Now we can be sure

If there was any doubt over Sotomayor's pro-abortion position, it may now be put to rest based on the following...

* Pro-abort President Obama is 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views

* Pro-abort Senator Boxer is also "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position

* A former colleague of Sotomayor "guarantees" that Sotomayor is "for abortion rights"

* The president of a major abortion provider (PP) called Sotomayor's nomination a "strong signal" that Obama wants Supreme Court justices who "respect precedent"

* A large pro-abort organization (NOW) "celebrated" Sotomayor's nomination and will campaign for her "swift confirmation"

Did anyone really doubt that Obama would put forth a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade, especially in light of comments he made during his campaign?

References: Obama 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views | Pro-abort Senator Boxer "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position; Former colleague "guarantees" Sotomayor is "for abortion rights" | Pro-abort groups praise Sotomayor nomination

[5/30]

Civics 101: Breaking the law is not okay

Many bishops seem to have lost sight of a basic fundamental duty of all individuals: don't break the law. Persons whose first act on U.S. soil is to sneak into the country illegally have already showed contempt for our laws. And, these same persons must continue to lie & break laws in order to remain here. The facts clearly show that illegals burden law-abiding citizens with immense costs. They force the closure of hospitals, raise insurance and healthcare prices, drive down wages, clog jails and courts. They drive without insurance, take our jobs, use up our resources, burden and overcrowd the state-run education, justice & welfare systems, and cost law-abiding citizens huge amounts to support them. These illegals are responsible for much crime - including violent crime - and saddle society with incalculable societal and financial costs.

The illegals themselves have no sense of respect for the law (they have repeatedly shown contempt for it) and no sense of patriotism (how can you be a patriot of a country when you refuse to honor its laws?). They often reject our culture (even the good parts), bring disease, increase racial tension, and cause offense to others (e.g. by urinating on walls, housing multiple families in overcrowded, unsanitary & unsafe dwellings, bearing numerous children out of wedlock, littering, loitering, vandalism, etc.). Some illegals use stolen identities. Frequently, illegals fail to pay taxes, drive without licenses, and refuse to learn our language. Some even fly their country's flags on our soil. Many have the attitude that we "owe them". They are not citizens of our country, but invaders.

Apparently, however, some bishops think we should "look the other way" and treat them as if they are just regular 'citizens'. But this is not true. They are trespassers - even robbers. One could say they "steal" taxpayer money - your money. A country is not obligated to support anyone who shows up on its soil any more than a Catholic man is obligated to welcome into his home anyone who shows up at his doorstep. Rather, it is the Catholic man's duty to prevent the invasion of his home in order to protect those who live there. Likewise, it is a country's duty to protect her citizens. Charity yes, anarchy & robbery no.

The United States already gives billions in aid to countries all over the world and allows thousands of LEGAL immigrants to enter the country every year - we are far more generous than any other country on the face of the earth. We are certainly not lacking in charity. However, we should not reward those who break into our country illegally and show contempt for our laws. Rather, we should send them home. And we should bill them for it.

However, some bishops do not seem to see it this way. Instead, they apparently want U.S. citizens to cough up even more money for "comprehensive health care" for illegals. Have they completely lost sight of the fact that taxpayers are already at their limit? Do they really think it is right to overwhelm our medical system with millions of persons who show no regard for our laws and make us pay for it? Do they really fail to see the injustice in this? Or, is the real truth that many bishops back illegals because they "fill the pews" and add to the collection box?

It's time for Catholics to take a stand. Tell your bishops that you resent their supporting illegals' breaking of our just laws. Remind them charity must be voluntary, not forced - and that it is your right to determine who to direct your charity towards. Ask them to stop scandalously disregarding basic laws & justice. Tell them you want to be protected from lawbreakers, cheaters & thieves. Tell them you want illegals sent back to their own country for "comprehensive health care". Tell them you reject amnesty for lawbreakers. Tell them you don't want to support foreigners' children who are born here at your expense (children who should rightly be considered illegal, not 'citizens' to reward with your tax dollars). And then remind them that you lovingly welcome immigrants who come here legally and who respect our laws.

And finally, when they accuse you of not being "charitable", remind them that it is not a duty of charity to aid persons to break laws, cheat, lie, and (essentially) steal. Furthermore, ask them if they are the ones who are not being charitable by their wrongly disregarding the just laws of this country and the common good of its law-abiding citizens as well as their potentially endangering innocent persons.

Should they dispute this, consider offering to take them on a trip to jails, courthouses, welfare offices, closed hospitals, crime-ridden border cities, etc. to see the cost to others of their supposed "charity".

[5/28]

Obama nominates "judicial activist" to Supreme Court

Obama has nominated a 'divorced' Hispanic female who was raised Catholic to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Souter. His nominee, Judge Sotomayor has...

* Stated on video that courts are the place "where policy is made"

* Said that: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" (If a white man said something like this, wouldn't he be blasted for racism & sexism?)

* Reportedly ruled to discard the results of an exam for firefighters "because few minority firefighters qualified for promotions", leaving one critic to state that she "reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety."

* Called for special rights for Puerto Rico if they pursued U.S. statehood

* Has been called "a liberal judicial activist of the first order"

* Has been charged with a "terrible record" of reversals

* Has been criticized for her temperament

Unfortunately, some fear Republicans may not try to block her nomination because she is a Hispanic woman. Now there's a good reason, eh?

[5/26]

Obama not pro-abortion?

The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano has gone on record stating that Obama, the "most pro-abortion president in history" is "not a pro-abortion president." This comes as news to pro-lifers - and probably to Obama as well who has made no secret of his position on abortion. This puzzling statement would have been odd enough coming from a liberal newspaper's editor, but coming from the editor of the Vatican newspaper, it is even more shocking. If Obama is "not a pro-abortion president", then please explain why Obama...

* Repeatedly places persons with radical pro-abortion records in key positions

* Issues statements supporting abortion

* Forces American taxpayers to fund pro-abortion organizations

* Has taken steps to overturn conscience protections for health care workers who oppose abortions

* Funds embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer money

* Funds organizations which promote abortion overseas

* Allows an FDA ruling to stand which allows minors to purchase the abortifacient "morning after pill" over the counter, without parental notification

* Forces taxpayers to pay for abortions in the nation's capital

* Eliminates federal funding for abstinence-only education

* Etc.

In light of the above, what exactly would it take for the editor of the Vatican newspaper to consider Obama a pro-abortion president? [story here] [5/21]

A thing of beauty

Truths and strong words from Archbishop Chaput's statement concerning the ND scandal are a 'thing of beauty'. Highlights include:

* We "have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness."

* "Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history"

* "[T]here was no excuse - none, except intellectual vanity - for the university to persist in its course."

* "Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it."

* "Notre Dame's leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame's critics are right."

* "[T]he most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist - by their words, actions and financial support - that institutions claiming to be 'Catholic' actually live the faith with courage and consistency."

[story here] [5/19]

The good & the bad, and the ridiculous

The following is a short summary of certain good & bad elements from Notre Dame's controversial commencement ceremony & the events surrounding it...

The Good

* Some pro-life students boycotted their own commencement ceremony

* Bishop D'Arcy boycotted the graduation ceremony & spoke to pro-lifers at a Notre Dame pro-life rally [story here]

* Around 100 pro-life students attended the graduation wearing a pro-life symbol; These students remained seated while Obama received standing ovations

* Courageous individuals risked arrest in support of the pro-life cause. Those arrested included an elderly priest, Alan Keyes, and Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of "Roe vs. Wade")

* Pro-life hecklers disrupted Obama's speech on several occasions

* The pro-life rally held at ND was attended by thousands [story here]

* Bishop D'Arcy called the pro-life students who boycotted their commencement "heroes" [story here]

* A selfless lady declined a prestigious ND honor [see previous news brief]

The Bad

* The "most pro-abortion president in history", Obama, received an honorary law degree from the nation's "most prestigious Catholic university", causing great scandal

* ND's president disregarded the bishops' statement, his own bishop's condemnation, and the public scandal to go forward with his "pet project". Despite this, students seem to support him overwhelmingly.

* Obama enjoyed the support of thousands of students & received a standing ovation; Attendees even chanted Obama's campaign slogan in response to pro-lifers' heckling

* Radical pro-abortion Obama received ND's honor & affirmed his pro-abortion stance while wearing a robe containing an inscription to the Holy Mother of God, "symbolizing dedication of all Notre Dame's activities to the Virgin Mary" [story here]

* There was no formal condemnation of ND's honoring Obama from Pope Benedict XVI (Archbishop Burke criticized the decision, but this is obviously not the same as if a condemnation had come from Pope Benedict himself)

* Some fear that "Notre Dame will become symbol of Catholic dissent" [story here]

The Ridiculous (pathetic, absurd)

* Obama's ridiculous call to find "common ground" over the murder of the unborn. Would he advance "common ground" on racial matters or would he reject racism outright?

* Hypocrisy of Obama on "respecting" each others views on abortion considering that he has shown no respect to the views of pro-lifers (and, of course, it isn't possible for pro-lifers to "respect" the views of those who advocate the killing of children) [story here]

* Hypocrisy of Obama concerning "conscience rights"; on one hand he claims to honor conscience rights, but on the other he works to remove protections already in place [story here]

* Fr. Jenkins' laudatory treatment of Obama; Embraces him, pats him on the back, almost seems to campaign for Obama

* The Vatican newspaper's response to the event fails to include a condemnation of the scandal; instead claims Obama seeks "common ground" on baby killing [story here]

[5/18]

What is surprising

It's no big surprise to many that a certain disgraced former archbishop is gay. It is also not surprising to learn that he will be publishing a memoir that will make some people "angry". But what is surprising is that a man who served as archbishop would have the nerve to publicly question whether or not homosexual acts are immoral. Did he miss his catechism lessons that sodomy is one of only 4 sins that "cry out to heaven for vengeance"? Did he not notice the passages in Scripture condemning homosexuality - including the one where the all-loving God condemns the sodomites to suffer eternal hellfire (see Jude 1:7)? Does he claim the bible and the Church have erred? Does he really think that because certain people may have an inclination to a certain sin that it is therefore "not sinful"? By his reasoning, is adultery also not sinful? Murder? Fornication? And, golly, apparently we shouldn't use "bad words" that are "pejorative" like "objectively disordered" because someone might get their itty bitty feelings hurt. Okay, one more thing is surprising - that such a man could have been given charge over Catholic souls. [story here (warning: may contain offensive terminology)] [5/15]

More Clarity: Head of Catholic 'Supreme Court' Tells Obama Supporters to Get to Confession

The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura ("Chief Justice of the Church's Supreme Court") has stated that Catholics who knew Obama's "clearly announced" anti-life, anti-family agenda could not have voted for him "with a clear conscience". He further stated that if a Catholic "knowingly and deliberately" voted for a candidate who was in favor of "the most grievous violations of the natural moral law" (i.e. Obama), then he has "formally cooperated in a grave evil and must confess his serious sin". Finally, some straight talk. For those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain, don't fret. Americans are always free to write in a pro-life candidate (or they can choose one of the independent pro-life candidates already on the ballot). At least that's one freedom we haven't lost. [story here] [5/13]

Let's be clear: NO

What seems obvious to countless laity is apparently "ambiguous" to certain persons in higher Catholic education. The President of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities claims that the 2004 USCCB statement which reads: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions" is ambiguous. He claims that "greater clarity is needed." Perhaps a simple "DON'T DO IT" would be more clear. Or would that also be too ambiguous for a person holding such a lofty position? Excuses, excuses. [story here] [5/11]

Blind Sheep

In the good ol' days, if you showed a Catholic risqué pictures of a "famous priest" frolicking around on the beach, kissing and fondling a 'divorced' mother in a bathing suit, the person you showed them to would have been outraged. Unfortunately in our days, the 'diabolic deception' is so entrenched that certain Catholics instead held a rally in support of the aforementioned photographed priest, even slapping & knocking down a counter-demonstrator in attendance.

Further, the ignorant and enemies of the Church are using the opportunity to call for an end to celibacy, apparently clueless to its great value (click here for refresher on reasons for celibacy). They also appear to lack concern for the serious sin of fornication, for which Scripture says...

"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21)

"Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph. 5:3-5)

And they also appear unconcerned over the possibility that their spiritual leader may have broken his solemn vows to God, even though Scripture says...

"When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered." (Num. 30:3)

"When you make a vow to the LORD, your God, you shall not delay in fulfilling it; otherwise you will be held guilty, for the LORD, your God, is strict in requiring it of you." (Deut 23:22)

"You had better not make a vow than make it and not fulfill it." (Eccl. 5:4)

Given the above, one may have reason to fear that a "Rally for Judas" would be well-attended in our day and age. Poor blind sheep. Wish they would keep in mind Jesus' words: "If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit." [Related Links: 'Rally turns violent' | Bad examples do not invalidate the value of priestly celibacy] [5/8]

Thank a ND student

The scandal over Notre Dame's commencement, which will feature & honor Obama, "the most anti-life president in U.S. history", has not been entirely devoid of 'signs of hope'. Although ND's President continues to act in defiance of the U.S. Bishops - not to mention basic Catholic common sense - and, unfortunately, also with some backing of ND students, many others have been strongly on the side of truth and life. Since the news first broke, dozens of bishops have spoken out against the decision, the area's bishop will be boycotting the commencement, another bishop has already held a Mass of reparation, one lady selflessly turned down a prestigious ND honor, donors have withheld millions in donations, and there has been "national outrage". And, in the course of events, Obama's anti-life policies have been exposed to those who might otherwise have been unaware of them.

One thing this country typically suffers from is apathy. In this case at least - thankfully - apathy has not been as readily apparent. Although it appears that the commencement plans will, unfortunately, go as planned, many pro-life students at ND are not taking this lightly. Recently, they have announced plans to hold a protest at their commencement. Also, many ND students are expected to boycott their own graduation. Some students may confront Obama over his pro-abortion position. Images of aborted babies may be draped along the way. Although this should be a special day - a day of joy - for these students, a cloud will be put over the event because their leader has chosen to betray Catholic principles and would not back down even in the face of condemnation by his bishop & public outcry.

In spite of this, it is good to see that there are courageous ND students who still hold sacred their Catholic values. Any student who boycotts the graduation for which they worked so hard to achieve in order to defend their Catholic beliefs is deserving of respect. This shows great character and gives hope and inspiration to others. May God bless and guide all ND students. And may all people support and thank those who do what is right, even at a high personal cost. [story here] [5/5]