Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Attorneys General in 11 States Poised to Challenge Healthcare Bill
Attorneys general from at least 11 states say they will challenge the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill passed by the House of Representatives Sunday night.
The threatened action suggests the controversial measure is about to move from the legislative realm into what could become a protracted and messy fight in the courts. The attorneys general say they will sue once President Obama signs the bill into law. They are pledging to take their battle all the way to the US Supreme Court.
“The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution,” said South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster. “A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government,” he said in a statement.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Pro-Life group withdraws award scheduled for Stupak
By: Mark Tapscott
More negative consequences for Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, flowing from his agreeing to support Obamacare tonight following President Obama's issuance of an Executive Order allegedly insuring that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions."This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform- we will no longer be doing so," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List Fund.
"By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country," she said.
"Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.' The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election," Dannenfelser said.
For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November," she said.
The problem is simple, according to Dannenfelser: "The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President's whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless..."
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Early "returns" good for Republicans

(Powerline) The House Republican Conference Press Office has collected some reviews of the health care summit, from sources that are hardly in the Republican camp. These reviews find that the Republicans did quite well.
CNN's David Gergen:
The folks in the White House just must be kicking themselves right now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened
CNN's Gloria Borger:
The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.They took on the substance of a very complex issue. ... But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.
They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.
The Hill's A.B. Stoddard:
I think we need to start out by acknowledging Republicans brought their 'A Team.' They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.
One of the problems for President Obama may have been that he had to take on all comers without much real help from his fellow Democrats. Obama is quite good at this sort of exchange, and seems to have shown it again today. But the Republicans kept throwing fresh and usually reasonably bright and/or attractive faces at him. The Democrats had to let Reid and Pelosi [UPDATE: and Joe Biden) speak, and neither is fresh, attractive, or especially bright.
It also didn't help Obama that the Republicans have a good case on the merits.Thursday, January 7, 2010
Jack Cafferty (CNN) On President Obama's Failed Openness Pledge: 'Just Another Lie ..'
Jack is a liberal leaning commentator on CNN.
More: C-SPAN CEO: White House Has Allowed Only ‘One Hour’ of Health Care Coverage
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Bishop Tobin responds to Kennedy

(WPRI.com)
On February 21, 2007, I wrote to Congressman Kennedy stating: "In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so." My request came in light of the new statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that said, "If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definite teachings on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain." (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, December, 2006)
In the same letter I wrote to Congressman Kennedy, "I am writing to you personally and confidentially as a pastor addressing a member of his flock . . . At the present time I have no need or intention to make this a public issue." I also indicated, "I am available to discuss this matter with you in person at any mutually convenient time and place. I would welcome the opportunity to do so."
On February 28, 2007, the Congressman responded to me, "I have the utmost respect for the work you do on behalf of the Catholic community in Rhode Island. . . I understand your pastoral advice was confidential in nature and given with the best intentions for my personal spiritual welfare."
I am disappointed that the Congressman would make public my pastoral and confidential request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being.
I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy's spiritual life in public. At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry....
Friday, November 13, 2009
Rep. Patrick Kennedy declines to respond to bishop on abortion issue
By Karen Lee ZinerJournal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy said he was “not going to dignify with an answer” Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin’s public comments that Kennedy could not be a good Catholic and still support abortion rights. Kennedy called those comments “unfortunate,” and said, “I’m not going to engage [in] this anymore...”
Kennedy said he also finds it “very disconcerting” that Bishop Tobin will not agree to keep private the discussion of Kennedy’s faith, and that is why his scheduled meeting with the bishop Thursday has been postponed.
In his letter, Bishop Tobin said he was not sure whether Kennedy fulfills “the basic requirements of being a Catholic,” and said that Catholicism involves much more than being baptized into the faith, family ties or cultural heritage. He called Kennedy’s “rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion … a deliberate and obstinate act of the will: a conscious decision that you’ve reaffirmed on many occasions,” and a position that is “unacceptable to the Church, and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.”Bishop Tobin requested that Kennedy “enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance,” and offered to help Kennedy as he “travels the road of faith.”
Kennedy said yesterday that he has a pastor, and “I have my sacraments through that pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion and all the rest.” He said he preferred to keep his pastor’s name private...
Michael Guilfoyle, spokesman for the diocese, said the meeting was postponed “by mutual agreement,” but noted, “The bishop’s schedule is still free on Thursday if the congressman would like to have that personal and pastoral meeting. The contents between any personal conversation between the bishop and the congressman could certainly remain private. However, the congressman has made this a very public debate, and the bishop is responding to his public comments...”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Rep. Lynn Woolsey: IRS should look at bishops

November 9, 2009 05:38 PM EST
I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.
I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Who elected them to Congress?
The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.
Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
One Catholic Priest, and Eleven Other Pro-lifers Were Arrested for Tearing Up Nancy Pelosi's 'Health Care' Bill
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- On Thursday Afternoon, November 5, 2009, 12 pro-lifers were arrested inside or outside in the hall at Nancy Pelosi's office at #235 Cannon office building.
They entered, with two complete copies of the bill - all 2,000 pages (4,000) - and proceeded to rip it up, page by page, and strew it on the floor.
Approximately 150 supporters were in the hall, chanting: "Kill the bill!" About 10 supporters of the bill chanted, "Health care for all!" Aprox 30 police were on site, arresting pro-lifers, one at a time. No supporters of the bill were arrested.
Among those arrested was pro-life legend, Father Norman Weslin, age 78.
See raw footage of the protest, and some of the arrests at the following link.
Complete list of names of those arrested will be released shortly.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput: Health Care and the Common Good

Last week a British Catholic journal, in an editorial titled “U.S. bishops must back Obama,” claimed that America’s bishops “have so far concentrated on a specifically Catholic issue—making sure state-funded health care does not include abortion—rather than the more general principle of the common good.”
It went on to say that if U.S. Catholic leaders would get over their parochial preoccupations, “they could play a central role in salvaging Mr. Obama’s health-care programme.”
The editorial has value for several reasons. First, it proves once again that people don’t need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues. Second, some of the same pious voices that once criticized U.S. Catholics for supporting a previous president now sound very much like acolytes of a new president. Third, abortion is not, and has never been, a “specifically Catholic issue,” and the editors know it. And fourth, the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism.
No system that allows or helps fund—no matter how subtly or indirectly—the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as “common ground.” Doing so is a lie.
On the same day the British journal released its editorial, I got an e-mail from a young couple on the East Coast whose second child was born with Down syndrome. The mother’s words deserve a wider audience:
Magdalena “consumes” a lot of health care. Every six months or so she’s tested for thyroid disease, celiac disease, anemia, etc. In addition, she’s been hospitalized a few times for smallish but surely expensive things like a clogged tear duct, feeding studies and pneumonia (twice). She sees an ENT regularly for congestion, she requires a doctor’s prescription for numerous services—occupational therapy, physical therapy, feeding, speech, etc.—and she needs more frequent ear and eye exams.
I could go on. Often, she has some mysterious symptoms that require several tests or doctor visits to narrow down the list of possible issues. On paper, maybe these procedures and visits seem excessive. She is, after all, only 3 years old. We worry that more bureaucrats in the decision chain will increase the likelihood that someone, somewhere, will say, “Is all of this really necessary? After all, what is the marginal benefit to society for treating this person?”
What do we think of the (Congressional and White House health-care) plans? A government option sounds dangerous to us. The worst-case scenario revolves around someone in Washington making decisions about Magdalena’s health care; or, worse yet, a group of people—perhaps made up of the same types of people who urged us to abort her in the first place. In general, we feel that policy decisions should be made as close as possible to the people who will be affected by them. We are not wealthy people, but our current set up suits us just fine. We trust our pediatrician, who knows us very well, who hears from us personally every few months, who knows Magdalena and clearly sees her value, to give us good advice and recommend services in the appropriate amounts.
We are unsure and uneasy about how this might change. We worry that we, and Magdalena’s siblings, will somehow be cut out of the process down the line when her health issues are sure to pile up. I can’t forget that this is the same president (Obama) who made a distasteful joke about the Special Olympics. He apologized through a spokesman … (but) I truly believe that the people around him don’t know—or don’t care to know—the value and blessedness of a child with special needs. And I don’t trust them to mold policy that accounts for my daughter in all of her humanity or puts “value” on her life.
Of course, President Obama isn’t the first leader to make clumsy gaffes. Anyone can make similar mistakes over the course of a career. And the special needs community is as divided about proposed health-care reforms as everyone else.
Some might claim that the young mother quoted here has misread the intent and content of Washington’s plans. That can be argued. But what’s most striking about the young mother’s e-mail—and I believe warranted—is the parental distrust behind her words. She’s already well acquainted, from direct experience, with how hard it is to deal with government-related programs and to secure public resources and services for her child. In fact, I’ve heard from enough intelligent, worried parents of children with special needs here in Colorado to know that many feel the current health-care proposals pressed by Washington are troubling and untrustworthy.
Health-care reform is vital. That’s why America’s bishops have supported it so vigorously for decades. They still do. But fast-tracking a flawed, complex effort this fall, in the face of so many growing and serious concerns, is bad policy. It’s not only imprudent; it’s also dangerous. As Sioux City’s Bishop R. Walker Nickless wrote last week, “no health-care reform is better than the wrong sort of health-care reform.”
If Congress and the White House want to genuinely serve the health-care needs of the American public, they need to slow down, listen to people’s concerns more honestly—and learn what the “common good” really means.
Bishop R. Walker Nickless’ column can be found at www.catholicglobe.com
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Catholic Bishop Speaks Out Against "End of Life Care" - (Germany, 1941)
August 3, 1941
[The following is from the book, Cardinal von Galen, by Rev. Heinrich Portmann, translated by R.L. Sedgwick, 1957, pp. 239-246.]
The Third Sermon, preached in the Church of St. Lambert's on August 3rd, 1941, in which the Bishop attacks the Nazi practice of euthanasia and condemns the ‘mercy killings’ taking place in his own diocese.
My Beloved Brethren,
In today's Gospel we read of an unusual event: Our Saviour weeps. Yes, the Son of God sheds tears. Whoever weeps must be either in physical or mental anguish. At that time Jesus was not yet in bodily pain and yet here were tears. What depth of torment He must have felt in His heart and Soul, if He, the bravest of men, was reduced to tears. Why is He weeping? He is lamenting over Jerusalem, the holy city He loved so tenderly, the capital of His race. He is weeping over her inhabitants, over His own compatriots because they cannot foresee the judgment that is to overtake them, the punishment which His divine prescience and justice have pronounced. ‘Ah, if thou too couldst understand, above all in this day that is granted thee, the ways that can bring thee peace!’ Why did the people of Jerusalem not know it? Jesus had given them the reason a short time before. ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often have I been ready to gather thy children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and thou didst refuse it! I your God and your King wished it, but you would have none of Me. . . .’ This is the reason for the tears of Jesus, for the tears of God. . . . Tears for the misrule, the injustice and man's willful refusal of Him and the resulting evils, which, in His divine omniscience, He foresees and which in His justice He must decree. . . . It is a fearful thing when man sets his will against the will of God, and it is because of this that Our Lord is lamenting over Jerusalem.
My faithful brethren! In the pastoral letter drawn up by the German Hierarchy on the 26th of June at Fulda and appointed to be read in all the churches of Germany on July 6th, it is expressly stated: ‘According to Catholic doctrine, there are doubtless commandments which are not binding when obedience to them requires too great a sacrifice, but there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us and which we must fulfil even at the price of death itself. At no time, and under no circumstances whatsoever, may a man, except in war and in lawful defence, take the life of an innocent person.’
When this pastoral was read on July 6th I took the opportunity of adding this exposition:
For the past several months it has been reported that, on instructions from Berlin, patients who have been suffering for a long time from apparently incurable diseases have been forcibly removed from homes and clinics. Their relatives are later informed that the patient has died, that the body has been cremated and that the ashes may be claimed. There is little doubt that these numerous cases of unexpected death in the case of the insane are not natural, but often deliberately caused, and result from the belief that it is lawful to take away life which is unworthy of being lived.
This ghastly doctrine tries to justify the murder of blameless men and would seek to give legal sanction to the forcible killing of invalids, cripples, the incurable and the incapacitated. I have discovered that the practice here in Westphalia is to compile lists of such patients who are to be removed elsewhere as ‘unproductive citizens,’ and after a period of time put to death. This very week, the first group of these patients has been sent from the clinic of Marienthal, near Münster.
Paragraph 21 of the Code of Penal Law is still valid. It states that anyone who deliberately kills a man by a premeditated act will be executed as a murderer. It is in order to protect the murderers of these poor invalids—members of our own families—against this legal punishment, that the patients who are to be killed are transferred from their domicile to some distant institution. Some sort of disease is then given as the cause of death, but as cremation immediately follows it is impossible for either their families or the regular police to ascertain whether death was from natural causes.
I am assured that at the Ministry of the Interior and at the Ministry of Health, no attempt is made to hide the fact that a great number of the insane have already been deliberately killed and that many more will follow.
Article 139 of the Penal Code expressly lays down that anyone who knows from a reliable source of any plot against the life of a man and who does not inform the proper authorities or the intended victim, will be punished. . . .
When I was informed of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal for the purpose of putting them to death I addressed the following registered letter on July 29th to the Public Prosecutor, the Tribunal of Münster, as well as to the Head of the Münster Police:
‘I have been informed this week that a considerable number of patients from the provincial clinic of Marienthal are to be transferred as citizens alleged to be "unproductive" to the institution of Richenberg, there to be executed immediately; and that according to general opinion, this has already been carried out in the case of other patients who have been removed in like manner. Since this sort of procedure is not only contrary to moral law, both divine and natural, but is also punishable by death, according to Article 211 of the Penal Code, it is my bounden obligation in accordance with Article 139 of the same Code to inform the authorities thereof. Therefore I demand at once protection for my fellow countrymen who are threatened in this way, and from those who purpose to transfer and kill them, and I further demand to be informed of your decision.’
I have received no news up till now of any steps taken by these authorities. On July 26th I had already written and dispatched a strongly worded protest to the Provincial Administration of Westphalia which is responsible for the clinics to which these patients have been entrusted for care and treatment. My efforts were of no avail. The first batch of innocent folk have left Marienthal under sentence of death, and I am informed that no less than eight hundred cases from the institution of Waestein have now gone. And so we must await the news that these wretched defenceless patients will sooner or later lose their lives. Why? Not because they have committed crimes worthy of death, not because they have attacked guardians or nurses as to cause the latter to defend themselves with violence which would be both legitimate and even in certain cases necessary, like killing an armed enemy soldier in a righteous war.
No, these are not the reasons why these unfortunate patients are to be put to death. It is simply because that according to some doctor, or because of the decision of some committee, they have no longer a right to live because they are ‘unproductive citizens’. The opinion is that since they can no longer make money, they are obsolete machines, comparable with some old cow that can no longer give milk or some horse that has gone lame. What is the lot of unproductive machines and cattle? They are destroyed. I have no intention of stretching this comparison further. The case here is not one of machines or cattle which exist to serve men and furnish them with plenty. They may be legitimately done away with when they can no longer fulfil their function. Here we are dealing with human beings, with our neighbours, brothers and sisters, the poor and invalids . . . unproductive—perhaps! But have they, therefore, lost the right to live? Have you or I the right to exist only because we are ‘productive’? If the principle is established that unproductive human beings may be killed, then God help all those invalids who, in order to produce wealth, have given their all and sacrificed their strength of body. If all unproductive people may thus be violently eliminated, then woe betide our brave soldiers who return home, wounded, maimed or sick.
Once admit the right to kill unproductive persons . . . then none of us can be sure of his life. We shall be at the mercy of any committee that can put a man on the list of unproductives. There will be no police protection, no court to avenge the murder and inflict punishment upon the murderer. Who can have confidence in any doctor? He has but to certify his patients as unproductive and he receives the command to kill. If this dreadful doctrine is permitted and practised it is impossible to conjure up the degradation to which it will lead. Suspicion and distrust will be sown within the family itself. A curse on men and on the German people if we break the holy commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ which was given us by God on Mount Sinai with thunder and lightning, and which God our Maker imprinted on the human conscience from the beginning of time! Woe to us German people if we not only licence this heinous offence but allow it to be committed with impunity!
I will now give you a concrete example of what is taking place here. A fifty-five-year-old peasant from a country parish near Münster—I could give you his name—has been cared for in the clinic of Marienthal for some years suffering from some mental derangement. He was not hopelessly mad, in fact he could receive visitors and was always pleased to see his family. About a fortnight ago he had a visit from his wife and a soldier son who was home on leave from the front. The latter was devoted to his sick father. Their parting was sad, for they might not see each other again as the lad might fall in battle. As it happens this son will never set eyes on his father again because he is on the list of the ‘unproductives’. A member of the family who was sent to see the father at Marienthal was refused admission and was informed that the patient had been taken away on the orders of the Council of Ministers of National Defence. His whereabouts was unknown. The family would receive official notification in due course. What will this notice contain? Will it be like all the others, namely that the man is dead and that the ashes of his body will be sent on the receipt of so much money to defray expenses? And so the son who is now risking his life at the front for his German compatriots will never again see his father. These are the true facts and the names of all those concerned are available.
‘Thou shalt not kill.’ God engraved this commandment on the souls of men long before any penal code laid down punishment for murder, long before any court prosecuted and avenged homicide. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before courts or states came into existence, and plagued by his conscience he confessed, ‘Guilt like mine is too great to find forgiveness . . . and I shall wander over the earth, a fugitive; anyone I meet will slay me.’
Because of His love for us God has engraved these commandments in our hearts and has made them manifest to us. They express the need of our nature created by God. They are the unchangeable and fundamental truths of our social life grounded on reason, well pleasing to God, healthful and sacred. God, Our Father, wishes by these precepts to gather us, His children, about Him as a hen shelters her brood under her wings. If we are obedient to His commands, then we are protected and preserved against the destruction with which we are menaced, just as the chicks beneath the wings of the mother. ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often have I been ready to gather thy children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and thou didst refuse it!’
Does history again repeat itself here in Germany, in our land of Westphalia, in our city of Münster? Where in Germany and where, here, is obedience to the precepts of God? The eighth commandment requires ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’. How often do we see this commandment publicly and shamelessly broken? In the seventh commandment we read, ‘Thou shalt not steal’. But who can say that property is safe when our brethren, monks and nuns, are forcibly and violently despoiled of their convents, and who now protects property if it is illegally sequestered and not given back?
The sixth commandment tells us, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’. Consider the instructions and assurances laid down on the question of free love and child-bearing outside the marital law in the notorious open letter of Rudolf Hess, who has since vanished, which appeared in the Press. In this respect look at the immorality and indecency everywhere in Münster today. Our young people have little respect for the propriety of dress today. Thus is modesty, the custodian of purity, destroyed, and the way for adultery lies open.
How do we observe the fourth commandment which enjoins obedience and respect to parents and superiors? Parental authority is at a low ebb and is constantly being enfeebled by the demands made upon youth against the wishes of the parents. How can real respect and conscientious obedience to the authority of the State be maintained, to say nothing of the Divine commandments, if one is fighting against the one and only true God and His Faith?
The first three commandments have long counted for nothing in the public life of Germany and here also in Münster . . .. The Sabbath is desecrated; Holy Days of Obligation are secularized and no longer observed in the service of God. His name is made fun of, dishonoured and all too frequently blasphemed. As for the first commandment, ‘Thou shalt not have strange gods before me’, instead of the One, True, Eternal God, men have created at the dictates of their whim, their own gods to adore Nature, the State, the Nation or the Race. In the words of St. Paul, for many their god is their belly, their ease, to which all is sacrificed down to conscience and honour for the gratification of the carnal senses, for wealth and ambition. Then we are not surprised that they should claim divine privileges and seek to make themselves overlords of life and death.
‘And as He drew near, and caught sight of the city, He wept over it, and said: "Ah, if thou too couldst understand, above all in this day that is granted thee, the ways that can bring thee peace! As it is, they are hidden from thy sight. The days will come upon thee when thy enemies will fence thee round about, and encircle thee, and press thee hard on every side, and bring down in ruin both thee and thy children that are in thee, not leaving one stone of thee upon another; and all because thou didst not recognize the time of My visiting thee."’
Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem with His human eye, but with His divine prescience He saw far beyond and into the inmost heart of the city and its inhabitants. He saw its wicked obstinacy, terrible, sinful and cruel. Man, a transitory creature, was opposing his mean will to the Will of God. That is the reason why Jesus wept for this fearful sin and its inevitable punishment. God is not mocked.
Christians of Münster! Did the Son of God in His omniscience see only Jerusalem and its people? Did He weep only on their behalf? Is God the protector and Father of the Jews only? Is Israel alone in rejecting His divine truth? Are they the only people to throw off the laws of God and plunge headlong to ruin? Did not Jesus, Who sees everything, behold also our German people, our land of Westphalia and the Lower Rhine, and our city of Münster? Has He not also wept for us? For a thousand years He has instructed us and our forbears in the Faith. He has led us by His law. He has nourished us with His grace and has gathered us to Him as the hen does her brood beneath its wings. Has the all-knowing Son of God seen that in our own time He would have to pronounce on us that same dread sentence? ‘Not leaving one stone of thee upon another; and all because thou didst not recognize the time of My visiting thee.’ That would indeed be a terrible sentence.
My dearly Beloved, I trust that it is not too late. It is time that we realized today what alone can bring us peace, what alone can save us and avert the divine wrath. We must openly, and without reserve, admit our Catholicism. We must show by our actions that we will live our lives by obeying God's commandments. Our motto must be: Death rather than sin. By pious prayer and penance we can bring down upon us all, our city and our beloved German land, His grace and forgiveness.
But those who persist in inciting the anger of God, who revile our Faith, who hate His commandments, who associate with those who alienate our young men from their religion, who rob and drive out our monks and nuns, who condemn to death our innocent brothers and sisters, our fellow human beings, we shun absolutely so as to remain undefiled by their blasphemous way of life, which would lay us open to that just punishment which God must and will inflict upon all those who, like the thankless Jerusalem, oppose their wishes to those of God.
O my God, grant to us all now on this very day, before it is too late, a true realization of the things that are for peace. O Sacred Heart of Jesus, oppressed even unto tears by the blindness and sins of men, help us by Thy grace to seek always what is pleasing to Thee and reject what is displeasing, so that we may dwell in Thy Love and find rest in our souls. Amen.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
HOLY O TURNS 'FAITH' HEALER
WASHINGTON -- Repeatedly invoking the Bible, President Obama yesterday told religious leaders that health-care critics are "bearing false witness" against his plan.
The fire-and-brimstone president declared holy war in a telephone call with thousands of religious leaders around the country as he sought to breathe life into his plan for a system overhaul.
Without naming anyone specifically in the 10-minute conference call, Obama said opponents had been spreading lies.
"I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness," Obama said.
"I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth."
In particular, Obama said the claim that the government would make decisions regarding end-of-life care for the elderly -- the so-called "death panels" -- is "ludicrous" and an "extraordinary lie."
He also disputed charges that the overhaul would pay for abortions and care for illegal immigrants.
He said the reforms aim to carry out one of God's commandments.
"I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper," Obama said.
He called health reform a "core ethical and moral obligation."
The president acknowledged that the effort has met with deeply inflamed opposition from people who don't trust the federal government to carry out such a plan when every government health program already now faces bankruptcy.
He likened his current situation to that of Franklin D. Roosevelt when opponents called him "socialist."
"I'm going to need the help of all of you," Obama said.
The president spoke to the faith leaders after meeting with 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup champ Jimmie Johnson at the White House.
Pastors, rabbis and preachers from every part of the country joined the call and prayed for health reform and told woeful stories about parishioners without adequate health care.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "I think the president would orbit the moon if he thought it would help."
Meanwhile, the administration said it still hopes for a bipartisan breakthrough on its far-reaching goals of expanding health coverage, controlling costs and increasing competition among insurers.
"The president believes strongly in working with Republicans and Democrats, independents, any that seek to reform health care," Gibbs said.
Privately, however, top Democrats said a bipartisan accord seems less likely than ever, and they are preparing strategies for a one-party legislative push.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Gloves are Off: Planned Parenthood President Slams U.S. Bishops on Abortion, Healthcare
By John Jalsevac
August 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, has penned a scathing editorial, published today in the Huffington Post, in which she sets her sights on the U.S. Catholic bishops, slamming them for their opposition to the abortion mandate in the Obama health care bill, and to abortion in general.
"Does anyone else see the irony in the U.S. bishops wanting to define universal health care as covering everything except for what they don't support?" writes Richards. "Since when does universal health care mean denying comprehensive reproductive health care supported by the majority of Americans?"
Richards then goes on to accuse the bishops of endangering "millions" of women's lives around the globe with their "hard-line opposition to women's rights." "The effort to criminalize access to safe abortion endangers most women in the developing world -- the very women that you would think the bishops would be concerned about," says Richards.
The U.S. bishops, while expressing support for healthcare reform in general, have been adamant in their stance that healthcare reform must not include mandated abortion coverage - something that the current legislation would do if passed.
In an August 11 letter Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, carefully but forcefully countered claims, propagated by proponents of Obama's healthcare reform, including Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, that the Obama plan wouldn't mandate abortion coverage and lead to taxpayer funding for abortions.
Any claim that taxpayer money would not be used to fund abortion is "an illusion," said Rigali in that letter. "Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent."
Numerous other prominent bishops, including Archbishop Charles Chaput, Bishop Robert Vasa, and Bishop R. Walter Nickless have also spoken strongly against the abortion provisions in the healthcare bill.
The intense campaign to publicize the abortion mandate in the healthcare bill, not only by the U.S. bishops, but by a huge alliance of pro-life and pro-family organizations, appears to have been successful, with a majority of Americans in a recent poll saying that they believe the Obama reform would include taxpayer funding for abortion.
However, with the majority of Americans calling themselves pro-life, any taxpayer funding for abortion is likely to be extremely unpopular and contribute to the swelling opposition to the Obama plan.
When pro-life concerns about the abortion mandate in the healthcare bill first began to be expressed, pro-abortion groups and legislators responded by simply denying that the legislation would mandate abortion coverage. Cecile Richards was amongst these, saying at the beginning of this month that the abortion mandate is a "myth."
"Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage -- or any other type of health care service -- in the Exchange," Richards insisted in a column for the Huffington Post early in August. "Opponents of women's health and health care reform are exploiting this legislation as a way to push for unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace."
In her most recent article, however, the Planned Parenthood head was more candid about her views on the healthcare plan, saying that it should include "comprehensive reproductive health," a term that for Planned Parenthood includes abortion and contraception.
"We have an opportunity this year to fundamentally address serious health care issues for women and young people in America," says Richards, "and we stand ready to partner with President Obama and Congress to find solutions to our most pressing health care issues."
"We call upon Congress and the White House to continue to stand firmly on the side of women in health care reform. Women are needed to pass health care reform -- and we are not going backwards and we are not going away."
Monday, August 3, 2009
Catholic congressman: I'd rather save my soul than vote for the health care bill
New Orleans, La., Aug 3, 2009 / 02:06 pm (CNA).- Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, (R-New Orleans), the first Vietnamese-American congressman and a Catholic, announced this past weekend that, because of the “stealth mandate” for abortion still present in the Health Care bill, he prefers to “save his soul” rather than vote in favor of it.
Cao, the only member of the Louisiana House delegation who had not weighed in on where he stands on the health reform bill, told the Times-Picayune on Saturday that he cannot support any bill that permits public money to be spent on abortion.
“At the end of the day if the health care reform bill does not have strong language prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion, then the bill is really a no-go for me,” said Cao, who spent time in formation to be a Jesuit priest.
“Being a Jesuit, I very much adhere to the notion of social justice,” Cao said. “I do fully understand the need of providing everyone with access to health care, but to me personally, I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives,” he explained to the Louisiana newspaper.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that Cao will be one of seven Republican members of Congress targeted with radio ads that will play on radio stations with largely African-American audiences, urging him to support Obama's health reform efforts.
“I know that voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career,” Cao said, “but I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, ‘How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul.’”
Cao is the first native of Vietnam to serve in Congress and the first Republican to serve in his district since 1890. He won in a district that usually votes overwhelmingly Democratic.
The poorest member of Louisiana's delegation, and a devout Roman Catholic, Cao served as a board member for Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic Church's Community Development Corporation which assists Vietnamese-Americans with hurricane relief, and is a member of the National Advisory Council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Cao also told the Times-Picayune that he is still undecided about the merits of including a public option in any health reform redesign. He believes that it may ultimately lead to the destruction of the private insurance market and a "government takeover" of health insurance.Monday, July 27, 2009
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill - Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

