Marriage is not just for religious. It is for all of society.

Ryan Anderson explains why the Proposition 8 debate is not really between civil liberties and religion in this article.

Live feed from Hartford about bills

So the hearing about bill 1098 was cancelled (for now), but bill 899 officially codifying Same-Sex "marriage" is still going on in Hartford. Air Maria is live-streaming the coverage of that bill's discussion today. Watch it here.

UPDATE: Starting at 1:30 is live coverage of the CT Republican Caucus having a discussion with rally attendees about the unconstitutional bill 1098.

Judicial Committee hearing on bill 1098 CANCELLED!

The Day just reported that the hearing on the CT Judicial Committee bill 1098 has been canceled.

Below is the text from the press release forwarded to me by my state representative:

Statement of Judiciary Committee Co-Chairmen Senator Andrew J. McDonald (D-Stamford) and Representative Mike Lawlor (D-East Haven) regarding the request by proponents to cancel Wednesday’s public hearing:

“For reasons that are unclear, Connecticut has had generations-old laws on the books singling out particular religions and treating them differently from other religions in our statutes. That doesn't seem right. In fact, many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If that is correct, any changes to that law would likely also be unconstitutional.

“With that in mind, it would serve no useful purpose to have a conversation about changing the laws that govern existing Roman Catholic corporations until we know if any of these existing laws are constitutional. At the request of the proponents who are advocating this legislation, we have decided to cancel the public hearing for tomorrow, table any further consideration of this bill for the duration of this session, and ask the Attorney General his opinion regarding the constitutionality of the existing law that sets different rules for five named separate religions.

“We think it would be more appropriate to invite representatives from all religious denominations around the state together with legal scholars on this topic to participate in a forum regarding the current law. Such a conversation would be more appropriate to have when the legislature is not in session and other more important issues, such as the current fiscal crisis, are resolved. We intend to do that once we
have the benefit of the Attorney General's opinion.

“In the meantime, we think it would be most beneficial if the proponents who requested these changes and church officials meet together privately to see if they can come to a resolution on their own. Open and honest communication between these two groups could only help. For our part, we intend to reach out to representatives of the Catholic Conference and continue the discussion that began in 2008 on this issue. We hope they will agree to meet with us.”

Frankly, this is far from over. Not realizing the immediate backlash they would get, they tried to sneak this through. Now that the spotlight is on this bill, with thousands of Catholics from all over the state ready to flood the capitol for this hearing, the cowards have decided to come back to the matter after the Attorney General has had a chance to review the constitutionality of the existing framework. (Mind you, this is the pro-abortion, pro- gay marriage, pro- Plan B contraception, pro-embryonic stem cell research, anti- conscience clause for pro-life health care providers Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.)

I wonder if it wasn't the intention all along to play up the "unfair" uniqueness of the structure of the Catholic Church? I'll keep you posted.

CT news articles about bill 1098

I don't have time to comment on them right now, but you can read the local coverage of bill 1098 in

The Day of New London

The Stamford Advocate

The Hartford Courant

UPDATE: Letter to Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor

Dear Senator McDonald and Representative Lawlor,

We write to you today very upset about Bill #1098 raised in the CT Judiciary Committee this past Thursday. This bill represents an unconstitutional attack that targets the Roman Catholic Church alone and threatens religious freedom for all. This bill was specifically written with one organization in mind and interferes with the internal governance of an autonomous religious body. Not only is it irresponsible that such a consequential bill was thrust upon the public with such short notice, but it seems that this legislation is one move in a hidden agenda that seeks to silence the voice of opposition to the immoral direction that our Legislative branch has taken in recent years. This bill, as you well know, if it passes, will create a confrontational relationship between the bishops, the pastors, and the lay faithful in the Catholic Church in Connecticut. While heralded as an attempt to afford more transparency in financial matters due to a small number of misappropriation cases, this bill goes far beyond any such apparent need and interferes with the very structure of authority and guidance for Catholic parishes. The state has no vested interest in this. There is no reason why the legislature of the State of CT should be interfering in this arena. Please be aware that this bill is not only an affront to all Catholics, but poses a frightening precedent for the freedom of other religious institutions. While the Catholic Church does not have elected officials, the State of CT does and we will oppose any representative who supports this unconstitutional bill.

cc: Rep. Kevin Ryan, Sen. Edith Prague, Gov. M. Jodi Rell

UPDATE: Rep. Ryan responded very cordially and then forwarded the press release of the cancellation of the hearing.

Below is the response I received from Gov. Rell's office. I have yet to get a response from Sen. McDonald or Rep. Lawlor.

Thank you for your correspondence to Governor Rell regarding Senate Bill 1098. The Governor appreciates the time you took to send your correspondence to her office. Please accept this response on her behalf.

Governor Rell believes that it is extremely important for citizens to voice their opinions to their elected officials. The Governor was pleased to hear the bill was pulled and stated the following: “The co-chairs absolutely made the right decision by canceling the public hearing on the bill. This proposal was blatantly unconstitutional, insensitive and inappropriate.”

Thank you again for sharing your comments and concerns with Governor Rell. Please do not hesitate to contact our office in the future, should the need arise.

Sincerely,
Kelley Jacobson
Staff Assistant
Office of Governor M. Jodi Rell

Jesus Christ is victorious

With all that is going on in these days leading up to our persecution, let us all remember that Jesus Christ has won the victory. We must persevere; we must have faith in Him; we must fight with all our strength and take up our Cross and follow Christ to Calvary. But we must always remember that the victory is not ours. It is His. And the world is only redeemed through Him. And we must show Him to the world. Someone from the CatholicVote posted this video from the Archdiocese of New York. Jesus Christ is our true hope.

Philip Lacovara criticizes bill 1098 as unconstitutional. Update: Sen. McLachlan's blog post

Please read the letter on the Diocese of Bridgeport's website by Philip A. Lacovara,
Senior Counsel, Mayer Brown LLP, to members of the Judiciary Committee about the bogus bill attacking the internal governance and financial authority of the Catholic Church in CT.

Please also see the blog post by State Senator Michael McLachlan on his views:

I suspect this public hearing will be more like a zoo with the tone of an inquisition. Chances are the topics for discussion on Wednesday will go far beyond the bill proposed. I fear that we'll be hearing all kinds of attacks on the bishops, pastors and priests of the Catholic Church.

I pray fervently that we can dispense with this brutal attack on the Roman Catholic Church very quickly. Catholics don't deserve this attack and the proponents of this bill will hopefully hear this message loud and clear.

A stumbling block removed

Earlier I posted about my reading of Heaven's Song by Christopher West. While this week's craziness has prevented me from making much headway, I'd like to add something else to which God opened my eyes while reading it during adoration.

Looking back on my spiritual life, I was effectively brought up as a Protestant with a Rosary, as one commentator on one of the blogs I follow recently put it. I find that God has been drawing me closer to Him throughout my life and a major part of that journey has been to draw closer to my Catholic faith. My own discernment of the priesthood and the two years I spent at St. John's Seminary in college opened my eyes and heart to the riches of the Catholic faith, culture, history, theology and spirituality in a new way for me. (I went to public school.)

Even now that I am married with 4 children--in 5 years,special thanks to JPII-- God is dragging me along a path that intertwines more and more with the Eucharist, the Magisterium and the Communion of Saints, despite my kicking and screaming (hey, nobody said crucifixion is fun). Yet one prayer of mine has continued to be to have a better relationship with the Blessed Mother. It's not that I've been against Mary, in fact I've always honored and respected her. I've prayed the Rosary since childhood and as far as my limited understanding allows, completely accepted the theology surrounding the Mother of God.

And yet there has always been a stumbling block. For some reason in a way I could never put my finger on, I never felt quite at ease with Mary. My prayers to her always felt impersonal and disconnected, while my prayers to God (all three Persons) were completely natural and relational. And while the Protestant or Liberal Catholic voices in my head (no, I don't actually hear voices in my head) would chime in to tell me that I didn't actually need a relationship with Mary, I knew that if Christ chose to honor his mother by making her our Queen and mother to all of us, then I could not only trust that He wanted me to have a relationship with her, but that I should have one. So I have continued to pray my version of "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief:" "Mary, I love you, help me to know and love you."

In God's good time, and when I was still and listening (there's a BIG lesson there) he opened the way. Chapter 4 of Heaven's Song, called "A Garden Closed, A Fountain Sealed" discusses briefly a woman's difficulty in relating to Mary. Kathy (not her real name) was caught having an affair and when she, repentant, was advised to look to Mary, she viewed Mary as "unreachable." "I got the impression from several of Kathy's comments that she, like many, thought Mary's immaculate purity made her a prudish or evan an 'a-sexual' being without any hint of erotic feelings of desires. She said, 'Well, what else am I supposed to think. That's certainly the impression I got from the nuns who taught me growing up."

Christopher's response was eye-opening to say the least:

...I got a lot of wrong impressions about the faith growing up in Catholic schools. Only much later in life did I begin to realize that purity doesn't annihilate erotic desire, it perfects it.

Far from being "a-sexual," Mary is the only woman who ever experienced the fullness of God's original plan for sexuality. God made us male and female and called the two to become "one flesh" in order to point us to our ultimate destiny of union with God in Christ. This is the original and fundamental meaning of human sexuality and this is how Mary must have experienced her womanhood, her sexuality-- as a burning desire for union with God.

Through the gift of redemption, we can begin to reclaim this original truth, but even for the holiest among us it remails muddled to some degree by our fallen condition. To recognize Mary as the "Immaculate One" is to recognize that her sexuality was never muddled my our fallen condition. For she experienced the fullness of redemption right from the first moment of her conception. This would mean that mary's purity allowed her to experience her sexuality in its fullness-- as a deep yearning for total communion with God in Christ. This is why she didn't have sexual relations with Joseph: not because marital union is "unholy," but because she was already living the union beyond sexual union -- union with God. This is not to knock Joseph, but earthly, sexual union with him would have been for Mary a step backwards. Instead, Mary took Joseph forward with her into the fulfillment of all desire.

This was the key I've been looking for. I've had trouble with Mary because she didn't seem real to me, or at least human. While I knew she was human with flesh and blood, and therefore not like the angels, ever present with God, my imagination was limited to the Heavenly Queen, Immaculate, resplendent. She is the woman of the apparitions, the Miraculous Medal, the Scapular, the Rosary. In my mind, Mary was only like the plaster statue in the CCD classroom. But not flesh and blood, burning with desire, like we all are.

But of course she burned with desire. She remained a virgin not because she was stoic or disinterested. She was fulfilled. Her desire was always for full union with God. That doesn't make her less human; it makes her fully human. But she lived and breathed; she got cold and hot; she was uncomfortable at times, joyous and laughing at other times. She got hungry, thirsty, and yes, even had to "powder her nose."

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my disconnect with Mary has been that I saw Mary in her glorification, the end of the story, but missed her earthly life and being, the beginning of the story, and that which is truly our model for life.

The question really shouldn't be "What Would Jesus Do?" The question should be "What Would Mary Do?" And the answer is simple: say to God, "Let it be done to me according to Thy word."

Mary, I love you, help me to know you and love you more.

American Papist posts internal memo by Bishop Cote re: Anti-Catholic CT Bill

American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Update: internal memo by Bishop Cote re: Anti-Catholic CT Bill

Just so you know, I was not the reader that sent Thomas Peters the memo from Bishop Cote, but you can follow his coverage of the story as well.

Trusteeism bill in CT

Subvet brought this very troubling piece of news to my attention...

Apparently, the judicial committee has proposed a bill (1098) in the General Assembly here in CT that is aimed directly at the Roman Catholic Church in this state.

I have quite a bit to say on the matter, so bear with me if I'm a little around and about in this post. Disclaimer: I am not a legal scholar and nothing here constitutes a legitimate legal opinion. What follows are my own commonsense assessments of this situation.

It seems to me that Michael Lawlor, one of the reps who introduced the bill, has done his research into the history of the Catholic Church in the United States, because this bill aims to revise the confrontations surrounding trusteeism that were ended in the late eighteenth/ early nineteenth centuries, with the intention of undermining the authority of the Bishops. When the U.S. was still a mission territory (officially) many parishes were owned by the lay people who started them. This led to disagreements between the parish and the local bishop regarding the appointments of pastors and the assets of the church. For instance, the parishioners could fire the pastor or refuse the appointment of the priest sent by the bishop. If I understand it correctly, dioceses are now considered "corporations sole," meaning that ultimately, all ownership rests with the person of the local bishop.

Bill 1098 as proposed would essentially cut the bishop and the pastor off from financial authority within the parish, placing the ownership and stewardship of parish assets in the hands of a 7-13 lay member financial committee.

The biggest question that comes to my mind is "Why?" Why is this bill being proposed here in CT? Why is it being proposed now?

Purportedly, one reason the bill was written was to address a recent case of financial malfeasance/ misappropriation of funds in a Catholic parish in CT. The new law would provide a framework for proper investigation of such deeds. However, the bill goes far beyond that need and focuses strongly on re-organizing the total corporate legal structure of all Roman Catholic parishes in the state. There is no state interest in such a change.

There must be other motivations at work here. Michael Lawlor has already shown himself to be opposed to the Church's teaching on some moral matters, gay marriage specifically.

I don't intend to vilify Mr. Lawlor, but it seems to me that the intention behind this bill is to undermine the authority and strength of the Catholic bishops. Directly, this will essentially cut the bishop and the pastor out of much of the decision making within the Church, relegating them to chaplain status.

Some commentators have suggested that this bill is unconstitutional, which I believe as well, and let us suppose for a moment that the bill doesn't even pass. This is yet another instance of the bishops asking the laity to vocalize their opposition to the state or Federal legislature on consequential issues. With all that has already passed in Connecticut despite the opposition of the Church (gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research funding, the death penalty, Plan B contraception) this may symbolize to some a lesser moral issue, not worth getting energized about. Or this could just lead to people becoming indifferent, as in, "What is it this week?"

But if it does pass, is this just laying the groundwork for more ill to come? As Brian Brown of the CT Family Institute points out in the hearing featured in the video link above, if the state views the Church as an organization of bigots, then it will treat the Church as an organization of bigots. The Church will become a target of reparations. And if the authority of the bishops in mobilizing the faithful is weakened, the state may then be able to accomplish more of its immoral agenda (think FoCA, forced abortions, euthanasia).

Jack Smith of the Catholic Key posts about this development here and raises the possibility that this is suggested by the Voices of the Faithful. While I won't speculate whether VotF is directly involved, it does play into their agenda of taking control of the Church away from the bishops. Opportunistically, VotF was persistent in declaring that the sex abuse crisis was a consequence of the hierarchical structure of Church governance, implying that it is necessary to have more lay control of parish life and teaching of the Church. Failing to achieve revision of Church authority by internal means, this current bill would succeed in their intended power grab by recourse to state intervention. Interestingly, such a seizure of Church assets would lessen the bishops' authority while not decreasing their liability in cases such as abuse by priests.

So what happens now? First, let me point to the commentary on the Catholic Key post above. Cassandra gives insightful clues as to how this will likely play out legally. Her assessment of the USCCB and the response of the laity is frighteningly convincing. Given that the state legislature here in CT has successfully rammed gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research and most recently Plan B contraception down the throats of Catholic opposition (though I think Plan B was an instance of the CT Catholic Conference caving unnecessarily) I'm afraid this will pass, despite our vocal disagreement. The legislators who support this measure may feel secure in their seats, as CT continues to become more liberal and hostile to the moral authority of the Church and I wonder where we might go from here?

I will reserve such reflections until, God forbid, they are needed. It is necessary now to oppose this legislation and I pray that we will succeed.

Please contact Senator Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven who chair the committee that introduced this bill.

Sen. McDonald: 1-800-842-1420 McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Rep. Lawlor: 1-800-842-8267 MLawlor99@juno.com

If you are in the area and can attend, please come to the public hearing in Hartford this Wednesday, March 11 at Noon, Room 2C of the Executive Office Building.


This is not a precedent that should be set for other states to follow.

Whispers of coincidence

In my experience, when we don't hear what God is trying to say to us, He often repeats Himself.

Fr. Longenecker has a recurring blog item called "What I love about the Catholic Church." His opening piece points to the universality of the faith both in the content of what we believe and in the universality of we who believe.

And today the pope reminds the priests of his diocese that the most sublime theology of the Catholic faith needs to be made understandable to everyone so that the simplicity of the Word of God is attainable to all.

The Holy Spirit is great.

Keep a close eye...

... on this case.

With all due respect to victims of sexual abuse by priests, I fear that this case is being driven less by a desire for justice and more by a desire to break open the Vatican piggy bank and discredit the moral authority of the Church.

Heaven's Song (in progress)

On this week's snow day, I was able to go to the Holy Hour at my church and spend some time with our Lord. I brought with me the borrowed copy of Heaven's Song, by Christopher West. I'm not now going to review the book, as I plan to do that in another post when I'm finished. However, I do want to share one thing that struck me.

John Paul II, inspired by St. Louis de Montfort recognizes Mary as the bride in the Song of Songs, further seeing her as the New Eve. Check out this comparison:

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate" (Gen 3:6). Interestingly, the woman of the Song also speaks of a tree that was "good for food," or taking delight in it, and of eating its sweet fruit: "As an apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among young men. With great delight I sat in his shadow and his fruit was sweet to my taste" (2:3). Eve sins and the woman of the Song doesn't. What's the difference? It is that of grasping at the fruit versus receiving it as a gift....It seems the precise sin, then, was not the eating of the fruit of this particular tree....Rather, the sin seems to be the doubting of God's benevolence, the doubting and denial of his love, the doubting of his gift. We want the knowledge of good and evil ("the tree was good for food...a delight to the eyes...to be desired to make one wise," Gen 3:6), but we don't believe God will give us such knowledge, so we grasp....If the bride in the Song is a type of Mary, then this New Eve has redeemed the first Eve's sin -- not by refusing to eat the fruit, but by refusing to grasp at it. Eve doubed the gift, yet still yearning for it, she reached out to take it for herself; the New Eve believed in the gift, and "waited on the Lord" in her yearning. What Eve took to herself, the New Eve received as a gift from God.

This ties in quite well with the (Augustinian?) notion that we never seek evil when we sin, but rather, we are always seeking after something good through perverted means or in degraded or impartial form. We steal out of need or desire for goods; we cheat to gain prosperity or freedom from constraint; we abort babies to avoid discomfort or pain. It is rarely out of pure malice that we choose evil; even then we are seeking the pleasure of the rush that such actions might bring. Good things are not in themselves the ends that justify any means. Like virtues, they must be in the proper context: the right way, in the right amount, at the right time with the right attitude.

An encounter with the Son of God

Every day during Lent our parish is offering a Holy Hour including exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and ending with Benediction.

What a treasure the Eucharist is! Not leaving us to wander the desert aimlessly, our Lord leaves us his very self under the guise of bread and wine to be present to us until He comes again in glory. He gives us himself, the Bread from Heaven, the Lamb of God, the Spring of Living Water so that we might receive Him who is true food.

And wordless moments may pass in humble adoration of He who set us free. Please go to Him. Spend time with Jesus Christ in a local adoration chapel or in your own parish. You don't need to work; you don't even need to talk. Just go to Him. Bring spiritual reading, if you like. Listen. He will speak.

I have no idea who this lady is talking about...

...but that's pretty much the definition of a straw man argument.

So pro-lifers stick to the 200 words-or-less rule for letters to the editor, conduct themselves with decorum and respect, and speak of their adversaries as charitably as possible; pro-choicers can be not only misogynist, misanthropic, sophomoric and crass, they can spout off for as long as they choose and will have their rants published as a full editorial in The Day.

Frankly, I should be surprised, but I'm not.

Cathy Cubilla's article is full of sexist and demeaning comments that show no respect for men or for women.

To retort, though, all the pro-life men I know would never even think of calling a woman a vessel for their emissions. Rather, they respect women as unique individuals worthy of care and compassion. And they all have something else in common: they think that we should work towards a culture of life, in which sex is so greatly regarded that we only engage in it responsibly-- namely, in a faithful, committed, loving marriage.

Welcome to the world!

Mary Margaret was born into the world on Monday at 5:51 p.m. Thank you for all your prayers leading up to the delivery. Patty and the baby are doing fine (except for the hit-by-a-truck-cold that wifey and I brought home from the hospital). The big smile on Patty's face shows how well she came through labor, by far the easiest yet. No induction necessary, no epidural; it was completely natural.

The boys are welcoming Mary pretty well. Our four-and-a-half year old is totally in love and takes every opportunity to help. The other two goobers are not quite sure yet that she's staying for good.

Thank you to Our Lady of Fatima who was a constant source of strength and comfort to our whole family as we received this precious gift from God.

Letter to the Editor, The Day, submitted 2-22-09

The focus of abortion often falls on the individual making the decision, yet society at large encourages abortion.

The Safe Haven law, while well-intentioned, is all but unknown. There was a case locally of a woman who, ignorant of the Safe Haven law, wrapped her baby in a blanket, placed it in an abandoned car and went to the nearest payphone to inform the police, who picked up the baby within minutes and brought it to the hospital immediately. The mother was arrested. The story in the Day indicated that the State of CT didn’t have funding to print pamphlets about the Safe Haven law.

It used to be that when a woman couldn’t keep her child, she could bring it to an orphanage so that the baby would be cared for until someone could adopt the child. Orphanages don’t exist anymore and the current foster care program is overwhelmed.

What is the obvious cause of this indifference? Long-term care costs money and abortion has a one-time fee. It is cheaper, faster, and easier.

This is also true of euthanasia. I hope as seniors enter long-term care en masse and we hurtle toward single-payer universal health care, that people will realize this connection before it is too late.

We're gonna try jumping jacks soon.

How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?

Uh, three, I think.

How many days of intense false labor does it take until a baby is actually born?

Uh, not sure yet, but I'll tell ya when we're done.

My patrons for the year

Nearby to us is the Friary of Our Lady of Guadalupe, run by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. You might have seen them at Mary Victrix or Air Maria.

Anyway, they have a wonderful tradition on the Feast of the Epiphany. The friars make up a basket full of prayer cards to give out as gifts. Each card is different- a different image on the front, four saints or blesseds, a Marian title, a virtue to focus on and a maxim. The youngest member of the community disperses them to the people after saying a prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide him in choosing the right card for each person.

What's nice is that they usually choose at least one famous saint, one modern saint, one REALLY obscure saint, and a maxim or virtue that sets the bar pretty high. (Not for discouragement when we fail, of course, but to remind us of the ultimate sacrifice and duty we owe to God.)

This is my card this year. I posted links for the saints; feel free to learn more about them yourself. And if anyone has ANY information of Blessed Alcarius, hermit, I'd be much obliged if you sent it my way.

St. Catherine of Genoa Franciscan March 23

Ladislas of Gielnow Franciscan May 21

St. Michael Sept. 29

Bl. Alcarius, hermit Sept. 29

Marian Title: Our Lady of Beauraing (Belgium)

Virtue: Temperance

Maxim: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:20 "Before judgement examine thyself, and thou shalt find mercy in the sight of God."

Train's a-comin!

Blogging might be light for the next few days, or it might not. Wifey's getting close to the due date, which doesn't mean anything precise. Baby is definitely coming soon, just don't know when.

If not today, I'll be setting up my new computer so I can work from home when necessary; hopefully I'll be able to do more blogging with it as well.

Keep our family in our prayers, we're all extremely excited to meet "that blessed ball of life!" (Kathleen, that's for you!)

You know you're a good liar when

you're caught lying and they still believe every word you said.

President Obama said this at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning:

"Far too often, we have seen faith wielded as a tool to divide us from one another -– as an excuse for prejudice and intolerance," President Obama says. "Wars have been waged. Innocents have been slaughtered. For centuries, entire religions have been persecuted, all in the name of perceived righteousness.

"There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we are going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all.

"But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."

So unborn babies are not innocent human beings? Or is that question above your pay grade too?

h/t Ryan Sayre Patrico, First Things

Dear God, when will this end?

Yet another example of the scourge of abortion rotting like a cancer everything it touches.

Sadly, I'm proven right, sort of...(updated)

When I posted this in the week leading up to the March for Life in Washington, I foresaw it to be the attitude of the Main Stream Media which ended up not covering it at all. What I didn't expect was that we'd get this reporting from a Catholic publication. But then I read this article this morning by Dennis Sadowski of Catholic News Service, reprinted in my diocesan newspaper, The Four County Catholic. You might say that my annoyance with CNS and the FCC is just me being a curmudgeon, but then I read Thomas Patrick Melady's fawning coverage of President Obama's first weeks in office in which we find this gem:

"During his campaign, Senator Obama promised to remove the ban on U.S. funding for international aid groups that perform abortions or counsel the termination of pregnancies.

"It was expected that he would lift the ban, just as President Clinton did in 1993. While regrettably this was the case, there is something to be said about the different style he employed in doing so. Thousands of Catholics and others opposed to abortion were in Washington for the “Right to Life March” on Thursday, January 22nd. Obama elected not to sign the order into effect that day, choosing a different course than that of his Democratic predecessor 16 years earlier. Instead he waited until the evening of the following Friday, so that the spirit of that day might not be “clouded”.

"It was signed into effect without any media present; there were no reporters, photographers or camera crews, as there were the day before when Obama announced his decision to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay."

You can read the rest of this hogwash here, if you want...

OK, so Melady seems to have taken some stupid pills. I know he's a former ambassador to the Holy See, (born in Norwich, so maybe that's why FCC saw fit to gravitate toward him) but come on!

What on earth does it matter about his style in signing the executive order to fund overseas abortions? "Gee, Mr. President, you sure know how to kill kids with panash!"

Obama didn't hold off lifting the Mexico City Policy to leave unsullied the spirit of the day, he hoped to bury the story in the weekend news cycle. That's why there was no media present. He wants to trumpet closing Guantanamo Bay as an example of his forthright attitude in undoing everything George Bush accomplished, good, bad or indifferent; yet he doesn't want the American people to come to grips with the extent that he seeks to further the cause of the Culture of Death.

Catholics need to stand firm in witness against the abortion lobby that undermines the very rights of all people. This cynical and frankly, naive coverage from a Catholic publication is, in my opinion, scandalous.

Update: I sent a more charitable version of this post via email to Michael Strammiello, Director of Communications. Below are excerpts of the proceeding correspondence.

Dear Mr. ,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding the March for Life coverage in in the February Four County Catholic.

I respect and agree with your point of view regarding the need for our diocesan paper to be on the right side of the pro-life stance. Not sure I can agree, though, with your assessment of our missing the mark in the February issue.

The February issue opens with a front page that forgoes thumbnail photographs in favor of a series of strong pro-life quotes,e.g. ""We will defeat the culture of death or will perish as a nation.' and "Express your conviction that all human life is sacred and deserving of legal protection."

We featured a quotation that has President Obama in his own words acknowledging that "God calls on us" to shape the future. We state our resolve in the body copy that we are determined to carry the Catholic view to Washington. We may be gracious to the new president, but we are also tenacious and proactive. And all of that -- on the front page!

Then we keep the conversation going in the interior pages with the "Our Voice is Needed More Now than Ever" article re: FOCA postcards, and Dennis Sadowski's article "We Choose Life" re: the March for Life. Bishop Cote closes his column with a strong call to action message, "Let us try at every opportunity to join in the conversation ourselves in our participatory democracy. We must not rest on the sidelines. We must be
heard." This is the fighting spirit of the newspaper in its entirety.

We also published verbatim the USCCB Bishops' letter to then President-elect Obama with such language as "We will consistently defend the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death. ...We will oppose legislation and other measures to expand abortion. Efforts to force Americans to fund abortions with their tax dollars would pose a serious moral challenge.."

You have singled out Thomas Patrick Melady's Catholic News Service article as too forgiving of President Obama's stance on abortion. Our thinking among our editors was that this presented a somewhat softer edge approach that shows one of many ways to potentially break-through on pro-life. We don't have a fix yet on how responsive the new Administration will be to the Catholic world view. President Obama's campaign rhetoric was not encouraging. However, he may respond in office more favorably. Worth
having a number of approaches in the works to reach him. I hope you can appreciate our thought process.

I must respectfully and strongly disagree with your contention that the Four County Catholic has downplayed the importance of the fundamental right to life. The February addition is ringing with our proactive position on the fundamental right to life.

Again, I thank you for your thoughtful and spirited comments. Believe we are on the same page for the most part.

In His service,
Michael

Michael Strammiello
Director of Communications
Diocese of Norwich



Dear Mr. Strammiello,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my letter. I want to clarify a few points because it appears I was not thorough in what I was trying to say to you. You are correct that there was a large amount of encouraging items in the FCC about our need to stand up for those most vulnerable. Let me make it clear how much my wife and I appreciate that good work.

I believe it is clearer to say that my frustration was with the content of the Catholic News Service pieces, notably the Dennis Sadowski article and the Melady article we discussed. As I said, I expected the media to cover the March for Life as anti-Obama reactionism, if they covered it at all, which except for a very few outlets, they did not. Yet Dennis Sadowski's article begins for the first few paragraphs as painting the entire day as merely an anti-Obama rally, which you and I know it entails so much more.

I guess I was most concerned with the opinion of Thomas Patrick Melady because even though, as you said, we can hope (with healthy skepticism) about a softer approach by President Obama now that he is in office, praising his style in authorizing the funding of abortion clinics with our tax dollars is an egregious mistake. For a man of Mr. Melady's history and stature in the Catholic community, I find it scandalous.

Truthfully, I am skeptical about the headline remarking that Catholic voices are heard in Washington, additionally considering that the new variant of faith-based initiatives will focus on reducing abortion by a "common ground approach" that relies heavily on artificial contraception.

I do believe that we are on the same page on this most important issue. Thank you again for your response and your continued hard work for our diocese. In fairness to you and the FCC, I would like to post our correspondence on my blog. I will do so on Monday if I do not hear from you otherwise. Your comments there are always welcome.

Sincerely in Christ,
Mike

Thank you, Mr. . Good to hear back from you.

I understood your concerns well in your previous message. Our mission at the FCC is to provide a variety of material on a subject as important as the right to live. This allows our readers to see what is being said on the subject by Catholic journalists. It helps place one's opinion in the context of a broad forum. Overall, I think we accomplished that in the February issue. You might even agree in principle.

If you would like to submit an article on this subject for our March or a future issue, please do so. Glad to consider it for publication.

Ok here with your posting our correspondence online.

Always a pleasure to receive thoughtful feedback. Thank you again.

Blessings,

Michael

Creative Minority Report: Video: Planned Parenthood Breaks Law Again

One more reason to pull the plug on every dime the US gives to Planned Parentkill.

Creative Minority Report: Video: Planned Parenthood Breaks Law Again

check out more at liveactionfilms.org

This is the funniest thing you will see this week.

Creative Minority Report: Now, This is Hilarious