Monday, January 11, 2010
Welcome, Godson!
Our godson Aaron was born into this world early Thursday morning. With some minor initial complications now under control, hopefully he and mom will be coming home soon! God be praised!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Some ruminations from a funeral
My sister-in-law's father passed away and the funeral was this past week. The Mass was at a church that my wife and I go to on occasion, but it was celebrated by a visiting priest. My wife and I were nervous, because at funerals with visiting priests and a lot of people in the pews who don't usually attend Mass, you just never know what will happen, as LarryD can certainly attest to. We were quite relieved, though, as the priest actually stuck to the rubrics of the Mass, and didn't turn an occasion for praying for the deceased and comfort for his family into a canonization rite or a New Age meditation on oneness. He reminded us that God's plan is for our eternal union with Him but pointed to the centrality of the Cross in that plan. The priest comforted the family members that at death we do not cease to exist but hopefully enter into the fullness of life eternal with God, and we offered prayers for the mercy of God to be extended upon this man and all of us.
At different parts of the Mass I looked around at the church and pondered the symbolism of what I saw: the crucifix, whose victim purchased the mercy we were imploring; the statues of the saints, whose preaching and lives of witness made possible our own life in Christ; the baptismal font and Easter candle, present and central to every person's entry into the Church, and now present at one's exit from earthly life; the incense, which carries forth our prayers and worship to God in heaven, yet lingering to sanctify the space in which we worship.
These things are what the Church wishes us to ponder in the Liturgy, and the priest, acting according to his responsibilities, allowed me to ponder such things because he wasn't competing for my attention.
At different parts of the Mass I looked around at the church and pondered the symbolism of what I saw: the crucifix, whose victim purchased the mercy we were imploring; the statues of the saints, whose preaching and lives of witness made possible our own life in Christ; the baptismal font and Easter candle, present and central to every person's entry into the Church, and now present at one's exit from earthly life; the incense, which carries forth our prayers and worship to God in heaven, yet lingering to sanctify the space in which we worship.
These things are what the Church wishes us to ponder in the Liturgy, and the priest, acting according to his responsibilities, allowed me to ponder such things because he wasn't competing for my attention.
Sincere condolences
...to the family of Kevin Archbold. and to my sister-in-law's family for the loss of their father David.
May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Angel Band
by the Stanley Brothers
May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Angel Band
by the Stanley Brothers
My latest sun is sinking fast
My race is nearly run
My longest trials now are past
My triumph has begun
Chorus
Oh come angel band
Come and around me stand
Bear me away on your snow white wings
To my immortal home
Bear me away on you snow white wings
To my immortal home
Oh bear my longing soul to him
Who bled and died for me
Whose blood now cleanses from all sins
And brings me victory
[chorus]
I know I'm near the holy ranks
Of friends and kindred dear
I brush the dew on Jordan's banks
The crossing must be near
I've almost gained my heavenly home
My spirit loudly sings
The holy ones, behold they come
I hear the noise of wings
My race is nearly run
My longest trials now are past
My triumph has begun
Chorus
Oh come angel band
Come and around me stand
Bear me away on your snow white wings
To my immortal home
Bear me away on you snow white wings
To my immortal home
Oh bear my longing soul to him
Who bled and died for me
Whose blood now cleanses from all sins
And brings me victory
[chorus]
I know I'm near the holy ranks
Of friends and kindred dear
I brush the dew on Jordan's banks
The crossing must be near
I've almost gained my heavenly home
My spirit loudly sings
The holy ones, behold they come
I hear the noise of wings
No-fault divorce
I've decided to do some research on no-fault divorce. Last month I posted about a gay-marriage advocate who mockingly attempted to get a ban on divorce enacted in California.
As I said then, the sad part of his idea, namely, that if heterosexuals want to "dictate" the rules for marriage, they'd better be prepared to follow through on it, is that most people saw his point to "stick it" to the heterosexuals and didn't really take the idea seriously. However, I think that he stumbled upon precisely the crux of the matter. Gay marriage will not be the death of the institution of marriage; no-fault divorce already dealt a terrible blow. "Gay marriage" is a misnomer and a contradiction of terms; no-fault divorce, enshrined in law, and having disastrous effects in culture and in the nature of the family, is truly a destructive force.
This needs to come into the public discussion, as it is clear to me that the emperor has no clothes. Once I know more about the subject, I'd like to start initiating discussion on this topic, both here and elsewhere. I'll start off now with the easiest entry possible: the Wikipedia entry on no-fault divorce.
I'd love any feedback I can get. Thanks!
As I said then, the sad part of his idea, namely, that if heterosexuals want to "dictate" the rules for marriage, they'd better be prepared to follow through on it, is that most people saw his point to "stick it" to the heterosexuals and didn't really take the idea seriously. However, I think that he stumbled upon precisely the crux of the matter. Gay marriage will not be the death of the institution of marriage; no-fault divorce already dealt a terrible blow. "Gay marriage" is a misnomer and a contradiction of terms; no-fault divorce, enshrined in law, and having disastrous effects in culture and in the nature of the family, is truly a destructive force.
This needs to come into the public discussion, as it is clear to me that the emperor has no clothes. Once I know more about the subject, I'd like to start initiating discussion on this topic, both here and elsewhere. I'll start off now with the easiest entry possible: the Wikipedia entry on no-fault divorce.
I'd love any feedback I can get. Thanks!
Senator Dodd calls it quits!
...and me working in a company full of men save the one extremely liberal woman, I had no one to hug when I heard the news.
My guess is he got a phone call from Rahm explaining that it was not in the best interests of the Party for him to run again. I just wonder what job he was promised in the administration next year. Ruining-the-banking-industry-Czar?
Within minutes of Dodd's announcement came the news that CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will run for the Democratic ticket for the seat. He is bound to be the Democratic candidate, as he is very popular in this heavily Democratic state. (Though as we have seen from his adament pro-choice stance and his comments in last year's Catholic Church tax exempt debacle, Blumenthal is no friend of ours.)
The Republican primary will be a showdown cage-match style between Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons, both of whom are pro-choice. Since no pro-life candidate is running for the seat, we'll have to look at other factors. I'm inclined to support Simmons given his other conservative stances, especially in matters of national security and fiscal responsibility, but either one of the Republican candidates will really have to bang the drum to overcome the charm and recognition of CT's liberal posterboy, Dick Blumenthal. This race will determine if the frustration Connecticut citizens have expressed toward Senator Dodd is merely over his arrogance and disregard for his constituents or over the roughshod manner in which the Democratic machine is running this country headlong into a ditch.
My guess is he got a phone call from Rahm explaining that it was not in the best interests of the Party for him to run again. I just wonder what job he was promised in the administration next year. Ruining-the-banking-industry-Czar?
Within minutes of Dodd's announcement came the news that CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will run for the Democratic ticket for the seat. He is bound to be the Democratic candidate, as he is very popular in this heavily Democratic state. (Though as we have seen from his adament pro-choice stance and his comments in last year's Catholic Church tax exempt debacle, Blumenthal is no friend of ours.)
The Republican primary will be a showdown cage-match style between Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons, both of whom are pro-choice. Since no pro-life candidate is running for the seat, we'll have to look at other factors. I'm inclined to support Simmons given his other conservative stances, especially in matters of national security and fiscal responsibility, but either one of the Republican candidates will really have to bang the drum to overcome the charm and recognition of CT's liberal posterboy, Dick Blumenthal. This race will determine if the frustration Connecticut citizens have expressed toward Senator Dodd is merely over his arrogance and disregard for his constituents or over the roughshod manner in which the Democratic machine is running this country headlong into a ditch.
...And in other family stuff news...
...I will soon be starting a part-time tutoring job a few nights a week, funded by the No Child Left Behind Act. Helping out the failing public school system, helping out kids, helping out my family budget, hey, it's a good thing...
It was either that, or wait for one of those "green" jobs everyone is talking about.
...
...
...
crickets chirping
It was either that, or wait for one of those "green" jobs everyone is talking about.
...
...
...
crickets chirping
I've been bugging St. Joseph...
...for a bigger sardine can. Two adults, three boys, one baby girl and a cat are kind of cramped in 912 ft^2 of living space. We put an offer on a house last week and are waiting to hear back. The seller thinks it's worth twice what it actually is (and twice what we bid on it) despite the fact that it reminds me of a movie with Tom Hanks and Shelly Long. So we'll see what happens. If this is the house God has picked for us, I'll get back to you with good news. If this is not the house He has for us, well, we'll keep bugging St. Joseph.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
I never understood why...
Samuel L. Jackson ever agreed to play such a wimpy and uninspiring role in the new Star Wars episodes.
This is how it should have gone down.
This is how it should have gone down.
"How-DEE! I'm just so proud to be here!"
Well, I haven't been mentioned in a poem before; except, of course, for that one about me and a motorcycle, but I never did like that one. Thanks to LarryD for the Christmas wishes!Christmas wishes to all of you as well, though Christmas is half over (though not completely, as some would think). Being married to a starving church musician doesn't make for a quiet, simple holiday schedule, so we caught up on sleep and celebrated Christmas with some of our extended and adopted family on Saturday.
I know I haven't been here much, and I hope to chime in more soon. Work's been busy, I've been searching for and just was hired for a part-time tutoring job, we're trying to sell our home and buy another one with little money of our own, and we've had two feet of snow and a few family sicknesses thrown in just for fun! I know, that's supposed to be some sort of excuse for not blogging everyday? pssh, whatever!
God bless!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
A Portrait in Contrasts
...between what happens when a conservative is at the podium versus when a liberal is at the podium:
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/health/healthy_living/health-care-reform-and-abortion-clash
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/leftist-thugs-shut-down-sheriff-joe-arpaios-free-speech-at-asu-first-amendment-forum-video/
Now, in the Kennedy case, Christopher Young shouldn't have thrown the DVD. That, I believe, is really what got the ball rolling for him getting thrown out of the forum. But Kennedy never answered the salient point. Because there's no good answer.
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/health/healthy_living/health-care-reform-and-abortion-clash
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/leftist-thugs-shut-down-sheriff-joe-arpaios-free-speech-at-asu-first-amendment-forum-video/
Now, in the Kennedy case, Christopher Young shouldn't have thrown the DVD. That, I believe, is really what got the ball rolling for him getting thrown out of the forum. But Kennedy never answered the salient point. Because there's no good answer.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ban divorce?
The sad fact is that this idiot has a point...if only he'd get off his high-hubris to recognize it.
Smarter people than me have pointed out that "gay marriage" is not a death-threat to traditional marriage in this county. It's just the slimy kid down the street poking its already decaying carcass.
The real threat to marriage is no-fault divorce. Now, I'm not talking about situations where there is mental or physical abuse. People have a right not to be abused and should be able to get away from their abusers.
I'm talking about, "You know, honey, I woke up this morning and I don't feel like being married to you anymore" kind of divorce. The month-long Hollywood "irreconcilable differences" divorce. The "I just want to find myself and it's not with you" divorce.
Before my wife and I got married we made a pact- no divorce. Period. As a product of a home shattered by divorce, my wife experience first-hand the pain and destruction that a failed marriage leaves behind. The hurt, resentment, mistrust, anger and doubt that it leaves on children, especially.
Some might think our pact naive. To those who would say so, I would point out that when a couple gets married with the possibility that if things "don't work out" they have an exit door, it's only a matter of time until they use it. When you decide that there is no leaving, you make every decision differently. You find a way to forgive, to reconcile, to ask forgiveness. You find a way to be patient and caring when you don't feel like it. You seek counseling if necessary. You make sacrifices. You pray and work and struggle to put the other's welfare first. Conversely, when the marriage is by definition, not permanent, why take the trouble to care?
To others, though, our pact seems redundant.
Until the culture as a whole sees such a pact as redundant, marriage will continue to travel down the cultural path towards the realm of quaint, irrelevant leftovers of an earlier time.
Until we appreciate what marriage truly is, there is no argument against "gay marriage".
Smarter people than me have pointed out that "gay marriage" is not a death-threat to traditional marriage in this county. It's just the slimy kid down the street poking its already decaying carcass.
The real threat to marriage is no-fault divorce. Now, I'm not talking about situations where there is mental or physical abuse. People have a right not to be abused and should be able to get away from their abusers.
I'm talking about, "You know, honey, I woke up this morning and I don't feel like being married to you anymore" kind of divorce. The month-long Hollywood "irreconcilable differences" divorce. The "I just want to find myself and it's not with you" divorce.
Before my wife and I got married we made a pact- no divorce. Period. As a product of a home shattered by divorce, my wife experience first-hand the pain and destruction that a failed marriage leaves behind. The hurt, resentment, mistrust, anger and doubt that it leaves on children, especially.
Some might think our pact naive. To those who would say so, I would point out that when a couple gets married with the possibility that if things "don't work out" they have an exit door, it's only a matter of time until they use it. When you decide that there is no leaving, you make every decision differently. You find a way to forgive, to reconcile, to ask forgiveness. You find a way to be patient and caring when you don't feel like it. You seek counseling if necessary. You make sacrifices. You pray and work and struggle to put the other's welfare first. Conversely, when the marriage is by definition, not permanent, why take the trouble to care?
To others, though, our pact seems redundant.
Until the culture as a whole sees such a pact as redundant, marriage will continue to travel down the cultural path towards the realm of quaint, irrelevant leftovers of an earlier time.
Until we appreciate what marriage truly is, there is no argument against "gay marriage".
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Back when Hollywood still viewed Catholicism
...as a force for good in the world, it produced The Trouble with Angels. Released in 1966, I just recently saw it for the first time. Probably run of the mill kid fluff at the time, I was really impressed with its treatment of Catholicism in general and the religious life in particular.
The plot is simple: two rambunctious girls attend four years at an all-girls Catholic school run by an order of religious sisters. Watching this movie struck a chord with Wifey and me, because my wife was the rambunctious redhead at a school just like this one. My wife started laughing when the eldest retired sister was asleep at the dinner table. (I thought maybe she had died, so I didn't get the joke. But her school was, like in TTwA, also the Motherhouse of the order, so she had elderly nuns asleep at the table all the time.)
Haley Mills plays Mary Clancy, the antagonist of every prank in the movie. Rosalind Russell is stunning as Reverend Mother. The Trouble with Angels is a character study. The charm of the movie lies the growth into maturity of Mary Clancy and her friend Rachel Devery, along with the softening process as Mary begins to see Reverend Mother as less the dragon who thwarts her "scathingly brilliant ideas", and more the strong, devoted woman who quietly but passionately loves her Lord and her girls.
It's a fun movie to watch and the kids enjoy it. Unlike its changing-with-the-times hip and vapid sequel, which should be avoided like bells on Good Friday, I highly recommend The Trouble with Angels.
The plot is simple: two rambunctious girls attend four years at an all-girls Catholic school run by an order of religious sisters. Watching this movie struck a chord with Wifey and me, because my wife was the rambunctious redhead at a school just like this one. My wife started laughing when the eldest retired sister was asleep at the dinner table. (I thought maybe she had died, so I didn't get the joke. But her school was, like in TTwA, also the Motherhouse of the order, so she had elderly nuns asleep at the table all the time.)
Haley Mills plays Mary Clancy, the antagonist of every prank in the movie. Rosalind Russell is stunning as Reverend Mother. The Trouble with Angels is a character study. The charm of the movie lies the growth into maturity of Mary Clancy and her friend Rachel Devery, along with the softening process as Mary begins to see Reverend Mother as less the dragon who thwarts her "scathingly brilliant ideas", and more the strong, devoted woman who quietly but passionately loves her Lord and her girls.
It's a fun movie to watch and the kids enjoy it. Unlike its changing-with-the-times hip and vapid sequel, which should be avoided like bells on Good Friday, I highly recommend The Trouble with Angels.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Time management
Last week I was complaining and whining like Luke Skywalker about how I feel like I'm going nowhere. Rob K made a good point that it might be an opportunity to discern if God wants me to do something differently.
It's a point well taken and one that I had been pondering. I was assessing not just blogging, but how I've been spending much of my time. And it hasn't been good lately.
I work for a small company that is pretty casual about guidelines. As long as the work gets done, there's a lot of leeway. So if I get to work at 7:00, great. If I get there at 9:00, fine. If I have errands to run on the way in, even later is acceptable. Nobody hounds me about it. It just means I stay later.
The problem with such permissiveness is that it's ripe for cultivating bad habits. And getting to work later had become a bad habit for me, one that was affecting other areas of life. Especially considering my 45 minute commute, I'd get out of work later, missing the kids, or I'd get out at the normal time to help my wife with something-or-other and end up with a shortened payday. And at a period of time when I'm also keeping an eye out for a part-time job that fits my schedule, this is not helpful. In general, I've been experiencing diminishing returns and general frustration. And there's nobody to blame but me.
I need to set a deadline for myself. Otherwise, the snooze button is my best friend. After all, without a firm time to be somewhere, what's another few minutes of blissful sleep?
God's solution to my problem was obvious.
I've been enjoying a better use of my days. Today I was out of the house before wifey was up, had a full day at work, came home, and made dinner for the kids and me (mom is out tonight). We brushed teeth, got Frac his medicine, read two library books, and sang extra night prayer songs (and a Star Wars theme)--both at the kids' request. And all of that because I had the best start to the day that there is.
7:00 Mass 1/2 mile from work.
It's a point well taken and one that I had been pondering. I was assessing not just blogging, but how I've been spending much of my time. And it hasn't been good lately.
I work for a small company that is pretty casual about guidelines. As long as the work gets done, there's a lot of leeway. So if I get to work at 7:00, great. If I get there at 9:00, fine. If I have errands to run on the way in, even later is acceptable. Nobody hounds me about it. It just means I stay later.
The problem with such permissiveness is that it's ripe for cultivating bad habits. And getting to work later had become a bad habit for me, one that was affecting other areas of life. Especially considering my 45 minute commute, I'd get out of work later, missing the kids, or I'd get out at the normal time to help my wife with something-or-other and end up with a shortened payday. And at a period of time when I'm also keeping an eye out for a part-time job that fits my schedule, this is not helpful. In general, I've been experiencing diminishing returns and general frustration. And there's nobody to blame but me.
I need to set a deadline for myself. Otherwise, the snooze button is my best friend. After all, without a firm time to be somewhere, what's another few minutes of blissful sleep?
God's solution to my problem was obvious.
I've been enjoying a better use of my days. Today I was out of the house before wifey was up, had a full day at work, came home, and made dinner for the kids and me (mom is out tonight). We brushed teeth, got Frac his medicine, read two library books, and sang extra night prayer songs (and a Star Wars theme)--both at the kids' request. And all of that because I had the best start to the day that there is.
7:00 Mass 1/2 mile from work.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Elena's Notes
If you're looking for a Christmas present for anyone and everyone, please consider Notes Left Behind, a book chronicling the story of Elena, a beautiful girl whose story is truly heart-breaking and -warming. Faced with terminal cancer, Elena hid dozens of love notes and drawings for her parents and sister to find when she was gone. Read her story, look at her artwork and support the cause to find a cure for this deadly disease.
(Just so you know, I contacted thecurestartsnow.org, affiliated with the project, and they informed me that they do NOT fund embryonic stem cell research, so buy the book in good conscience.)
H/T CMR.
(Just so you know, I contacted thecurestartsnow.org, affiliated with the project, and they informed me that they do NOT fund embryonic stem cell research, so buy the book in good conscience.)
H/T CMR.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Flashback
My wife and I were watching this online the other night and couldn't help but think that such a skit today would be lost on the audience, as so many of the predictions of 1984 and Brave New World have come true, that many people wouldn't recognize the irony that made this skit funny when it aired. Note the question at 3:15 and the audience reaction. They could laugh because the Culture of Death hadn't yet progressed from abortion-rights to promotion of outright infanticide.
Obama shows his cards on abortion and health care
Obama's reaction to the House passage of the health care legislation with the Stupak amendment reveals where this is all going.
The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortion, which means that those who wish to have an abortion or who think they might need one in the future will either have to pay for one directly or will need to purchase the insurance with abortion coverage at their own expense.
Then Obama expresses concern that the amendment will restrict women's choices and opportunity to get such "health care."
Is he really afraid that purchasing private health care will be an actual restriction on procuring an abortion? That could only be the case if there is no private health insurance. There would only be no private health insurance if we move to the single-payer system, which Senator Obama declared was a goal of his. Many people have criticized the government intervention in health care as paving the way for single-payer health care, a charge that President Obama, Pelosi and Reid have vehemently denied. Who do you believe, them or your own eyes and ears?
The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortion, which means that those who wish to have an abortion or who think they might need one in the future will either have to pay for one directly or will need to purchase the insurance with abortion coverage at their own expense.
Then Obama expresses concern that the amendment will restrict women's choices and opportunity to get such "health care."
Is he really afraid that purchasing private health care will be an actual restriction on procuring an abortion? That could only be the case if there is no private health insurance. There would only be no private health insurance if we move to the single-payer system, which Senator Obama declared was a goal of his. Many people have criticized the government intervention in health care as paving the way for single-payer health care, a charge that President Obama, Pelosi and Reid have vehemently denied. Who do you believe, them or your own eyes and ears?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Blogging
...has become a bit of a chore as of late. I'm finding that I do well with the format of online conversation, but I often get saddled with writer's block when I sit down to post my soliloquies. I really liked the older format of the CatholicVote website and that, essentially spurred my activities here. Someone would invariably say something utterly stupid and in need of immediate correction and explanation and that fueled my fire, so to speak. I found an avenue to discuss Catholic teaching and relate it to current events.
Lately, I've been spending too much time reading other blogs. I started out by checking out what other people were doing, getting ideas, and linking to stories that piqued my interest. But now I find that I use up all my blogging time just weeding through what others post. Then I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of topics to address.
I don't like drive-by posting. On other people's blogs, there have been so many items I'd like to comment on, but the topics are important enough to warrant lengthy conversation, but since I don't have the time lately to do that, I'd rather not leave any comment at all than leave a provocative one-liner that I'm not around to defend.
Lately, I've been spending too much time reading other blogs. I started out by checking out what other people were doing, getting ideas, and linking to stories that piqued my interest. But now I find that I use up all my blogging time just weeding through what others post. Then I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of topics to address.
I don't like drive-by posting. On other people's blogs, there have been so many items I'd like to comment on, but the topics are important enough to warrant lengthy conversation, but since I don't have the time lately to do that, I'd rather not leave any comment at all than leave a provocative one-liner that I'm not around to defend.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Note to self:
snipped shamelessly from Diogenes:
quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 address to German seminarians:
quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 address to German seminarians:
The ability to accept and weather suffering is a fundamental condition for succeeding as a human being. Where it is never learned, existence is doomed to failure. Being up-in-arms about everyone and everything contaminates the ground of the soul, so to speak, and turns it into barren land. The priest must learn how to cope with pain -- formerly one spoke of asceticism in this context. No one likes this word any longer; it becomes more palatable when we translate it from Greek into English -- training. Everyone knows that without training and the will-power that goes with it there is no success. Nowadays one trains for all kinds of skills with enthusiasm and persistence, and in this way record performances in many areas are possible that were once deemed inconceivable. Why does it seem so outlandish to train for real life, for the right life -- to practice the arts of self-denial, of self-control, and of freeing ourselves from our addictions?
As a reminder of this, near my desk is a small copy of an illustration from an old copy of the Imitation of Christ, where Christ is being whipped and mocked by the soldiers in his cell. The caption: "Cease to complain, remembering my Passion."
Man, do I need to be reminded of that often.
Man, do I need to be reminded of that often.
And while I'm redirecting you to other blogs...
I've found Shameless Popery to be very enriching, especially the post today answering the Protestant hang-up on the Eucharist and Mary. It's worth checking out.
The Paschal Mystery
As I'm reading Fulton Sheen's "Life of Christ" and loving every minute of it, Fr. Longenecker's post today about the centrality of the Paschal Mystery to the Catholic's relationship with Christ is knee-deep frosting on the cake.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sweetie-Pie Baby Girl
Sporting her "I Love My Daddy" bib. Not only is she now crawling, but this week, she cut two teeth.
Oh, yeah, and in other minor news, SHE SAID DADA! (Mom is still moping.)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Dog That Didn't Bark Finally Barks
President Obama said to a joint session of Congress that his plan for health care reform would not use Federal dollars to pay for abortions. Yet we knew even at the time that he was lying.
When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.
Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.
But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.
It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.
The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.
I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.
But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.
I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.
Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?
When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.
Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.
But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.
It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.
The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.
I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.
But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.
I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.
Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
