, to the 1996 Al Smith dinner because Clinton refused to sign a bill banning partial birth abortions. He also declined to invite republican presidential candidate Bob Dole to avoid the appearance of favoritism. (Jack Kemp and Al Gore went to the dinner as vice-presidential candidates.)
Your list of moral issues on which Barrack Obama is at variance with constant Church teaching is incomplete and should have included Obama's endorsement of same sex "civil unions" with rights of marriage, homosexual adoption, opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment, and support at the UN for decriminalization of homosexual behavior.
You attempt to make a distinction between honoring the president, as in awarding him a doctor of laws degree, and supporting his political views. But honor is the recognition with words and awards for someone who, in one or more aspects such as virtue, intelligence, integrity, etc., excels others. Such an award would be considered an act of justice. But there is no justice in granting a doctor of laws degree to one who wishes to place outside the protection and rule of law, an entire class of human beings who cannot defend themselves against unjust aggression.
In addition to Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act which would undo 35 years of court-tested state and federal laws which have saved lives, he favors civil and/or criminal sanctions against doctors, nurses, and medical personnel who would exercise their rights of conscience to refuse to participate in any manner in the unjust killing of a child before birth by abortion. This position alone should disqualify the president from receiving any honor from Notre Dame, let alone a doctor of laws degree.
The Catholic Catechism notes that anyone who promotes "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible to achieve” is guilty of scandal (Catechism of the Catholic Church #226).
You state another reason for your invitation is that President Obama is an inspiring leader … facing many challenges … he has addressed them with intelligence, courage and honesty.
During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that deciding when human life begins is above his “pay grade.” (Virginia third graders are required to learn this simple fact.) Yet, Obama wasted little time issuing an order authorizing the destruction of embryonic humans apparently without attempting to resolve whether they are indeed created human beings. Nor did he seek to establish whether scientific process, including that conducted at Notre Dame, has eliminated any justification for using embryonic humans for stem cell research.
Mr. Obama further accuses those who oppose human experimentation of ideological bias and politics as he authorizes tax monies for this lethal research, which has demonstrated NO cures, NO therapies and NO long range clinical benefits! This is neither an example of honesty nor courage, but merely blind ideology.
Most curiously for someone receiving a broad welcome from a college president such as yourself, President Obama is seeking tax law changes which would make charitable giving to our churches and institutions like Notre Dame much more difficult and costly.
You conclude that you “cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them … show respect for them and listen to them.”
We respect the person of the president since he is made in God’s image; we respect his high office which derives from our venerable Constitution. But it is precisely because we have listened to the words of this president that we reject his Culture of Death policies which are inimical to the individual and common good.
We oppose and reject actions which give the appearance of indifference to evil and that is why we reject President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame University.
Lastly, your actions make it much more difficult for Catholic lawmakers like myself to garner support for legislation upholding a Culture of Life, and against policies which degrade our culture and foster disrespect for persons. I urge you to reconsider your invitation.
Sincerely,
Delegate Bob Marshall
ACTION ITEMS:
Ask the leadership of the Congregation for Catholic Education to get involved in this and do what can be done to stop the Obama appearance:
Most Reverend Archbishop Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect
The Congregation for Catholic Education
of Seminaries and Institutes of Studies
[Secretary: Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P.]
00120 CITTÀ DEL VATICANO
Roma, Italy
phone: 011.39.06.69.88.41.67
fax: 011.39.06.69.88.41.72
Father Jenkins is a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross order of priests. Please ask Father Jenkins’ Superior General to communicate with Father Jenkins about the scandal that is being created:
Very Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, C.S.C.
Superior General
Congregation of Holy Cross
Via Framura, 85
00168 Rome, Italy
The email address for Very Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, C.S.C., contact@holycrosscongregation.org, did not work.
The email I tried to send him was simply:
Dear Very Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, C.S.C.,
I take the opportunity to express my outrage at Fr. Jenkins' invitation to Pres. Obama, offering an honorary degree to boot. Notre Dame's Catholicity has been called into question before. This moves the issue to a new level. Bishop D'Arcy is refusing to go, and Bishop Olmsted has flatly stated that Fr. Jenkins is openly disobeying the U.S bishops, my local bishop, Daniel Jenky, C.S.C., among them. Your religious order, by association with Fr. Jenkins, is tarnished.
Please use whatever authority and influence, with all the vigor you can muster, to prevent Pres. Obama from being honored by Notre Dame.
Prayerfully,
David Volk
Peoria, IL David Volk | March 27, 2009
Dear Judy:
Thank you for all that you do! Just wanted to tell you that I have joined the Silent No More Awareness group. I wear my "I regret my abortion." button and hope to educate persons about the early abortions caused by IUD's
I lost 3 babies; Frances I carried 8 weeks. Praise God for His mercy.
Marilyn Prouty | March 27, 2009
The e-mail address to contact the superior of the Holy Cross fathers is no longer working. How convenient. Linda | March 27, 2009
Hi Judi,
Did try to send a posr regarding the Notra Dame situation to Father Jenkins superior.
It came back. I wil try again becuase he may be just getting too many hits and the box may be filled.
I told him Fathe Jenkins is a traitor of the prportions of a Judas. Patricia | March 28, 2009
Dear Judie,
the email address for Rev. Cleary (contact@holycrosscongregation.org)comes back on my email as "Address Not found"
Could it be they closed it down? Anyone else having this problem?
Keep up the good fight for life! We need you more than ever! God bless you!
Lorraine Lorraine Benton | March 30, 2009
I am a Christian and I would like nothing more than to see Mr. Obama give his life to Christ, and in doing so accept the teachings of our Lord and Savior. But until he does so, I strongly feel any invitation by the University appears more like an approval of his views, which is totally unacceptable. How anyone can fight for the preservation of the spotted owl's life and in the same breath approve the destruction of embryonic life is a very mixed up child. I pray our Lord and Savior will continue to extend his amazing grace to your institution. I suggest you do not mock Him. Jim Desrosiers | March 30, 2009
I found the following email in a web search:
hughcleary@cscroma.org
I sent the following email to that address:
Fr. Hugh Cleary, Superior General, CSC:
I am a practicing catholic and am quite concerned with the message Notre dame will send this year when Pres. Obama speaks at commencement and receives honors from the University.
President Obama's position and actions in his brief term in office have marked him as the greatest anti-life president in the history of this nation.
To honor him violates the specific directions of the US Council of Bishops.
Inasmuch as Fr. Jenkins is a priest of your congregation, he is presumably pledged to obedience to the Superior General.
I would appeal therefore to you, as the Superior General, to direct Fr. Jenkins to withdraw the invitation to speak with a full public statement as to why the invitation is withdrawn.
At the very least I hope you will direct Fr. Jenkins to withdraw the honors intended for President Obama, again with a public statement of explanation.
Yours in Him, Bob Siefker | April 1, 2009
I intend to try the email address Bob Siefker found for Fr. Cleary. I read about the 13 page letter Fr. Cleary wrote to Pres. Obama. He said that he was not able to influence Notre Dame's invitation, but that he did have authority over Fr. Jenkins. No where did I read what he intends to do in regards to Fr. Jenkins. David Volk | April 1, 2009
Dear David
Father Clearly took 13 pages to say nothing at all, so my guess is he will follow his pattern and do nothing at all about Father Jenkins!
Video Story: Kristan Hawkins @ PLMD 2008
Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students For Life, speaks at the Pro-Life Memorial Day vigil at the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6
Pro-Life Story: Jakob Aidan William Posted By Kaiti Fleming on Dec, 22 2006 June 6th, 2005 was the day I found out I was pregnant. I was TERRIFIED! My "friends" at the time were suggesting abortion. I grew up in a strong Christian home and was pro-life. ... Read
