What *should* a graduation speaker at a Catholic college be like?

I propose that the Holy Father bring Cardinal Arinze out of retirement and make him the Mandatory Graduation Speaker at all Catholic institutions of higher education.

Having been accused of wanting a “Bob Jones University,” and having been challenged on my support for Cardinal Arinze’s Georgetown speech , I’ve gotten to thinking about who the ideal graduation speaker at a Catholic school would be.

Fr. John Corapi, SOLT, would make a *fantastic* graduation speaker.

RADIX would be good, too.

If you want to be slightly liberal, you could have Fr. Groeschel.

Several years ago, I heard a guest on EWTN–I think it was before Mother Angelica retired, but when Fr. Pacwa or someone was subbing for her. This lady started a multimillion dollar a year, non-government funded, charity for the homeless.

She already had 7+ kids (forget exactly what number, but thikn it was closer to 12), and they were living in a very small house. She ran her house like a tight ship, and one day her husband suggested she needed to do more for God.

Most people would have slapped the guy upside the head.

Instead, she went out and started a soup kitchen. She ran the whole operation on Providence, and has been hugely successful.

I don’t remember her name, but *she* would make a good graduation speaker.

A graduation speaker should talk about “what you do next,” or “how my success should be an example to you.”

By inviting presidents at all, Notre Dame is saying that worldly ambitoin is something to emulate. They are setting the presidency of the United States as the standard for what they consider success.

That lady with her soup kitchen would be a much better example of success.

Fr. Corapi would be a much better example of both the emptiness of worldly success and what should really matter to Catholics.

Would Notre Dame have ever invited Mother Angelica??

I doubt it.

But unless a US president is a Catholic with 10 kids who has managed to get elected by living a completely virtuous life, without ever compromising his faith, *or* unless he has some profound conversion story to tell about how he’s making up for the things he did in his early life, then I really don’t see what a president has to tell our Catholic youth.

Advertisement

Now *THIS* is how you deal with a Crisis!

The United States could stand to learn a lesson from Mexico.

Mexico City had a solemn procession to pray for an end to the swine flu.

That is how Christians respond to a crisis. Not, “our country was just bombed. Go to work tomorrow.” Not “We’re going to go over there and nuke ’em.” Not, “we’re going to beat suspects senseless for fear of another attack.” Not “We won’t win this by turning the other cheek.” Not “Let’s give the government more control over our lives.”

But “Let’s all get together in the streets and process and pray!”

There are many on the Catholic Left who try to say that praying at abortion clinics is merely a sign of political protest, who imply thereby that they see prayer as such as ineffective.

Is this a political protest? How does one politically protest against a virus? (nevermind: I forgot that liberals think that their false god, politics, solves everything, and that the first reaction aganist a virus is political protest)

Anyway, let’s hear it for the people of Mexico City. Prayers that their procession will be successful!

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

(Also, interesting that one of the first cases of swine flu in the US is a Notre Dame student)

Another problem with Americans and liberal Catholics: they have no concept of Divine Justice

Liberal Catholics sure hate Deal Hudson

Is it because Mother Angelica’s retired?

I mean, go to any of the major or fairly significant liberal sites, and it’s “Deal Hudson this” and “Deal Hudson that”. I see conservatives quote John Allen, Jr., all the time, and they do so often quite favorably.

Often, their paranoid spectre of “Deal Hudson” is raised even when Deal Hudson had nothing to do with it.

Heck, they don’t even talk about Fr. Pavone!

For example, when Deal Hudson used Sam Brownback’s name in a financial letter, which elicited a negative response from Brownback (big surprise there, sell-out).

Then, when Fr. Euteneuer called Brownback a “traitor,” the typical liberals said it was the “politicla pro-lifers” and accused Deal Hudson of turning on Brownback, when Deal Hudson actually turned on Fr. Euteneuer in favor of Deal Hudson.

I sometimes wonder if these people even know who Judie Brown and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer are. It’s like they don’t exist. Every time HLI or ALL does something–and both organizations are equally and consistently critical of both parties–the liberals, who claim to “transcend” party politics, go after “the political pro-lifers”, embodied in the spectre of “Deal Hudson.”

To hear liberal Catholics today, the “pro-life movement” is Deal Hudson and Randall Terry.

There’s an episode of Murphy Brown when Avery is a baby, and Murphy says something about “Did you see Pat Buchanan under your bed?”

It’s like liberal Catholic parents tell their kids, “Be careful, or Deal Hudson’s gonna get you!”
I mean, does the guy have that much power and influence???

Why do they hate him so passionately?

More importantly, why do they hate him, yet completely ignore/dismiss the real leaders of the pro-life movement?

Ranjith being "exiled"?

Rorate Caeli reports that the rather outspoken Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith is being appointed archbishop of Colombo in his native Sri Lanka.

Upside: he will probably also be created cardinal.

Downside: he was previously “exiled” from a post at CDF, where he was also very outspoken. The original report, by one Andrea Tornielli, suggests that Ranjith will be replacd by an English-speaking prelate who can “pacify the liturgical battlefield.”

Is the “reform of the Reform” over before it’s begun?

Is Ranjith a scapegoat?

Are we doomed to the perpetuation of Communion in hand, pro populum posture and guitars at Mass? Is Pope Benedict really changing courses in the face of Vatican pressure?

Or is this just wishful thinking by the Italian media and the liberal aspects of the Curia?

We already know the new Prefect of CDW supports the Holy Father’s positions on liturgical reform.

We were told a couple months ago that the Holy Father was going to be doing some “shake ups,” but the question was where. So far, the only “shake ups” have been reassignments of people who turned on him, like Lombardi.

Funny post by Fr. Trigilio

Speaking as a Far-Right Extremist, please stop calling me a "Far-Right Extremist"

I am sick and tired of liberals calling themselves “moderate” and labelling everyone who has a different view a “far Right Extremist.” They’ve been doing this since at least the early Clinton years.

I mean, we have a man who, while running for president, said our Constitution is a fundamentally flawed document, then got elected and swore an oath to uphold it. He’s not an “extremist”?
I hold certain positions that are certainly on the “far right” side of the American political spectrum, especially if Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, the guys who actually say what conservatism used to mean, are considered “far Right”.

But it infuriates me when people are called “far Right Extremists” just for expressing conservative views.

On Sunday, we watched part of _Song of Bernadette_ on Netflix. There’s this scene where the police inspector is asking for St. Bernadette’s “testimony.”

He insists she answer accurately, and he will record her answers.

Cop: “What did the woman look like?”
Bernadette: “She was wearing a white dress with a blue girdle. . . .”
Cop: “Did she look like one of the statues at church?”
Bernadette: “No, not at all! She didn’t look anything like the statues. And she moved around, and she talked. . . .”
So, the cop says he’s going to read back her statement.
“Bernadette Soubirous says that the woman wore a blue dress with a white girdle.”
Bernadette: “No! It was a white dress with a blue girdle!”
Cop: “So you’re contradicting yourself!”
Bernadette: “No. That’s what I said all along! You wrote it down wrong!”
Cop (continues): “Bernadette said the statue looked exactly like one of the statues in church. . . .”

"I’m Not Pro-Abortion"

We’ve heard the antiphon: “I’m not pro-abortion; I’m pro-choice.” Most recently, Francis Cardinal George, OMI, said that that was one of the things Barack Obama said at their recent meeting.

Mr. President, if a politician said to you, “I’m not pro-segregation,” and then voted to fund organizations that engaged in segregation, what would you say?
If a politiciain in the 1840s said, “I’m not pro-slavery,” and then voted to give special tax incentives to plantation owners who held slaves, what would you say?

Cardinal George emphasized that the President wants everyone to think he’s on their side. He desperately wants pro-lifers to *think* he’s pro-life. Cardinal George suggested that there’s a chance Obama is trying to pay some political debts, and tried to see some good will to Obama’s assurances that “the course will change,” but he said that he’s far less hopeful of that than he was when Obama started.

New Hampshire Senate Approves Same Sex "Marriage"

20. Wherefore, conjugal faith, or honor, demands in the first place the complete unity of matrimony which the Creator Himself laid down in the beginning when He wished it to be not otherwise than between one man and one woman. And although afterwards this primeval law was relaxed to some extent by God, the Supreme Legislator, there is no doubt that the law of the Gospel fully restored that original and perfect unity, and abrogated all dispensations as the words of Christ and the constant teaching and action of the Church show plainly. With reason, therefore, does the Sacred Council of Trent solemnly declare: “Christ Our Lord very clearly taught that in this bond two persons only are to be united and joined together when He said: ‘Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh’.”[21] (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930), para. 20)

In honor of the feast of St. Catherine of Siena

I’d been wanting to post something for St. Catherine, and “the Curt Jester” has done this hilarious graphic depicting what the Benincasa “family vehicle” might have looked like if they were alive today.

St. Catherine, was, of course, her parents’ 25th child (several sets of twins), and she had an identical twin who died in childbirth.

Bishop Tobin is so cool!

Fr. Zuhlsdorf says,

The usual methods of social re-engineering include what I call “creeping incrementalism”. You start slowly, not trying to attain everything you aim for in one fell swoop, but rather strive merely to bump the paradigm a degree or two in the direction you want it to go. Eventually, what seemed once to be inconceivable comes to be remotely possible, then plausible, then probably a good idea, and then obligatory.

True, but it usually works better for the masonic social engineers than when Christians try it.
Fr. Z. does his usually fine job of in-text commentary, so head over to “What Does the Prayer Really Say” to read Bishop Tobin’s piece and Fr. Z’s comments.

A fellow named “Karl” posted the following comment on how we can’t fight “homosexual marriage” unless the Church actually stands up for the basics, like opposing divorce:

Rather than simply bemoaning “Gay Marriage” why don’t bishops help those of us
whose marriages are actively undermined by the support of clergy for our adulterous spouses and their “partners”? Why should their advice have any import regarding “Unnatural Marriage” when our “Natural Marriages” are cast to the wayside willingly by the Catholic Church.
Even those of us who have defended our valid marriages, against a Churchhell-bent on finding for nullity, watch the Catholic clergy fawn over ourunrepentant adulterous spouses and their partners in crime as they destroythe faith of our children, who see their abandoned parents persecuted and thecriminals who persecute them embraced by priests and bishops, who say and donothing to attempt to heal the valid marriages but quickly and efficientlyprocess annulment petitions!
The Church long ago decided our marriages were not worth “saving”. It isreaping what it has sewn in its bitter harvest over divorce as its gatewayto nullity and the choice of our “insightful bishops” to remove theautomatic Excommunication which was the law in the U.S. until 1977.
I am tired of hearing the Catholic Church, through its Bishops and otherspokesmen, cry out against “Gay Marriage” as they encourage heterosexual divorce, pastorally, through their marriage tribunals and the mechanisms they have in place to “push this ministry”. This maliciously abandoned spouse, who has demonstrated clerical perjury, and worse, to the Catholic Church and seen it ignored all the way into the Vatican, is not impressed.
Comment by Karl — 29 April 2009 @ 1:48
pm

Let’s not forget contraception, either.

Christopher Tollefson on Torture

h/t to American Papist for linking this great article by my friend Christopher Tollefson on the ethics of torture (he’s against it), and, more importantly, on framing a more intelligent debate about the “questionable areas.”

I haven’t given much thought to the torture question. I’ve followed Mark Shea’s discussion of it, and he’s made a pretty convincing case as far as I’m concerned. I’ve mentioned somewhere on this blog a comparison to the death penalty: even if it’s morally justifiable, a Christian society really should appeal to a higher standard. Chris mentions the following quotation, which I’d never heard before:

as former Vice-President Cheney put it, “we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Uhh, actually, we’d be more likely to win it if we *did*, in the sense that God favors those who take the moral high ground . That’s not to say we shouldn’t fight, but by taking the moral high ground, we’ll get Divine Protection on our side. Taking the easy out will only lead to destruction.

I am reminded of Thomas Merton’s contention that monks, far from being sheltered from the world, were crucial to the world’s survival. Or Fr. James Gould’s daily Mass homily I heard a few years ago, where he said, “There’s a misconception that priests are the focus of the Church and the laity serve the priests. It’s just the opposite. I am celibate because I am here to support *you*. You do the real work of the Church, and we priests and religious are here to spiritually support you.”

It always strikes me how God’s providence works in my reading. On 9/10/01, I read two things: looking up somethiing for my MA thesis, I reread the section on patriotism in C. S. Lewis’s _The Four Loves_, and, in that section, Lewis addresses Just War theory, saying that we have a right to defend our homes; we do not have a right to vigilantism; similarly, we have a right to defend our countries but not to hunt down the invading country.

The other was an article in the Arlington Catholic Herald that had been sitting there for some time, since shortly before the execution of Timothy McVeigh. The article quoted Cardinals Mahony and McCarrick (even a broken heretic can be right twice a day) warning that the execution of McVeigh, responsible for the then-worst act of terrorism on US Soil, would only create a spiritual rift that perpetuated the cycle of violence .

The next morning was 9/11.

If I live to be 81, I will remember the image of those two readings in that apartment that night.

So, that’s one thing: even if it’s justifiable, it’s still better to take the moral high ground.

Here’s another: a common argument is, “If it’s torture, and it’s wrong, why do we do it to our own soldiers?” The rather lopsided logic of torture proponents in this instance is that the very training we give our soldiers to *resist* torture is somehow evidence that these practices don’t constitute torture. Uh, no. It’s evidence that the US obviously thinks they constitute torture. The difference is that the soldiers are voluntarily allowing themselves to be conditoined to harsh circumstances (more on this a bit later).

Another standard I go by, speaking of Fr. Gould, is the priest who was Fr. Gould’s assistant pastor during the time when I’d attend daily masses offered by his parish. This priest, Fr. Joseph, was from Sudan, and he normally said the evening Mass I attended. One time, he said, “Do not wish for martyrdom. Martyrdom is indeed a blessing, but it is a horrible experience. I was ordained in a class of [I forget how many] men, and, of them, only two of us are still in service as priests. The rest are either dead, or in prison, or in mental hospitals.” He then proceeded to explain, in great detail, the practices the Muslims use on Catholic priests.

When I hear Republicans describing these very same practices, and calling them “enhanced interrogation,” I cringe. As many have said, the United States must necessarily attend a higher standard.

It is amazing how quickly Republicans adopt a “penumbral shadow” mentality when it comes to constitutional and human rights in war time. If such-and-such a reason is worth violating the Bill of Rights or violating the Natural Law, when do we determine another reason?

Again, Rush Limbaugh warned that a stricter post-Janet Jackson FCC could just as easily be turned by a Democratic President to silence conservative speech. The basic principle of conservatism is to keep power out of the hands of the government, because Lord Acton was right.

If they can wiretap suspected terrorists, they can wiretap anyone they accuse of being a suspected terrorists. This is *exactly* why the Bill of Rights exists: the British would do horrible things to anyone they suspected of sympathizing with the Revolutionary cause.

Advocates of torture immediately throw this one out: “What if there’s going to be a bomb going off, and you have a suspect who knows where it is, and he won’t talk?”
What ever happened to truth drugs? What good does beating the guy do? Does beating anyone ever make them talk, at least truthfully? No. It makes them obstinate and angry.
The whole reason they try to justify this is the staunch moral convictoins of Islamists, and how they are immune to most other forms of coercion. Yes, and they’re ready to be martyrs.

We exalt our Catholic martyrs, who refused to bow to Roman pressures to deny Christ in the face of horrible tortures. How can any Catholic say that torture makes an effective tool for extracting information?

If there’s going to be a terrorist act, and you do everything possible–within moral boundaries–to prevent it, then you’ve done everything morally possible. If the terrorist act happens, you don’t want that evil compounded by the evil you’ve committed trying to stop it? And why not have faith in God to reward your actions by intervening to prevent the act from happening?

That said, I do agree with those who question the boundaries between torture and “coercion.” I mean, if having to listen to loud rap music is torture (not that I don’t think it is), can I have certain drivers arrested for violating UN human rights treaties?

What about a slap on the face?

It parallels the whole question of corporal punishment and parenting, as well as corporal punishments of prisoners, and self-mortification in the spiritual life. Getting back to Chris’s piece, this is where he leaves off, insisting that we need to reform the level of the dialogue on this issue so we can intelligently discuss these grey areas.

Liberals make a big deal about the “violence” in the Old Testament, but the point of the wars in the Old Testament is not the violence: it’s the importance of trusting God. If Israel had followed worldly wisdom the way that “Christian” Americans do when it comes to wartime and other crises, then God would’ve wiped them out centuries before Jesus.

And, to the extent that God *did* wipe them out, it was because they adopted worldly accomodations to their moral laws.

When Israel did it God’s way–even if it seemed foolish from worldly eyes–they won.

And that gets me to the point that bothered me in Chris Tollefson’s article, regardless of the rest:

I begin with the following normative claim: human life and health is an intrinsic, and indeed, a basic, human good. That is to say, life and health constitute a fundamental aspect of human well-being; the possibility of the promotion of either provides not just a possibility but an opportunity, an offer of benefit. And the possibility of damage or destruction of either provides not just a possibility, but an evil to be avoided and, insofar as such damage or destruction is willed, a wrong not to be done. The normative principle that can be drawn from this practical truth is that in willing, one should never intend the damage or destruction of the life or health of another human being.

This principle is compatible with acts that will, in fact, damage or destroy human life: the use of force in self-defense, the decay of the body brought about by intense study, or the possibility of ill health consequent upon incarceration as punishment for one’s crimes. For none of these forms of damage need be intended; they are, if willed appropriately, willed only as side effects of some other reasonable activity. By contrast, the destruction of human life in, for example, mercy killing or capital punishment, is intended—willed in each case as a means to some further end: cessation of suffering or justice.

I like his qualifications, which are better than most articles I’ve seen that make this claim.

However, whenever I see a Catholic ethicist say that pursuit of health is an intrinsic good, I have to ask two questions:

1) what about mortifications (Chris addresses this question partially in the second paragraph above)? I’m not just talking about fasting and such, but things like flagellation ? Yes, the wonderful post-Vatican II Church has turned away from such practices, but look what our priests and religoius have to show for it.

Just as it may be OK to induce torture methods on a soldier to train him to resist torture, isn’t it also permissible to “torture” oneself or one’s spiritual subordinate for ascetic purposes?

I know that the more severe penances I impose upon myself, the easier I find it not to sin, as I can feel in my own body a small fraction what Christ felt for my sins, and it motivates me not to sin.

2) How does this correspond with Christ’s claim that those who seek to preserve their lives will lose them? Christ specifically commands us to *reject* attachment to our mortal lives as such.

Rush Limbaugh told you so

A few years ago, there was a little incident at the Super Bowl regarind a “wardrobe malfunction.” Many conservatives were calling for stricter FCC regulation. There was some controversy (no surprise) about Howard Stern at the time, and that’s around when he switched to exclusive Satellite broadcasting.

Anyway, at the time, Rush Limbaugh shocked more people on the Left than on the Right by his “support” for the side of Howard Stern, Janet Jackson and the ACLU. Namely, he stood by conservative principles and said that the FCC regulating “decency” goes against the First Amendment. He didn’t support Janet Jackson’s wardrobe nor Howard Stern’s potty mouth, but said that they should be regulated by the free market. Don’t tune in. Write letters of complaint to the media companies, but don’t give the government power to regulate what is considered “decent” speech, because that will only turn around to hurt you.

So, here is an article about the Democrats’ desire to reinstate “fairness doctrine” and “localism.” Again–why is it that the Democrats say they want to do something, and we say, “Hey! They said they want to do this!” And then the MSM say, “It’s just conservative fear-mongering”????

Anyway, even without fairness doctrine or localism, this article from Human Events contends that, once Obama’s appointees get control of the FCC, it will only take complaints from liberal viewers for the FCC to “crack down” on religious broadcasters. Technically, they don’t need “hate speech” laws or “fairness doctrine” or “localism,” though they’re gonna try all 3.

All they need is for liberals to complain to the FCC about Mother Angelica the way conservatives complained about Janet Jackson a few years back.

To quote The Simpsons episode where Homer and Ned stage a Biblical epic for a Superbowl half time show:

Mother: You try to raise your kids as secular humanists but these show-biz types keep shoving religion down our throat.
Kid: Mommy, why wasn’t I baptized?
Mother: You see? YOU SEE??

Hate crimes law passes House

I just hope the Democrats succeed in doing everything they want to do, and then maybe America will get a clue.

The Other Shoe Drops

If Mel Gibson’s wife were just filing for divorce, that would be one thing. There are plenty of reasons why one could see her filing for divorce, and, if he reasonably tried to save the marriage, and was dealing with it chastely, that would be fine.

However, Yahoo’s blasphemous news site “OMG” has reported that the self-proclaimed “Icon” of Traditional Catholicism in Hollywood has been carrying on an adulterous relationship with a russion singer.

O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the heart of Jesus as a fountain of mercy for us, I trust in You.

I told you so: Pedophiles are a protected class; veterans are not; religion is "hate speech"

Here it is! The Bill that I’ve been warning about for at least 2 years. The Bill that will turn the US in to Canada.

They said, like they say about everything, that the Right was “fear-mongering,” “speaking hatefully,” “mobilizing the base,” etc., about this Bill. They said that it was merely expanding the groups protected by existing “hate crimes” laws, and that it had nothing to do with “hate speech.”

As usual, they were liars. As Joe Sobran says, the only thing wrong with a pessimist is he doesn’t know how bad things are really gonna get.

From Bill Donohue:

Wednesday April 29, 2009
DEMOCRATS DEFINE CHILD MOLESTERS AS GAYApril 28, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains this unusual headline:
“The House of Representatives will vote this week, possibly tomorrow, on a hate crimes bill championed by gay groups that includes pedophiles under the rubric of sexual orientation. This is the ultimate confession: liberal Democrats think of pedophiles as indistinguishable from homosexuals.

“When this subject came up last week in the House Judiciary Committee, an amendment to the hate crimes bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of sexual orientation was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 13-10. This was considered good news by gay organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, left-wing groups like the ACLU and various Jewish groups like the ADL.” (emphasis mine)

So, for years, we’ve heard in regard to the priest scandal that “pedophiles are not homosexuals,” which totally scapegoats the issue that most of the victims were teennaged boys, exceeding the age limit for the definition of “pedophilia” and entering the age limit for statutory rape.
Now, the Democrats give pedophilia–a crime which ought to warrant the death penalty–a protected class as a “sexual orientation.”

“The debate is over: for liberals, child molesters should be given the same rights as homosexuals. Moreover, they should be given more rights than pregnant women and veterans; the latter two categories were explicitly denied coverage under the hate crimes bill. Even worse, an amendment that would bar prosecution based in whole or in part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh (Judaism’s sacred book) or the Koran was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 11-8. In other words, religious speech may be denied First Amendment protection.” (emphasis mine)

There it is. If this Bill passes the Demonocrat-controlled Senate and House, as it will be since “Republicans” refuse to put up a fight on anything, and, if Obama signs it, as he will, your first amendment rights go down the toilet.
They already say that *anything* we conservatives say is motivated by “hate” or “anger.”
“I think abortion is wrong.” “You just say that because you’re angry.”
“I think homosexuality is a disordered inclination and should be treated as a psychological condition.” “What a hateful thing to say.”
“I think that the tax rate is too high.” “You’re an extremist who may be a potential terrorist.”

Ralph McInerny on Latin, and the "balkanization" of the Church after Vatican II

I especially like this part:

“The linguistic iconoclasts had a field day and the faithful writhed in the
pews. I still recall the first time Amazing Grace was sung and, incredibly,
Martin Luther’s A Mighty Fortress is Our God. Those reforming the liturgy
apparently felt kinship with the Reformers.”

Try suggesting to any Catholic today that either of these hymns is inappropriate for Mass, and be prepared to have your head bitten off.

“It’s so pretty” trumps “it’s heretical” in most people’s views.

“My grandmother loved it” *definitely* trumps “it’s heretical” for most laity.

I’d take “On Eagle’s Wings” or “Blest are They” over “Amazing Grace” any day.

Vote the Bums Out: Sebelius confirmed 65-31

Despite the evidence that she lied under oath about her campaign contributions from George Tiller, this ex-Catholic witch has been confirmed as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Say good-bye to conscience rights for medical practitioners.
Say good-bye to conscience rights for patients (since a patient who wants medicine in accordance with his or her conscience needs a doctor who will support it).
Say good-bye to your right to choose what medical services you get or don’t get.
Say good-bye to your right to exist, if you’re severely ill, because we’ll see health care rationing very soon.

Every senator who voted for her will have to answer for his or her conscience, especially pro-choice “Catholic” “Republicans” like Sam Brownback.

Ironic, really. 5 years ago, Rick Santorum backed Arlen Specter to protect a seat held by “the Party,” in spite of Specter’s anti-life beliefs. The all-important party and all-important “seniority” (coming, BTW, from a 1994 Class Senator who got in on a “Contract with America” that favored term limits) overrode his pro-life beliefs. And because of that, and his ties with Bush, Santorum lost his Senate seat in 2006.

Now, on the day that the other “best pro-life Catholic in the Senate,” Sam Brownback, votes to approve a rabid pro-abortionist as Secretary of HHS because “if we have to have someone who’s pro-choice, it may as well be a Kansan,” we learn that Arlen Specter has given that all-important “party incumbent” seat to the Democrats by changing parties.

What did you give up your senate seat for, Mr. Santorum? Was it worth it?

I already thought you betrayed the pro-life cause by endorsing McCain, Mr. Brownback, but now you’ve really done it. Maybe Rick can get you a job as a lobbyist when you’re not re-elected the next time around.

Speaking of those who deny the Salvation Mystery,

Joel Osteen is the dubious winner of the “Worst Easter Sermon” Award. I don’t usually delve into apologetic or interfaith issues here, but Osteen is particularly despicable, as is Rick Warren, because both are merely New Age Gurus masquerading as Christian pastors. The fact that both are Larry King’s recent token “Christian spokesmen” should say a lot. On the rare occasions I actually watch cable, it seems I’m always seeing an ad for “Next time on Larry King: Pastor Joel Osteen” or “Next on Larry King: Pastor Rick Warren” or “Next Time on Larry King: Pastors Joel Osteen and Rick Warren!”

I think that Osteen would get along well with German Archbishop Robert Zollitsch:

This year’s winner of the first ever, Worst Easter Sermon Award went to Joel Osteen’s sermon “You Have Come Back Power”.
Commenting on Osteen’s sermon [Chris] Rosebrough [who gave him the award] stated, “Jesus didn’t die and rise again on the cross so that you can have ‘come back power over life’s set backs’. Osteen completely missed the point of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and as a result he missed the entire point of Christianity.”

Considering that Osteen’s claim to fame is denying the existence of Hell, that’s not surprising.

German bishop accused of heresy

by the Society of St. Pius X!

Technically, nothing taught by the Society of St. Pius X is heretical, since Vatican II condemned no heresies. Yet the SSPX and their members are roundly ostracized by Catholics, especially liberal Catholics. This bishop preaches what is unquestionably heresy, and, so far, there are no public reprisals from Rome–no corrections the way the Vatican Press Office loves to “clarify” what Pope Benedict XVI–and no calls for condemnation by those who readily condemn the SSPX.

But Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg, as has been reported in numerous venues, gave a television interview on Holy Saturday in which he said that Jesus did not die for our sins, partly because he denies that we were sinful to begin with!

This is open and blatant heresy.

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, patriarch of the West (oops, sorry!), Metropolitan of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor to the Chair of St. Peter, Servant of the Servants of God, etc., simply states the teaching of the Church, and everyone attacks him.

A bishop denies one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity, considered by everyone as a fundamental requirement to the name “Christian,” the very doctrine which the various New Testament writers say mandates shunning if someone denies it, and no one but the Catholic blogosphere cares???

Why isn’t the MSM calling on Archbishop Zollitsch to clarify or recant?

Are Commonweal, Catholic Sensibility, America, Vox Nova, Maryknoll, Catholics United, St. Anthony Messenger, etc., showering Archbishop Zollitsch with the same criticisms they’ve showered on Pope Benedict for lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops? Are they calling him a useful fool they way the call pope Benedict? Are they calling Zollitsch isolated and out of touch?

No way. He’s saying what they’re thinking, and they know their lies will be exposed if they say anything about him.

At what point does a liberal Catholic admit someone has committed heresy? Answer, never.

Oh, wait, I’m sorry. They say you’re a heretic if you actually quote any document of the Church published prior to 1960

Gotta love Providence

I was feeling badly about not making it to Mass for Gianna’s particular feast day, but I took the kids to Chick-Fil-A, instead. Tuesday nights, at least around here, they have free kids’ meals offers, which we’ve never really been able to take advantage of because of “the wheat thing” (until recently, we were convinced that we all, Gianna in particular, had celiac disease; we’ve recently learned it’s just a wheat allergy–similar symptoms, though, and I’m trying to see if we can integrate some wheat into our diet by taking allergy meds every night).

Anyway, we went to Chick-Fil-A, and we went inside! Just me and the kids, as Mary had a meeting. To fit the van in the parking lot, we had to park on the “drive through” side, then walk around the outside to get to a handicapped ramp.

So, we had a great time. When we left, I very cautiously and authoritatively led my little parade across the parking lot, passing in front of an SUV that was sitting at the window. We were following the usual procedure: the kids all load on the lift. I raise it up. They enter in and get in their seats. I lower the lift and put my wheelchair into the car.

While the kids were going up the lift, the lady in the SUV drove up to pull into the spot next to us.

“Sir, you’re my hero!” She yelled out.
I said, “Pardon?”
She idled the car by me and said, “I just wanted to tell you you’re my hero. First, I saw all those little kids getting ready to cross the street. Then I saw you in your wheelchair. Then I saw how well you managed the kids. And then I saw the ‘I love the Pope’ bumper sticker!”

She had out of state plates, and they looked like they were traveling, or I’d have continued the conversation a bit more. But it was a nice mutually inspirational moment that wouldn’t have happened had I made it to daily Mass. . . . .

Thanks, God!