Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Planned Parenthood Deserves the ACORN Treatment - by Gary Bauer

For James O’Keefe, the sequel has been a blockbuster. As almost everyone knows by now, the investigative journalist and a friend secretly filmed themselves posing as a pimp and prostitute while ACORN workers advised them how to obtain a mortgage for a brothel of Latin American sex slaves.

But lost in the deserved attention to the ACORN sting film has been O’Keefe’s first release, a 2007 expose of the systemic corruption at another liberal activist organization, Planned Parenthood.

ACORN is losing some of its federal funding in part because of O’Keefe’s video. But the Planned Parenthood story, in which O’Keefe and a friend posing as his pregnant minor girlfriend expose the abortion giant’s willingness to cover up alleged statutory rape, is just as incriminating.

Planned Parenthood deserves the same treatment ACORN is getting and should be stripped of the hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars it receives annually. For that to happen, the conservative media must give O’Keefe’s debut film another look.

The similarities between ACORN and Planned Parenthood are hard to ignore. Like ACORN, which seeks to “help those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system,” Planned Parenthood has a noble-sounding mission.

“For more than 90 years,” its website informs us, “we’ve worked to improve women’s health and safety… and advance the right and ability of individuals and families to make informed and responsible choices.”

But both organizations are marred by a culture of corruption. Employees at ACORN affiliates have been accused of everything from voter registration fraud and embezzlement to aiding and abetting illegal immigration and prostitution.

At Planned Parenthood, besides O’Keefe’s sting, its affiliates have also ignored numerous cases of actual statutory rape and sexual abuse of minors. And workers in seven states were caught on audio tape agreeing to receive donations designated for abortions of black babies.

Like ACORN, which has received $53 million in direct taxpayer funded assistance since 1993, Planned Parenthood has come to view the American taxpayers as a reliable cash cow. Planned Parenthood received more than $349 million in government grants and contracts during Fiscal Year 2007-2008.

We know why Planned Parenthood receives such government largess. Like ACORN, Planned Parenthood is a favored political patron of the Democratic Party. Consider both organizations’ cozy relationship with Barack Obama.

The president is trying to distance himself from ACORN. He acted like he knew little of the organization when asked about it last week on the Sunday talk shows. But, as columnist John Fund pointed out this week, Obama’s association with ACORN goes back almost 20 years.

Fund is the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, which details the ways in which groups like ACORN manipulate election results. In his recent column he notes that in 1991, Obama took time off from his law firm to run a voter registration drive for an ACORN partner. He later became an ACORN attorney and listed ACORN as a key supporter for his campaign for the Illinois Senate.

Planned Parenthood is also an eager Obama supporter. Last year, Planned Parenthood made only its second ever presidential endorsement when it stated that it was “proud to endorse” Obama for president because he is “a passionate advocate for women’s rights.”

Planned Parenthood is so tight with the president that it can brag about the “unique role” it has in shaping the Obama administration’s health agenda. (Yet more evidence that Obama wants abortion covered in his healthcare reform plan.)

But there is one key difference between ACORN and Planned Parenthood: while both organizations’ crimes have been exposed, only the former is beginning to pay the price. ACORN has rightly been dropped by the Census Bureau as a partner in conducting the nation’s census. And, by a vote of 83-7 in the Senate and 345-75 in the House of Representatives, Congress voted this week to strip ACORN of federal funding it was to receive this year.

But the work isn’t done. The Senate voted to take away only part of ACORN’s funding. On Tuesday, Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging a Justice Department to investigate all of the allegations against ACORN, which could be prosecuted under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes.

Sadly, though amendments to defund Planned Parenthood have been introduced by pro-life stalwart Rep. Mike Pence and others each of the last few years, none has ever passed. In late July, the House defeated (247-183) an amendment to prevent the abortion behemoth from receiving federal funds under the federal government’s family planning program.

But Pence is undeterred, and he is also sponsoring a stand-alone bill, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, HR 614. It would bar Title X funds from going to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that performs abortions.

As it begins its resurgence, the Republican Party is searching for the set of issues that will define it for the next generation. It would do well to harness the anti-corruption theme against a Democratic Party beholden to powerful but irredeemably corrupt interest groups.

Republicans should continue to pursue ACORN, but they shouldn’t stop there. They should highlight the corruption at Planned Parenthood and champion the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. Forcing tax-payers to pay for abortions offends the conscience. Forcing them to underwrite an organization credibly alleged to have been complicit in statutory rape and child abuse is beyond the pale.

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families. - article taken from http://www.humanevents.com




Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Bishops Nauman and Finn speak out clearly on the health care issue according to the social teaching of the Church

Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform
A Joint Pastoral Statement of Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Bishop Robert W. Finn

Dear Faithful of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas and of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph,

To his credit, President Barack Obama has made it a major priority for his administration to address the current flaws in our nation’s health care policies. In fairness, members of both political parties for some time have recognized significant problems in the current methods of providing health care.

As Catholics, we are proud of the Church’s healthcare contribution to the world. Indeed, the hospital was originally an innovation of the Catholic faithful responding to our Lord’s call to care for the sick, “For I was…ill and you cared for me.” (Matthew 25, v. 35-36). This tradition continues today in America, where currently one in four hospitals is run by a Catholic agency. We have listened to current debate with great attention and write now to contribute our part to ensure that this reform be an authentic reform taking full consideration of the dignity of the human person.

Some symptoms of the inadequacy of our present health care polices are:
1) There are many people – typically cited as 47 million – without medical insurance.
2) The cost of health insurance continues to rise, with medical spending in the U.S. at $2.2 trillion in 2007, constituting 17% of the Gross Domestic Product, and predicted to double within 10 years. (Source: Office of Public Affairs, 2008: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2008.pdf).
3) The Medicare Trust Fund is predicted to be insolvent by 2019.
4) Mandated health insurance benefits for full-time workers have created an incentive for companies to hire part-time rather than full-time employees.
5) Similarly, the much higher cost to employers for family health coverage, as compared to individual coverage, places job candidates with many dependents at a disadvantage in a competitive market.
6) Individuals with pre-existing conditions who most need medical care are often denied the means to acquire it.

There are also perceived strengths of our current system:

1) Most Americans like the medical care services available to them. Our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.
2) It is important to remember that 85% of citizens in the U.S. do have insurance. Forty percent of the uninsured are between 19-34 years old. (Source: Current Population Survey 2008 Annual Social and Economic Supplement) A 2007 study by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and Uninsured found that 11 million of those without insurance were eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but were not enrolled. Those eligible but not enrolled include 74 percent of children who are uninsured. (Source: Characteristics of the Uninsured: Who Is Eligible for Public Coverage and Who Needs Help Affording Coverage?)
3) The competitive nature of our private sector system is an incentive to positive innovation and the development of advanced technology. Medical doctors and research scientists are esteemed. Doctors and other scientists immigrate to our country because of the better compensation given to those who provide quality medical care or produce successful research.
4) Medicare and Medicaid, while they have their limitations, provide an important safety net for many of the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

What Must We Do?

The justified reaction to the significant defects in our current health care policies is to say, “Something must be done.” Many believe: “We have to change health care in America.” Despite the many flaws with our current policies, change itself does not guarantee improvement. Many of the proposals which have been promoted would diminish the protection of human life and dignity and shift our health care costs and delivery to a centralized government bureaucracy. Centralization carries the risk of a loss of personal responsibility, reduction in personalized care for the sick and an expanded bureaucracy that in the end leads to higher costs.

A Renewal Built on Principles

We claim no expertise in economics or the complexities of modern medical science. However, effective health care policies must be built on a foundation of proper moral principles. The needed change in health care must therefore flow from certain principles that protect the fundamental life and dignity of the human person and the societal principles of justice, which are best safeguarded when such vital needs are provided for in a context of human love and reason, and when the delivery of care is determined at the lowest reasonable level. The rich tradition of Catholic social and moral teaching should guide our evaluation of the many and varied proposals for health care reform. It is our intention in this pastoral reflection to identify and explain the most important principles for evaluating health care reform proposals. No Catholic in good conscience can disregard these fundamental moral principles, although there can and likely will be vigorous debate about their proper application.

I. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

Pope John Paul II wrote: “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

And Pope Benedict writes: “The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.

II. Principle of the Life and Dignity of the Human Person: Driving Force for Care, and Constitutive Ground of Human Justice

A. Exclusion of Abortion and Protection of Conscience Rights

Recent cautionary notes have been sounded by Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chair of the U.S. Bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Murphy of the U.S. Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Social Development, against the inclusion of abortion in a revised health care plan. At the same time, they have warned against the endangerment or loss of conscience rights protection for individual health care workers or private health care institutions. A huge resource of professionals and institutions dedicated to care of the sick could find themselves excluded, by legislation, after health care reform, if they failed to provide services which are destructive of human life, and which are radically counter to their conscience and institutional mission. The loss of Catholic hospitals and health care providers, which currently do more to provide pro bono services to the poor and the marginalized than their for-profit counterparts, would be a tremendous blow to the already strained health care system in our country.

It is imperative that any health care reform package must keep intact our current public polices protecting taxpayers from being coerced to fund abortions. It is inadequate to propose legislation that is silent on this morally crucial matter. Given the penchant of our courts over the past 35 years to claim unarticulated rights in our Constitution, the explicit exclusion of so-called “abortion services” from coverage is essential. Similarly, health care reform legislation must clearly articulate the rights of conscience for individuals and institutions.

B. Exclude Mandated End of Life Counseling for Elderly and Disabled

Some proposals for government reform have referenced end of life counseling for the elderly or disabled.

An August 3, 2009 Statement of the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses on Health Care Legislation, in addition to calling for the exclusion of mandates for abortion, the protection of abortion funding prohibitions, and the assurance of conscience rights, insists that the mandating of end of life consultation for anyone regardless of age or condition would place undue pressure on the individual or guardian to opt for measures to end life, and would send the message that they are no longer of value to society.

The nurses’ statement concludes, “We believe those lives and all lives are valuable and to be respected and cared for to the best of our abilities. Care must be provided for any human being in need of care regardless of disability or level of function or dependence on others in accordance with the 1999 Supreme Court Decision in Olmstead v. L.C.”

Recently, Bishop Walker Nickless of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, commented on the dangers inherent in the establishment of a health care monopoly, drawing a comparison to the experience of HMO plans in our country, where individuals entrusted with keeping the cost of health care at a minimum may refuse to authorize helpful or necessary treatment for their clients. (See Bishop Walker Nickless, Column in The Catholic Globe, August 13, 2009)

C. The “Right to Acquisition of Health Care” in the Teaching of the Church

The “Right to Health Care” as taught by the Church is a companion to the fundamental right to life, and rights to other necessities, among them food, clothing, and shelter. It may be best understood as a “Right to Acquire the Means of Procuring for One’s Self and One’s Family these goods, and concomitantly, a duty to exercise virtue (diligence, thrift, charity) in every aspect of their acquisition and discharge. This language of rights, coupled with duties toward those who ‘through no fault of their own’ are unable to work, is present throughout papal teaching, and only reinforces the idea that, in its proper perspective, the goal is to live and to work and ‘to be looked after’ only in the event of real necessity.” (Source: Catholic Medical Association, 2004 document, Health Care in America. – bold and italics our own)

The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.

Indeed part of the crisis in today’s system stems from various misappropriations within health care insurance systems of exorbitant elective treatments, or the tendencies to regard health care services paid for by insurance as “free,” and to take advantage of services that happen to be available under the insurance plan. Such practices may arguably cripple the ability of small companies to provide necessary opportunities to their employees and significantly increase the cost of health care for everyone.

D. The Right to Make Health Care Decisions for Self and Family

Following both the notions of subsidiarity mentioned above and the sense of the life and dignity of every human person, it is vital to preserve, on the part of individuals and their families, the right to make well-informed decisions concerning their care. This is why some system of vouchers – at least on a theoretical level – is worthy of consideration. Allowing persons who through no fault of their own are unable to work, to have some means to acquire health care brings with it a greater sense of responsibility and ownership which, in a more centralized system, may be more vulnerable to abusive tendencies.

When the individual has a personal, monetary stake or a financial obligation to pay even a portion of the cost of medical care, prudence comes to bear - with greater consistency – on such decisions, and unnecessary costs are minimized. Valuing the right of individuals to have a direct say in their care favors a reform which, reflecting subsidiarity, places responsibility at the lowest level.

E. Obligation of Prudent Preventative Care

All individuals, including those who receive assistance for health care, might be given incentives for good preventative practices: proper diet, moderate exercise, and moderation of tobacco and alcohol use. As Bishop Nickless reminds us in his statement, “The gift of life comes only from God, and to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong.” (Ibid.)

Some categories of positive preventative health care, however, may not easily be procured apart from medical intervention. Pre-natal and neo-natal care are particularly crucial and should be given priority in any reform. Because of the unique vulnerability of the unborn and newly born child, such services ought to be provided regardless of ability to pay.

In addition to the primordial Principle of the Life and Dignity of the Human Person delivered in a way which respects subsidiarity, we might look briefly at two other principles which promote justice in the consideration of health care.

II. Principle of the Obligation to the Common Good: Why We Must Act
The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the obligation to promote the common good as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and easily.” (CCC #1906)

It is very clear that, respectful of this principle, we must find some way to provide a safety net for people in need without diminishing personal responsibility or creating an inordinately bureaucratic structure which will be vulnerable to financial abuse, be crippling to our national economy, and remove the sense of humanity from the work of healing and helping the sick.

The Church clearly advocates authentic reform which addresses this obligation, while respecting the fundamental dignity of persons and not undermining the stability of future generations.

Both of us in our family histories have had experiences that make us keenly aware of the necessity for society to provide a safety net to families who suffer catastrophic losses. Yet, these safety nets are not intended to create permanent dependency for individuals or families upon the State, but rather to provide them with the opportunity to regain control of their own lives and their own destiny.
Closely tied to the Principle of the Obligation of the Common Good is the Principle of Solidarity.

III. The Principle of Solidarity: The Way We Measure Our Love

The principle of human solidarity is a particular application – on the level of society – of Christ’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. It might also be seen, in other terms, as the application of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Solidarity is our sense of “connectedness” to each other person, and moves us to want for them what we would want for ourselves and our most dear loved ones.

In regard to health care this might require us to examine any proposal in terms of what it provides – and how – to the most vulnerable in our society. Dr. Donald P. Condit in his helpful treatment of the principle of Solidarity in “Prescription for Health Care Reform” reminds us of the proverb attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

For example, legislation that excludes legal immigrants from receiving health care benefits violates the principle of solidarity, is unjust and is not prudent. In evaluating health care reform proposals perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the poor would have access to the kind and quality of health care that you and I would deem necessary for our families. Is there a way by which the poor, too, can assume more responsibility for their own health care decisions in such manner as reflects their innate human dignity and is protective of their physical and spiritual well being?

Conclusion: We Can Not Be Passive

These last two principles: Solidarity and the Promotion of the Common Good cause us to say that we cannot be passive concerning health care policy in our country. There is important work to be done, but “change” for change’s sake; change which expands the reach of government beyond its competence would do more harm than good. Change which loses sight of man’s transcendent dignity or the irreplaceable value of human life; change which could diminish the role of those in need as agents of their own care is not truly human progress at all.

A hasty or unprincipled change could cause us, in fact, to lose some of the significant benefits that Americans now enjoy, while creating a future tax burden which is both unjust and unsustainable.

We urge the President, Congress, and other elected and appointed leaders to develop prescriptions for reforming health care which are built on objective truths: that all people in every stage of human life count for something; that if we violate our core beliefs we are not aiding people in need, but instead devaluing their human integrity and that of us all.

We call upon our Catholic faithful, and all people of good will, to hold our elected officials accountable in these important deliberations and let them know clearly our support for those who, with prudence and wisdom, will protect the right to life, maintain freedom of conscience, and nurture the sense of solidarity that drives us to work hard, to pray, and to act charitably for the good of all.

We place this effort under the maternal protection of our Blessed Mother, Mary, who was entrusted, with Joseph in the home at Nazareth, with the care of the child Jesus. We ask Our Lord Jesus Christ to extend His light and His Mercy to our nation’s efforts, so that every person will come to know His healing consolation as Divine Physician.

Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann - Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas
Most Reverend Robert W. Finn - Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph
August 22, 2009
Memorial of the Queenship of Mary



Domincan Republic Gives Final Approval to Anti-Abortion Constitutional Amendment


September 24, 2009 (C-FAM) Last week, lawmakers in the Dominican Republic gave their final approval to a pro-life constitutional change despite fierce criticism and pressure from UN agencies and abortion advocates to defeat the measure. The Dominican Republic’s National
Assembly easily ratified a revision of Article 30 in a vote of 128 in favor with 32 opposed. The article now states that "the right to life is inviolable from conception until death."
While the measure was widely supported by Dominican parliamentarians, it met with staunch opposition from international abortion proponents and even UN agencies, which are officially neutral on abortion. Last April, when the right-to-life provision was first debated, two UN officials interjected themselves into the debate. Nils Kastberg, UNICEF's regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean, called on Dominican legislators to consider liberalizing abortion so women would not be forced into "unsafe procedures." Kastberg also suggested that lawmakers would be "hypocrites" unconcerned with the nation's higher-than-average teen birth rate.

United Nations Program for Human Development coordinator Miguel Ceara Hatton criticized the article stating the constitutional revision encourages the incidence of clandestine abortions and maternal deaths and disregards a woman’s right to life. Hatton also took aim at the Catholic Church stating that it had "influence in everything" and that, "for following a dogma [the Church] has become a source and a motor for social exclusion in the Dominican Republic. The dogma is placed ahead of the needs of the population, health, housing and better living conditions. "
Contrary to the positions these UN officials took, the United Nations website maintains that "the legal status of abortion is the sovereign right of each nation" and that the organization "does not provide support for abortion or abortion related activities anywhere in the world."

Non-governmental organizations have also condemned the constitutional change. Amnesty International (AI) has been at the center of an ongoing campaign against the Dominican right-to-life provision. In a report released earlier this year, AI claimed that the Dominican Republic’s constitutional and legal reforms "could lead to violations of women’s human rights" and that laws penalizing abortion would lead to increased maternal mortality. Before the final vote last week, AI called on the Congress of the Dominican Republic to reject the right to life from "conception until death" part of Article 30.

The constitutional reform in the Dominican Republic echoes similar changes enacted at the state level in Mexico, where 12 states have recently adopted constitutional amendments declaring that life begins at conception. These follow the criminalization of abortion under all circumstances by Nicaragua in 2006, and El Salvador in 1998.
As they had in the Nicaragua case, abortion advocates rallied against the abortion ban in Mexico by arguing that prohibiting abortions would lead to a greater increase in maternal mortality since women would arguably have to turn to "unsafe abortions." Critics, however, have pointed out that there is no substantiated evidence for this claim and preliminary evidence from Nicaraguan government statistics even shows a decline in maternal deaths since restricting abortion in 2006.

When formally adopted, the Dominican Republic will join other Latin American nations whose constitutions explicitly protect unborn life, including Chile, Paraguay, and Guatemala.
Commentary from Father James: This is what happens when a country has a Catholic Bishop who will not waver and will not compromise on the abortion issue. Much credit for this important victory goes to the hardwork of Cardinal Nicolas Jesus Lopez Rodriguez, Bishop of Santo Domingo. If the U.S. Bishops were to rise up as a body and not compromise on the abortion issue, abortion in the U.S. would be ended.
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092410.html

Monday, September 28, 2009

Celibacy and Concupiscence - by Father James Farfaglia

This is an article published for the Catholic Exchange Theology of the Body Channel. The article is written for priests.

“…a thorn in the flesh was given to me...” (2 Corinthians 12: 7). No one really knows what caused St. Paul to struggle, but there was something that really bothered him. He pleaded with the Lord that his difficulties be taken away, but Paul received an answer that he was not looking for: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12: 9).

True, Baptism washes away original sin, but we are left with the effects of original sin. We do not have complete control over ourselves. The spiritual life is a continual battle.

Because of original sin our darkened intellects, weakened wills and inflamed passions will always move us in the wrong direction. Continual effort is necessary to control the inner movement of our ego and allow the presence of grace to take control of our thoughts, desires and actions.

The battle of the spiritual life might be compared to walking in a river against the current. If we do not continue walking or reaching out toward a rock for support, then the current will most assuredly carry us in the opposite direction.

Any serious discussion about the charism of celibacy or the sacrament of matrimony must take into consideration the seriousness of concupiscence and John Paul II, in his monumental work “The Theology of the Body”, delves into this reality with profound insights for our considerations.

Priests who live out their vocation with fidelity, enthusiasm and joy should not be surprised that the charism of celibacy does come accompanied by a continual struggle. This struggle is rooted in the human condition.

We are transformed by grace, but the struggle will always be present. This is why, as men who have been given the charism of celibacy, it is essential that our spiritual life and our dedication to our people be truly authentic, mature and coherent.

Do you pray the Liturgy of the Hours every day? Do you do an hour of meditation or a Holy Hour every day? Do you have a filial devotion to the Blessed Mother? Is your calendar full or do you give in to laziness? Do you go on a serious retreat every year? Do you meet with a spiritual director at least once a month? Do you go to confession on a regular basis and whenever necessary?

It is normal for us to struggle, even to fall. But, we must never give in to discouragement. The struggle with celibacy serves to go deeper in our relationship with God and to grow in the charism. “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12: 9).

Sir Edmund Hillary was the first man to climb Mount Everest. On May 29, 1953, he scaled the highest mountain then known to man--29,000 feet straight up. However, in 1952 he attempted to climb Mount Everest but failed. A few weeks later an organization in England asked him to address their members. Hillary walked on stage to thunderous applause. The audience in applauding was recognizing his attempt at greatness, but Edmund Hillary saw himself as a failure. He moved away from the microphone and walked to the edge of the platform. He made a fist and pointed at a picture of the mountain. He said in a loud voice, "Mount Everest, you beat me the first time, but I'll beat you the next time because you've grown all you are going to grow... but I'm still growing!"

There is a huge difference between a priest who struggles and the priest who lives a double life.

A priest who carries on with a concubine or a priest who struggles with same-sex attraction who carries on with a male lover does tremendous damage to real Catholic priests who love their vocation to the priesthood.

Immature priests anger the lay faithful who are scandalized by their proclivities.
These priests should always keep in the mind the severe words of the Lord: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9: 42).

The charism of celibacy does not cause priests to be immoral or sexual perverts. Anyone who thinks this way does not really understand the charism of celibacy. They are gravely mistaken if they think that masturbation and Internet pornography are answers to celibacy.

Celibacy is a special gift from the Holy Spirit. It is called a charism. It is a beautiful gift for the Church.

The celibate priest, in and through his body; i.e., through his very physical reality, is a sign or a witness not only of his total gift of himself to his bride, the Church, but he is also physically, through his body, pointing the way to the eschatological reality of eternal life.


However, like I already said, the charism of celibacy does not remove the reality of concupiscence and Pope John Paul II recognizes this in his teachings.

Concupiscence is something that we must always take seriously especially since we have to live out our vocation in a sex-saturated culture. Moreover, many times we find ourselves living alone in rectories or dealing with persecution from priests or parishioners who reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Bishops have a solemn duty to help their priests to live out, with authenticity, maturity and coherence, the charism of celibacy. I will discuss how bishops can help their priests in my next article.

NFP and Contraception: What’s the Difference? - by Marshall Fightlin


Many people, indeed many Catholics, do not see the moral difference between contraception and NFP. “It does the same thing, doesn’t it?” They will often refer to NFP as “Catholic contraception.” What these people need is a brief lesson is Moral Theology 101. And here it is.

In order for a human act to be moral, three aspects of it must be good: The act itself (the “object” or means), the goal or reason for doing it (the “end”), and the circumstances under which the act is done.

The bedrock principle from which all moral reasoning flows is this: “The end doesn’t justify the means.” Another way of saying this is “We may not do evil (means) that good (end) may come of it.”

Let me give an example. Let’s say my mother-in-law lives with us. This makes living conditions crowded. My two teenaged daughters have to share one bedroom. I would like to create a situation in which each daughter has her own bedroom. This is a good end.

What means do I use to achieve this end? I decide to put arsenic in my mother-in-law’s coffee and bury her behind the garage. Bad means. In this instance, my good end does not justify the bad means.

Another example. Same situation. My mother-in-law’s residence in our home is causing crowding with my daughters, and I want to create an uncrowded situation for them. Again, this is a good end.

So I decide to put an addition onto my house, creating an additional bedroom. Good means.

“But,” someone objects, “what’s the difference? Whether you poison your mother-in-law or put an addition on the house, it does the same thing, right? It eliminates the crowded condition.”

Discussion: In both examples above, the end is the same. Yet in the first example, the act is immoral because of the bad means. Moral to the story: Although two means achieve the same end, one means can be OK, while the other one is not. Just because one means is good doesn’t mean the other means is good.

An application: Family Planning. The goals (end) of limiting/spacing births or achieving pregnancy are both good. But there are good and bad ways (means) of achieving these ends. In the case of limiting births, the good way/means is NFP. The bad way/means is contraception. In the case of achieving pregnancy, the good way is intercourse alone or accompanied by technology to assist intercourse (e.g. LTOT). The bad way/means is use of technology to substitute for intercourse (e.g. IVF).

Contraception and IVF cannot be justified (made right) on the basis of the good end for which they are used. They need to be justified in themselves.

The question then is not “Why are we doing this?” but “What are we doing?” In the case of NFP, the couple are having intercourse at a time when they know that their combined fertility potential is not sufficient to achieve pregnancy. Both spouses are fully present to one another. Both are giving all that they are to one another. It’s just that, at the time of intercourse, all that they give to one another is not enough to achieve pregnancy. The marital act is all that it can be at that time.

In the case of contraception, the couple are having intercourse at a time when they know that the combined fertility potential is or may be sufficient to achieve pregnancy. The couple then introduce into the marital act drugs, chemicals, or mechanical devices that make them not fully present to one another. They are not giving all that they are to one another. They are withholding. The marital act is made less than it can be at that time.

But don’t contraception and NFP both involve intercourse without pregnancy? Yes, they do. But, again, the means of avoiding pregnancy are radically different between the two methods. We must remember that it has never been Catholic teaching that intercourse is only licit when the couple is seeking pregnancy. There has never been a teaching of the Church that couples must seek intercourse only when the wife is fertile, and avoid it when they know she is not.

The wrongness of contraception does not lie in the desire to have marital intimacy while avoiding conception. It lies in contraception’s failure to recognize marital intimacy as something sacred, a work of art, something not to be monkeyed with. One does not put a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Although NFP is distinct from contraception insofar as they are both means of family planning, it can be like contraception-and wrong-insofar as the circumstances are concerned. This pertains to avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons. A couple using NFP for frivolous reasons as an excuse for selfishness would be guilty of “the contraceptive mentality.” This doesn’t refer to the desire to space or limit the number of children a couple has, but to the selfishness with which the couple carries out that plan. Whenever the Church has spoken of the legitimacy of family planning, it has always done so in the context of the couple having serious reasons.

NFP, used for serious reasons, is morally different from contraception as a means of family planning. But it becomes similar to contraception when it is used selfishly, without serious reasons.

What constitutes a serious reason? That’s the topic for another essay.


Marshall Fightlin is a husband, a father of two married daughters, and a grandfather of three grandchildren. He is a licensed psychologist and has been providing psychotherapy for over thirty years. He has given talks at state and national pro-life conventions, and has published articles on marriage, human sexuality and NFP in national and international journals. He teaches courses in psychology in a program for working adults at a local Catholic college. He conducts a telephone consult service at www.catholicpsychconsult.com.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

North Dakota Bishop Asks All Priests to Spend "At Least One Hour" Outside Abortion Facility - Bishop himself commits to prayer hours with 40 Days for


FARGO, ND, September 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fargo, joined pro-life advocates for an hour of prayer this morning at 11:00, in front of a local abortion facility. His time of prayer coincides with the 40 Days for Life campaign, which began Sept. 23 in more than 200 communities nationwide.

This is the third annual 40 Days for Life campaign to be held in North Dakota.

In addition to his own participation in the pro-life campaign, Bishop Aquila also recently sent a letter to all priests of his diocese, asking them to participate in the 40 Days for Life campaign. In a Sept. 23 letter to priests, he wrote:

"I will pray on the sidewalk in front of the abortion facility on Friday, September 25, at 11 a.m. and again on Respect Life Sunday when I lead a Eucharistic procession to the abortion facility, carrying our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament to the site of death for so many of his children.

"I ask that each of you schedule at least one hour of prayer outside the abortion facility during these 40 days. I realize this will require great sacrifice for some of you in terms of miles traveled and time away from other pastoral duties. Yet I am confident that much fruit will come from your time spent in conversation with God at the site of this modern day, legally protected holocaust. Please also encourage your parishioners to take up the cross of Christ for the most vulnerable among us."

His letter to priests continues, "Most especially in the 'Year for Priests' we too are called to sacrifice - to carry the cross of Christ. With Christ we stand in prayerful witness, in the cold, the rain, the snow, enduring the glances of hatred and the words of disgust from those who do not understand. In faithful hope we pray that some will come to understand, that hearts will be transformed, unborn babies will be saved from death and parents will escape the agony of later realizing that their choice ended the life of their child."

The 40 Days for Life campaign is a national ecumenical effort of prayer, fasting and peaceful prayer and presence outside abortion facilities. The North Dakota campaign includes 40 days of non-stop prayer on the sidewalk outside the Red River Womens Clinic at 512 1st Ave. N., Fargo.

The Sunday Homily - ARE YOU A PROFESSIONAL CATHOLIC?


Without a doubt, Christianity challenges us every day. Our entrance into Heaven is not a guaranteed reality.

Self-reflection is necessary in order to find out if there are any particular sins or attachments that might prove to be obstacles to our achieving eternal salvation.

Many people in our present day have experienced profound conversions. The personal testimonies of life changing experiences bear continual witness to the ever-present action of the Holy Spirit in the lives of all those who are searching for happiness and peace.

However, conversion is a daily enterprise. Every day we are faced with choices and challenges that affect our relationship with the Lord. It is not easy to be faithful. But God's grace makes discipleship not only possible; it also makes it an amazing adventure.

We must not be surprised that Christianity essentially implies a daily, personal struggle. Commitment and battle go hand in hand. We have to take very seriously the fact that our human nature is wounded by original sin.

Every day presents a new opportunity to begin again. God's loving mercy is always available to us through the sacrament of Confession. It is precisely God's loving willingness to forgive our sins that fills us with the hope of eternal life.

Constancy in the spiritual life, especially under difficult circumstances, characterizes the existence of the true disciple of Christ.

This Sunday’s Gospel passage is very demanding.

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’” (Mark 9: 47-49)

Most people in our country are well educated. It is common that people not only have a high school diploma, they also have a college degree. Many people continue their education and get a masters degree and some even get a doctorate.
Most people in our country have good jobs. They are successful and enterprising in their endeavors. It is safe to say that our country is a nation comprised of a people, for the most part, who are professional in what they do.

Wouldn’t be nice if we were professional in our relationship with Jesus?

Wouldn’t be nice if we were to put the same effort that we put into our education and our jobs into our spiritual life?

What is it that keeps people from being professional in their relationship with the Lord? The answer can be found in one of the seven deadly sins and that sin is sloth.

Sloth is a disease of the will.

What happens to the individual ruled by sloth?

People controlled by sloth don’t get anything accomplished. People controlled by sloth are targets for every temptation that the devil has to offer. They just lie there on the ground like cow manure covered with flies. Flies can’t stick to something that is moving fast. And people ruled by sloth have a real hard time getting into Heaven. They are too lazy to live out the demands of the Gospel.
If sloth is a problem for you, what can you do to get rid of it?

First of all, you have to have purpose in life. Once you figured out your purpose in life, you can fulfill the duties that are part of your state in life. Are you single? Are you married? Are you consecrated to God? Your state in life carries with it certain duties and obligation. Fulfill those duties with maturity, coherence, authenticity and perfection.

Secondly, you need to have a strong will. Remember that sloth has been defined as a disease of the will. So, it is going to be important to clean up the will by making it strong. Make your bed with perfection every morning; polish your shoes; dress correctly; be punctual for church and your daily appointments; and keep your room neat and tidy.

A sturdy and consistent spiritual life is essential. We have to stay connected to the Lord. He will give us strength and fill us with peace. The regular use of the sacrament of confession is essential. We need to stay spiritually alive. And when it comes to sin, we all get bent out of shape about the bad things that we do, but how many of us are concerned about the good things that we don’t do because of laziness, tepidity and apathy?

Here is a challenge for this week? Do you want your life to change? Do you want to achieve progress in your spiritual life? Are you willing to do whatever it takes to get to Heaven?

Take a few moments in order to analyze your good points and your weaknesses. Figure out what is your dominant defect. Develop a plan of action to eradicate that dominant defect from your life and stick to it.

Always make good use of the sacrament of confession. This is your best weapon in your fight against personal sin. Develop and be consistent with your daily spiritual life. Do not engage in this battle alone. Ask your spouse for help. Be accountable to each other. One of the purposes of marriage is the good of the spouses. Be accountable to your parish priest. He is trained to help you. Let your parish family be a source of inspiration, motivation and accountability.

Life is a struggle and it always will be.

We need to be excited about Jesus and his Church. We need to be excited about getting to Heaven and bringing others with us. We need to be excited about making this world a better place for everyone. We need to be professional Catholics. This is called personal holiness.

Don’t let sloth ruin your chance of living a life filled with joy.

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’” (Mark 9: 47-49)

Friday, September 25, 2009

Is President Obama leaving us wide-open for another terrorist attack?



Personal thoughts from Father James Farfaglia before this day comes to a close -


Nothing surprises me anymore. In fact, I wake up every morning wondering what shoe is going to fall off next. Today, Iran admits to having a secret uranium enrichment plant and we have also followed the news of three Islamic suspects who allegedly had plans to commit terrorist attacks in our country.

My solution to these problems: 1. Barrack Hussein Obama needs to be fired. He is a dangerous man in a very dangerous world; 2. No one from any country that supports terrorism should be allowed into our country; 3. The immigration document of every Arab who is not a U.S. citizen should be looked over and inspected. Sorry, I know that the bleeding hearts will call this "racial profiling", but people with last names such as Finn, Czupkowski, Farentelli or Gonzalez are not flying airplanes into our buildings.

USCCB's Social Justice Arm Caught Funding Pro-Abortion/Prostitution Groups: Takes "Decisive" Action in Response - By Patrick B. Craine

September 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), the U.S. bishops' domestic social justice arm, says it has taken "decisive action" on a new report that reveals they have been funding groups that support abortion, contraception, same-sex "marriage," and legalized prostitution.

The organization's funding practices have been the subject of growing scrutiny in the last several years, especially after it was revealed that CCHD had funded the scandal-plagued ACORN organization to the tune of millions of dollars.

The report about CCHD's problematic funding practices was prepared by the new Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM), which has launched a national campaign aimed at addressing the problems with the organization. The group's founder, Rob Gasper, said he is "pleased" with the CCHD's response, but insisted that the organization is in need of further reform before the problems can be said to have been dealt with.

Founded in 1969, the CCHD's mission is to "address the root causes of poverty in America through promotion and support of community-controlled, self-help organizations and through transformative education." They raise funds primarily through an annual parish collection on the Sunday before Thanksgiving.

Scandal erupted in the U.S. Church last year over the CCHD's funding of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a liberal network of local community activism groups. At least two dioceses, in fact, opted not to take up the collection last fall. The CCHD, which has given ACORN millions of dollars in the last ten years, cut their funding last year based on reports of embezzlement within the organization. In recent weeks, several ACORN offices were caught condoning child prostitution and sex trafficking in a series of videotaped sting operations conducted by veteran pro-life investigators.

In his report on the ACORN scandal, Bishop Roger Morin, chair of the U.S. bishops' subcommittee on the CCHD, assured American Catholics that "CCHD's current criteria and guidelines prohibit partisan activity and funding of any group that engages in activities contrary to Catholic moral teaching, whether or not those activities are funded by CCHD."

"These criteria are actively enforced," he wrote, "and have led CCHD to deny funding to many groups and to quickly terminate any group that violates these prohibitions."

The BVM report, however, offers concrete evidence that grantees on CCHD's list for both 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 advocate policies and activities deeply contrary to fundamental Christian moral teaching, such as abortion, contraception and legalized prostitution. The report also observes that some of these groups are involved in pushing Obama's health care reform without prejudice to its proposed funding of abortion and contraception.

The report lists four groups from the 2009-2010 grantee list that actively support policies or practices contrary to Church teaching. In total, these groups have been allocated $125,000 this year. The report also lists seven groups that have pushed for the current version of Obama's health care reform.

On September 10th, LSN advised CCHD Director Ralph McCloud of the BVM report's findings. On Friday, McCloud informed LSN that the organization had defunded two of the four groups, and said that, in regard to the remaining two, he was still waiting to hear back from the local bishop, who must sign off on every funded group in his diocese.

According to McCloud, they have defunded the Chinese Progressive Association (CPA), which has been funded for the last four years, and was set to receive $30,000 this year. The CPA's 2008 voters guide (on the BVM website here and here) urged Californians to vote against enshrining the true definition of marriage in the state's constitution (proposition 8) and requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortions (proposition 4). LSN left a message with CPA, but has not heard back.

CCHD has also defunded the Los Angeles Community Action Network (LACAN), says McCloud, which has been funded for the last five years and was to receive $40,000 this year. LACAN has promoted same-sex "marriage" and actively supports contraception and the morning-after pill through a clinic at the Downtown Women's Center. An LACAN representative told LSN that they have not yet been informed about any change to their funding status.

McCloud says he is still waiting to hear back about Young Workers United (YWU), which is a new addition to the grantee list, currently set to receive $25,000. This group has come out publicly in support of abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of prostitution. In their 2008 voters guide they advocated against proposition 8 and proposition 4. They also advised San Francisco residents to adopt proposition K, decriminalizing prostitution.

Finally, the Women's Community Revitalization Project is currently scheduled to receive $30,000. They are a "coalition partner" of WomenVotePA, which works to secure abortion rights; they also push the morning-after pill, contraception, and same-sex "marriage."

Reacting to the BVM report, McCloud said, "I was shocked." McCloud also told LSN that he had not seen any of the information before. "We routinely, whenever we get complaints and issues that are with some of our groups that even remotely could be contrary to Catholic teaching, we do a serious investigation and look at them," he said. "And that's what we're doing on these."

Asked how the groups were put on the list in the first place, McCloud explained that "[the] profile of the work that [these groups] were doing in low-income communities did not include things like voters guides. When we had first begun a relationship with them, they weren't doing any advocacy at all, and we focus just on that particular portion of the work."

In response to the CCHD's handling of the report, Gasper stated, "My organization's pleased that they're taking some active steps, obviously." However, "we're still concerned about how these groups managed to receive funding in the first place," he said. "We would like to see some steps taken to ensure that that doesn't happen again in the future."

McCloud did not commit to any concrete policy changes, but did indicate that information like that provided by BVM always causes them to re-evaluate. As an example, he noted the need for "looking at the websites of organizations more frequently."

"These were brought to our attention, but we find so many others on our own," McCloud pointed out.

Gasper says, however, that the response so far is not satisfying. He maintains that every grantee should be required to state publicly, rather than merely privately, that they would abide by the Church's social teaching, including on the right to life. "Put that in a public forum and I think that would go a long way to help the situation," he said, "because, some of these groups, they don't mind doing this sort of thing in private, ... but they wouldn't want to do something like that in public, because their membership base would be in an uproar."

Such a public statement, he said, would ensure the confidence of the CCHD's Catholic supporters. While the CCHD might drop an organization or two each year, he said, "there's still more added every year." "We never know that our donations are going to be safe to give to the CCHD. But if they put in [the requirement of a public statement], then people might feel a little better."

Gasper also stated that his organization is concerned about the groups that are indiscriminately advocating for Obamacare, without pressing the need for protections for the unborn. "That touches on the life issue," said Gasper, "especially if you read the writings of Cardinal Rigali and some of the letters the other bishops in the USCCB have put out, that those groups who are pushing for this healthcare legislation should face more rigorous requirements."

McCloud defended the CCHD's funding of these groups, however, saying that all of them "encourage denominations that are part of their network to advocate based on ... their denominational viewpoint. They basically lift up the importance of healthcare and how it contributes to the human dignity of the person."

Noting that he had not seen such language on any of the groups' websites, Gasper responded, "If money from Catholics is going to those grantees, one would think that they should be required to just uphold to the Catholic social teaching on that issue."

Gasper pointed to the example of the Vermont Workers Center, who had a $30,000 grant revoked by the Vermont diocese earlier this year because they refused to specify opposition to abortion funding in their promotion of healthcare reform.

Criticisms based upon the CCHD's questionable funding practices are not new. The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus claimed last year, in the wake of the ACORN scandal, that the CCHD "has nothing to do with Catholicism, except that Catholics are asked to pay for it."

He called the organization "misbegotten in concept and corrupt in practice," and went so far as to urge that it be terminated. "What most Catholics don't know, and what would likely astonish them," wrote Fr. Neuhaus, "is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor." Neuhaus suggested that the bishops would do better to spend their money on more Catholic-related projects, such as "Catholic inner-city schools."

Contact Information:

Catholic Campaign for Human Development
3211 Fourth St. NE
Washington DC 20017
v: 202-541-3210
f: 202-541-3329
cchdpromo@usccb.org

Tomorrow's post: The Sunday Homily for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Year for Priests - Understanding the vocation of the priest and the vocation of the laity



Do You Appreciate Your Priest?
Spanish Bishop Composes Test

PALENCIA, Spain, SEPT. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Year for Priests isn't just an internal celebration among the clergy, but rather an opportunity for all the faithful to assess their appreciation for the priesthood, says Bishop José Ignacio Munilla of Palencia.

"Do we appreciate the priesthood and love our priests?" the bishop asked in a posting on the Web site of his dioceses.

To answer this question, the bishop composed -- "with a bit of humor" -- the following test titled "Priestly Appreciation." The test is complete with instructions to evaluate your answers and your level of appreciation for the priesthood.

* * *

1. Have you prayed recently for your parish priest, your bishop or the Pope?

a. I don't even know their names.

b. At Mass there is usually prayer for them, and I add myself in that petition.

c. I do so every day in my personal prayer.


2. Have you disclosed your conscience to a priest, trusting that he can help you in your problems?

a. Each one has to solve his problems.

b. "Four eyes see more than two." It is always good to listen to and accept the advice of someone who can help us.

c. The greatest help I have received from a priest has been when his advice was joined to God's forgiveness in the sacrament of confession.


3. When I hear among my friends comments criticizing priests ...

a. I followed their lead, so as not to stand out.

b. I tuned out, and pretended to think of something else.

c. I said what I thought, giving witness to my faith.


4. I see in a priest ...

a. A "relic" of the past.

b. A "professional" of religion.

c. A minister of God; "another Christ" among us.


5. How many times have you invited the parish priest to your home?

a. The priest is only called when someone has died.

b. When grandmother is with us, he usually brings Communion.

c. Several times. I was delighted when he told us the story of his vocation at the dinner table.


6. When you hear a priest give a homily ...

a. I listen, if he has good oratorical skills.

b. I listen, I am interested in the topic he is addressing.

c. I see him as an instrument through which God is speaking to me.


7. When a collection is taken up for seminaries ...

a. I think, "Priests" are always begging.

b. I say to myself, there are collections for so many things! One more!

c. I collaborate gladly, because I believe no vocation should be frustrated because of lack of financial means.


8. When I see an elderly priest in the Church or on the street ...

a. I think the Church is on the decline.

b. I hope he says the Mass quickly.

c. I thank God for his fidelity and for all the good he might have done.


9. When I see a young priest at the altar ...

a. I mistrust his lack of experience. What is he going to say to me?

b. I observe what he does and "classify" him.

c. I thank God for his vocation and pray intensely for him.


10. How would you react if your son said he wants to be a priest?

a. I would ask him if he's gone mad, and I would remind him that we must take into consideration what others might think.

b. I would ask him to give it considerable thought and to have a university degree first.

c. It would give me one of the greatest joys of my life, and I would support him fully.


11. Have you asked a child, adolescent or young man about the possibility of being a priest some day?

a. I don't get into jams. Let everyone live his life.

b. I am of the opinion that all vocations must be appreciated, even if they are different from our own.

c. Yes, I have thought of someone specifically, and I pray for him ... One of these days, "I will let him know."


12. What do you think of the expression of the Saintly Curé d'Ars: "The priest is the love of Jesus' heart"?

a. I think it is a disembodied spiritualism.

b. I think that can only be said of a saintly priest.

c. I believe it is exactly so, though "they have this treasure in earthen vessels" (2 Corinthians 4:7).

* * *

Guide to evaluating the results:

If the letter "a" appears in the majority of your answers, I am surprised that this test reached your hands. But, I thank God that this happened so that I can tell you as the priest that I am, that God loves you the point of folly and that he expects from you an answer of love.

If you have responded to the majority of questions with the letter "b," I would like to tell you that you are not enjoying the treasures that God is offering you through the priesthood.

But if the letter "c" is yours, then I ask you not to cease to pray to God for the sanctification of priests and for the increase of priestly vocations, because I am very sure that God is going to listen to you.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Test in original Spanish: http://enticonfio.org/joseignaciomunilla174.htm


Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The Feast of Saint Padre Pio

PRAYER OF SAINT PADRE PIO FOR AFTER COMMUNION


Stay with me, Lord, for it is necessary to have You present so that I do not forget You. You know how easily I abandon You.

Stay with me, Lord, because I am weak and I need Your strength, that I may not fall so often.

Stay with me, Lord, for You are my life, and without You, I am without fervor.

Stay with me, Lord, for You are my light, and without You, I am in darkness.

Stay with me, Lord, to show me Your will.

Stay with me, Lord, so that I hear Your voice and follow You.

Stay with me, Lord, for I desire to love You very much, and always be in Your company.

Stay with me, Lord, if You wish me to be faithful to You.

Stay with me, Lord, for as poor as my soul is, I wish it to be a place of consolation for You, a nest of Love.

Stay with me, Jesus, for it is getting late and the day is coming to a close, and life passes, death, judgment, eternity approaches. It is necessary to renew my strength, so that I will not stop along the way and for that, I need You. It is getting late and death approaches. I fear the darkness, the temptations, the dryness, the cross, the sorrows. O how I need You, my Jesus, in this night of exile!

Stay with me tonight, Jesus, in life with all its dangers, I need You.
Let me recognize You as Your disciples did at the breaking of bread, so that the Eucharistic Communion be the light which disperses the darkness, the force which sustains me, the unique joy of my heart.

Stay with me, Lord, because at the hour of my death, I want to remain united to You, if not by Communion, at least by grace and love.

Stay with me, Jesus, I do not ask for divine consolation, because I do not merit it, but, the gift of Your Presence, oh yes, I ask this of You!

Stay with me, Lord, for it is You alone I look for. Your Love, Your Grace, Your Will, Your Heart, Your Spirit, because I love You and ask no other reward but to love You more and more.
With a firm love, I will love You with all my heart while on earth and continue to love You perfectly during all eternity.
Amen

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Sex, Lies, and Abortion - by Dinesh D'Souza


Recently I was invited to speak at a fundraiser organized by a Michigan right-to-life group, which had asked me to reflect on this question: "If the pro-life case is so strong, why aren't we winning?"

Since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the pro-life movement has labored mightily to overturn abortion on demand. It has achieved some victories: a restriction against partial-birth abortions, some parental notification laws, and a couple of significant court appointments.

Even so, the United States still has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the world. The pro-life movement has made some progress in its arguments, but has failed to put even a dent in Roe v. Wade and successive rulings. Three and a half decades after Roe, the abortion casualty toll approaches a staggering 50 million.

The consensus among those gathered at the fundraiser was that the pro-life movement needs to educate more Americans about the grim reality of abortion. As one guest told me, "Most American women who go in for abortions simply don't realize that the unborn are human persons with rights." I disagree; I believe most women know this instinctively. But even if they don't know this or are unsure, they still have to weigh the risks of the procedure. And in a case of this importance, a case involving life and death, one has to give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. If a hunter sees something move behind a branch and isn't sure whether it's an animal or a human, is it reasonable for him to go ahead and shoot?

Factor in politics, and the mystery deepens. It seems bizarre that many who claim the political virtue of compassion are champions of abortion rights. These people are able to cry tears for just about every vulnerable group in the world. They feel the pain of the seals, they grieve over sex trafficking in Asia, and they are worried about the plight of children in Darfur. They react with genuine indignation and mobilize to take action. Why, then, do the unborn persons in their own communities not usually inspire a similar compassionate response?

The pro-choice slogan offers no explanation, because the legitimacy of "choice" depends on what is being chosen. Abraham Lincoln exposed this argument a century and a half ago. He argued that if Negroes are hogs, then there can be no question that people have the choice to buy and sell them. On the other hand, Lincoln said, if Negroes are human beings, then how can slave owners invoke "choice"—thus denying choice to other humans? In sum, choice cannot be defended without regard to the content of what's being chosen.

Why then, in the face of its bad arguments, does the pro-choice movement continue to prevail legally and politically?

I think it's because abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution. We have seen a great shift in the sexual mores of Americans in the past half-century. Today a widespread social understanding persists that if there is going to be sex outside marriage, there will be a considerable number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is viewed as a necessary clean-up solution to this social reality.

In order to have a sexual revolution, women must have the same sexual autonomy as men. But the laws of biology contradict this ideology, so feminists who have championed the sexual revolution—Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, among others—have found it necessary to denounce pregnancy as an invasion of the female body. The fetus becomes, in Firestone's phrase, an "uninvited guest." As long as the fetus occupies the mother's womb, these activists argue, the mother should be able to keep it or get rid of it at her discretion.

If you're going to make an omelet, the Marxist revolutionaries used to say, you have to be ready to break some eggs. And if you're going to have a sexual revolution, you have to be ready to clean up the debris. After 35 years, the debris has become a mountain, and as a society, we are still adding bodies to the heap. No one in the pro-choice camp, of course, wants to admit any of this. It's not only politically embarrassing, it's also painful to one's self-image to acknowledge a willingness to sustain permissive sexual values by killing the unborn.

This analysis might help to explain why otherwise compassionate people fight so tenaciously against the most helpless and vulnerable of all living creatures, unborn persons.

If I'm on the right track, pro-life arguments are not likely to succeed by simply continuing to stress the humanity of the fetus. The opposition already knows this, as probably do most women who have an abortion. Rather, the pro-life movement must take into account the larger cultural context of the sexual revolution that invisibly but surely sustains the triumphant advocates of abortion.

It won't be easy, but somehow the case against abortion must include a case against sexual libertinism. It is time to return to the drawing board.


Monday, September 21, 2009

Polarization and the Church - by Russell Shaw

American Catholics have endured internal polarization for many years, but lately the split has become more visible, vocal, and vitriolic. For this we largely have Barack Obama to thank.

Before Obama's admirers start screaming -- itself a sign of the polarization -- I hasten to say I don't particularly blame the president. Obama has only been doing what politicians always do, seeking allies and votes where he can get them. In the process, however, the divisions among already divided Catholics have unquestionably grown wider and deeper.

Now even bishops have taken to advertising their differences. Maybe it's healthy that they should, since this allows the rest of us to evaluate their arguments instead of leaving it to them to scrap over things that concern us all behind the closed doors of increasingly secretive general assemblies of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But the results are dismaying all the same. Consider recent public comments by Archbishop John R. Quinn, retired archbishop of San Francisco, Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, and Bishop John M. D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana.

Here are three serious senior bishops committed to the best interests of the Church. Yet when it comes to events surrounding Notre Dame University's decision to give Obama an honorary degree last spring and have him as commencement speaker, despite his well-publicized support for abortion, they could hardly disagree more profoundly.

Archbishops Quinn and Sheehan hold that their 80 brothers in the American hierarchy who publicly criticized Notre Dame were flat-out wrong.

Writing in Americamagazine, Archbishop Quinn argued that "sanctioning public officials" like Obama by denying them honors "undermines the church's transcendent role in the American political order," since it looks like partisanship and alienates many Catholics. Archbishop Sheehan, interviewed by the National Catholic Reporter, castigated "hysterical" reactions to the Notre Dame incident while citing as a model for others his own success in persuading pro-choice New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to support abolition of the death penalty.

(In passing, it's noteworthy that Archbishop Sheehan declared the 80 bishops who criticized Notre Dame to be a minority within the hierarchy. At last count, there were 424 American bishops, active and retired. Subtract the 80, and that leaves 344. But nearly all of those in this group said nothing publicly about the Notre Dame affair. Archbishop Sheehan did not explain how he knows what they think.)

Bishop D'Arcy is ordinary of the diocese in which Notre Dame is located. Kept in the dark by the university about the Obama invitation until it had been extended and accepted, he protested strongly and boycotted the commencement. Like Archbishop Quinn, he explained his reasoning in an Americaarticle.

His objections, he wrote, were "not about President Obama," "not about Democrats versus Republicans," not about the appropriateness of providing Obama with a platform, and "not about . . . 'sectarian Catholicism.'" Rather, as he saw it, the problem with honoring a pro-choice politician was its betrayal of the fundamental mission of the Church, laid out by Christ in the gospel of Matthew: "Your light must shine before others, that they may see your good works, and glorify your heavenly Father" (Mt 5.13).


This exchange among bishops illustrates the old truth that he who gets to define the issue can be sure of winning the debate.

Archbishops Quinn and Sheehan define the Obama-Notre Dame affair -- together with the separate but related question of communion for pro-choice Catholic politicians -- in political terms: to withhold an honorary degree or refuse communion because politicians support abortion are, in Archbishop Quinn's word, forms of "sanctioning" intended to coerce politicians into toeing the Church's political line on abortion.

Bishop D'Arcy defines what's at stake in religious terms: defending the integrity of the Church and its mandate from Christ to preach the gospel.

Archbishops Quinn and Sheehan make some interesting points, but Bishop D'Arcy is right. The fundamental issue here is religious and, specifically, ecclesiological. Keeping that fixed clearly in one's mind doesn't by itself settle the question of whether to honor pro-choice politicians or give them communion, but it does make it possible to discuss these things in the correct context.

The consequences of not doing that were patent in some of the comments at the time of Sen. Ted Kennedy's death last month. Make no mistake -- Kennedy died in the Church as a practicing Catholic. God rest his soul. But however much his views may have converged with Catholic social doctrine on some issues, on abortion he and the Church were miles apart. It made an enormous difference.

A Los Angeles Times op-ed writer named Tim Rutten was right in saying Kennedy showed his fellow Catholics that they too could be pro-choice while remaining Catholics in good standing. Rutten thought that was swell. Others do not.


But let's be realistic. On the whole, the polarization of American Catholics isn't a split among practicing members of the Church.

According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, only 23 percent of Catholic adults in the United States now attend Mass every Sunday -- which is to say 77 percent do not. Moreover, reports CARA, 75 percent receive the Sacrament of Penance -- confess their sins, that is -- less than once a year or never.

This isn't American Catholicism at some point in an imagined future -- it's a snapshot of where we are now: three out of four adults seldom or never participating in the central religious acts of their Church, while only one in four does. Here's the real polarization of American Catholics.

In the Notre Dame dust-up, 56 percent of Catholics who don't attend weekly Mass thought the university did the right thing by honoring Obama, but only 37 percent of the weekly Mass-attenders agreed. More polarization. Instead of criticizing the university's critics, bishops would do well to address this pervasive crisis at its roots, while at the same time considering the possibility that the views of people who go to Mass every week are the sensus fidelium at work.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Shaw is the author of Catholic Laity in the Mission of the Church (Requiem Press), Nothing To Hide: Secrecy, Communication, and Communion in the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press), and other works. This article is from http://www.insidecatholic.com

Saturday, September 19, 2009

The Sunday Homily - ENVY IS A TERRIBLE SIN


This Sunday's scripture passage from the Letter of Saint James directs our attention to the profound problem of envy. "Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice” (James 3: 16).

Envy, one of the seven deadly sins, is defined as the act of being saddened by another's qualities or good fortune as if that good constituted a threat to our own superiority. Many times envy may include desiring to see another person deprived of that particular quality or good fortune that offends us. Unchecked, envy becomes an extremely destructive force. Lucifer is said to have rebelled because he was envious of the Word, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Those ruled by envy are dangerous and cause terrible divisions in families, neighborhoods, the business world, and in the Church.

This appalling vice is rooted in pride because the envious must always be superior. Always perceiving others as threats, the envious can never allow potential rivals to collaborate with them unless they can retain control. Their envy always fastens on some brilliant quality, virtue, or aspect of character of another. When others achieve recognition or success, the envious are saddened and are moved to do everything in their power to destroy the object of their envy. Thus the envious may employ character assassination, calumny, and physical harm, even murder in their quest for dominance.

Moreover, the envious create terrible dissension. Christian unity is lost in communities where the envious contend. The envious know no interior peace because they are always seeking anything that will stroke their quest for superiority. They ruthlessly seek positions of power and do all that they can to remain in power, even if this means destroying those in their way. They use excessive work as a means of satisfying this inner lust for supremacy. The envious live in unending torment until they can eclipse those they perceive to be their rivals. Many obsessed with envy are made insane with power and commit horribly destructive acts or become mentally ill.

Human history provides abundant examples of envy. From the Bible, Cain envied his brother Abel; Joseph was envied by his brothers; and the Prodigal Son was envied by his older brother. Shakespeare illustrates this sin in Hamlet. Claudius, Hamlet's uncle envied Hamlet's father, his brother. His envy spawned lust and murder, and led to the innocent deaths of Ophelia, Gertrude and Hamlet.

For some strange reason, the sin of envy is a cancer within much of the clergy. Many holy and zealous priests are frustrated in their ministry precisely because their brothers do not want them to succeed. As you can see, envy is a terrible sin.

"The wicked say: Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training" (Book of Wisdom 2: 12).

Envy is a mortal sin when the impulses are fully consented to and put into action. Its' effects are very culpable. Furthermore, envy is classified as a capital sin, one of those sins so pernicious that in the words of the Catechism, “it engenders other sins, other vices" (1866). This terrible sin is made more terrible because it arouses sentiments of hatred toward those we may envy. All capital sins can be mortal sins, but not all mortal sins are capital sins. The capital sins, or deadly sins, are at the root of other sins.

"They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, 'What were you arguing about on the way?' But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest” (Mark 9: 33-34).

The Apostles fell into the envy trap. As fallen creatures they were prone, like us, to sin. Jesus continually taught his disciples how they must be. Even at the Last Supper, the Apostles were seeking places of honor, and Jesus gave them a final lesson by assuming the office of a slave by washing their feet.

In this Sunday's gospel passage, Jesus gives us the antidote for envy. He reminds us once again that every true disciple must be humble. "If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all" (Mark 9: 35).

Ambition is a very powerful force in the human psyche. Jesus does not tell us to live passive and uninteresting lives. He challenges us to channel our ambition by dying to our selfish tendencies and living out the spirit of service so characteristic for those who desire to live authentic Christianity.

To drive his point home, Jesus points to an innocent child and says, “Anyone who welcomes one of these little children in my name, welcomes me; and anyone who welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me” (Mark 9: 37).

The lesson here is clear: serve one another without looking for anything in return. Commonly we form friendships in order to get ahead or achieve a particular goal. This is especially true in the business world. But, Jesus is telling us to serve without any hidden selfish motives.

What does all of this have to do with envy? If we break the cycle of selfishness, envy will disappear too. But, dying to self is not an easy enterprise. True Christianity demands intense daily mortification and a profound spiritual life.

However, selfishness is a serious problem for many Catholics today. Too many hearts have been hardened through the contraceptive mentality so prevalent today. It saddens me to hear married practicing Catholics affirm that they do not want to have any more children. Such egotism generates other forms of selfishness as well. Envy is one of them, the lack of volunteerism is another, not putting our fare share in the Sunday collection basket is another, and the disuse of the sacrament of Confession is another.

We need to eradicate all forms of selfishness from our lives if we really want to be transformed into real Christians. The ultimate goal of the Christian way of life is transformation into Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life. Selfishness has to be dealt with very seriously. We need to die to our egotism so that we may become more and more like the Risen Lord.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Obama's Acorn connections exposed

Click - Unearthed! Obama's twisted ACORN roots



It is time for a Real Sexual Revolution - by Jennifer Hartline


It's time for a sexual counter-revolution which liberates men and women, honors marriage and reaffirms the dignity of human love.

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - With our government on the verge of passing health care legislation that, absent explicit language placed within it prohibiting Federal funds from being used for abortion, will mandate abortion coverage paid for by you and me, I figure now’s a good time for a radical discussion about sex. We’ll never change the way we view abortion until we change our attitudes about sex. It’s time for a sexual counter-revolution.

The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception throughout all of life up to and including a natural death is the only foundation our society will ever be able to stand upon if we hope to flourish as a truly free people. It’s quite obvious our foundation is crumbling. To repair it, we must go back to square one and correct our ideas about sex. Unless we give sexual intercourse its due reverence, we’ll never give human life its due reverence. The two can never be separated, as Pope Paul VI tried to tell the world in his prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae. If we don’t regard all life as sacred – and thus the creative act of sex—then we will always find ways to rationalize and justify the murder of a child as a “right.”

I’m not naively suggesting that prior to 1973 people were all living chaste and faithful lives and that sex was held in the highest esteem by all, to be expressed within the bond of marriage. I am saying that the decision to legalize the killing of our preborn children cemented a poisonous shift in our mentality, and that poison has corroded every aspect of our society, especially our treatment of sex. We replaced responsibility with “rights” and it’s been a downhill race toward insatiable debauchery ever since.

One criticism I hear often from people is that I and other Pro-Life folks ignore the real cause of abortions: unexpected/unwanted pregnancies. What needs to be addressed, they say, is the “tragedy of unexpected and unwanted pregnancies.” Do you see what I mean? Pregnancy is a “tragedy” – not a miracle of life. There’s that poisonous shift in our thinking. The creation of a new human being is a tragedy if we didn’t expect it or want it. The tragedy isn’t the new life; it’s our self-centered, warped perspective.

Okay then, let’s address it head-on. There is a solution to the problem of nearly all unwanted and unexpected pregnancies, but it’s the only one that nobody wants to talk about or consider seriously. The answer is so obvious, it just begs to be shouted out, but no one wants to do it because it’s the action that requires the most of us. As soon as I say it, I’ll be laughed at and called an idealistic nincompoop (or worse). I don’t care. It might not be politically correct, but it must be said!

We all know exactly how babies are made so if you are unwilling to lovingly accept a child into your life, then don’t have sex! Period.

Sex isn’t a right; it’s a profound gift that serves a profound purpose. It isn’t just a healthy, human activity; it’s also the ultimate expression of love and selflessness. It’s not a recreational pastime with no strings attached. Sex comes with some huge responsibilities, and if we’re not willing to accept ALL those responsibilities, we have no business having sex. It’s that simple.

The tragedy isn’t that women are unexpectedly pregnant; it’s that people are selfishly indulging in sex and then refusing to accept the natural outcome. Women do not simply “find themselves” pregnant, as though they had nothing to do with it. It isn’t magic that happens without their involvement. (In no way am I speaking here to women who are victims of violent assault. No woman chooses to be raped.)

Our real freedom and power lies in that very first choice: to have sex or not. Why are women only free and empowered if they have the “right” to kill their babies? Are we not capable of using our brains and connecting the dots? “If I choose to do this, here’s what will probably happen. It’s my life and my choice, so I’d better make the wise choice.” It seems to me that a woman who’s truly interested in preserving her choices will be smart and not put herself in a vulnerable position in the first place. I never said it was easy – only that it was simple. Our choices need to be made while we still have our clothes on.

Next comes the argument that not having sex is completely unrealistic and impossible, so we must have better birth control. Here again is the poisonous shift in our thinking. Birth control simply further engraves on our hearts the idea that pregnancy is a tragedy and babies are a burden to be avoided. When unexpected/unwanted pregnancy occurs, it isn’t because our birth control has failed, it’s because our sense of morality and responsibility has failed. The creation of new life should always be expected because that’s what sex is for! That’s why even married couples are called to abstain when they have serious reasons for not conceiving a child.

And let’s stop buying Planned Parenthood’s talking points that say many women have abortions because they think they have no other choice. Baloney. There are other choices, but they won’t be as convenient as killing the baby. It’s in Planned Parenthood’s best interest to portray women as pitiable, helpless, forgotten sufferers without any recourse besides abortion, but it’s a lie. Women need to stop wearing the victim mask and take responsibility for their life’s choices, the most important of which is whether or not to have sex. Where is a woman’s personal accountability in all of this? Where is a man’s?

It goes without saying that society must step up and care for the needs of pregnant women and their babies, encouraging all mothers to choose life. (I believe the Church works very hard to do that.) It also goes without saying that men and women need to think about the consequences of their actions and be willing to accept responsibility, and responsibility does not equal abortion.

Is everyone expected to be "perfect", in the sense of never making a mistake or exercise bad judgment? Of course not. I’m simply saying that when it comes to sex, we all know what happens! Our lapses in judgment can never, ever justify killing preborn babies. Once a new person enters the equation, the only choice that remains is LIFE. America needs to stop selling abortion as a legitimate and reasonable choice. It’s not a safety net or a back-up plan. We need to return to the knowledge that sex is sacred because life is sacred.

It’s time for a radical revolution of responsibility; a revolution of reverence for sex and reverence for life.It is time for a sexual counter-revolution which liberates men and women, honors marriage and reaffirms the beauty and dignity of human love in the Divine Plan.
Jennifer Hartline is a Catholic Army wife and stay-at-home mother of three precious kids who writes frequently on topics of Catholic faith and daily living. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.
Tommorow's post - The Sunday Homily for the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Year for Priests - let us support our priests



Tommorow's post - another great article from Jennifer Hartline

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Who is the racist? - by Father James Farfaglia

I am alarmed, but not surprised at the level of polarization that is rising at such a dramatic level all around the country. No one can deny that Saturday's Washington protest was a powerful indication that many Americans are upset with President Barack Obama.

However, some of his supporters can only counter the President's critics by calling them racists. Who is the racist? Barack Hussein Obama sat in his church for more than twenty years listening to this radical leftist week after week. Jeremiah Wright is a true racist.




For us, race is not the issue and never will be the issue. We live in an amazing country where anyone can become president of the United States. This is wonderful. We do not care what the color of a president's skin may be or not be. What we are concerned about are his ideas and policies.

Let us put things into perspective. Who is the real racist and who is playing up the race issue?

Is Barack Obama really the first Black president?

His mother is white and his father is African. If we can call him the first Black president because of his father, why then can't we affirm that he is white because of his mother? Is he not really the first Mulatto president?

But, who cares what his race is or his nationality or his religion?

What we want is a president who is going to follow the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. We want a president who is going to defend life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. We want a president that is going to lower our taxes. We want a president who is going to maintain a strong military and not give in to our enemies. We want a president who really believes in America.

And it is OK if he is black, white, blue, yellow, red or has pink dots on his behind.

We want a real president, not a Marxist radical.

OK, that's my closing comment for the evening...I am sick of the craziness.

The Georgia Pharisee - from National Review Online



Jimmy Carter now has done to his ex-presidency what he did to his presidency, which is to say that he has, through his incessant moral preening, converted mere incompetence into something more unseemly.

Mr. Carter thunders that those who oppose President Obama’s plans to nationalize the health-care industry, and those who oppose other elements of the president’s agenda, are doing so for reasons of racism.The facile accusations of racism are both banal and cynical.

And they are right on cue: Wolf-cries of “racism!” are a way to smother debate, which is something that Democrats, who are losing the health-care debate, must find appealing right about now. But there is something more to this than the cold-eyed tactical deployment of the racial artillery.

Mr. Carter, who has been known to wear his religion on his sleeve in a way that would embarrass George W. Bush or Rick Santorum, is well positioned to recognize the thing into which he has made himself: a Pharisee of the Left, enraptured by the spectacle of his own political piety. Not content with a contest between ideas and policies, Mr. Carter is attempting to use racial politics to convert the health-care debate into a contest between Righteousness and Unrighteousness, a Manichean meeting of good and evil. “Racist” is simply how one says “unclean” in Democrat.

Savor the pomposity of his language:“That racism inclination still exists,” Carter says, “And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

We suspect it would grieve him more if he had no such abominable tactics of which to avail himself. And Carter of all people knows that racism does not explain Americans’ distaste for overweening liberalism: He’s the white guy who lost 44 states to Reagan.

This showy self-righteousness is of a piece with Mr. Carter’s other forays into political controversy, for instance in his likening of Israelis attempting to protect themselves from murderous terrorists bent on bombing schools and pizza shops to Apartheid-era South African hooligans and the Bull Connors of the Jim Crow South.

Mr. Carter’s cheap moralizing and his obsequiousness before such killers as Yasser Arafat left the Middle East much worse off than he found it, not least for those Palestinians with whom he later confessed himself to be “in love.”

The inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Carter has defective judgment.

We already knew that: We’ve known it since he clinched his fist and proclaimed energy conservation the “moral equivalent of war” while clad in a sweater.

We’ve known it since his disastrous economic policies further impoverished the poor while he smugly posed as their champion. And he has gone from hammering nails into Habitat for Humanity houses to hammering what remains of his reputation to smithereens.

The nation was poorer for his presidency and is poorer still for his emeritus shenanigans.

Pope Benedict - Sunday Angelus and today's General Audience





Tomorrow's post: Video presentation for the Year for Priests

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Dads and the beauty of their daughters - by Kevin Whelan


“A man with a daughter is little more than a high class hostage,” in this simple sentence author Garrison Keillor expresses the heart of just about everyman blessed with a daughter. There is little theology in the statement, but every father with a daughter knows precisely what he means. In a way that is unique to any other relationship, our daughters give us a deep understanding of the essential beauty of women.

In his Theology of the Body, John Paul II teaches that as a family (husband, wife,children) we reflect the true family: the trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). With this key, we start to unlock the door to understanding the affection we have for our daughters and its effect on them.

A father has an indispensable role in raising his daughter and it has everything to do with the theology of the body. Quite simply, a father’s most powerful action in raising a daughter might just be to tell her that she is beautiful.

[1] The reaction of groups to whom I’ve presented this concept has not always been positive. I’m convinced however, that much of the disagreement is influenced by a lingering false prophet: the ‘liberated’ view of gender roles. The essential argument goes, “Telling girls they are beautiful simply re-enforces the stereo-type that their only value is physical beauty.”

In the 70’s and 80’s, woman rightly rejected their objectification. This cultural upheaval tried to reject the notions of ‘trophy wives’, ‘Barbie Doll beauty’ and ’swim suite competitions’. It insisted that men stop looking only at the surface beauty of women. This change had much merit, but the idea presupposes that there are only two ways that men can regard women: “lust over physical attractiveness” or “appreciation of inner beauty”. This false dichotomy rejects the notion that the good, the true and the beautiful find unity in the human body. Completely ignoring physical beauty does not solve the problem.

A man with a daughter understands true beauty. Our recognition of our daughter’s beauty is not the reason she succumbs to the lie that her appearance is her only worth. Rather, it is the lustful expression of unredeemed men that is the cause of this disordered thinking. I will go further and say that it may be precisely because her father failed to reinforce her true beauty, inside and out, that a young woman allows herself to be objectified. When a father fails to give his daughter a proper, wholesome understanding of her personhood including her beauty, she looks for it elsewhere.

Our daughters need us to tell them that they are beautiful. Pope John Paul II makes it clear that the body is the manifestation of the soul. The human person does not so much “have” a body; rather the human person is a body. John Paul II wrote, “The body in its masculinity and femininity has been called ‘from the beginning’ to become the manifestation of the spirit.” (TOB 45:2) Our daughters’ external beauty manifests their inner beauty.

In the original creation, Eve felt only love from her husband’s gaze. It was only after the fall, when Adam’s gaze became lustful that she felt like an object. She knew that her beautiful body was not meant to be used. Fathers, and perhaps fathers alone, are capable of giving our daughters the same experience of total worth that Eve felt at the dawn of creation.

Our ‘liberated’ societies message that we might be reinforcing the objectification of our own daughters has served to confuse today’s fathers. We believe these misguided Manicheans who tell us that we need separate the body from the spirit. We think that if we tell our daughters they are beautiful, that we are condemning them to a life of thinking that their only value is that they are pretty.

How we treat our daughters absolutely defines how they view themselves especially in terms of their sexual identity. From an early age, our daughters need to understand that they are treasured for no other reason than that they are the daughters of God. Young girls inherently understand this in relationship to their beauty.
Our daughters have no problem understanding this. Why should we?

Young girls desire to be told they are beautiful because it resonates within them a truth that was present before the fall. It is a truth that says your body and soul are not distinct parts of you, rather they are you. Beauty is not skin deep; it is soul deep. Remember men that all fatherhood comes from God. No one knows this better than a little girl. Our “You are beautiful,” falls on the ears of our daughters with the force of the creator saying, “It is very good ”

I’ll concede, from experience, that our daughters have a special hold on our hearts that may be something akin to hostage taking. Yet there is no doubt that we fathers are gifted with the ability to speak to them with the voice of God that says, “You are my beloved.” Let’s tell our daughters that they are beautiful. Nothing we can say will be more true.


From the Theology of the Body Channel on http://wwww.catholicexchange.com/

Monday, September 14, 2009

After the weekend protest in Washington

THOMAS SOWELL - OBAMACARE IS A PROMISE OF SOMETHING FOR NOTHING

DOCTORS RALLY AGAINST OBAMACARE

OVERVIEW OF WEEKEND MARCH ON WASHINGTON

Spanish Doctors willing to go to jail over abortion


(LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Esteban Rodriguez, spokesman for the organization Derecho a Vivir (Right to Life) recently said Spanish doctors are willing to face jail rather than kill unborn children under a new law.

"We are willing to go to jail rather than following a criminal law," Dr. Rodriguez said, "and we are willing to commit the supposed crime of disobedience before the crime of abortion."

Dr. Rodriguez was responding to comments made earlier by Minister of Justice, Francisco Caamano, who said that Spain's abortion law would not allow doctors the right to refuse to commit abortions. "We will not kill our patients, nor will we commit a crime against the public health deliberately harming the health of women, no matter how much the Minister of Justice threatens us and abuses his power," the doctor said.

He said the Zapatero government should think about creating "a new level of officials at the ministries of Justice and Equality: fetal executioners." Decrying the government's "imposed ideology," he recalled that the Spanish constitution guarantees the right of conscientious objection. Rodriguez noted the irony that the new law would shield some doctors from prison for committing illegal abortions while sending others to jail who refused. "We find the totalitarian intentions of the Ministry of Justice, in conjunction with those of Equality, to be highly troubling. If the former Minister of Justice stirred things up with officials in the judiciary, this one is going to accomplish the same thing with medical professionals," he warned.

Last week, Derecho a Vivir said that the law on abortion proposed by the Zapatero government would make Spain the European country with the least protection for the unborn and pregnant women. The new law, they said, denies women information on the nature of abortion and leaves the unborn totally unprotected. The socialist government's reform would be much more permissive than the laws in other EU countries, the group said in a study.

"The government's claim that it is making Spanish law conform to that of other countries in the area of abortion is false. If the Zapatero-Aido bill is passed, Spain would be the exception," the study says.

The reaction to the new abortion laws in strongly Catholic Spain has been remarkable, says Derecho a Vivir. The group is organising a mass demonstration on October 17th. Calling "unprecedented" the number of people signing up for bus transportation to the event, Dr. Gador Joya said they expected it to be "one of the largest in the democratic era," with over a million anticipated participants.

Mothers, the group says, "are entitled to receive all necessary support from society."

"Life always brings joy, hope and prosperity for everyone. By contrast, abortion always generates pain, suffering and trauma difficult to overcome."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09091105.html

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Fr. James Farfaglia invited to Human Life International Board of Directors



Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, recently notified Fr. James Farfaglia that the Board of Directors unanimously approved his membership on their Board of Directors. He will have to attend four meetings a year at the HLI headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia. According to the HLI website, "the mission of HLI is to create effective opposition to the culture of death around the world. With 99 satellite offices in 87 countries, Human Life International is the largest international, pro-life, pro-family, pro-woman organization in the world".

Thousands gather for Washington Protest

















The Tea Party Express -- a gathering of activists protesting what they view as out-of-control spending by an expanding federal government -- has arrived in the nation's capital Saturday.
Thousands of people marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick"

The line of protesters completely filled Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Others are waving U.S. flags and holding signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "I'm Not Your ATM." Some men are dressed in colonial costumes. Police on motorcycles and horses watched as the marchers passed.

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has organized several groups from across the country for the Saturday event, dubbed a "March on Washington."

The demonstration is part of the so-called Tea Party Movement that gathered steam in April to protest tax policies. And Saturday's event is the culmination of a 34-city, 7,000-mile bus tour that began Aug. 28 in Sacramento, Calif.

The "partiers" have cited a host of grievances and demands, such as a call for any health care reform to create more competition and be guided by market principles, not a government-run plan.

Organizers said they anticipated tens of thousands of proponents of limited government to attend. They say it will be the largest group of fiscal conservatives to ever gather in Washington.
Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Paw Paw, Mich. He said health care needs to be reformed -- but not according to President Barack Obama's plan.

"My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching, bracing himself with a wooden cane as he walked.
The rally comes on the heels of heated town halls held during the congressional August recess when some Democratic lawmakers were confronted, disrupted and shouted down by angry protestors who oppose President Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system.

"I can't figure out to save me what [Mr. Obama and the Democrats] are trying to accomplish, unless they want socialism," 73-year-old Joseph Wright, a retired paper-mill worker, told The Wall Street Journal.

Wright rode from Tallahassee, Fla., to Washington this week on one of the many chartered buses bringing in demonstrators from states as far-flung as Massachusetts and Arkansas.

Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event -- an ethic they believe should be applied to the government. They say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

Terri Hall, 45, of Starke, Fla., said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

"Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.
Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

The White House on Friday claimed it was unaware of the planned rally.
"I don't know who the group is," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters with a shrug.

But a House leadership aide has warned fellow Democrats that up to 2 million demonstrators could turn out.

"It looks like Saturday's event is going to be a huge gathering, estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to 2 million people," Doug Thornell, an aide to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote in a memo obtained by FOXNews.com.

But conservatives believe the memo is ploy to inflate expectations for the turnout anticipating that it will fall short.

"It's an old political tactic to get out in front and make wild projections and when they're not met, claim their opponents don't have the juice," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, one of the organizers of the rally.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Sunday Homily - WHO DO PEOPLE SAY THAT I AM?




The purpose of this Sunday’s liturgy is to get us to contemplate the person of Jesus Christ so that we can know him more deeply. Knowledge leads to love, and love to imitation. Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life, must be the center, the criteria, and the model for our daily lives. This is what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

Had Jesus of Nazareth been a Roman or a Greek, certainly his contemporaries would have left behind statues in his honor. However, because the Jews had a strict understanding of idolatry, their interpretation of the Mosaic Law did not allow them to make any images whatsoever of any human person. It would have been interesting if we had been left something that would illustrate the physical attributes of the Lord. Throughout the centuries, there has been much discussion on the subject. The Shroud of Turin and Veronica’s veil tell us a lot about his Middle Eastern features; however, our faith is best served by depending on the one authenticated source, the Gospels.

The accounts written by the Evangelists depict Our Lord's great capacity for physical activity. The long hours spent at hard work in the carpenter shop had prepared him well for the grueling task of his public ministry.

He walked many miles under the blazing Middle Eastern sun in order to preach the Kingdom of God. He slept many nights under the stars, and he spent much of that time in the bliss of silent prayer. He found little time to eat because of the multitudes seeking his healing touch, and yet when he did find time to rest, he slept so profoundly that not even a terrible storm could awaken him.

His body was strong and so was his soul. During the hours of tribulation in Gethsemane, he persevered in profound prayer while the apostles slept. When Joseph of Arimathea requested his body for burial, Pilate was surprised to discover that Jesus had died so quickly. Pilate knew that he had encountered a strong Galilean.

Jesus did not display his divinity in the manner of the mythical figures of Greek and Roman literature. He did not fly from place to place as though he were some sort of superman. Amazingly, in him the supernatural and the natural were interwoven. His divinity seemed so simple and normal.

No mysterious beams of light, flashes of lightning, or peals of thunder occurred as he performed his miracles. Instead, it was enough for him to touch, or be touched.

Only once did he show the magnificence of his divinity before a select group of apostles. Even then, during the transfiguration, the experience was brief, simple, and discreet.

Aside from his physical attributes, Jesus knew exactly what he wanted. He was one with his mission. Everything that he did proceeded from his passionate desire to fulfill the will of the Father.

Unlike the complicated discourse of many philosophers and religious leaders, Our Lord’s teaching is simple and easy enough for everyone to understand. However, the message is so clear and precise that his words are irresistible to all those who listen. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. If anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well. Do not judge and you will not be judged. Why do observe the splinter in your brother’s eye and never notice the plank in your own?

Who is this man that has divided history into two parts? Who is this man that has divided nations? Who is this man for whom many of his followers have given their lives rather than deny him? In this Sunday’s gospel narrative Peter tells us who he is: “You are the Christ”.

Tacitus (54-119 A.D.), Suetonios (75-160 A.D.), and Pliny the Younger (61-115 A.D.) of the ancient Roman Empire all give written historical testimony about the existence of Jesus. Jewish thinkers Philo (died after 40 A.D.) and more importantly Flavius Josephus (born 37 A.D.) also gives written historical testimony about Jesus and his work.

There is no historical doubt about the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth. But, Jesus asks the apostles “Who do people say that I am?” When we consider all that Jesus said and did, we are faced with the dilemma that C.S. Lewis wrote about in his book Mere Christianity: either Jesus is a liar, a lunatic, or he is who he says that he is: the one true God.

Keep in mind that for all those who still do not know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, we need to remember that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled 1,093 prophecies of the Old Testament.

What do we need to do in order to truly know Christ Jesus? Above all, we must be open. Far too many people attempt to live Christianity based upon their own terms. They do not come to the Lord with open minds and hearts. Far too many remove pages from the Scriptures and reduce Christianity to their own comfort level. When we are completely open, the Holy Spirit floods our souls with his loving and peaceful presence. He cannot enter locked doors and windows that he cannot open. God respects our freedom. Only the open can believe and see.

Knowledge automatically brings us to love. We only love that which we know. Our love for the Lord must be authentic and real. Hypocrisy repulsed the Lord. “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” (James 2: 14).

Love brings about transformation. The goal of discipleship is to die to self so that the Lord may live within us. “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark 8: 34).

At our own Baptism, the priest touched our ears and said Ephphetha, be open. There is something about the modern world that is preventing us from listening to God. Some even listen, only to reject what they hear. Paul’s words to Timothy serve as a warning: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths” (2 Timothy 4: 3-5).

The narrow road of the Gospel is difficult to live. Nevertheless, it is the only road that leads to eternal life in heaven.

When Jewish psychiatrist Victor Frankl was arrested by the Nazis in World War II, he was stripped of everything--property, family, possessions. He had spent years researching and writing a book on the importance of finding meaning in life--concepts that would later become known as logotherapy. When he arrived in Auschwitz, the infamous death camp, even the manuscript hidden in the lining of his coat was taken away.

"I had to undergo and overcome the loss of my spiritual child,” Frankl wrote. "Now it seemed as if nothing and no one would survive me; neither a physical nor a spiritual child of my own! I found myself confronted with the question of whether under such circumstances my life was ultimately void of any meaning."

He was still wrestling with that question a few days later when the Nazis forced the prisoners to give up their clothes.

"I had to surrender my clothes and in turn inherited the worn-out rags of an inmate who had been sent to the gas chamber," said Frankl. "Instead of the many pages of my manuscript, I found in the pocket of the newly acquired coat a single page torn out of a Hebrew prayer book, which contained the main Jewish prayer, Shema Yisrael (Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one God. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.)

"How should I have interpreted such a 'coincidence' other than as a challenge to live my thoughts instead of merely putting them on paper?"

Later, as Frankl reflected on his ordeal, he wrote in his book, Man's Search for Meaning, "There is nothing in the world that would so effectively help one to survive even the worst conditions, as the knowledge that there is a meaning in one's life . . .'He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.'"

Most of us when we suffer wonder, why me. Why do I have to suffer? The meaning of life will be become clearer to us when we realize that we will find purpose in life when our search leads us from why to whom. Suffering does have a human face to it. We have only to look at our Lord Jesus crucified on the Cross and there we will find the meaning of our existence and the answer to our searching and longing.

“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me”. In these words from this Sunday’s gospel narrative we discover the drastic invitation of Jesus. The cross, our personal cross or crosses which cannot be transferred to anyone else is an essential aspect to our walk with the Lord Jesus.

Jesus and the two thieves were not the only people ever crucified by the Roman Empire. Crucifixion was the form of capital punishment used for those people living under Roman jurisdiction who were not actually Roman citizens. Beheading was the punishment for Roman citizens, crucifixion for non-Roman citizens. Just think how horrible crucifixion must have been if the Romans spared their own citizens such a terrible death. So painful was death by crucifixion that the Romans eventually did away with it as a form of capital punishment.

The Jews were accustomed to seeing people crucified. Political insurrections on the part of the Jewish populace were punished by mass crucifixions When Jesus turned to His disciples and said "Take up your cross and come follow me", it was if He were saying, "Take up your gas chamber, take up your electric chair, take up your noose, and come follow me". Those listening to him knew precisely what crucifixion entailed. While the comparison may sound absurd, nevertheless, it is precisely in the daily carrying of our cross that we will find the loving presence of the crucified and risen Lord.

Too many of our contemporaries seek an easy life without suffering, without sacrifice, without renunciation, without mortification. Many people would like to stand under the cross of Jesus and cry out as did the jeering crowd on the first Good Friday, “Come down from the cross”. However, there is only one Jesus, and he is the crucified Jesus who rose from the dead. Christianity without the cross is not Christianity; only through the cross of Jesus have we gained salvation.

So, when we suffer, we should not consider our suffering a burden; rather we must look upon the cross we bear as an immense gift from God. Mother Theresa once said: “Suffering is a sign that we have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss us and that he can show that he is in love with us by giving us an opportunity to share in his passion”.

There are two feast days within the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church that will take place this week. The first, the Triumph of the Cross is celebrated on September 14, the second, that of Our Lady of Sorrows on September 15. These feast days are celebrated side by side because they are intimately connected.

The feast of the Triumph of the Cross commemorates St. Helena’s discovery of the true cross of Jesus. This renowned archeological discovery provided genuine historical evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, thus giving us tangible proof as solace when our suffering becomes so overwhelming that we begin to fall into the darkness of doubt and despair.

The feast of Our Lady of Sorrows reminds us that we do have help to carry our cross. True, the weight of our daily cross may prove too difficult to bear. Nevertheless, her ability to stand at the foot of the cross has provided us with someone that we can count on. Her affection and maternal care provide us strength and consolation.

Undoubtedly there are many forms of suffering that are quite mysterious. Moreover, the need to carry our cross as an essential dimension of Christianity does not take away the need and the duty to seek cures for illnesses and to make this life a better life for everyone. Although human progress continues to make this earth a better place for everyone, suffering, in one form or another, will always be a part of our existence. The meaning of suffering does make sense when we contemplate Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

When we ask the question why, we need to look upon the crucifix. It is only there that we will find the meaning of suffering and the exact reason why we must carry our own cross.

“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it” (Mark 8: 34-35).

September 11, 2001

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Why the Obama Administration Will Implode In Weeks by Kevin McCullough


I was the first pundit to predict that Barack Obama would become president. Here's what I think we can expect from this administration in the next six to eight weeks.

Never has an administration had more political firepower at their disposal yet been set to so totally fail in the next six to eight weeks. It is nearly a foregone conclusion. It is nearly unavoidable. And it defies all logic given the sizable majority the administration has in both houses of Congress.

Since I was the first pundit to predict Obama's presidency (back in December 2006) it behooves me to tell you the course I believe the next few weeks will take. Just think, it was only a few months ago that the left looked unstoppable in bringing about their plan to radicalize, nationalize, and federalize America.

1. Health Care's Long and Painful Death

Barring the existing possibility that the Democrats cram a reform bill down the throats of actively protesting Americans through an ultra-partisan process that would shut out conservatives and Republicans from even being allowed to contribute to the discussion, health care reform is dead.

It actually died a good while back when the president decided to pivot and create a new issue that no one had been discussing--health insurance reform. The American people will want to know why we should spend $4 billion to cover everyone in America "efficiently," when we already do so with inefficiencies like people using the emergency room as their general practitioner for $2.5 billion.

Deep thinkers on the issue also want to know why the president hasn't entertained one item of tort reform-- protecting his friends, the trial lawyers-- yet is willing to claim that doctors are eager to lop off feet, tonsils, and other body parts just to make a buck.

2. Cap-and-Trade Will Be the Largest Tax Increase in American History

With the 2010 election cycle just around the corner, it won't be too long before the campaign ads are drafted. With cap-and-trade still sitting in legislative limbo (and the president's own adviser--Warren Buffet-- now opposing it openly in the media), with anti-tax Democrats, Republicans, and Independents coming to Washington on September 12, and with "Blue Dog" Democrats getting hammered by constituents during the August recess, the chance of an ultra-partisan "ram through" victory on the legislation would not be wise.

Cap-and-trade, if passed, will contribute to unemployment, Wall Street stop and starts, and ultimately reduced treasury revenues. It would serve as the single largest tax increase on the average American in all of American history.

Even President Obama admitted as much, predicting that electric bill prices, in his words, would, "skyrocket." Those that have looked at the specifics tell us that the average utility bill in America will go from $167 to $307 per month, per family.

3. Unemployment Will Remain

By now several Washington organizations, from left and right, and one of note consisting of both--the Congressional Budget Office, predict that unemployment will not shrink from the predicted "Obama high" of eight percent. Instead, nearly without fail, economists are predicting that unemployment will be at or over 10% for up to the next 24 months.-- That is a nearly 250% increase in the unemployment rate under Bush for nearly the duration of his two-term presidency. We did not see the unemployment climb this high during President Bush's entire two-term presidency.

If more people were working, higher taxes and possible new health care entitlements could be considered, but with at least ten percent of the population out of work, it is political suicide for Democrats to even think of it.

4. Obama's Integrity Has Been Tarnished in August

Not a great deal has been made of the whoppers that the president has been spewing while Congress has been away during the summer recess but it turns out that more people than I realized have also noticed the president wildly "exaggerating" in his talks on health care. For instance, the president confused the $500 physicians actually get to amputate a foot as opposed to the $50,000 that he claimed they got. He also showed an utter disregard for the reputation of those doctors he talks about, the "facts" he uses to make his argument, and is highly overly optimistic about the results of his policies. Long story short, at the beginning of the summer Americans mostly trusted him, his passion index was at +10, he heads into the fall at -14.

5. A $3 Trillion Dollar Budget

There was lots of new spending for this and it sure added up. And that brings me to number 6.

6. A Coming Middle Class Tax Hike

The Obama administration will hem and haw about hiking taxes. -- There will be an official, and arrogant, explanation given by Robert Gibbs from the podium in the White House briefing room about why they must to do this to be "good stewards" and to be a "responsible administration" that "pays as it goes."

But the truth is, in order to pay for everything the Obama administration has promised (and budgeted for), a tax hike is looming for small businesses and the working families that President Obama promised would never come.

And as an aside, the president was going to break that promise all along. Because the minute the Bush tax relief measures run out in 2010, middle class taxes would be going up in the Obama administration. That means that, fundamentally, that Obama's "not a single dime" pledge on the campaign trail was just hot air from start to finish.

Of course, the president, the Democrats, the left, and Congressional leadership could surprise me. They could show up in September and endorse the Coburn health care bill in the Senate and steal all the credit for it. They could show up next week and fight with all their might to not allow the tax rates to skyrocket in 2010. They could decide to scrap cap-and-trade and re-think the use of public money for a true job-based economic stimulus.

But I'm not holding my breath, and I'd advise you against it as well.

They've awakened the American worker, the American small-business owner, and the American voter.

All three of which are now wondering aloud, "What on earth have we done?"


Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Baldwin/McCullough Radio" now heard on 197 stations and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The ladies have demanded equal time

Sorry ladies, but this is funny

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Obama, the Mortal



What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?

The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership.

But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chavista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?

But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress.

Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president.

In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.

In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal. This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent. Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.

Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt.

Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.

Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse.

Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington.

Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob -- misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist. All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest -- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors -- in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.

"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us. If only they could see.

So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.

Things got worse still.

With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president -- trust.

You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits -- and not inspire incredulity and mistrust.

When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.

After a disastrous summer -- mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -- Obama is in trouble.

Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.

But what has occurred -- irreversibly -- is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.

For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment.

Obama has become a politician like others. And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform -- and his own standing -- with yet another prime-time speech.

But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises -- mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.

by Charles Krauthammer at http://www.humanevents.com

Thoughts on Motherhood - My Own Flock by Jennifer Hartline


There’s a certain letter I’ve been reading over and over lately, and the funny thing is, even though this letter wasn’t meant for me, the message has hit me between the eyes. (No, I’m not sneaking into mailboxes reading other people’s mail!) It reads:

“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” 1 Peter 5:2-4

Peter wrote these words to the elders of the church in relation to their pastoral duties in their communities, not to a mother and homemaker. Yet the more I read it, the more it fits. I’ve worn a lot of different hats in my life, but I’ve never seen myself with a shepherd’s staff before.

Right now my husband and I have a flock of three, ages 8, 6, and 2. Like most parents, I tend to forget that my children are not mine. They do not belong to me; they belong to God. They are His children, and for a time in their lives, they are in my care, but they share the same relationship with God that I have – Father and child. In that strange and wonderful way, my children and I are equals.

“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers…” Being a shepherd, like being a parent, is demanding, tiring, and positively unglamorous work. You have to be on your toes and paying attention, because danger lurks everywhere, and the precious – but clueless – little sheep can quickly get into trouble. Following the example of the Good Shepherd, I’m not to be a drill sergeant, a dictator, or a taskmaster, but a gentle caretaker who is willing to lay down my life for my family.

“…not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be…” Children are many wonderful things, but they are seldom convenient, and they do not wait for much. It becomes easy to indulge in self-centeredness and laziness when I think a few too many demands have been placed on my time and I can’t do what I want to do. When that happens, I find my attitude shifting from happy-momma-willing-to-serve to irritated-momma-mad-that-I-must. Shepherding under those conditions is a heavy burden to be avoided, not the joyful privilege it is when I am willing.

Jesus is my Good Shepherd because He wants to be, wholeheartedly. I don’t care to imagine where I’d be if it weren’t so! No matter how often I run off and get into trouble, He willingly comes after me and carries me back to safety. It must be the same for me with my children. They will run off, they will find or create trouble, and I must go after them lovingly, willingly. They demand my attention and watchful eye, but God wants me to shepherd them willingly, and in my willingness He provides what I need.

“…not greedy for money, but eager to serve…” There never was a wealthy shepherd. I doubt there ever will be. We’ve all seen that statistic about how much it costs to raise a child to adulthood, and the figure is pretty intimidating. With all that money, my husband and I could travel the world and buy a great big house decked out with every luxury and gadget. Yes, having children means we have made material sacrifices, and we’ll probably never take exotic vacations. I don’t have an up-to-date wardrobe, and I’ve never been to a day spa for pampering, but I am regularly showered with the sweetest kisses and our humble home is stunningly decorated with masterpieces in crayon. We are bursting at the seams with riches, the riches you can only have when you’re willing to serve.

“…not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.” It’s easy to dominate and browbeat. It takes much more strength to be a shepherd. It’s easy to let authority go to your head and become intoxicated by your own importance. It takes dignity and wisdom to be an example to those entrusted to you. No one respects a man who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Neither do children respect a parent who dictates rules and hands out punishments while violating the same rules herself. My children want more than for me to tell them what not to do; they want to see in my life that it’s possible and preferable to live righteously, even though the world says otherwise.

“And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” Would you trade an eternal crown of glory for earthly recognition, admiration, power and wealth? I hope to God I wouldn’t.

This letter of Peter’s also speaks volumes to me in another way; as a directive for and even an indictment against our entire society. Who is the flock that is under our care? The children, the sick, the elderly, the uneducated, the disabled, the poor, and the unborn. They do not belong to us, therefore we have no right to decide whether to keep them or throw them away or kill them. They belong to God, just as we do. God has placed them under our care for a moment in time, and He expects us to be good shepherds, serving willingly, not resentfully. We must serve as overseers – not dictators or executioners.

How often today are we faced with the choice to either serve our flock or serve our dollars? Keep more money for ourselves or spend it taking care of those entrusted to us? Is that not one of the central issues facing our nation right now? Caring for the sick, the disabled and the elderly is expensive – will we serve them and care for them as good shepherds or will we leave them defenseless against the wolf?

We’re definitely a little short on good examples, these days as well. Power and authority seem to corrupt so quickly, and those who lead by example are growing scarce. Sadly, it seems as a nation we have decided to cling to earthly glory rather than work toward heavenly glory. We celebrate our sins, we crave our own power and independence, and we trample underfoot those who are weaker. What a hideous contrast to the example given us by the Good Shepherd.

He keeps watch all night long and never slumbers. He goes after the one who is lost and does not stop til He has found that one. He carries the weakest one in His arms. The sheep of His flock know His voice and they follow Him gladly. He lays down His life for His flock.

You and I, my friends, are so blessed! Despite being sinful, slow to learn, quick to wander, and just plain dumb, our gentle Shepherd is keeping watch and coming after us time and again, placing Himself between us and the wolf. May we all do the same with the flock in our care.


Jennifer Hartline is a Catholic Army wife and stay-at-home mother of three precious kids who writes frequently on topics of Catholic faith and daily living. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.


Monday, September 7, 2009

Labor Day


The promise of eternal life provides purpose for our existence. However, the Second Vatican Council, in one of its most important documents, teaches us that although our goal is to reach eternal life, this does not excuse us from our earthly obligations. “Therefore, while we are warned that it profits a man nothing if he gains the whole world and lose himself, the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age” (The Church in the Modern Word, I, III, 39).

We cultivate this earth by being passionate and responsible stewards of our time, talent, and treasure. As creatures of God, everything that we have is a gift from God. Discipleship and stewardship are one and the same reality. We are called to give of ourselves and what we have been given. Stewardship must be seen as the way we live out our vocation as a Christian people.

Time is a gift from God, the one gift once given that can never be repeated. We are all given a certain amount of time to live out our existence on this good earth. Some are here only briefly, while others have a long amount of time to be responsible and passionate stewards. Generosity is the beautiful Christian virtue that allows us to use our time well.

All relationships flourish with the gift of time. Families are happy and successful when parents give of themselves totally to their children. True friendships thrive when people are generous with their time.

Some may object that they do not have enough time to do more. However, when we try to be good stewards of our time, God blesses us and we use our time better, thus becoming more productive and efficacious in all we endeavor to do.

We all possess talents. Here again the law of abundance applies. If we are passionate and responsible stewards of our talents, the talents that we have will develop and we will receive more talents as well. It necessarily follows that all those who are good stewards with their time and talent, will also be generous with their treasure no matter how small or big it may be.

Our time, talent, and treasure are gifts from God. The passionate and responsible steward is the one who is filled with gratitude for all of these gifts. Therefore, we are to give with a spirit of gratitude and never seek earthly recognition for our self-giving. Being mindful of this a woman parishioner in my parish always writes on her checks “for the glory of God”.

When we understand that everything that we have is a gift from God, we will journey through life totally detached from everything, but at the same time, never aloof from the needs of others. It is our task to make this world a better place for all.

Some of us may be overwhelmed with the ever increasing problems of our modern world. With the continual unraveling of order and decency, some may think that it is futile to try and improve our situation. However, in times like these, there is a greater urgency to be passionate and responsible stewards of our gifts. Is it better to curse the darkness, or light one candle? It may be impossible for one person to effect change on a national or international level, but just imagine what we can all do making an effort in our local community.

Tithing, then, is not an option for the true disciple of the Lord. Tithing is a command. “Honor Yahweh with what goods you have and with the first-fruits of all your returns; then your barns will be filled with wheat, your vats overflowing with new wine” (Proverbs 3: 9-10). “All tithes of the land, levied on the produce of the earth or the fruits of trees, belong to Yahweh; they are consecrated to Yahweh” (Leviticus 27: 30). “Bring the full tithes and dues to the storehouse so that there may be food in my house, and then see if I do not open the flood gates of heaven for you and pour out blessing for you in abundance” (Malachi 2: 10).

For Catholics, it is recommended that we give half of the tithe, or 5% of our gross income to our parish family; 1% to the needs of the diocese through the Bishop’s Annual Appeal; and 4% to charity or to Catholic education if your children are enrolled in Catholic schools. Without a doubt, when we are faithful to the Biblical principle of tithing we certainly contribute to the betterment of this world. Our church home, our diocese, our Catholic schools, and our charities will then have the necessary financial resources to serve the needs of everyone and to reach out to the poor.

Yes, it is true that we are supposed to keep gaze directed toward eternal life. However, our struggle to attain eternal life must never serve as an escape from our duties here on earth. Our journey towards eternity necessarily means that we be passionate and responsible stewards precisely because the reward for fidelity is not in this life but in the life to come.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Father Tom Euteneuer on the strange resignation of Scranton Bishop Martino

The following quote from David Gibson's ugly article says it all: “Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.”

The Catholic Left in America is allowing this administration to divide the Catholic Church in America. Anti-Catholics like Gibson, because of their ill-will and disdain for the Church, see the departure of one of America's great shepherds as a victory. That the wonderful Bishop Martino was “silenced” is the musing of sick media minds like Gibson’s that look for scandal everywhere. Scandal indeed is the media’s business while the care of souls is the business of the Church. Bishop Martino was one of those courageous shepherds who simply got attacked for doing everything a bishop is supposed to do, and for that reason he received HLI’s Cardinal Von Galen Award last year for his uncompromising witness.

If his stepping down symbolizes anything it indicates the warfare that a good bishop must go through, even from within the Church, to set things aright. The battle for orthodoxy is literally ferocious in today’s Church, and it will be the dividing point between the sheep and the goats. When did “go along to get along” become the dominant view of so many American bishops and Catholics? Where exactly in the Gospel is this written? How can we justify shrinking from the defense of human life and other unpopular Catholic teaching under the most anti-Catholic administration in modern history?

We cannot let such Catholics claim the mantle of Catholicism. We implore our shepherds to defend their brother Bishop Martino, and again unequivocally restate the importance of defending Church teaching even when it is most politically inconvenient. We must not give dishonest hacks like David Gibson even the appearance of endorsement for the view that all normal and faithful Catholics are those who endorse everything this anti-life administration does.
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/090904a.html

Friday, September 4, 2009

Sunday Homily - EPHPHATHA! - BE OPENED

Ronald Reagan was able to win the Cold War without engaging the former Soviet Union in a terrible military conflict. Regan understood the nature of the battle. He called the former Soviet Union ‘the evil empire”. From his deep religious faith, Reagan well understood that the battle at hand was a battle between good and evil. He also understood that the communism of the former Soviet Union, because of its erroneous principles, would eventually collapse.

Although communism is still a serious problem in China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela; a new, far more serious enemy is attempting to destroy our nation and our way of life. Radical Islam presents a greater threat than any other form of totalitarianism known to modern history.

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is much more dangerous than any form of communism, precisely because Islam is a religion whereas communism, although it has religious overtones, is an ideology. There is a difference between the two systems.

Communists organize riots and protests. Communists engage in subversive activity. Communists enslave nations and deny people their most fundamental rights. Communism has armies and weapons of mass destruction. All of this is true of the radical Muslims, except for one very important difference: communists do not blow themselves up; Muslim terrorists do.

Reagan was able to win the Cold War precisely because communism is an ideology. But, how will we win the war on terror?

Although it is true that our nation must have a strong military and our borders need to be secure, we will not win the war against radical Islamic fundamentalism the way we won the Cold War. The enemy is different.

Radical Islamic fundamentalism can only be overcome through Jesus Christ. Everyone recognizes how the Islamic fundamentalists see America: a decadent nation, spreading its immorality all over the world. Let’s be honest, the fundamentalists do have a point. We have become decadent and we do spread our decadence all over the world.

Travel the world and talk to people from other countries, and you will come to find that American TV shows, American movies, and American Internet pornography are all over the globe.

We will only be able to win the war against radical Islamic terrorism if, as a nation, we turn our hearts over to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The Bible is clear on this point when it says:

“If my people who bear my name, humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I myself will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land” (Second Book of Chronicles: 7; 14)

Will we turn away from killing the unborn? Will the propagation of immoral filth on television, movies, and the Internet ever come to an end? What about the millions who offend God every Sunday by failing to offer the worship that is due our creator or by working unnecessarily on his day?

British historian and philosopher Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) once said: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder”. Let’s face it: we are in a state of emergency. What is the solution? The solution is not what; it is who. As a people, we need to leave aside our wicked ways and turn to the Lord. Only when this happen, as the Bible tells us, will the Lord heal our land and give us the gift of peace.

In this Sunday's Gospel passage, the story of the deaf and dumb man healed by Jesus shows us what happens when we encounter the Lord. Our journey with Jesus begins at our Baptism; however, this journey continues and deepens as we make our way toward eternal life in Heaven.

We encounter the Lord when we read the Scriptures, receive the Sacraments, or enter into deep contemplative prayer. It is in these moments that he touches us because every spiritual moment is a personal encounter with the same Jesus who healed the man of the gospel narrative.

As we unravel this Sunday’s passage and begin to explore its unique qualities, we discover that the man whom Jesus heals possesses those characteristics exemplifying the way in which we must live Christianity each day if we are to continually encounter the Lord Jesus.

We notice that the man is open, in need, and accepting of our Lord's help. These qualities characterize the deaf man's humility. Humility is a basic virtue of the Christian way of life and a necessary virtue if we wish to walk with Jesus and experience his presence in our lives.

Unfortunately, many simply do not want to hear the truth of the Gospel. Many reduce Catholicism to their own criteria and purposely ignore fundamental aspects of divine revelation. Regrettably, we are frequently deafened by pride. We allow ourselves to hear only what we want to hear.

Nevertheless, the increasing number of people, especially young people, earnestly seeking the truth is encouraging. For them and for us the possession of the truth becomes a liberating experience because we no longer wonder what the truth might be.

In meditating on today's passage from the gospel, we might note the direct relationship between deafness and speech. Jesus first touches the man's ears, and then he touches his tongue so that he may speak. The lesson here is very clear. Hearing the word of God is not enough; we must also proclaim the truth.

The solution to today’s terrible challenges really rests with each of us. Are we going to follow Jesus or are we going to live sinful lives?

“If my people who bear my name, humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I myself will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land.”

As we remember this coming week the infamous events of September 11, we pray for the innocent victims, the soldiers that have given their lives for the cause of freedom, and the men and women of the military who each day put their lives at risk in order to defend our way of life. We pray that our nation will turn back to God and we pray for all Muslims, that they too will turn to the Prince of Peace. We pray too for President Barack Obama that he may be ruled by wisdom rather than his out of control Marxist ideology. His foreign policy is extremely dangerous in a very dangerous and uncertain world.

May Mary, the Mother of Jesus, look upon this troubled world with her maternal gaze and comfort us with her presence. She is the Queen of peace.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

It's a full moon out there


It's bad enough that we have to deal with continuing meltdowns and crazy situations, but this week is even more difficult. Just in case you haven't looked out your window at night, it is the week of the full moon.

Weirder things seem to happen when there is a full moon.

Anyway, aside from a solid prayer life and a good sense of humor, I find that a good cigar after a long day of work is a great way to deal with all of the craziness.

Last night I enjoyed one of my favorite cigars - the Joya de Nicaragua Antano 1970. What a great smoke.

Click here for an interesting interview with the man who makes this great cigar possible for us to enjoy.

The Kenedy Funeral Controversy Continues

Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley responded to critics over his participation in last Saturday's Catholic funeral for the late Senator Edward Kennedy. Click here for an article from the Boston Pilot.

I believe that scandal and controversy could have been avoided by keeping the funeral small, quiet, private and off the TV. Allowing President Barack Obama to speak at a Catholic funeral was the biggest scandal of all.

No matter what good Senator Edward Kennedy may claimed to have done during his long political career, his radical support for abortion is inexcusable. Yes, we forgive him. But, we can't celebrate the life of someone who is responsible for the death of millions of unborn babies.

Again, the funeral should have been a private affair. I would not have attended the funeral.

It would be helpful if the American Bishops were to take a united and clear stand against Catholic politicians who support abortion. Just like in the times of King Henry VIII, the Bishops are playing games. As a body, they have lost their credibility as shepherds and spiritual leaders.

As a body, there is no leadership; all there is is compromise. I am thankful for the few Bishops that do take a stand and speak clearly.

A Different Kind of Liberal - by Ross Douthat


Only 13 days separated the passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the founder of the Special Olympics, from the death of her brother Ted last week. But amid the wall-to-wall coverage and the stream of retrospectives for the senior senator from Massachusetts, it was easy to forget that he wasn’t the only famous Kennedy sibling to enter eternity this month.

Liberalism’s most important legislator probably merited a more extended send-off than his sister. But there’s a sense in which his life’s work and Eunice’s deserve to be remembered together — for what their legacies had in common, and for what ultimately separated them.
What the siblings shared — in addition to the grace, rare among Kennedys, of a ripe old age and a peaceful death — was a passionate liberalism and an abiding Roman Catholic faith. These two commitments were intertwined: Ted Kennedy’s tireless efforts on issues like health care, education and immigration were explicitly rooted in Catholic social teaching, and so was his sister’s lifelong labor on behalf of the physically and mentally impaired.

What separated them was abortion.

Along with her husband, Sargent Shriver, Eunice belonged to America’s dwindling population of outspoken pro-life liberals. Like her church, she saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life.

Her brother took a different path. Not at first: In 1971, in a letter to a voter that abortion opponents would have many opportunities to quote, he declared that “wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.” But like many other Catholic liberals, from Joseph Biden to Dennis Kucinich, he moved leftward with his party, becoming a down-the-line supporter of abortion rights, with a voting record that brooked no compromise on the issue.

For abortion opponents, cruel ironies abounded in this sibling disagreement. Because of Eunice Shriver’s work with the developmentally disabled, a group of Americans who had once been marginalized and hidden away — or lobotomized, like her sister Rosemary — was ushered closer to full participation in ordinary human life. But because of laws that her brother unstintingly supported, that same group was ushered out again: the abortion rate for fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, for instance, is estimated to be as high as 90 percent.

In 1992, Eunice participated in the last significant effort to push the Democratic Party away from abortion on demand, petitioning her party’s convention to consider “a new understanding” of the issue, “one that does not pit mother against child,” but instead seeks “policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth.” That same summer, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld a near-absolute right to terminate a pregnancy — a decision made possible by her brother’s demagogic assault on Robert Bork five years earlier, which helped doom Bork’s nomination to the court.

At times, Ted Kennedy’s fervor on abortion felt like an extended apology to his party’s feminists for the way the men of his dynasty behaved in private. Eunice, by contrast, had nothing to apologize for. She knew what patriarchy meant: she was born into a household out of “Mad Men,” where the father paraded his mistress around his family, the sons were groomed for high office, and the daughters were expected to marry well, rear children and suffer silently. And she transcended that stifling milieu, doing more than most men to change the world, and earning the right to disagree with her fellow liberals about what true feminism required.

It’s worth pondering how the politics of abortion might have been different had Ted shared even some of his sister’s qualms about the practice. One could imagine a world in which America’s leading liberal Catholic had found a way to make liberalism less absolutist on the issue, and a world where a man who became famous for reaching across the aisle had reached across, even occasionally, in search of compromise on the country’s most divisive issue.

That was not to be. And it’s entirely fitting, given his record, that Kennedy’s immediate legacy is a draft of health-care legislation that pursues an eminently Catholic goal — expanding access to medical care — through a system that seems likely, in its present design, to subsidize abortion.
But his sister would have written it a different way.


The Leadership Factor - by Bill O'Reilly


When I think of recent effective leaders, two names top the list: Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan. Using their sharp personalities, these guys motivated others to work effectively for a cause, and that is what true leadership is all about.

Faced with a powerful German Wehrmacht that had rolled over Europe, Churchill showed iron resolve while other British leaders broke down. He simply told British subjects that there would be no surrender, that they would fight to the finish. Churchill's crisis leadership defeated the dreaded Nazis as much as anything else.

President Reagan's leadership was of a different sort. He promoted an optimistic pride in America and convinced millions that the USA was a noble nation. It was Reagan's tough resolve, however, that fatally damaged the Soviet Union's evil empire. While Churchill was blunt and blustery, Reagan was charming and smooth. Both men accomplished great things by sheer willpower.

Today, President Barack Obama is in the leadership slot. Relatively young and untested, the president is facing tough situations in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, as well as back home with the economy and health care. So far, Obama's leadership has been shaky. To be fair, he's only been in office eight months, but the polls show that many Americans are rapidly losing confidence in his ability to deal with vexing problems.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami said this: "The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. ... In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. … All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership."

Now the president has been tested, and it has not gone well. He tried but failed to explain his health care vision, giving his opponents an enormous opportunity to beat him down. Americans respond to clarity. Obamacare is so complicated Moses couldn't explain it.

When I interviewed Obama nearly a year ago, I could not ascertain his leadership potential. The talk was intense, and Obama showed a quick mind. But what about his resolve, his ability to stand firm on principle? It was impossible for me to tell while facing him.

But the Rev. Jeremiah Wright situation gave me pause. A true leader does not compromise on certain things. Wright is an America-hater. He believes the country is a deeply flawed, racist enterprise. Somehow, Obama embraced Wright as a pastor and as a friend. What kind of leadership does that show?

I believe President Obama is a man who is brilliant at accommodation. His gifts lie in mass communication and acceptance of situations that might help him even if those situations are dubious. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as accommodation can lead to great success. But leaders lead based on belief, not accommodation.

It is too early to tell whether Obama is in over his head as the world's most powerful man. But his leadership profile is beginning to sag. We are living in complicated, perilous times, and Americans know it. They want decisive, clear direction from their president.

Right now, it's not there.

http://www.humanevents.com

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

A Gentleman of History - In War or Peace, Winston Churchill's Cigars Were Never Far from His Hand by Peter Welsh


Prior to the First World War, warfare was viewed among English gentlemen as an exciting and gallant activity. As a rite of passage, ambitious military officers eagerly sought battle. But in the late nineteenth century, "a long spell of almost unbroken peace" meant that there was little opportunity for ambitious English officers to distinguish themselves. In that period of uncommon peace, Winston Churchill found himself stymied in his search for honor.

"Rarity in a desirable commodity is usually the cause of enhanced value," Churchill wrote, "and there has never been a time when war service was held in so much esteem by the military authorities or more ardently sought by officers of every rank." The young Winston understood such service was the road to distinction and fame. Lacking any field of battle on which he might distinguish himself, Churchill sought out a real live conflict. He wished it to be "a private rehearsal, a secluded trip, in order to make sure that the ordeal was not unsuited to my temperament."

This led him in 1895 to Cuba, which was then attempting to rebel from the Spanish empire. Cuba was a place, he later wrote, "where real things were going on. Here was a scene of vital action. Here was a place where anything might happen. Here was a place where something would certainly happen. Here I might leave my bones."

And it was in the Caribbean that Churchill's cigar smoking began in earnest. Having arrived in Havana in November 1895, along with a fellow officer named Reginald Barnes, and having been stood up at the docks by the Spanish commandant who was to have met the two men, Churchill and Barnes took a room at one of the best hotels in town and spent the next several days living off of little more than two of the local specialties, oranges and cigars. From that point on, Churchill favored Cuban cigars above all others.

As Larry Arnn, an assistant to Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, has said, "Thereafter, cigar and Cuban were synonymous for Churchill." Indeed, among Churchill's favorite brands were Romeo y Julieta and the now-defunct La Aroma de Cuba. He had a number of regular suppliers of Havanas who kept him well-stocked with cigars throughout his life, even during the prohibitive years of war. And at Chartwell Manor, his country home in Kent, Churchill stocked between 3,000 and 4,000 cigars, mainly Cuban, in a room adjacent to his study. The cigars were kept in boxes on shelves with labels reading "large" and "small," "wrapped" and "naked" to distinguish the cigars' sizes and whether or not they were wrapped in cellophane. Not surprisingly, Churchill spent a great deal of money on his cigars over the years. As one of his valets, Roy Howells, wrote in his book, Simply Churchill, "It took me a little while to get used to the fact that in two days his cigar consumption was the equivalent of my weekly salary."
Perhaps no political figure is more readily associated with the enthusiastic and regular enjoyment of cigars than Churchill. Few informal photographs show him without one. And when a London cartoonist depicted Churchill as a tommy gun-toting gangster, he dubbed him "Cigarface." So integral was the cigar to everyone's image of Churchill, that a jesting King George VI was once able to have some fun at the expense of a few English pottery manufacturers who made ceramic toby jug likenesses of Churchill smoking his trademark cigar. According to one of Churchill's private secretaries, Phyllis Moir, "When King George and Queen Elizabeth visited the pottery works, the King examined the toby jugs with critical interest. 'I do not think he smokes his cigars at such a low angle,' the King remarked earnestly, thereby sending the pottery firm's executives into a hurried conference on the slant of Winston Churchill's cigars."

Throughout most of Churchill's political career, he was inseparable from his cigars. And he went to great lengths to make certain that he would not have to abstain needlessly, even for short periods. On one occasion, while serving as prime minister during the Second World War, he was to take his first high-altitude airplane flight in an unpressurized cabin. According to biographer Gilbert, when Churchill went to the airfield on the evening before the flight to be fitted for a flight suit and an oxygen mask, he conferred with the flight expert who was to accompany him on the journey and requested that a special oxygen mask be devised so that he could smoke his cigars while airborne. The request was granted, and the next day Churchill was happily puffing away at 15,000 feet through a special hole in his oxygen mask.

On another occasion, in one of his later triumphs of the Second World War, Churchill encountered and audaciously overcame daunting royal opposition to two of his greatest loves. As prime minister, he hosted a luncheon in February 1945 in honor of King Ibn Sa'ud of Saudi Arabia. Churchill wrote about one aspect of this luncheon in his war memoirs: "A number of social problems arose. I had been told that neither smoking nor alcoholic beverages were allowed in the Royal Presence. As I was the host at the luncheon I raised the matter at once, and said to the interpreter that if it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them. The King graciously accepted the position."

Churchill typically smoked between eight and 10 cigars per day, although he did not constantly smoke his cigars but often allowed them to burn out so that he could chew on them instead. In this manner of consumption, the cigars often became mauled and frayed. To address this problem, Churchill devised what he called a "bellybando," which was a strip of brownish paper with a little glue on one end. To prevent the cigar from becoming excessively moist and to keep it from fraying, he would wrap the bellybando around the end.

The bellybandos also made it somewhat easier for Churchill to smoke so many cigars every day, because they limited direct contact with the tobacco and, therewith, Churchill's intake of nicotine. Churchill smoked his cigars down to about the last one or two inches, and, later in life, when he spent much of his time in the country at Chartwell, his staff would save all of the ends of his cigars in order to give them to one of the gardeners at Chartwell, a Mr. Kearnes, who liked to break them up and smoke them in his pipe.

Churchill had received cigar cutters over the years as gifts and kept one of them, a cigar piercer, attached to his watch chain. But he did not use any of the cutters he owned on his cigars. He preferred to moisten the end of the cigar and poke a hole through it with one of the extra-long wooden matches he had specially imported in large cartons from Canada. He would then blow through the cigar from the other end to make sure it would draw. Finally, he would light it, sometimes with the candle that he kept nearby in case the cigar went out.

Churchill also had a favorite ashtray; it was made of silver and shaped like a pagoda with a little trough at the top to hold his cigar. This ashtray, a gift from a friend, was always at Churchill's side and was even packed into a special little suitcase so he could take it along wherever he traveled. "There was always a certain ritual with the silver ashtray whenever he was away from home," writes Howells. "On the Riviera it was ceremoniously handed over to the head waiter of his private dining-room each day before lunch, and then returned with great decorum after dinner."

While he was apparently very careful about tending to the unlit end of his cigars with his bellybandos, Churchill was much less careful about tending to the lit end of his cigars. Moir writes, "Hostesses invariably complained that wherever he went he left behind him a trail of cigar ash on their valuable carpets." If he dropped cigar ash on his hostesses' carpets, he also frequently dropped ash on himself. Moir says that the two images of Churchill which remained most prominent in her mind after leaving his employment were of Churchill pacing a room while composing a speech and of Churchill "sunk deep in the depths of a huge armchair, a little mound of silver-gray cigar ash piled on his well rounded midriff."

He not only frequently dropped ash on his clothes, but he also had a tendency to burn his clothing. "Sir Winston's suits," writes Howells, "were constantly going in for repair because of holes caused by cigar burns. He used to burn his suits this way when he became too engrossed in reading; the cigar would droop slightly and catch the lapel." Indeed, the problem became sufficiently great, according to Edmund Murray, who was Churchill's bodyguard for a time, that Churchill's wife, Clementine, designed a kind of a bib for him to wear in bed to help prevent him from burning his silk pajamas.

Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born in 1874 to an American mother, Lady Randolph Churchill (nee Jennie Jerome), and an English father, Lord Randolph Churchill, a famous Victorian member of Parliament. Referring to the dual nationality of his parentage in a 1941 speech to a Joint Session of the United States Congress, Churchill quipped to his audience: "I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way round, I might have got here on my own."

When Churchill was 13, he enrolled in the Harrow School, perhaps the most prestigious school in England after Eton. He was undistinguished as a student. Indeed, he was last in his class for much of his time at Harrow. This meant at least two things: He did not study Latin and Greek but instead mastered the use of the English language; and he did not go on to a university but instead went to the Royal Military College, Sandhurst--England's West Point--where he was trained as a cavalry officer.

His early school record notwithstanding, Churchill was a man of prodigious genius and accomplishment. He was one of history's greatest statesmen, and he may be the greatest orator of the twentieth century. He was a decorated soldier who saw action in four wars. He was a Nobel prize-winning writer of history, an acclaimed novelist and a skilled polo player. He was an accomplished painter as well as a licensed craftsman. He was an epicure, a connoisseur of the finest wines and cigars and a consummate gentleman.

And his accomplishments started early. By the time he turned 26, Churchill had seen action in three of England's imperial wars and had been decorated for valor in battle. He had been taken prisoner of war and had escaped from captivity. He had written no less than four highly praised histories of three of the wars he had experienced: The Malakand Field Force, The River War, London to Ladysmith via Pretoria and Ian Hamilton's March. He also had written a novel called Savrola about a fictitious statesman and master orator. In addition to these and other remarkable accomplishments, Churchill, at 25, was elected a member of Parliament.

After his "private rehearsal" in Cuba, Churchill was to perform most magnificently as a young soldier and reporter in three of England's colonial wars--first in India, next in the Sudan and finally in South Africa. Indeed, he performed perhaps too brilliantly at times. It was Churchill's ambition to manifest unconcern with the hazards of combat, and he was exceedingly daring on the battlefield. "I am more ambitious for a reputation for personal courage," he wrote to his mother from India, "than [for] anything else in the world." At times, Churchill positively seemed to enjoy the perils of war. "The game amuses me--dangerous though it is--and I shall stay as long as I can," he wrote in another letter. And, in The Malakand Field Force, he proclaimed, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."

Concerned about sentiments such as these and about the tales she was receiving from him and others of his extraordinary exploits in battle, Churchill's mother wrote to him to express her anxiety. Churchill soon wrote back to allay any fears she might have had about his dying on the battlefield: "I am so conceited, I do not believe the Gods would create so potent a being as myself for so prosaic an ending."

In addition to the military exercises and an occasional battle, Churchill devoted himself during his years in India to the serious study of history, philosophy and economics. He called this period "my university years." The English historians Edward Gibbon and Thomas Babington Macaulay were easily his favorite writers and arguably those to whom Churchill's own rhetorical style is most indebted. In describing his 800-page epic, The River War, for example, Churchill wrote, "I affected a combination of the styles of Macaulay and Gibbon...and I stuck in a bit of my own from time to time."

In 1899, Churchill left the army to run, unsuccessfully, for Parliament and to write newspaper articles and a book. It was as a newspaper columnist that Churchill, in October of that year, traveled to South Africa to observe the Boer war of independence against the British Empire. In South Africa, Churchill was traveling with a soldier friend aboard a train carrying English troops that was ambushed and derailed by the Boers. While exhibiting great valor in coordinating the escape of many of the troops who were aboard the train, Churchill was captured by the Boers and taken as a prisoner of war.

Although treated well by his captors, he later wrote of his time as a POW, "I certainly hated every minute of my captivity more than I have ever hated any other period in my whole life." He hated captivity above all because it thwarted his ambition for heroic action: "The war was going on, great events are in progress, fine opportunities for action and adventure are slipping away." So, after unsuccessfully appealing his capture on the grounds that he was a noncombatant, Churchill escaped from prison. Before escaping, however, he left a letter of apology on his bed to Louis de Souza, the Boer secretary for war. The letter began: "I have the honour to inform you that as I do not consider that your Government have any right to detain me as a military prisoner, I have decided to escape from your custody." It ended: "Regretting that I am unable to bid you a more ceremonious or a personal farewell, I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, Winston Churchill."

The colonial wars of India and Africa were the sort of conflict for which Churchill and his fellow officers had longed in the days shortly after they graduated from Sandhurst: "This kind of war was full of fascinating thrills. It was not like the Great War. Nobody expected to be killed."
Less than 15 years after the war in South Africa, however, came the first fully modern war, "The Great War," "Armageddon"--the First World War. "The age of Peace had ended," Churchill wrote in one of his memoirs, My Early Life. "There was to be no lack of war. There was to be enough for all. Aye, enough to spare." At the time of the outbreak of the First World War, Churchill was serving as first lord of the Admiralty. He had spent the previous three years successfully preparing the British navy for war. He continued to serve as head of the admiralty through most of 1915. He also advised the War Office on land strategy and tactics during this time.

Churchill's understanding of the true nature of the war on sea and land was complete. He saw events from a clearer perspective than most of his contemporaries. Churchill's insights on the war are recounted at considerable length in his five-volume The World Crisis, a work that ranks with the greatest books ever written on warfare. No less an authority than T.E. Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia," who as a scholar and translator of Latin and Greek was well acquainted with the greatest Western classics of military history, called The World Crisis "far and away the best war book I have yet read in any language."

Seeking to better understand the war on land, in October 1914 Churchill visited the front lines in France. While there, he was observed by an Italian journalist, Gino Calza Bedelo. Bedelo's account of Churchill, according to Gilbert, became somewhat famous around London shortly after it was given in a talk at the Lyceum Club: "I was in the battle line near Lierre, and in the midst of a group of officers stood a man. He was still young, and was enveloped in a cloak, and on his head wore a yachtsman's cap. He was tranquilly smoking a large cigar and looking at the progress of the battle under a rain of shrapnel, which I can only call fearful. It was Mr. Churchill, who had come to view the situation himself. It must be confessed that it is not easy to find in the whole of Europe a Minister who would be capable of smoking peacefully under that shellfire. He smiled, and looked quite satisfied."

In 1915, when Churchill returned to the front as a major, after resigning as head of the admiralty, he was to make quite a similar impression on his fellow officers and subordinate soldiers. And he was to have the same effect on his colleagues at Downing Street during the countless German air raids over London in the Second World War. At all times, his fearlessness seemed to know no limits, and nearly everyone who came into contact with Churchill under dire circumstances was most impressed by it.

Throughout the 1920s, Churchill served in a number of ministerial posts, and his political career was punctuated by a few political triumphs as well as an occasional setback. The most significant setback of this period was the Conservative Party's defeat in the 1929 general election. With that defeat, Churchill was put out of cabinet office. Thus began what Churchill called his "wilderness" years, the years spent out of responsible office and away from all vital decision making, a period that would last for over a decade. Churchill passed considerable time during these years at Chartwell, his beautiful country home in Kent, which he had purchased in 1922 with royalties from The World Crisis.

Life at Chartwell in the 1930s was a marked change from Churchill's earlier political and military adventures. He did keep busy, however. "I never had a dull or idle moment from morning till midnight," he later wrote, "and with my happy family around me dwelt at peace within my habitation." While still remaining politically active, he was able to spend a great deal of his time on what may be called noble leisure--reading, writing, painting and dining with friends and family.

Dining was always a major event at Chartwell. Churchill preferred simple but sumptuous meals. "Whatever the Good Earth offers, I am willing to take" he once told a chef at the Waldorf-Astoria. Churchill often dined with friends, dignitaries and celebrities from Europe and America. T.E. Lawrence was a regular luncheon guest until his untimely death in 1935. Albert Einstein visited Chartwell. And Charlie Chaplin dined there, as well. Churchill was notorious for dominating conversations in even the most illustrious of company. As Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith once said of Churchill, "His conversation...is apt to degenerate into a monologue."
Fortunately, Churchill's wit on such occasions was equally well known. At one Chartwell dinner, for example, he asked Charlie Chaplin what his next role would be. "Jesus Christ," Chaplin replied; to which Churchill responded, "Have you cleared the rights?"

And Churchill was always a most gracious host. "It is a marvel how much time he gives to his guests," remarked one visitor to Chartwell, "talking sometimes for an hour after lunch and much longer after dinner. He is an exceedingly kind and generous host, providing unlimited Champagne, cigars and brandy."

Churchill loved Champagne, and it always accompanied lunch and dinner at Chartwell. He also enjoyed Port, claret, Scotch and brandy. His favorite Champagne was Pol Roger, his favorite Scotch, Johnnie Walker Red Label, and his favorite brandy, Hine. Once a friend of Churchill's, South African Prime Minister Jan Christian Smuts, brought him a bottle of South African brandy. Churchill savored a sip of it and, looking appreciatively at his friend, said, "My dear Smuts, it is excellent." He paused, then added, "But it is not brandy."

Real brandy, as author William Manchester put it, was usually consumed after dinner along with, of course, a cigar. After a couple of snifters, Churchill would stay up late reading or writing, often until three or four in the morning, only to awaken a scant five hours later. Churchill sometimes started the morning with a glass of Scotch and soda in bed, and he drank continuously throughout the day. According to Manchester, "There is always some alcohol in his bloodstream, and it reaches its peak late in the evening after he has had two or three Scotches, several glasses of Champagne, at least two brandies, and a highball."

He was rarely drunk, however. "All I can say is that I have taken more out of alcohol than it has taken out of me," Churchill famously remarked. Even drunk, he was usually in top form. Indeed, Labour Party M.P. Bessie Braddock once had the misfortune of accusing Churchill of drunkenness in public. "You're drunk!" she scolded. "Yes," he retorted, "and you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober."

Churchill might just as well have said that he has taken more out of tobacco than it has taken out of him. In an essay from his book, Thoughts and Adventures, titled, "A Second Choice," he wrote, "I remember my father in his most sparkling mood, his eye gleaming through the haze of a cigarette, saying, 'Why begin? If you want to have an eye that is true [and] a hand that does not quiver...don't smoke.' But consider! How can I tell that the soothing influence of tobacco upon my nervous system may not have enabled me to comport myself with calm and courtesy in some awkward personal encounter or negotiation, or carried me serenely through some critical hours of anxious waiting? How can I tell that my temper would have been as sweet or my companionship as agreeable if I had abjured from my youth the goddess Nicotine?" Churchill was, of course, quite particular about how he got his nicotine. Cigars were the only way. He disliked cigarettes very much. Once when his valet declined Churchill's offer to join him for a cigar, telling Churchill that he smoked only cigarettes, Churchill chuckled and said, "Too many of those will kill you."

The years of leisure at Chartwell during the 1930s grew steadily more anxious for Churchill. He watched with great concern the unimpeded rise in Germany of what he would later call "the foulest and most soul destroying tyranny ever to blacken and stain the pages of history." In his six-volume The Second World War, Churchill wrote, "There can hardly ever have been a war more easy to prevent than this second Armageddon."

Unfortunately, Churchill's persistent warnings and vital political counsel went largely unheeded during the rise of Nazism. He was ridiculed as a "warmonger" and ostracized by all parties. Appeasement reigned. When war broke out, however, Churchill was the obvious choice in the minds of most people to lead Britain into battle. On May 10, 1940, he was appointed prime minister. Of this moment, Churchill wrote after the war, "As I went to sleep at about 3 a.m., I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I had been walking with destiny and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial." He added, "I was sure I should not fail."

Late May 1940 was, in many ways, the decisive period of the Second World War. Pearl Harbor and Hitler's invasion of Russia were, of course, vital, but had Britain faltered in the early going and concluded a peace with Hitler, there would have been no place from which to launch an invasion of the Continent. America would not likely have become involved in the European war. And Hitler would have been able to use more of his army in subduing the Soviet Union. By the end of May, however, Belgium and France had been almost completely overwhelmed by the German blitzkrieg, and Britain narrowly averted defeat herself by evacuating, in great haste, some 200,000 British soldiers from the closing jaws of the German Wehrmacht at Dunkirk, on the coast of France. In the wake of this "colossal military disaster," rumors abounded that some of Churchill's ministers were willing to negotiate with Hitler.

Churchill recognized that such a course would mean the enslavement of Britain along with the rest of Europe. It simply could not be permitted to happen. So, on May 28, in a brilliant political coup de grace, Churchill forced the issue with his ministers and in one rhetorical flourish put to rest all cowardly defeatism. Martin Gilbert recounts this historic meeting in his unrivaled one-volume biography, Churchill: A Life. After admitting to his cabinet that he had weighed "whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man," Churchill next listed everything that would befall Britain in consequence. He then spoke with fire in his eyes: "I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground." The ministers were instantly united. "I am sure," Churchill later wrote, "that every Minister was ready to be killed quite soon, and have all his family and possessions destroyed, rather than give in."

Following the meeting of May 28, three events stand out as pivotal in the defeat of Germany in the Second World War: the air battle over Britain in the summer of 1940, the entry of America into the war and Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941. Churchill understood the profound significance of each of these events as they arose. In preparation for the Battle of Britain, Churchill said, "Hitler knows he must break us on this island or lose the war." Churchill also well understood that the air Battle of Britain was the prelude to a cross-channel invasion by the German army. He hoped to defeat the German Luftwaffe over Britain and thereby prevent a land invasion, but, he told the public, "should the invader come to Britain...we shall defend every village, every town, and every city. The vast mass of London itself, fought street by street, could easily devour an entire hostile army. And we would rather see London laid in ruins and ashes than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved." In the event, such sacrifice was not necessary. The Royal Air Force successfully defended Britain.

The successful defense of Britain, however, was not sufficient to win the war. The eventual intervention of the United States was necessary. And equally important was Hitler's unprovoked invasion of Russia. On June 22, 1941, the first day of the invasion, many of Churchill's colleagues believed that the Russians would be defeated quickly. Churchill saw matters differently. Gilbert writes, "Churchill listened to their [his colleagues'] arguments, then closed the discussion with the words, 'I will bet you a Monkey to a Mousetrap that the Russians are still fighting and fighting victoriously, two years from now.'" "Monkey" and "Mousetrap" were gambling terms. In plain terms, Churchill was offering odds of 500 to 1 that the Russians would be fighting victoriously two years after Hitler's invasion.

The Russians did indeed hold out, and the following spring, Churchill mocked Hitler in one of his radio broadcasts for the troubles the Germans were having in Russia: "Thus he drove the youth and manhood of the German nation forward into Russia. Then Hitler made his second grand blunder. He forgot about the winter. There is a winter, you know, in Russia. For a good many months the temperature is apt to fall very low. There is snow, there is frost and all that. Hitler forgot about this Russian winter. He must have been very loosely educated. We all heard about it at school. But he forgot it. I have never made such a bad mistake as that."

All of the necessary elements combined in due course, under the careful command of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, to produce final victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. Two weeks after VE Day, the Labour Party in England refused to participate in the wartime coalition government and Churchill was, consequently, obliged to call for a general election. Two months later, Churchill was voted out of office as prime minister. As he wrote in his memoirs, "All our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or being about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from all further conduct of their affairs." This monumental act of ingratitude was met by Churchill with the utmost graciousness. On the day of his defeat, Churchill expressed his gratitude to the public: "I thank the British people for many kindnesses shown towards their servant."

The years after the war were relatively quiet for Churchill. He did return as prime minister to serve from 1951 to 1955. And he devoted his energies to seeking a "summit" (he coined the term) and an understanding with the Soviets. But his time after the Second World War was mainly spent in the more leisurely manner that he spent in the years prior to the war. He was often at Chartwell and spent much of his time writing and painting. Painting was a tremendous consolation to Churchill in the twilight of his life. As he wrote in Thoughts and Adventures, "Happy are the painters, for they shall not be lonely. Light, color, peace and hope, will keep them company to the end, or almost the end, of the day."

Churchill was also as active as ever as a writer in the postwar years. He wrote his massive six-volume history of the Second World War, and was awarded the Nobel prize for literature in 1953 for his collected works and speeches. He also completed his four-volume A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Churchill continued to enjoy life, as well. He had plenty of friends and companions. His cigar smoking did not abate considerably with the onset of old age. Nor did his drinking. And on this steady diet of Champagne, tobacco and good friends, Churchill lived to the very ripe old age of 90. He died on January 10, 1965.

Winston Churchill was the rarest of men. He was courageous, commanding and wise. He was a man of great self-command and self-discipline. But he was also a man of unapologetic epicurean tastes. He combined boundless energy and concentration with a wonderful zest for life to an extent that is rarely, if ever, seen today. As one biographer, Robert Lewis Taylor, wrote in 1955 of Churchill's face, "It is the strong well-nourished face of a man who long ago decided to drink what he pleased, gorge at will, suit himself in any way it seemed convenient, and in general to follow lines of self-centered behavior popularly supposed to stamp the countenance with a look of weakness. It is a free enterprise face, somewhat gothic in feeling." And even today, Churchill's "heroic visage stands out in healthy contrast among the cautious, remorseful drinkers"--and smokers--among us.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Slipping into Quicksand - by Monica Crowley


President Obama, once considered as politically agile and deft as a gazelle, is now looking increasingly like a deer caught in the headlights.
His poll numbers on everything from job approval to his handling of the economy, health care, taxes and bailouts are dropping faster than a cement shoe in the Hudson River. Perhaps even more worrisome, Rasmussen Reports shows that fewer Americans consider him "trustworthy."

His popular support is hemorrhaging because all of his major initiatives are either failing in execution or in the legislative process. According to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll, 57 percent of Americans say the $787 billion economic stimulus is having no effect on the economy or is making it worse.

An even higher percentage -- 60 percent -- doubt the stimulus will improve the economy in the years ahead. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll shows a whopping 72 percent of Democrats, Republicans and independents would like to see the balance of the unspent stimulus money -- about $600 billion -- returned to taxpayers.

The cap-and-trade legislation cleared the House (barely) but looks to die a timely death in the Senate. A majority of Americans now reject this scheme as they have learned it would be tantamount to the largest tax increase in the history of the world.
And now, Mr. Obama's Orwellian health care vision is going down in a ball of flames, with Americans of every ideological stripe in revolt over some part of what's being proposed, conceded and debated.

The president's agenda is in deep trouble, and now it appears not even the silver-tongued, savvy political Merlin himself can salvage it.

It wasn't supposed to be this hard for the Democrats: With control of the White House and huge majorities in the Congress, they were supposed to blow past whatever token resistance to their plans the Republicans and others might raise and easily implement their full-tilt liberal agenda.
But something funny happened on the way to far-left governance: The American people began to reject what was about to be inflicted on them. The Democrats did not anticipate that their constituents might like a say in how they were being governed. (That whole "government for, by, and of the people" is so 18th-century.)

Mr. Obama has been particularly perplexed by the revolt against his ideas, for two main reasons:

First, he (like the rest of his party) misread November's election results as a mandate to impose a far-left agenda without debate. The American people, however, still believe in the quaint idea of robust discussion before ideas are turned into law. They also make up a country that remains ideologically center-right. This week, Gallup released a poll showing that conservatives now outnumber liberals in all 50 states, and that 40 percent self-identify as conservative versus only 21 percent self-identifying as liberal.

No wonder a radical liberal agenda isn't taking off like the Black Eyed Peas' new CD.

The second reason involves Mr. Obama's lack of political combat experience. He has never been hit before. Until the health care blowup, none of his significant political opponents ever really landed a punch. During his early Chicago political career, he ran opponents off the ballot, but such community-organizing manipulation doesn't translate well nationally. And now he finds himself in the presidency, never having known what it is to take a body blow.

The point of a presidential campaign is to put the candidate through the ringer: to force him to get banged up by his opponents and the press, and to have to answer the difficult and uncomfortable questions, be investigated, and learn the thrust and parry of political swordplay. By the time he becomes president, he has been roughed up enough to be better prepared for the job.

Mr. Obama never experienced that. His opponents -- particularly Hillary Rodham Clinton -- tried to go after him, but even she used kid gloves. Former President Bill Clinton tried, too, and nearly got booed off the national stage. And Sen. John McCain could muster only the weakest of attacks against his younger rival. The mainstream media, of course, played up to him intently.
The end result is a president who doesn't know how to take a political hit or repel one without resorting to desperate and shameful attacks on the opposition.

This helps no one -- not the president, not the American people, not the country. Having a president react like a child who has been picked on for the first time doesn't telegraph "leadership." If he's flipping his wig about the health care revolt, imagine how he might react if there were another terrorist strike on the homeland or the Iranians moved to nuke New York or the North Koreans sailed a nuclear-tipped missile toward Hawaii or Alaska.

A president is always cosseted by his staff. But as a candidate, he should have experienced the rough-and-tumble. Without it, he stands puzzled before us, mystified by our resistance, stunned by the attacks, and paralyzed by growing insecurity and disbelief.

His agenda is sinking into quicksand, and it's only a matter of time before he also grows overwhelmed and heavy from a battle to which he is unaccustomed.
Monica Crowley is a nationally syndicated radio host, a panelist on "The McLaughlin Group" and a Fox News contributor - http://www.washingtontimes.com/

How much longer?



A guy goes into a
bar, there's a robot
bartender. The robot says, "What will
you have?" The guy says,
"Martini."

The robot brings
back the best martini ever and says to the man,
"Whats your IQ?"

The guy says,
"168".

The robot then
proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and
medical technology. The guy leaves, but he is curious,
so he goes back into the bar.

The robot
bartender says,"What will you have?"

The guy
says, "Martini".

Again, the robot
makes a great martini, gives it to the man and
says,"Whats your IQ?

The guy says,
"100."

The robot
then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser
and guns.
The guy leaves,
but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try
it one more time. He goes back into the
bar.

The robot says,
"What will you have?"
The guy says,
"Martini", and the robot brings him another
great martini.

The robot then
says, "Whats your IQ"

The guy says, "Uh,about 50." The robot leans in real close and says,
"So, you people still happy you voted for Obama?"