Friday, March 30, 2012

Obama and his "military law" Executive Order

This is so dreadful, I can only print it in its entirety. And it is written by someone on Huffington Post, a left-leaning publication.

Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.

Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.

The 2012 NDAA deemed the United States a "battlefield," as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, and gave the president and his agents the right to seize and arrest any U.S. citizen, detain them indefinitely without charge or trial, and do so only on suspicion, without any judicial oversight or due process. The new Executive Order states that the president and his secretaries have the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight allowed, only briefings.

In the NDAA, only the president had the authority to abrogate legitimate freedoms of U.S. citizens. What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:

• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.

The Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.

The 2012 NDAA gave the Government the right to abrogate any due process against a U.S. citizen. The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for "labor" as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation's work needs in relation to national defense.

What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of "national security" or a "national emergency." They can simply be done for "purposes of national defense," clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in 1984, "War is peace. Peace is war." This is now the reality on the ground in America.

Finally, the 2012 NDAA was hurried through the House and Senate almost like a covert op with minimal public attention or debate. It was then signed by the president at 9:00 PM on New Year's Eve while virtually nobody was paying attention to much other than the approaching new year. This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.

It is hard to know what to say in the face of such egregious disregard for the integrity of what America has stood and fought for since its founding. It is hard in part because none of us thought such encroachments would ever happen here, certainly not under the watch of a "progressive" like Obama.

At one level, the prospect for war with Iran is probably an immediate justification. But the comprehensiveness of the Executive Order, like that of the 2012 NDAA, speaks to something much deeper, more sinister. I would suggest that this Order, like the NDAA, has been in the works for some time and is simply the next step in the logic of the "global war on terror." Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our "security." Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.

The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed by our own turpitude.

- Martial Law by Executive Order, by Jim Garrison

As so many Republicans are now saying, it doesn't matter who wins the nomination, it is just crucial to get behind the contender and make sure Obama does not get another four years. As Mark Steyn says:

You don’t have to be a genius. You don’t have to be the most charismatic guy. You don’t have to be the colossus. But you just have to be good enough to beat this guy, because if we don’t, then as he’s just said to President Medvedev, you ain’t seen nothing yet. - Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt show, March 29

Abortion: The Great Battle of Our Time



Come be inspired, get equipped and take action in our province to defend life.

DEFEND LIFE 2012
Saturday, April 14
Canadian Martyrs Church
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Visit the website at Defend Life 2012

Want to go but can't afford to register? Email me and we will make sure you can go.

What Marriage Means to Today's Young Adults

From an article linked in today's Mercator Net, a study in Ohio reveals some interesting facts about young adults and their views on marriage.

...more than half of births to American women under age 30 now occur outside of marriage...

Nonmarital births have been common among Americans without a high school diploma for at least thirty years: as the 2010 State of Our Unions reports, in 1982 33 percent of births to women without a high school diploma occurred outside of marriage, compared to 13 percent of births to high-school educated women. But in the past thirty years, nonmarital births to high-school educated women surged: in the late 2000s’, 44 percent of births to high-school educated women occurred outside of marriage. (By comparison, only 6 percent of births to college-educated women were outside of marriage.) It is the behavioral changes of this “moderately educated middle”—the 58 percent of high-school educated Americans—that put the “normal” into “the new normal” that the Times describes.

Furthermore, the “new normal” is not driven primarily by an increase in single mothers, but in the number of cohabiting couples: in 1988, 39 percent of high-school educated Americans had cohabited; in the late 2000’s, 68 percent. According to Child Trends, 52 percent of all nonmarital births took place within a cohabiting relationship. Almost two-thirds (61 percent) of nonmarital births to white women took place in cohabiting unions.

These trends raise important questions. How do working-class young adults think about marriage today? Do they still revere it even while they choose to delay it, or are they jettisoning marriage altogether? If they do revere it, why the increase in cohabiting unions with children?

As the interviewers questioned young adults about their views on marriage, several things became clear: most wanted to be married one day; most did not want to be divorced; most thought that if you divorced, it was because you had not found the right person to begin with; most thought that love was that emotional connection with another person; and most thought that happiness was the barometer of a good marriage.

As I read the article, I was struck by the fact that these young adults, almost to a man (or woman), did not know that commitment plays a significant (perhaps the most significant) role in achieving a successful marriage. It is almost as if there is a passivity involved; being in love and staying in love are things that just happen; perhaps that is the result of all the Hollywood flicks that young adults have based their life views on. Not one interviewee said anything about, when the emotional sparks die down, it is commitment that keeps the relationship going.

One young man who was interviewed was an unmarried father of 27 who had already been in 18 "relationships" and has been engaged four times. He has a date to be married, but questions the purpose of signing a contract when you already know you are going to stay with that person for life. Does this young fellow not look around and see the lives of his friends? Has he not realized that cohabiting relationships fail far more often than legal marriage? His knowledge of marriage seems to be entirely subjective, and given his own mother's three divorces as well as the divorces of his numerous aunts, uncles, and cousins, his chances of staying married are pretty slim.

Another interesting fact that came out of this survey was that most young adults did not see children and marriage necessarily connected. The prevailing view was that sex might have the result of producing a child, in which case you would accept that, but most did not see marriage as being the place where one actually parented children and built family life. Is it any wonder that so many women are now single parents?

This article calls to mind so many things I have read or listened to in the past. Ronald Reagan's deep regret that he helped push through the no-fault divorce law in California, once he came to realise that he had facilitated easy divorce; Ann Coulter's statement on a tv talk show that the one thing every child should want first of all was a married mother and father (based on the stats of criminal rate amongst children of single mothers and based on the fact that single motherhood is the surest way to be poor in America); the Pope's recent exhortation to American bishops to preach against the evils of co-habitation.

Myself, I have been married for 38 years and to the same man. I had no illusions about marriage being a bed of roses; my own parents had a rocky marriage that ended in separation after 27 years. Even at the age of 21, the breakdown of a family is emotionally and psychologically devastating. When I married, I was terrified because I knew how easy it would be to become a bitter nagging wife, and how easy it would be to come to hate the person I was married to. I recall, being in a campground and hearing a woman speaking to her husband, and the tone of voice resounded within me with dread. Above all, I did not want to sound like that woman in 20 years time. Her voice was full of irritation and resentment as she asked her husband to do something in a way that indicated she thought he was next to useless. It was a horrific foreshadowing to me of what I could become, if I chose to behave in a certain way.

The unfortunate fact is that so many of today's young adults don't come from happy homes, where parents have remained married, so what example do they have to follow? And who is telling them what they need to know? That love is an act of the will, not an emotion.

And that is precisely why getting married, and not co-habiting, is so necessary for relationships to last. It is committing to behaving in a loving way that builds success in a relationship. You are not going to feel lovey-dovey in two years time, and certainly not once children arrive with the demands they make upon their parents. Some rare folks do seem to stay "in love" as they were pre-marriage, but they are extremely rare. Most of us have to work at being loving.

One thing I learned early on in my married life was that the thing that most attracted me to my husband, became the very thing that irritated me most. He has a wonderful quirky sense of humour; and I was completely charmed by it when I met him. I couldn't stop laughing; he was just so smart and funny in such a different way (he is British, what more do I have to say?). However, that very humour was the thing that drove me crazy in a couple of years. I found it immensely irritating; he seemed to find humour in things that I thought were dire, and the fact that he did made me angry.

Over time, and over some years, an amazing thing began to happen. I started to find him funny once again. And I remember once, looking over at him during dinner, and realising this was the man I fell in love with and I loved him all over again. That doesn't happen if you give up when the loving feeling goes away; it can only happen if you stick to the relationship through the tough years (most of which seem to be while raising kids). But if you can stick to it, the very things you found so attractive at first, will once again become attractive again. And this second time, they are so much more lasting.

None of this can happen if you don't commit to someone in a deep way. If you pledge your life to them, come thick or thin, through hard times and good times. When your ability to love seems to be parched, it is that commitment that carries you through. Don't count on the loving emotions to bring you through those years; it is commitment on a deeper level that will win the day. And when you come through it, you and your spouse realise that you actually love each other more and in a much more satisfying way than what you first experienced with the "flush of love".

h/t What Marriage Means to Today's Young Adults by Amber and David Lapp

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Mary Wagner Story on Sun News

Tonight, Ezra Levant had two lawyers on his show, crown attorney Derek Ishak and defense counsel Russell Browne. They made a joint submission to Justice S. Ford Clements for time served plus a three-year probationary term for Mary Wagner who was being sentenced for entering an abortion clinic and counseling women there to keep their babies. Apparently on previous occasions, Mary had given flowers to some women and she had spoken to some, but this last time she overstepped the mark, by putting her hand on the door frame of the clinic. Ezra's face was priceless as he listened to the treatment of this peaceful pro-life activist.

Background to the story:
TORONTO, Ontario, March 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Ontario Court of Justice judge erupted in a lengthy, angry tirade against pro-life activist Mary Wagner – and ejected a spectator from the public gallery – in a downtown Toronto courtroom Wednesday. The judge then sent Wagner to jail for an additional 92 days, added to 88 days already served prior to trial, after finding her guilty of mischief and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

“You don’t get it, do you? What’s the rule of law? You’re required to abide by it … You’ve lost the right as a citizen to be anywhere near an abortion clinic or to speak to an employee,” he said.

“You’re wrong and your God’s wrong,” he continued. “You have complete contempt … There is a right to (abortion) in this country … You don’t have a right to cause (abortion-seeking women) extra pain and grief the way you do.”

The above quote from the judge in Mary's case revealed an eruption of temper from the magistrate, something unheard of in a courtroom. And as Ezra Levant pointed out, this reveals a bias on the part of the judge. If he had said to a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, that "your God's wrong", he would have received a public lashing from media and from higher authorities. In fact, Ezra said such a judge's very role would be under scrutiny. But when it comes to law enforcement and Christians and pro-lifers, continued Levant, the latter are usually treated unfairly.

This is great, because once Ezra Levant gets hold of a story about injustice, he is like a dog with a bone. And I look forward to seeing further developments in this story.

40 Days for Life in Ottawa

Aborting Women's Rights

From Aborting Women's Rights by Ken Connor
"The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males. This still-growing international predilection for sex-selective abortion is by now evident in the demographic contours of dozens of countries around the globe – and it is sufficiently severe that it has come to alter the overall sex ratio at birth of the entire planet, resulting in millions upon millions of new 'missing baby girls' each year. In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls."

No doubt abortion advocates would argue that it is not abortion that is at fault here, but backward cultures that are misusing the tools of liberty in order to further their misogynistic agendas. Third world abortion might be an abusive, repugnant phenomenon, but that says nothing about its use in the western world. Such logic is nothing short of delusional. When it comes to questions of life and death, there is little gray area. You are either an advocate of life, a supporter of inherent human dignity, or you aren't. You can't justify the killing of the unborn the name "choice" and then complain when others exercise that choice in ways you find objectionable.

So this leaves the feminists of the west in somewhat of a pickle. What will they make of these new demographic trends? Will they stick to their guns and defend the use of abortion even as a tool of gender-based infanticide? Will they attempt to somehow construct a "morality of abortion" in which only certain motivations for the procedure are deemed justifiable? Will they evade the issue altogether?

This reminds me of a story that Michael Coren related. He was speaking to a pro-life group on a university campus and, after his talk, a young woman came up and asked him some questions about abortion. She indicated that she was a lesbian who was pro-choice. Michael asked her about a hypothetical situation: if researchers were to discover a gene for homosexuality that could be detected in the unborn, would she still be pro-choice if someone wanted to abort their child because it was gay? The young woman's eyes welled up and she had no answer. Michael said, "sometimes we have to win them over one at a time."

Father Raymond de Souza on Development and Peace

Even though he was required to put his bishop's appeal for generous donations to Development & Peace in his parish bulletin, Father Raymond de Souza gives his real thoughts in this column in the Catholic Register.

The question arises because last June I wrote in this column that CCODP “has a tenuous claim on Catholic dollars because, aside from fundraising in Catholic parishes, they have a tenuous relationship with any distinctively Catholic mission. In their operations they are largely — and by their own proud design — indistinguishable from any number of peace and justice NGOs working in the developing world.”

The bishops of Canada take a different view and, in a March 22 statement, urged Catholics to redouble their generosity during the annual Share Lent campaign. In Kingston, our own archbishop sent a message to all parishes to that effect. I included it in my parish bulletin in the space usually reserved for my own message.

Given that this is neither a matter of doctrine nor morals, there is not an issue of magisterial authority at stake. It’s a prudential judgment about whether a particular organization is an effective means of carrying out the corporal works of mercy, advancing the cause of liberty and justice, and contributing to the common good. As a commentator, I have given my judgment in light of recent controversies. The pastors of the Church have a different collective judgment. I wish I shared that view, but honesty — and the written record — requires me to say that I do not. However, in terms of advising Catholics how to proceed in light of the March 22 statement, it should go without saying that a newspaper commentator is by no means of equivalent weight to the bishops’ recommendation.

Individual Catholics, as responsible stewards of their God-given resources, have the duty to decide, on the basis of all available information and their own best judgment, how to allocate their charitable donations. It is a laudable desire for them to be in harmony with their bishops in making that decision.

Massive cuts in funding from the Canadian government, via CIDA, to CCOPD (the Catholic agency of Development and Peace) have resulted in a crisis within Development and Peace. How do they continue to fund the numerous groups around the world that they have been supporting with a much smaller amount of money? This was why the call last Sunday from the pulpits was for Catholics to be very generous with this collection. But perhaps this crisis should lead to a different result, as Father de Souza states.

Both those shifts hit CCODP hard. Its long-standing approach has been to seek out partners in dozens and dozens of countries, and those partners are very much directed to social and political activism.

Indeed, the controversies that have plagued CCODP in Catholic circles have arisen from its partnerships with some such agencies which advocate for causes antithetical to Catholic teaching, including wider availability of abortion.

h/t Canadian Catholic Bloggers

“The CCCB is extremely disappointed with this decision which will greatly curtail CCODP’s good work,” the bishops’ statement said. “With our full support, for forty-five years, it has faithfully and successfully made important contributions to all the areas where it has been present. The CCCB President, Archbishop Richard Smith, and Vice-President, Archbishop Paul-André Durocher, saw this first-hand during their recent visit to Haiti. Tragically, with a smaller annual budget, CCODP will have to decrease (and possibly even eliminate) the amount of funding for a number of projects supported in the South and reduce their programs in the North.”

The massive cuts in CCODP’s government aid have brought about an unexpected moment of crisis. It remains to be seen whether that crisis may produce the thoroughgoing reform of CCODP that, for example, Cardinal Collins of Toronto called for two years ago.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Hope in Japan

My daughter sent me a link to this story yesterday. The birth of a Japanese baby saved lives with its arrival. In the country of Japan, which has a suicidal birth rate, 1.4 children per woman - the second lowest in the developed world (South Korea is first) - the fact that this couple had a third child is good news.

MINAMISANRIKU (Reuters) - Searching through piles of bodies after Japan's March 11 tsunami, Kenji Sato was struck by the thought -- he could easily have been one of them, had it not been for his son born earlier that day.

In a fortunate twist of fate, Sato, a wiry descendant of fishermen in his coastal hometown of Minamisanriku, took time off from work to see his third child, Haruse, born at a hospital in a nearby port city.

Hours later, the only thing left of the nursing home where he would usually have been was a skeleton of steel pillars.....

A year on, the Satos, who all survived since their house was built on a hill, are planning a quiet birthday with some cake and ice cream for the child who, his grandmother Kazuko insists, "was born to save us."....

After his birth, Haruse -- whose name means "Bright Spring" -- was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, a genetic condition associated with some impairment of cognitive ability."I didn't know anything about it and was worried I won't be able to raise him properly, but we decided to bring him up just like our other two sons," said Hiromi. "The only difference is that we take him to a specialist doctor from time to time."




Yahoo News Canada

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Evangelicals and Their Music



Last night, I stumbled upon a show on tv, a Gospel hour, and my husband and I were treated to a wonderful time of evangelism. Many dismiss these southern evangelicals, and many Christians dismiss their outspoken witness to the Gospel, but boy I was thrilled to the core with this. They sing these songs with such a passion, and the lyrics bring the Scriptures to life. They can really evangelize just with their music.

A recent column on LifeSiteNews, entitled "the thing that frightens our opponents most' is an 'evangelical-Catholic alliance' gives me great hope. I would dearly love to be allied with just such evangelicals.

During the 40 Days for Life vigils in Halifax, I have come to know several dozen evangelical Protestants, both lay people and ministers, and they have a zeal and ardor for the Word that is edifying. So, if there is going to be an alliance of real believing Catholics and real believing evangelicals as the world turns darker and darker, then I say bring it on.

By the way, Guy Penrod in the video above is an interesting fellow. Google him and you will find he is the son of a Texas pastor, and he has been with the Gaithers musical group for 14 years, and has now gone out solo. Well, not really solo, because he will be having his eight children singing with him as well. Yes, seven sons and one daughter, a farmer who drives a half-ton and listens to country music in his truck, this is the kind of guy who will lead Christians in the days to come.

40 Days for Life in Montreal

Participants in the 40 Days for Life vigil in Montreal have had their share of persecution. Brian Jenkins relates how a mob of students, who had been protesting tuition hikes, attempted to disrupt their vigil of prayer.

From Brian's blog
Yesterday afternoon, at the 40 Days for Life prayer vigil, four vigilers were swarmed by a throng of disgruntled university students. After this experience I better appreciate the meaning of spiritual warfare.
Here's what happened:

At about 4:45 p.m., shortly after having returned from a break, I heard some ominous sounds getting louder and louder. It didn't sound good.

My fears were realized, as at least 60 to 70 youth appeared walking up St-Laurent Boulevard and on reaching the intersection with St-Joseph crossed over into the park and besieged our prayer site. We were four vigilers at the time - three men and one older woman, and wherever we turned there they were - in front, behind, to our right, to our left.

The crowd was raucous. Led with blowhorn, chants were sung. Many motorists encouraged them on and the mob reacted jubilantly whenever a car horn was blown.

After a while many of the youth began to crowd our banner, leaning on its sturdy yet not unbreakable PVC support frame. My supplication to be cautious seemed to spur many on to do the opposite; these began to uproot the frame and untie the banner. I suspect that had I not stood on the unfurled banner its fate would have been worse than footprints and a twelve inch gash.

The outcome of our other materials was not as kind. Several struts of the frame were stolen. Our enlarged fetal picture despite being broken in two was saved from any further damage by one of the vigil participants.

Unfortunately the other end piece did not fare as well.

Where were the police in all of this, you may wonder. No fewer than ten police cruisers stood by watching from the sidelines. Sgt. Filion explained later that he did not order an intervention because he did not have the numbers to do so. And so, for over an hour the vigilers prayed and tried to dissuade the youth as much as they could.

For the better part of the hour, we prayed on our own. Then Philip, one of the vigil participants, suggested that he and I pray Saint Patrick's Breastplate Prayer. As we began to do so and throughout its recitation, a young woman protester began howling, trying to break our concentration. To no avail.

Upon finishing, this woman disappeared and what can accurately be described as intelligent conversation began between myself, Philip and five or six of the young folk.

At 6 p.m. the crowd began to disperse and a few of our reinforcements appeared. At this point we decided to resume our vigil and, minus the frame, held aloft our banner.

Police levied fines on three of the young people.


The fight against abortion is a fight against one of the biggest strongholds of the devil. This is an area where the evil one has actually succeeded in making his world of evil legal.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. - Ephesians 6:12

Catholics Unite Against Obama's Mandate

“If this HHS mandate goes through, the backbone of so much of the healthcare in the United States Is going to collapse because it’s Catholic,” Fr. Francis Martin, chaplain of the local Catholic lay group Mother of God Community, told LifeSiteNews.com.
- LifeSiteNews

Pardon me if I zero in on one line in this long article, but Father Francis Martin was the priest who married my husband and I thirty-eight years ago. He has had major health issues in the past year and is now 81 years old, I believe, so it is great to see he is still holding the line for the Church.

Now aside from that, check out the article above to see the growing opposition to President Obama.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Letter from Archbishop Timothy Dolan that the NY Times would not print

From the blog of Patrick Madrid


From the Archbishop's blog on the Archdiocese of New York's website, we read that "The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it."

FOUL BALL!

By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York

October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!

Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.

It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”

If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
* On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”
Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as theNew York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.

* On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.

* Five days later, October 21, theTimes gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.


* Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans. True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.

I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will notreceive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALLschool-children and their parents to be treated equally?

The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.

I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.

Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Women and the Pill

Margaret Wente wrote an article in the Globe and Mail called "Drop the Paternalism and sell the Pill over the counter".
Yet after decades on the market, the Pill has been declared so safe that you can get it over the counter in Mexico and other countries. So why not in the United States and Canada? “Extortion,” says Ms. Postrel. For pharmaceutical companies, over-the-counter approval would be costly. Doctors would lose patients. Pharmacists would lose dispensing fees.
- The Globe

As Andrea Mrozek rightly asks if ignorance is bliss, should you really be writing columns?

Andrea wrote an article published in the Ottawa Citizen in 2010 on this very issue. I guess Margaret Wente didn't read it or anything contrary to her opinion for that matter.

Welcome to the world of Do It Yourself Doctoring. Recent reports indicate that the birth control pill may become available in the United States without a prescription. Proponents will claim this makes women's lives healthier and easier. Nothing could be further from the truth. The pill is not Tylenol or cough medication. Certainly it's widely used. However, forever downplayed are the nasty and known side effects: There's the risk of blood clots leading to stroke. There's mood swings. There's increased risk of cervical cancer, (alongside the highly touted effect of decreasing the risk of ovarian cancer). There's a 44-per-cent increased risk of developing breast cancer for young women prior to having children, a finding published in the Mayo Clinic journal in 2006. Anecdotal evidence has some women feeling permanently nauseous, others get depressed. Still others say they lose, wait for the irony, the desire to have sex.

... let's compare and contrast: Condoms are not ingested and they don't contain synthetic hormones. They don't need to be taken at a particular time of day and won't have their use continued even when there's no sexual activity. They don't change the makeup of a man's body or alter the release of sperm. The World Health Organization did not classify condoms as a known carcinogen. (Yes, you read that right. WHO classified the pill as a carcinogen in 2005.) Virtually all men will acknowledge they'd never stand to take something as body altering as the pill. Not so with women: The late Barbara Seaman, an investigative journalist, wrote a book about treating women with hormones called The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women. - Ottawa Citizen

Last year, an acquaintance of mine confided to me that she had undergone treatment for aggressive breast cancer, having had a mastectomy, radiation and chemo therapy. She was 42 at the time. She was told by medical personnel that the number one contributing factor in her cancer was the early and prolonged used of oral contraceptives. This is not easy information to hear and she was angry. Angry that she had not been told of the risks, angry that her doctor continued to prescribe the pill, angry that she had put off pregnancy for so many years. Pregnancy and breast feeding are the best defenses against breast cancer; why wasn't she told?

I think there will be many more women like my friend in the future; once women realise that oral contraception interferes with a perfectly healthy system, they will soon make the connection that you can't do that without some consequences.

For more information on the pill and its connection to breast cancer, visit the Breast Cancer Institute. Founded by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast surgeon in Massachusetts, its aim is to truly inform women about their breast health. Perhaps Margaret Wente should read check out their information before pumping out an off-the-top-of-her-head column.

h/t ProWomanProLife

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Mark Steyn analyses Rick Santorum

The more I read this guy, the more I am in awe of his ability to analyse what is going on in the world. And I love, love, love the way he dishes up his statements with wicked humour.

Even to those Aussies of a conservative bent, the weirdness of Santorum is a given. I've spent maybe 15 minutes in his company, at a GOP county dinner in southern New Hampshire, where we talked mostly about the Habsburg Empire — his grandfather was a bit of imperial cannon fodder on the Russian front who managed to survive the Great War and get on the boat to Pennsylvania. Santorum didn't seem weird to me — or at any rate no weirder than the normal weirdness quotient required of those who decide to run for president of the United States.

On that night in the Granite State, I said something like, "Wow! Two generations from immigrant to presidential candidate," and Rick said something like, "Only in America." But the old cliches don't exert quite the same pull. After all, we live in fast-moving times: In the course of two generations, what doesn't change? The Habsburg Empire for which Grandpa Santorum fought is dust, and, according to the Vienna Institute of Demography, by mid-century a majority of Austrians under the age of 15 will be Muslim. As I wrote here last year: Salzburg, 1938 — singing nuns, Julie Andrews, "How do you solve a problem like Maria?" Salzburg 2038 — How do you solve a problem like sharia?

Old settled societies appear like a frozen river in my part of New Hampshire: On the surface, all is still. Underneath, the icy water is fast-moving. That's where all the business that really engages Santorum is — and he's not wrong on most of it. As Congressman Mike Pence said a year or two back, "To those who say we should simply focus on fiscal issues, I say you would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family collapses."

But Pence's doomsday scenario is already here: What "traditional" family? Seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 70 percent of the offspring of poor white women, as are a majority of Hispanic babies. Forty percent of American children are born outside marriage; among women under 30, a majority of children are. Well, so what? It's the same in Scandinavia, isn't it? Well, not quite. Our progeny are fatter, sicker, riddled with childhood diabetes. Dennis Prager wrote a couple of years ago that Obama saw the United States as a large Sweden. A large Sweden is a contradiction in terms, and out there in the Dependistans of America we're better at being large than being Swedish.

Let's take it as read that Rick Santorum is weird. After all, he believes in the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, the traditional socio-religious understanding of a transcendent purpose to human existence. Once upon a time, back in the mists of, ooh, the mid–20th century, all these things were, if not entirely universal, sufficiently mainstream as to be barely worthy of discussion. Now they're not. Isn't the fact that conventional morality is now "weird" itself deeply weird? The instant weirdification of ideas taken for granted for millennia is surely mega-weird — unless you think that our generation is possessed of wisdom unique to human history. In which case, why are we broke?

Look, I get the problem with a Santorum candidacy. And I get why he seems weird to Swedes and Aussies, and even Americans. If you're surfing a news bulletin en route from Glee to Modern Family, Santorum must seem off-the-charts weird, like a monochrome episode that's been implausibly colorized from a show too old even for TV Land reruns. It would be healthier to thrash these questions out in the culture, in the movies and novels and pop songs. But Hollywood has taken sides, and the Right has mostly retreated from the field. And somebody has to talk about these things somewhere or other. Our fiscal crisis is not some unfortunate bookkeeping accident that a bit of recalibration by a savvy technocrat can fix. In the United States as in Greece, it is a reflection of the character of a people. The problem isn't that Rick Santorum's weird, but that a government of record-breaking brokeness already busting through its newest debt-ceiling increase even as it announces bazillions in new spending is entirely normal.

Steyn Online

This Pope and the Problem of Evil



I know that lots of people don't like Glen Beck and they think he epitomizes the red-neck conservative view. Too bad, I think he has got this correct. Pope Benedict is trying to prepare the Catholic Church for what is coming. Pope Benedict has read the writing on the wall and sees a great battle facing the Church, the majority of people having no clue.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Planned Parenthood's 10 Most Feared Enemies in 2012

From a lengthy article in Pajamas Media, comes the following:

Read the article here - it is well worth the read. I have quoted a brief line from each section to give you the gist.

#10 - Steven Ertelt and LifeNews.com
Getting correct info out about the abortion industry is vitally important. There are lots of lies and misinformation out there but the truth is on our side – whether it concerns the development of the unborn child, how abortion hurts women, or the devastating effects abortion has had on society.

#9 - Jill Stanek
In 2008, Stanek became a sought-after guest for many conservative media outlets. The former hospital nurse went public to reveal that as a state senator, Obama voted against the Illinois Born-Alive bill multiple times. In other words, Obama voted for infanticide to continue in Illinois. While the mainstream press tried to ignore the topic, Stanek kept pushing it and that made her an enemy of the Left.

#8 - Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life
The official voice for pro-life teaching in the Catholic Church is Father Frank Pavone and his Priests for Life. Sadly the United States Catholic population — including far too many in Congress — fail to heed the Church’s teachings on abortion. Pavone leads the way in reminding Catholics what the Church proclaims and how to engage with other groups for the cause of life.
#7 - Ultrasound Machines
As ultrasound technology has increased, so has the ability for women to see what exactly is in their body. For decades, pro-choice groups told women that they did not have babies inside of their wombs, but merely clumps of cells. But with today’s technology we can see beautiful 3D images of babies. Science is on the side of life. And those who still make arguments that abortions are only removing cells or non-human entities are today’s flat-earthers. Yet Planned Parenthood has happily found itself in that camp. And therefore they don’t need groups showing potential clients annoying things like facts.

#6 - Crisis Pregnancy Centres
Now why would Planned Parenthood, a supposedly “pro-choice” organization, want to fight that? It’s all about money. Abortion is a very profitable business for PPFA. And every girl that walks into a CPC is a potential customer not walking into a Planned Parenthood. There are over 4,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the country, but only around 750 abortion clinics. So CPCs have become a massive target for PPFA. They don’t want women to know CPCs exist, so PPFA works with the Democrat Party and the media to try to bring CPCs down.

#5 - Marjorie Dannenfelser and the SBA-List
The Susan B. Anthony List was started by Dannenfelser in 1991 initially to help get pro-life leaders, especially women, elected to Congress. It used to hurt the pro-life cause that men played such a visible role (pro-choice groups continue to ignore the overwhelming influence of women in the pro-life movement now and make this tired and sexist argument that men should not have a say in the debate). But now there are many female pro-life leaders in government, and Dannenfelser deserves praise. That obviously makes her and the SBA-List a top enemy of PPFA in a big election year.

#4 - Abby Johnson and other former Planned Parenthood workers
Johnson fled the abortion industry and sought out the help of the folks at 40 Days for Life. Planned Parenthood took her to court and lost in their attempt to silence Johnson from doing interviews and releasing her book about Planned Parenthood. One of PPFA’s biggest fears is when people leave Planned Parenthood as employees and begin to reveal the truths of how they operate.

#3 - Lila Rose and Live Action
Rose, while still in her early 20s, has captured the eyes and hearts of many people through utilization of new media and spreading her message through speeches (often to passionate young pro-lifers) nationwide. Probably every pro-life advocate would list her as one of the most important people in the pro-life movement. Planned Parenthood is well aware that Miss Rose’s goal is to take them down, and that terrifies them.

#2 - Charmaine Yoest and Americans United for Life
AUL has mastered the shift the pro-life movement has taken over the last two decades from a one big fight approach to focusing on small, incremental victories. Yoest and AUL know this is a long war and must be won one battle at a time, and have done that with over 28 legislative victories in just the past year.

#1 - The 2012 Republican Candidate for President
Planned Parenthood’s Action Fund has a site on whom they watch and worry about. They have a list of “biggest chumps” and the first three are Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. And they list their “biggest champ” as Barack Obama. This leaves no doubt that keeping Obama as president is job #1 in 2012 for Planned Parenthood, and therefore a pro-life Republican nominee has to be their biggest enemy.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Father Robert Barron on Abortion



Father Barron is a wonderful Catholic apologist, who has released a 10-DVD series on Roman Catholicism. He also has many videos on YouTube, some of which are his refuting the misconceptions that many people have about the Catholic Church. What a wonderful gift this man is to us Catholics.

Check out other videos, just google YouTube heresies.

This was my high school

Family members are shocked after Grade 7 Catholic school students received oral sex pamphlets meant for 18 year olds.

“My granddaughter is totally not into sex or anything like that. She could not believe that she was handed this in school. And when I saw it — I’m 62 years old — I was upset,” said Carmen James-Poulin, the grandmother of a student at Marymount Academy in Sudbury, Ont.

The explicit flyers were distributed Thursday during an open house at the all-girls Catholic school for students in Grades 7 to 12.

The pamphlet includes a guide on how to perform oral sex on men and women, as well as pros and cons to giving or receiving the act.

HHS Mandate Phase Two by Mark Steyn


I attended Marymount Academy in 1963 and 1964. Back in the days when we had St. Joseph's sisters in full habit; in fact I had only one lay teacher in each year, all my other teachers were nuns.

Those who are the victims of this educational push have no idea how much simpler and more fun life was before all this crap was dumped on them.
As Steyn concludes:

Oh, well: Sex Ed über alles. In my day (as we oldsters say), whatever one’s tastes in this area, most interested parties managed to pick up the gist of it out of hours. You’d be amazed how much curriculum time that frees up for math, history, Latin and whatnot.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Re-Opening the Debate in Canada


OTTAWA — A controversial proposal from a Conservative backbencher to legally define fetuses as human beings — and reopen the abortion debate — will have its day in the House of Commons.

Tory MP Stephen Woodworth wants Parliament to create a committee of politicians whose task it will be to review a law that stops short of defining unborn children as "human beings."

A committee of MPs has agreed to give Woodworth at least one hour of debate sometime in April. He will receive a second hour of debate sometime either in late spring or early fall.
Read the article in the Ottawa Citizen


It seems that the debate on abortion may get re-opened despite Prime Minister Harper's insistence that he will not debate the issue. Some things just have a way of asserting themselves.

h/t Pro Woman Pro Life

Sandra Fluke - The New Narcissism


Oh, and the "young coed" turns out to be 30, which is what less-evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She's a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity. - Mark Steyn

When I was 30, I had two children, my husband was in graduate school getting his PhD in geology in order to support his family. We had a hard time managing life on a graduate student's stipend, but we knew that life meant sacrifices. We knew that it wasn't all about us. That is what has been lost in two generations: the notion of living your life for others, not just for yourself.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Coming Soon to a Church Near You



On the 11th March 2012, every Roman Catholic parish priest in the UK was obliged to read out a letter from Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith. You can read the full text of the letter here....
Letter from Archbishop Cranmer

The gay-lesbian movement is highly organized and has lots of supporters. And they will soon be making inroads into churches everywhere, doing things similar to this.

And the Catholic Church will not have much of a defense strategy against this attack. Because, when our clergy failed to speak out in the 60's about the sins of extra-marital sex, they laid the path for the future. How can they now condemn homosexual activity if they failed to condemn other sexual sins?
The tolerance of co-habitation by almost everyone in the Church reduces our ability to judge the actions of homosexuals.

Failure to preach the full Gospel back then ensures that we cannot preach it now. We should have taken the path of unpopularity when it was first presented. It would be a heck of a lot easier now to stand our ground.

h/t SoCon or Bust

Monday, March 12, 2012

The Sin of Kneeling

In the March issue of Catholic Insight, a letter to the editor was entitled "The Sin of Kneeling" and was written by Marcy Millette. I quote:

I am at a loss on what to do for Mass here on Sunday. We have been instructed to stand (in the spirit of unity) until everyone has received Communion and then we are told to sit or kneel....
The commentator started for the fifth Sunday with, "In the Spirit of Unity, we ask everyone to remain standing until ALL have Communion and the priest has returned to the altar."

We tried hard to ignore it and knelt anyway as we did the last four Sundays.

On this fifth Sunday, before the final blessing, the Bishop made a point of looking at us as he said, "I know some of you would like to kneel after Communion but this is a procession for Communion so you need to remain standing until ..." I can't remember the exact words but his directives were very clear.

Do we obey or not? Do not straightforward directives make it impossible to ignore? Sickened again, because it will surely take another 20 years to right this wrong. It is unbelievable that so many are getting sucked into the same language that was thrown at us 20 years ago when we were told to stand during the Consecration "in the spirit of unity."

As it stands, my family is the only family 'disobeying'. I am having second thoughts about that now. Talk about spiritual bullying and harassment!

Marcy, I hope it is some consolation to you and your family that, out on the east coast, there is another couple who are kneeling after receiving Communion. We too have been told to stand until all have received Communion and until the priest returns to the altar.

We, like you, feel that this is a misunderstanding of the essential truth of the Catholic faith: that the bread and wine of Communion become the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we truly understood that, we would not just kneel but we would prostrate ourselves.

The time immediately after receiving Communion is not the time for solidarity with the community. It is the most intimate moment of the sacrifice of the Mass and it is the precious short time when one should focus entirely on Jesus Christ, not on the rest of the Church.

As my daughter said to me, "priests and bishops have no problem with standing, because they do not kneel during Mass at all". Perhaps that is the crux of the problem; our clergy do not know what kneeling means any more. They have lost touch with what the faithful laity know: that this is a time for reverence, for awe, for individual worship of the Lord; it is not community time.

There is plenty of community time during the responses of the Mass, during the singing of hymns, during the reading of the Gospel, and while listening to the homily. But the time immediately after Communion is a deeply personal time that is for the recipient and the Lord.

Doing anything to disrupt that time seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what makes the Catholic Church so very different from other Christian denominations. For us, Communion is not an event symbolizing and commemorating the Last Supper; it is the actual physical giving of Jesus of Himself in the simple species of bread and wine. That is the incredible mystery of the Eucharist. That is what has made the immense difference between Catholics and Protestants. Ask most converts to Catholicism why they converted and the majority will say it is because of their coming to belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Any secularization of the Eucharist, and that is what I see standing to be, displays a loss of faith in what the Eucharist really is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would love to see some real reverence shown by our bishops in this regard. What I am seeing is conformity to public opinion and a "dumbing down" of the greatest sacrament we Catholics have been given by Christ Himself.

What we need in our leadership is not a building up of community spirit, but we need to see real holiness lived out.

Added note: I know that many Catholics will reply that obedience to one's bishop is essential to living out one's faith. And I would agree; however, I really do think that they have got it wrong on this point, and that I will disobey. Call it defiance or rebellion, but I think they need to see that this mandating of posture to all Catholics is evidence of a deeper more troubling phenomena: a loss of faith in the real Presence. And with that, I cannot comply.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Steyn Weighs in on Fluke

Mark Steyn is one of the cleverest men on the planet.
Nor is the issue that America has 30-year-old schoolkids – or even 30-year-old schoolkids who expect someone else to pick up the tab for their extracurricular activities, rather than doing a paper route and a bit of yard work to save up for their first IUD, as we did back in my day. After all, the human right to government-mandated free contraception is as American as apple pie and far healthier for you. In my most recent book, I quote one of Sandra Fluke's fellow geriatrics gamboling in the groves of academe and complaining to the Washington Post about the quality of free condoms therein:

No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-age children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

Full disclosure: I will be guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh this Monday, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on Rush's intervention. But let me say this. Almost every matter of the moment boils down to the same story: the Left's urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that "conventional wisdom" unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the Laws of Physics. Nothing that Rush said is as weird or as degrading as what Sandra Fluke and the Obama administration are demanding. And any freeborn citizen should reserve the right to point that out as loudly and as often as possible.
- Miss Fluke Goes to Washington


I wish I could tune in to hear Steyn on Monday. But we can't get that radio station here in Halifax. What a pity!

Friday, March 9, 2012

The Intellectual Honesty of Bernard Nathanson

I have posted before about the life of Bernard Nathanson. He was a medical doctor who specialised in obstetrics and gynaecology, then went on to become proficient at abortion, and was one of the founding members of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) in the US. He was the head of the largest abortion clinic in NYC in the late 60's and he says that he oversaw 75,000 abortions in his career, 5000 of which he performed himself.

Then he had a change of mind. He was not a religious man, but came to this change through the evidence presented by the new ultrasound technology in the field of obstetrics. He became convinced that the fetus in the womb was indeed a member of the human race, that it experienced pain during abortion, that it exhibited the will to survive that characterizes all human beings, and that abortion was the wilful termination of a fellow human being.

This realisation left him marginalised by the medical community. Over the course of some years, Nathanson also had a religious conversion to Christianity. He was moved most by the pro-life warriors that he met outside clinics, those souls that faced arrest and imprisonment for their dedication to the cause of life. And Nathanson eventually became a Roman Catholic, having begun his life as an orthodox Jewish boy who turned into an agnostic who spurned religion.

I have read his book Aborting America, which was written during his abortion years, and it is an amazing autobiography. But the story is not completed until he wrote The Hand of God, in which he tells more of his family history (something he could not write while as his father was still alive); and he describes his spiritual conversion as well.

I am brought to tears by this man's account; this is my second read of this book (and I am sure, won't be my last) and I have never read anything more transparent, more honest by anyone. I think I am moved so much by this because my own father was a medical doctor who was ruthlessly honest, a man who was driven in much the same way as Nathanson. He was not an abortionist, but he did have deep regrets about much of his life and those regrets arose out of the same character flaws as did Nathanson's. So this story hits close to home.

I highly recommend it to all pro-lifers, but I really recommend it to those who are pro-choice. Written by a man who has been on both sides of this debate, it tells a story that you won't hear anywhere else. And Nathanson's humility in telling the truth about himself is a characteristic that makes me stand in awe of his bravery.

After arranging for the abortion of his own child, Nathanson writes:

Lessons? Too many and too sad to rehash here. Suffice it to say that it served as my introductory excursion into the satanic world of abortion... (within a short time, he then performed an abortion on his second child).

What is it like to terminate the life of your own child? It was septic and clinical... The procedure went on without incident, and I felt a fleeting gratification that I had done my usual briskly efficient job and left the operating room while she was still struggling up from general anesthesia. As an integral part of the procedure, every abortionist must examine the material in the gauze bag to assure that all the pregnancy tissue has been evacuated... I peeled the bag open as was my custom, mentally gauged the amount of tissue and satisfied myself that it was proportionate to the length of the pregnancy; none had been left behind...

Yes, you may ask me: That was a concise terse report of what you did, but what did you feel? Did you not feel sad - not only because you had extinguished the life of an unborn child, but more, because you had destroyed your own child? I swear to you that I had no feelings aside from the sense of accomplishment, the pride of expertise. On inspecting the contents of the bag I felt only the satisfaction of knowing that I had done a thorough job. You pursue me: You ask if perhaps for a fleeting moment or so I experienced a flicker of regret, a microgram of remorse? No and no. And that, dear reader, is the mentality of the abortionist: another job well done, another demonstration of the moral neutrality of advanced technology in the hands of the amoral.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. - Hebrews 10:31

Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Real Obama



Can't wait for this film to go public because electing a president with such an unknown past and agenda is the most important issue facing America and the world.

h/t SoCon or Bust

Attacks upon the Catholic Church

Some leaders in the Catholic Church compromised with secular politicians for many decades, just as Orthodox leaders have done. The difference is that the Catholic Church remained clear about the moral precepts protecting innocent life while in some (fortunately rare) cases Orthodox leadership muddied the tradition to curry favor with the politicians. The cost has been incalculable. Today resistance is the only option says Bp. Jenky:

Determined secularists see the Catholic Church as the largest institutional block to a completely secularized society and not for the first, and probably not for the last time, we’re under assault,” he said drawing parallels with the anti-Catholic “Kulturkampf” in late 19th century Germany or the anti-clerical laws in France in the early 20th century.


He’s right. If the Catholic Church can be silenced, then the largest impediment to the secular advance is removed. Christians of other communions will also be silenced under the rubric of tolerance, open-mindedness, and more recently public health (Obamacare). When the voice is silenced, then the precepts the Christian moral tradition can be erased from the historical memory. Western Christendom will slip into unimaginable darkness, worse than the catastrophe from which East Christendom is emerging.

Read more at ... Orthodoxy Today

Yesterday a news item said that a group called Anonymous had hacked the the Vatican website ..... LifeSiteNews

and of course, the all-out attack upon the Catholics of America by President Obama with his contraception mandate.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

March for Life 2012



This was taken from the March for Life 2011 in Ottawa last May. 15,000 people marched on Parliament to proclaim their belief that all life is sacred from conception to natural death.

This May, there will be another March for Life in Ottawa. If you can attend, please do.

If you live in Halifax, we will have a candlelight prayer vigil on South Park Street outside the Victoria General Hospital on May 9 at dusk. And the following day, May 10, we will gather at noon outside the Provincial Legislature to show our support for the right to life. Please join us.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Same God?

A very good article, worth the read.

Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?

The author points out that linguistic identity does not mean God and Allah are one and the same. All we can conclude from this is that both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions.
The question is not answered by simple linguistic identity, as evidenced by St. Paul’s complaint to the Corinthians: “For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corinthians 11:4). The “other Jesus” that was being preached among the Corinthians was not a different person of the same name, but a view of Jesus of Nazareth that was so radically different from Paul’s that he termed it “another Jesus” altogether.

In the same way, it is possible that the Qur’an and Islamic tradition present a picture of God so radically different from that of the Bible and Catholic tradition that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the proposition that they are the same Being in both traditions, apart from some minor creedal differences.

The author says that much of the thinking along this line has been an outcome of the Second Vatican Council, a council that occurred during the 60's which was the era of tolerance and emphasis on "common ground".

Vatican II was a large-scale attempt to restore relationships that had been broken for centuries and build new bridges of trust where groups had been divided from the Church by centuries of mistrust, suspicion and outright conflict. Consequently it emphasized common ground rather than differences, unlike every ecumenical council that preceded it. No case, however, can be made that its statement about the shared adoration of the one and merciful God in any way mitigated the Church’s truth claim or sense of its own responsibility to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, any more than shared monotheism removes that responsibility in regard to Protestants or anyone else, for that responsibility is reiterated in the same passage.

And as Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us, Vatican II is not a super-council that supersedes all previous Church teaching; rather, its teachings must be understood in light of tradition. When it comes to Islam, the consistent focus in earlier statements about Islam is generally not on what Muslims believe, but on Islam as a heresy, and on the hostility of Muslims to Christians and Christianity.

So to take the statements of the Second Vatican Council as the directive in Catholic-Muslim relations is ignoring the time frame in which the Council took place. And that is risky, just as risky as it would be to assume that the resurgence of Islam in its present form is as non-threatening as the Islam of the 60's. Much has changed, and the militant worldview of today's Islamic nations cannot be met with the kind of tolerance that the hippy-worldview of the 60's advocated.

h/t Orwell's Picnic

Monday, March 5, 2012

Development and Peace - NO!

Once again, the Share Lent Collection time has rolled around and my church bulletin this week has excerpts from a letter from Archbishop Richard Smith, president of the Canadian Council of Canadian Bishops. He encourages us to be as generous as your means allow in support of this collection, which will be used by Development and Peace to help farmers in the global south, especially in using methods to "cool the earth".

No, Archbishop, not a penny from me because D & P is still giving money to organizations in the global south that have been shown to be supporting abortion and birth control.

While the U.S. bishops valiantly fight a mandate by the Obama administration forcing people of faith to cover contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, the Canadian bishops’ international development arm is supporting a Haitian group that has been caught handing out free contraceptives.
The two Archbishops who lead the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) visited the group, called the Association pour la promotion de la santé integrale de la famille (APROSIFA), with leaders from Development & Peace in December as part of a solidarity trip.
Simple web searches reveal that APROSIFA has produced literature on how to obtain abortions and runs a health clinic in a Port-au-Prince shantytown that offers “family planning.”

So Con or Bust

There are plenty of organizations where we can give our financial donations without wondering how that money is actually being used. Unfortunately, the Canadian bishops have not cleared up the controversy surrounding D & P, and they do not even seem to be concerned about it. Tough, my money will go elsewhere and I suggest that yours does too.

The Double Standard

You have probably heard about Rush Limbaugh's big goof on air, when commenting on a university student who said that she and other friends were financially strapped by having to pay for their own contraception. Limbaugh apologized for the words he used, but not for his actual criticism. And today, he reiterated the apology and stated that we should never stoop to the level of those we oppose. That, he said, was his real failure: using the same low tactics and language as the liberal left.

CNN is alive with this story and are delighted that advertisers on Limbaugh's show are pulling out (12 at this point).

I hope that Limbaugh stands his ground. He did make an error in his choice of words, but certainly his criticism is valid. Why should the taxpayer pay for university students' contraception? what is next? Pay for their running shoes so that they can keep fit?

As for words used, lest anyone forget, I would like to recall how the left vilified Sarah Palin and continue to do so.

One example: Bill Maher, some people think he is funny, I simply find him crude.

Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, the man who runs Obama's super PAC, did not reply when asked if he will be returning Maher's $1 million donation.
- Will Obama Super Pac return Maher's million dollar donation?

The liberal left can use whatever language they wish when speaking of those they dislike, but when Rush Limbaugh makes one error, they jump on him like a pack of dogs. I haven't heard anyone apologize for the words they used about Sarah Palin. But then they never do apologize because they think they are absolutely right all of the time.

A Life Saved and a Mother Spared Regret



from Spiritus Films

The left hates Breitbart for his effectiveness in getting out the truth.

It’s not an accident that the welfare state growth took off in the 1960’s, the decade of the sexual revolution, the pill, and shortly therefore, legalization of abortion under all circumstances.

It’s the same culture that forces me to get police protection to talk about personal responsibility on college campuses.

Read the full article here -
Star Parker on Town Hall

Star Parker knows what she is talking about. From Wikipedia:

A conservative African American woman, Parker spent her teen and early adult years as an unemployed mother on welfare. She has chronicled her teenaged arrests for shoplifting and her having had four abortions.[5] After embracing the Christian religion, Parker embarked upon a career as a spokesperson for conservative social and political causes. She opposes many public entitlements, claiming that welfare is similar to an invitation to a government plantation, which creates a situation where those who accept the invitation switch mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"[citation needed] She claims that stable families and strong moral values are the key to ending poverty. She has asserted a moral objection to abortion and claims that rampant abortion has hurt black families.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Student suspended for praising women's inner beauty

Paul Gomille received the go-ahead from his principal to write a letter appealing to girls to show their inner beauty. He contrasted this beauty with that which is commonly sought through wearing revealing clothing and emulating the pop icons of our society.

When the principal asked Paul to change certain statements in his letter, Paul declined to do so and distributed 136 copies of his original letter to fellow students in the school cafeteria on Valentine's Day. And for that, he was given a two-day suspension.

The principal claims that those statements were judgmental and therefore she gave Paul a two-day suspension which he served at home.

Gomille’s family members suggested the school’s suspension is a misguided attempt to discourage what could have been an honest discussion about love.

Following Gomille’s suspension, students launched a multipronged protest on Tmblr, Twitter and Facebook. A “Free Paul” petition amassed 234 signatures.

It seems that fellow students are supporting Paul's version of women's "inner beauty" and not agreeing with the principal's decision that he was "judgmental".

Student fights suspension, Toronto Star

Questions Surrounding Breitbart's Sudden Death

“If the tapes come out, he died of a heart attack,” the caller said. “If the tapes don’t come out, they whacked him.”

The tapes referred to are videos that Breitbart said, three weeks ago at the CPAC convention, he would release in order to "vet the President". The tapes show footage of Obama with Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, radical activists who apparently played a large part in propelling Obama into political power.



Savage said that if Breitbart’s colleagues have the videos, they should post them as soon as possible and make them viral “or they’ll never see the light of day.”
“I told him two years ago to get a body guard. Never be alone in the street,” Savage said.

Michael Savage is a talk-show host, who knew Breitbart personally and raised the question on his show yesterday about Breitbart's death and said "If I don't ask the question, I would be remiss."

Was Breitbart Assassinated?

Here Comes the Catholic Church



www.breitbart.tv

Thursday, March 1, 2012

"Pastorally Insensitive"

That is the term used to describe Father Marcel Guarnizo of Gaithersburg, Maryland for denying communion to a self-admitted lesbian at her mother's funeral Mass.

The higher-ups in the church have criticized Father Guarnizo for his actions, stating that he should have had more communication with the woman before denying her Communion, that he should have not had a confrontation in public at the altar.

"Pastorally insensitive" is the label put on this good priest. Yes, he did offend the woman in public and caused her embarrassment, he probably upset some members of the congregation as well, but what about all the faithful Catholics who have been scandalized by the bishops and cardinals who have turned a blind eye to pro-abortion politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Kennedy?

Perhaps Father Guarnizo should have explained quite clearly to this woman that she should not present herself for Communion (although it seems that he did warn her prior to Mass), but this is a very slight offense.
What of the incredibly grave offense that many bishops have committed in not calling dissident Catholics to account? I think they are the ones who have committed the greater fault because they have, by their actions, taught Catholics that it is okay to defy Catholic doctrine and still partake of the sacraments, that it is perfectly fine to oppose the Church on its teachings on abortion and homosexuality and no one will contest you on that. They are the ones who have failed the laity gravely, not Father Guarnizo.

I will take "pastorally insensitive" any day over "pastorally negligent".

LifeSiteNews