Daily Archives: March 30, 2009

Apparently, she’s never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett

I haven’t read the article beyond the snippet on my blog roll. Usually I do, but my blood pressure can only handle so much of the hate and invective on Reproductive Health Reality Check.

But this writer is wishing she had a billion dollars to “improve access” to birth control in third world countries. Apparently, she’s never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, who, individually or combined, have probably spent at least that much, because it’s their main “charitable cause.”

Then let’s add the tons of money the UN and the US specifically pour into “population control.”

Human Life International has done numerous exposes of the amount of money the International Planned Parenthood Federation spends on bribing medical professionals, media personalities and politicians in third world nations to advance its agenda.

They really can’t think of a *better* way to spend those billions, like maybe actually providing food or education or alternative energy???

It’s like the “bail-out.” “Families are in debt. Small businesses are going out of business. But we’ll give trillions of dollars to the corporations that caused this mess.” Even the few “trickle down” measures, like the $8000 construction credit, really just serve as welfare to the building corporations that over-built to begin with.


So Randall Terry did some good, after all?

Deal Hudson reports that the bishops of Washington and Arlington, Donald Wuerl and Paul Loverde, have said they’ll uphold Kansas City Bishop Joseph Naumann’s order that Governor Kathleen Sebelius–when she is almost inevitably appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services (aka Eugenicist in Chief)–should refrain from the altar when she lives in the DC area.

Hudson points out that a big difference in this situation–pointed out by Archbishop Burke himself–is how the emphasis is on Sebelius *refraining* from Communion, as opposed to overtly *denying* her Communion. On the other hand, now that they have said this, it eliminates excuses. If Sebelius were to present herself, and any priest, deacon or EMC would grant her the Blessed Sacrament, it would undoubtedly create a firestorm in the New Media.

It also sets a precedent, solving the issue of the dual status of many government types. Now, if their “home bishops” say something, Wuerl and Loverde will back it up.

But what’s *most* interesting is how certain sites have been dissing Randall Terry and his recent visit to the Vatican.

We’ve been told, again, that Burke is an “embarrassment” and a “rogue” and a “blowhard.” We’ve been told that Terry is an opportunist (he may well be; I don’t really know much about the man except that he’s done a lot of good for unborn babies). We’ve been told that it’s hypocritical of “conservatives” to say “the Church is not a democracy” yet lobby the Vatican.

Let’s see. When liberals “lobby the Vatican,” they usually get shut out completely. When conservatives “lobby the Vatican,” they’re at least listened to (except on the whole Mediatrix thing, at least).

When Call to Action did its “We Are Church” petition about 10 years ago, its representatives were not even let in the Vatican. Meanwhile, two teenagers from Seton High School in Northern Virginia did a “We are Catholic” petitoin to counter-protest, got a lot more signatures than Call to Action did, and got an audience with John Paul II.

When Bernard Cardinal Law wanted inclusive language in the Catechism, Fr. Fessio and Mother Angelica “lobbied the Vatican,” and the inclusive language was shot down.

A few years later, Cardinal Mahony tried to go to the Vatican and get Mother Angelica put out of business. After fuming and posturing against Mother Angelica for months, he practically stormed the Congregation for Clergy, was called in for a private meeting with JPII, and left the Vatican defeated, never mentioning Mother Angelica–or the pastoral letter she condemned on the air–again. Meanwhile, the Pope sent Mother Angelica a monstrance.

So, now, Randall Terry goes to the Vatican specifically regarding Loverde and Wuerl, and–lo and behold!–they’re changing their tunes.

In related news, the Pope has apparently thought better of having a Jesuit in charge of his press office.

When did "Zealous" become a bad word?

Dallas Morning News describes Archbishop Raymond Burke as “one of the most outspoken (some would say zealous) defenders of the Catholic prohibition against abortion.”

Shortly before Fr. James Haley–one of the best homilists I’ve ever heard–was suspened by Bishop Paul Loverde, he said, “People say I’m too zealous.”

When did “zealous” become a bad word? It’s apparently a bad word in the minds of many Catholics, who call zeal “extremism” or “fanaticism.”

First, let’s look at the Psalms. The Church encourages us to base our prayers on them, but if you try quoting them (particularly Psalm 15 or Psalm 127) in Catholic circles, watch out!

“Because zeal for your house consumes me, I am scorned by those who scorn you. ” (Psalm 69:10, quoted as “zeal for your house will consume me” in John 2:17).

“I am intensely jealous for Zion, stirred to jealous wrath for her. ” (Zechariah 8:2)
“[Elijah] I have been most zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, but the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to take my life.” (1 Kings 19:10; Carmelite Motto)

Another Bishop Speaks out on Notre Dame: this time it’s Timothy Dolan

Which makes things look promising for NYC