Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’

A Rochester Priest Who Gets It

December 4th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

Here is an excellent letter to the editor in the Catholic Courier penned by Fr. Jim Hewes, parochial vicar of the Holy Ghost/St. Helen/St. Jude cluster and local director of Project Rachel:

Have voters chided victor?

Once again over 50 percent of Catholic voters voted for President Obama. This means that probably 50 percent of Catholic voters in our diocese voted for President Obama. So I ask those Catholics who voted for President Obama:

Have you sent your letter already to the president as his supporter asking him to change his position of unrestricted access to abortions — including allowing abortions for gender selection or without parental consent or partial-birth abortions — and to stop supporting the government’s paying for abortions through Medicaid?

Have you written your letter to him asking him to stop governmental funding of Planned Parenthood, which performed over 329,445 abortions in 2010? By the way Planned Parenthood has been involved in most of the major cases, which have struck down any legal protection of the pre-born. This is why the April 14, 1993, New York Times pointed out, “in simple equation of public image, Planned Parenthood equals abortion rights.” The December 11, 1989, issue of Time magazine described Planned Parenthood as “the premiere institution of performing abortion in the country.”

Have you included in your letter a request to President Obama to rescind his Executive Order that removed any barriers to scientific research including embryonic stem cell research)?

In your letter have you urged President Obama to stop supporting the death penalty?

Finally, as Catholics committed to the non-violent teaching of Jesus, have you pleaded with President Obama to stop supporting U.S. violence in other countries including Libya and Afghanistan, where he ordered a surge of 30,000 troops and has increased significantly the number of drone attacks?

It is because of the Catholic vision of life that I didn’t vote for President Obama. It is the same reason I didn’t vote for Governor Romney, but that would be another whole letter.

Father Jim Hewes
Rochester

Thank you for defending life, Father!

The Election: Part II

November 7th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

2008 v 2012 Popular Vote

Year Obama McCain/Romney
2008 69,456,897 59,934,814
2012 60,023,768 57,353,628
Change  -9,433,129 -2,581,186 

As of this moment, Mitt Romney has received less popular votes than the uninspiring and unpopular John McCain received in 2008. Had conservatives turned out at least as strong as 2008, we might have a different president-elect today.

Conservatives can’t blame anyone but themselves.

The Election

November 7th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

Gay marriage passes, for the first time by popular vote, in three states: Washington, Maine, Maryland.

Defense of marriage amendment fails in Minnesota.

Washington and Colorado legalize recreational pot (not medicinal, but recreational buy-it-at-your-local-gas-station marijuana). Massachusetts approves medicinal marijuana.

Democrats make gains in the House, hold ground in the Senate, hold the White House, and may soon dominate the Supreme Court with as many as three Justices contemplating retirement. If anything goes wrong with the upcoming “fiscal cliff,” Republicans in the House will be blamed and Democrats will take full control.

Barack Obama won the Catholic vote 50% to 47%.

 

Comment away…

Remember Where Obama is Coming From

October 9th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

With the election quickly approaching, and a bus full of local nuns doing their best to get President Obama reelected, I think it’s important we recall the hatred and racism proclaimed from the pulpit of Mr. Jeremiah Wright. The Rev. Wright was Obama’s pastor for more than 20 years.

Part two couldn’t be embedded, but is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpz3b4whYbk

Belmont Abbey Sues For Religious Liberty

November 11th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution of higher learning in the Diocese of Charlotte, NC, has sued the United States government in what is being called a “test case” in the debate about religious institutions (of any denomination) being compelled to break the mandates of their faith(s) and distribute condoms and other contraceptives to the students and faculty. The National Catholic Register has more on this story:

BELMONT, N.C. — Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, charging that its new rule mandating the inclusion of contraceptive services in employee health insurance violates the school’s religious freedom.

The interim federal rule, which requires private employer-provided health benefits to include the full range of “preventive services” for women, is part of the new health bill.

“We believe it will be a test case. This is the firstlawsuit to challenge the HHS rule mandating contraception, sterilization and other ‘preventive services,’” said Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit public interest law firm that filed the lawsuit on behalf of the college.

The filing asks for a court order to free the college from the federal mandate. The government is required to respond to the complaint within 60 days. Windham said she could not comment on whether other Catholic institutions or dioceses had contacted the Becket Fund to explore legal challenges to the federal rule.

At present, the controversial federal regulation, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, provides a narrow exemption for religious institutions engaged in work with others of the same faith. Those that serve people of other faiths or no faith will likely not be allowed to opt out of the mandate, which requires the provision of sterilization and abortifacients — such as Plan B and Ella.

“The issue is the right of Belmont Abbey College, which has always publicly identified itself and functioned as a Catholic college, to freely exercise the constitutional right to operate in accord with the public and authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church,” said Benectine Abbot Placid Solari, of Belmont Abbey and the ex officio chancellor of the college.

“It is a matter of the fundamental rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution and it is time that someone stood up for these fundamental rights.”

“No employee or student of Belmont Abbey College is being coerced into accepting the faith or moral beliefs of the Catholic Church. The college, however, will be required by the federal government to act contrary to its own faith convictions,” said the abbot.

Belmont Abbey College is no stranger to such disputes. It has already been under investigation by the EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) for refusing to cover contraception in its employee health plan. The EEOC continues to investigate this dispute.

In a statement issued Nov. 10, the Becket Fund noted that while “the government has already provided thousands of waivers for a variety of special interest groups, including McDonald’s and teachers’ unions, often for reasons of commercial convenience, it refused to accommodate religious organizations.

“Instead, the government permitted a religious exemption so narrowly defined that it prompted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to note that even Jesus’ ministry would not qualify.”

Windham contends that the new regulation “is riddled with exceptions. It’s a violation of the Constitution when you make exceptions for secular purposes, but not for religious conscience.”

She notes that the controversial rule not only requires the provision of services that violate Catholic moral teaching, it also mandates “counseling” for these services. “Catholic institutions are being asked to fund speech that is contrary to their beliefs,” she charged.

Windham reports that more than 100,000 respondents signaled their opposition to the HHS rule, after being invited to do so by the government. Sept. 30 was the last date for providing comment, and HHS has not confirmed when it will issue a final ruling that might result in a broadened religious exemption.

Richard Doerflinger, the chief lobbyist on life issues for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, confirmed in a previous interview that HHS has signaled it will probably broaden the exemption, but not to the satisfaction of the conference.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the USCCB, said the conference is “waiting to see if and when the exemption is changed before we take any steps.”

HHS has established August 2012 as the formal deadline for providing services mandated by the new health bill.

Asked how much lead time Catholics institutions would need to respond to an unacceptable final rule, Sister Mary Ann said she did not know, but it appeared that the bishops were at least not publicly discussing back-up plans “when the rules might change.”

But if the U.S. bishops’ conference has yet to issue a formal legal challenge to the HHS regulation, the bishops have been marshaling their forces to oppose what they perceive as an increasingly aggressive federal effort to impinge on the First Amendment rights of Catholic institutions.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, the USCCB president, has already moved to establish a newad hoc committee on religious liberty, appointing Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Conn. to head that initiative.

Yesterday, Bishop Loriannouncedthat a number of high-profile Church leaders would join the committee, including Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis; Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle and Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington.

The committee’s brain trust includes Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight, Knights of Columbus, Richard Garnett, associate dean and professor of law and political science, University of Notre Dame Law School, John Garvey, president of The Catholic University of America, and Mary Ann Glendon at Harvard Law School.

The Bishop of Charlotte, NC, Peter Jugis, has spoken out against other similar issues. The video below pertains to gay “marriage,” and demonstrates the orthodoxy of this particular shepherd. It is truly inspiring to see a Bishop defend (and prompt his diocesan brothers and sisters to defend) the teaching of the Church, and to do so publicly and without fear.

I wonder when St. Bernard’s will offer such a public witness?

Day One in Sodom

July 25th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

From the Democrat & Chronicle:

“Rochester City Clerk Dan Karin said 39 [homosexual so-called marriage] licenses were issued Sunday, and several couples obtained waivers to get married the same day.”

Certainly a far cry from the “hundreds” I have been reading in recent days and the “millions” I saw in one publication. May the number of homosexual pretend marriages be as low as possible.

On Rainbows

July 13th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Bernie has written here before about the modern association of rainbows in art with the homosexual movement. In particular, the six-color rainbow was  adopted by the “LBGT” movement beginning in the late 1970s. This design is often featured on flags and t-shirts in support of the gay agenda.

I was surfing the website of St. Catherine of Siena (Ithaca) the other day and came across the parish’s logo for their 50th anniversary. To my surprise, the logo prominently features the six-color rainbow:

St. Catherine of Siena 50th anniversary logo with six-color rainbow

Here is the six-color rainbow associated with the homosexual movement:

LBGT flag with six-color rainbow

As we all should know from our elementary schooling, seven colors are associated with the rainbow (as in the acronym “ROY G. BIV”), not six. I’d like to think that this was an innocent mistake on behalf of the parish, but knowing pastor Fr. Marcoux’s long history pushing for homosexual inclusivity (see here, here, here, and here), I am a tad skeptical.

Mark Hare On Gay Marriage… Again

June 28th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Ex-seminarian for the Diocese of Rochester and the unofficial media arm of the bishop’s office, Mark Hare, has penned yet another article in this morning’s Democrat & Chronicle newspaper in favor of gay marriage. He begins his piece praising supposedly-Catholic state senator James Alesi for his decision to break with his faith in support of homosexual marriage. Following this ringing endorsement, Mr. Hare launches into an assault on the Christian/Catholic understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Here are a few excerpts:

“And yet, as a Catholic, I am fully aware of the religious objections to gay marriage. My church teaches that gay men and women should be loved and respected, but says homosexual relations are unnatural, that marriage is a union of a man and a woman that must be open to the gift of children. But how can you believe that a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex is a threat to the fabric of society?

When the church says same-sex marriage is an assault on the will of God, it collides head-on with the experience of millions of people. In the words of Groucho Marx: “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

obviously Christian denominations vary widely on their views on same-sex marriage. Isn’t it time for an ecumenical dialogue that can deepen everyone’s understanding? I think so.”

I find it shameful that Mr. Hare continues to use his bully pulpit in the secular D&C newspaper to attack the teachings of the Catholic Church. But I guess that is how one attains influence and power in the Diocese of Rochester, by attacking the Church’s teachings. Recall that Mr. Hare was a member of the Cathedral wreckovation committee.

See this post for more on Mark Hare’s push to promote homosexual unions in the state and in the Catholic Church.

We Live In Satan’s Dominion

June 24th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Gay marriage has passed in New York State by a vote of 33-29.

Behold the fruit of three decades of malformed Catholics. It was absolutely sickening to listen to state senators describe themselves as “Catholic” and vote in favor of the bill. I hope that these so-called Catholics will refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

Judgment Night

June 24th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Homosexual marriage will go up for vote tonight.

From News 10 NBC:

“The New York state Assembly has passed an amended version of a bill to legalize gay marriage. The state Senate is expected to vote on the bill sometime Friday night.

Senate Republicans agreed to send the bill to the floor for a vote after approving an amendment that includes stronger religious protections. The Assembly, which approved the original bill earlier this week, passed the amendment Friday by a vote of 82-47.

According to the Senate’s official Twitter feed, the amended bill will come up for a vote Friday night, but it will be the last order of business.”

It doesn’t sound good for those of us hoping to see true marriage prevail. The lack of religious protection was the only thing holding back a few Republican senators from supporting the bill. Now it appears that protections (whatever these might be) have been added.

Start praying that marriage will remain between a man and a woman in New York!

Desperation at the D&C

June 10th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

In New York State, the Democrat party is largely in control of the government. The state Assembly’s majority is Democrat, and so is the Governorship. For some time now, the liberals in Albany have been trying to push through a law that would legalize homosexual marriage. They have been unsuccessful so far thanks to the slim Republican majority in the state Senate. Noticing that a handful of conservatives lawmakers are standing in the way of their goal of legalized gay marriage, the D&C’s editorial board is doing whatever it can to eliminate the Republican majority in the senate and pave the way for gay marriage in New York. It appears that the paper hopes to achieve full Democratic control in the NYS government by pushing for a redistricting bill that would benefit the Democrat party.

Here is the conclusion of the D&C editorial board commentary on this bill:

“Given this scenario, Cuomo should force the hand of the GOP Senate majority. He must push harder for a floor vote on his independent redistricting bill, which has strong Assembly support.

Let New Yorkers see that this time the special interests that usually run Albany from behind the scenes are mainly Senate Republicans who desperately want to cling onto the power they’re holding by a thread [emphasis].”

For the sake of marriage in New York, let’s hope that Senate Republicans “cling onto the power.”

Another Bizarre Courier LTTE

June 2nd, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

If you enjoyed Joel Freedman’s fish letter to the editor, you’ll also delight in his latest goofy comment:

“While I believe John Paul advanced human welfare in some ways, his failure to implement his own teachings about animal welfare should disqualify him from sainthood. But his proclamations about kindness to animals should inspire all of us to apply the Golden Rule — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” — to our relationships with all living beings.”

God-Given Rights?

March 9th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

The always entertaining Democrat & Chronicle letters to the editor section offers yet another gem on the topic of “God-Given Rights.”

“The controllers were using their God-given right to strike for better pay and benefits. Gov. Walker is declaring one’s God-given right to bargain collectively an illegal act. The governor is so far to the right, he’s dead wrong and Reagan would side with the dedicated, hard-working Wisconsin public employees.”

Really… I never knew that going on strike and collective bargaining were rights granted by God. What else might this author suggest are God-given rights? Abortion? Homosexual Marriage? Is Obama’s Health Insurance plan a right from God?

Really now.

Obama Administration Ends Support for the Defense of Marriage Act

February 23rd, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Some excerpts form the NY Times:

“WASHINGTON — President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday saying that the Justice Department will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law.

“The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law,” a crucial provision of the act is unconstitutional, Mr. Holder wrote.

The president has long said he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, even as his administration has until now worked to uphold the act’s constitutionality. He has also favored civil unions over gay marriage, much to the consternation of the gay rights advocates who generally support him, but has also said on several recent occasions that his views on gay marriage are “evolving.”

Wednesday’s announcement seemed, to many, to bring him one step closer to reversing his position on gay marriage.”

Any Obama supporters beginning to regret that decision yet?

A Ultra-Liberal Feminist On Abortion

January 30th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

In today’s Democrat & Chronicle editorial section, there is a letter to the editor from the president of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women. This group is part of the ultra-liberal wing of the feminist movement (the difference between conservative and ultra-liberal feminists is often that conservatives want equality for women, while ultra-liberals want superiority). Here is an excerpt from her commentary on abortion “rights”:

“As has been widely reported, about one-third of all women in the United States will choose to terminate a pregnancy in their lifetime. So my question to the letter-writer is this: Would you have the legal system punish these women as murderers?

It’s unlikely the answer is yes. Even the most rabidly anti-abortion advocates turn evasive and equivocate when confronted with that question.

Women end unwanted pregnancies. Some are able to do it safely, and some not. That is a fact of life — always has been, always will be, and no amount of hyperbolic rhetoric is going to change that.”

In response to her question whether we should prosecute those who commit infanticide, this “rabid anti-abortion advocate” will provide an answer: YES.  Intentional murder is intentional murder, regardless of how many people are committing the crime. Were 1/3 of people committing rape, would that mean we should not punish those who rape? Absolutely not! The number of people committing a crime has no bearing on whether or not something is illegal.

I really hope the letter writer made a mistake in her statistic that one-third of women in this country will have an abortion. Otherwise, may God have mercy on our souls.

A Reading From Hell’s Bible to the Progressives

January 27th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Various excerpts from a New York Times editorial written by Nicholas  D. Kristof about the Catholic hospital and nun who recommended a woman get an abortion, with commentary:

“Yet the person giving Jesus the heave-ho in this case was not a Bethlehem innkeeper. Nor was it an overzealous mayor angering conservatives by pulling down Christmas decorations. Rather, it was a prominent bishop, Thomas Olmsted, stripping St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its affiliation with the Roman Catholic diocese.

The hospital’s offense? It had terminated a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. The hospital says the 27-year-old woman, a mother of four children, would almost certainly have died otherwise.”

In this passage, the writer is trivializing the seriousness of abortion. Regardless of the reasons for engaging in this evil action, a willful act of infanticide is always infanticide. The Church’s teaching on this matter is clear, and has been reaffirmed throughout the centuries, from the Lord’s commandment not to kill, to the writings of the early Church Fathers, to the words of the modern Holy Fathers and bishops of today.  Obviously this was a very delicate and difficult situation for anyone to be faced with. However, it is not for us to play God and take it upon ourselves to decide whether the life of the mother or the child is more important. Every effort should be made to save both, but we must ultimately put our faith in God when all options have been exhausted, and not take the place of God by killing one life because we think one or both may be in danger. When there are no other options, we must rely upon the divine mercy of God as to what will transpire. A difficult situation like this does not give one free reign to murder.

“Now the bishop, in effect, is excommunicating the entire hospital — all because it saved a woman’s life.”

This is not correct. The bishop has stripped the hospital of its Catholic title and no longer permits Mass to be celebrated on its premises not because it “saved a woman’s life,” but because the hospital was an accomplice to murder. I don’t believe the “entire hospital” was excommunicated, as this writer suggests, but only those who had a significant hand in the abortion. Additionally, the excommunication was incurred latae sententiae, which means that it happened automatically when the event took place. This is detailed in Canon 1398. It was not by the bishop’s hand that the excommunication took place, but by the hands of the parties involved with the abortion.

“The main consequence is that Mass can no longer be said in the hospital chapel. Thomas C. Fox, the editor of National Catholic Reporter, noted regretfully that a hospital with deep Catholic roots like St. Joseph’s now cannot celebrate Mass, while airport chapels can.”

I am not aware of airports procuring abortions.

“To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.”

I hardly consider it compassionate for a person to put anther’s immortal soul in danger by encouraging them to commit murder. Where is the compassion in that? We too often think about making others feel good in this life that we neglect what affect this desire to placate may have on our neighbor’s eternal life. If we have a friend who is engaging in sodomy and wishes to enter into a homosexual “marriage”, do we remain silent or even support these actions in the spirit of inclusion and wanting the other person to be happy? Rather, shouldn’t we demonstrate true compassion, and inform the person that they are putting their soul in peril by engaging in sinful behavior?

“The thought that keeps nagging at me is this: If you look at Bishop Olmsted and Sister Margaret as the protagonists in this battle, one of them truly seems to me to have emulated the life of Jesus. And it’s not the bishop, who has spent much of his adult life as a Vatican bureaucrat climbing the career ladder. It’s Sister Margaret, who like so many nuns has toiled for decades on behalf of the neediest and sickest among us.

Then along comes Bishop Olmsted to excommunicate the Christ-like figure in our story. If Jesus were around today, he might sue the bishop for defamation.”

If Jesus were around today, he might sue this New York Times writer for defamation! The progressives (Catholic or otherwise) are constantly manipulating the true Jesus Christ so as to make Him into who they want Him to be; an amalgamation of Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King. The fact of the matter is that this is/was not Christ! A careful reading of the Bible will reveal that our Lord was a fiery preacher who admonished sinners, called all peoples to repentance regardless of how much they had sinned and to what nation they belonged, and reproved hypocrites who manipulated the law and failed to follow their own manipulations. Jesus was warm, fuzzy, and loving, make no mistake, but He was also firm, truthful, and faithful.

Sr. Margaret deserves no comparison to Christ because Christ did not, and would not condone murder. I am also struck by how the author seems to suggest that the Sister has done good for others while the bishop has done nothing but enforce Church laws. Does this writer know every detail of the bishop’s life which would enable him to prove that Bishop Olmstead never cared for the “neediest and sickest among us”? Let us not be so quick to exalt those who flaunt their good works (think Callan) while condemning those who chose to help others quietly (think Pope Pius XII).

Feel free to read the entire article. There is plenty of nonsense to be found.

On Gov. Andrew Cuomo

January 13th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

A letter to the editor appeared in this morning’s Rochester Democrat & Chronicle newspaper in which a reader lambastes another reader’s concern that Andrew Cuomo, the New York state governor who resides with his girlfriend, received Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass in Albany. Here is what the letter writer submitted to the paper:

Writer has no right to judge Cuomo

I’m amazed that anyone can be so judgmental regarding another’s spiritual practice (“The governor is living in sin,” Jan. 9 letter). Who is this letter writer to decide that our newly elected governor is both sinful and insincere in his practices? Gov. Cuomo has just taken upon himself the formidable job of trying to forge a new direction in our state, corral runaway expenditures, and help solve innumerable problems for New York state.

Can it be that he sincerely went before his Lord to ask for the help he needs, with a sincere heart and soul, and belief that receiving the Body and Blood of his Savoir would inspire and help him?

Nobody has the right to question another’s faith, practices and sincerity. Calling upon the Catholic bishops to condemn Cuomo’s faithful actions at such a time is the highest form of judgmentalism.

Remember this quote, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

MARY ANNE ROUSE
IRONDEQUOIT”

While Ms. Rouse does speak some truth about judging others, the Church is quite clear on matters of public scandal such as Gov. Cuomo’s very public cohabitation with Sara Lee.  Prominent Canon Lawyer, Ed Peters, tackled this subject on his website. He cites Canons 915 and 916, which state “Those… who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion” (Canon 915) and “Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not… receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession” (Canon 916).

Here is Dr. Peters’ analysis:

Cuomo, on the grounds of his public concubinage alone (and setting aside complications arising from his strong support for legalized abortion, etc.), should not approach Communion per Canon 916; if he does approach, he should be refused the sacrament per Canon 915. Cuomo should still attend Mass, of course (c. 1247), and within one year of his last Confession he should duly receive that sacrament again (c. 989), but he should not be taking Communion while he lives in public concubinage. And if Lee is Catholic, the exact same analysis would apply to her.

Not only is there a clear violation of the Code of Canon Law in the situation of Governor Cuomo receiving Communion, but there is also public disobedience to the word of God as found in the Holy Bible.

1 Corinthians 11:27 says:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

So while one could accuse the original letter writer of passing judgment, perhaps the writer is honestly concerned about the disrespect being showed for the Body and Blood of our Lord, as well as the public scandal created by Gov. Cuomo parading up the Communion aisle while living in a state of public sin and supporting such evils as abortion “rights” and homosexual marriage.

ACLU v. Morality

December 26th, 2010, Promulgated by Gen

From the National Review:

Ho, ho, ho! Just in time for Christmas, the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a new salvo against people of faith. Even as billions around the world celebrate the birth of Christ, joyless, abortion-obsessed secularists never take a holiday. (This kind of writing is why I’m a registered Conservative.)

On Wednesday, the ACLU sent a letter to federal health officials urging the government to force Catholic hospitals in the U.S. to perform abortions in violation of their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn. They’re counting on sympathetic Obama rationing czar Donald Berwick — a recess appointee whose radical views on wealth and health redistribution were never vetted by Congress — to dictate which religious principles hospital operators can and cannot follow.

You can read the full piece here.

DUPES: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

December 23rd, 2010, Promulgated by Ben Anderson

Dr. Paul Kengor (professor at my alma mater and fellow at The Center of Vision and Values) was on CA Live this week (12/20) talking about his new book, “DUPES: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”.  Here’s an audio snippet of that interview (if the audio player isn’t right below this text, it’s under the picture to the left):

“Nascent Life Threatened by Adult Selfishness”

November 30th, 2010, Promulgated by Gen

A beautiful message from the Holy Father.