Lent: Going into the Desert

The Holy Season of Lent begins in just a little over 24 hours.  This is the most solemn time of the Christian year leading up to the most solemn day of the year - Good Friday, commemorating the death of our Lord, and then to the most glorious day - Easter Sunday, the resurrection of the Lord.   I will be sharing my Lenten experiences as best as I can here. 

But before beginning my journey into the spiritual desert of Lent, I want to post what the New York Times has to say.  Yes, that's right - the secular paper of record.  I hear and read of what different people plan to do during Lent.  Some say it's not a time to give up anything, but to go out and do good.  No, that is not what Lent is about.  Certainly doing good is something a Christian should always strive to do, but that is not the focus of Lent.  Lent is about forsaking our lives on this earth and striving for the spiritual. 

The New York Times explains it very well:

February 18, 2012

In a Lenten Season

By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Some may think of Lent as a time to make up for the excesses of Mardi Gras. But Lent, which begins Wednesday, isn’t a time of recovery. To Christians, it’s a 40-day season of preparation for Easter, the holiest day in the liturgical year. But the idea of Lent can be embraced by all of us, religious or otherwise.

“What are you giving up for Lent?” is something you hear from all sorts of people. Yet there’s something tricky about the secular notion of Lent. You give up something personally important, so its absence will remind you of your purpose in giving it up, but not so important that it disrupts life much. You give up chocolate, but not refrigeration. Bread, but not the Internet. Coffee, but not “Downton Abbey.” Americans are not a naturally ascetic people, and it shows. Fasting lies at the heart of Lent, and most of us are not fasters. We choose our Lenten sacrifices from a very short menu.

But what if this were really a season for renunciation, even for non-believers? In the ancestral stories of nearly every culture, wisdom comes from the bare places, from deserts and dry mountains. The season of Lent itself is based on a “wilderness” — the one in which Jesus fasted for 40 days after his baptism.

It’s common to read this story and others like it as though the wilderness were little more than a blank backdrop. I read it a different way. Wisdom comes from the bare places because they force humility upon us. In these Lenten places, where life thrives on almost nothing, we can see clearly how large a shadow modern life and consumption cast upon the earth. In secular terms, Lent seems the opposite of Christmas — “What are you giving up?” versus “What are you getting?” Perhaps it might be a season in which to learn the value of abstention and to consider how to let the bare places flourish, or even simply to exist.

There is a certain wisdom in this, and one which, I'm afraid, many Christians and, in particular, Catholics reject. But as Christians we need to take Lent further than the goals of the above article. Lent isn't about merely letting barren places flourish. It is about getting rid of whatever it is that separates us from God, shedding whatever is keeping us "earthbound." We go into the desert, leaving behind all our physical comforts, all of our security blankets, everything that we cling to on this earth and learn to embrace the spiritual. We empty ourselves not so we are barren, but so that Christ can fill us with Himself.

Rick Santorum - Mario Cuomo, Jr.?

A few days ago I wrote about Rick Santorum's confusing message regarding birth control.   He is personally against birth control but still voted for it when he was senator because birth control "is not the taking of a human life."  That is most certainly not in line with Catholic teaching, although Senator Santorum professes to be a devout Catholic.  I can only compare this to Governor Mario Cuomo, who was personally against abortion but did not want to impose his beliefs on others.  I guess I could say I am personally against murder and mayhem, but I don't want to impose my belief on others. This just reeks of hypocrisy.  There is no way to have any kind of rule of law with this sort of philosophy.

Well, Senator Santorum has backed up his remarks about contraception in an interview with Greta Van Susteren.  Take a look:

Santorum: Contraception Would Remain Legal if I Was President

By Katrina Trinko 

February 17, 2012 11:13 A.M.Rick Santorum dismissed Santorum super PAC donor Foster Friess’s contraception comment on MSNBC (“Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”) in an interview last night, saying he wasn’t “responsible” for everything his supporters said. 

Santorum said he had “deeply held beliefs” on the issue of contraception, but noted that he didn’t look to the government to impose his moral views.

“Only when there are real consequences to society or to the rights of individuals do I feel a need to speak out,” Santorum said. “And that’s why I do on the issue of abortion because we have another — we have another person involved in the decision.”

“But the issue of contraception, that’s not the case,” he added. “It’s something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency.”  

Friess has written an apology on his blog for telling the joke.

I was listening to a very interesting interview on Youtube with E. Michael Jones in which he was discussing the ramifications of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  He talked about the Republican and Democratic parties and what they really stand for.  He said the Democrats are the party of sodomy and the Republicans are the party of usury, and each has vowed never to interfere with the other.  That is why nothing ever changes no matter which party is in power, and why our country continues in a downward spiral.  Rick Santorum is just another part of that power structure. 

NOTHING will change if he should somehow be elected as president.  Rick Santorum is a Potemkin Village.  He, like all the others, is not what he appears to be, and if you listen carefully, he will tell you just that.  Romney equals Obama equals Gingrich equals Santorum.  They are all one and the same person. 

We get the leaders we deserve.  And these days, that ain't much.

Dr. Jones' interview is in 4 parts.  Here is the fourth part of it in which he talks about the Republicans and the Democrats. 

Pope Paul VI Prophesied The HHS Mandate on Contraception

Catholic Bishops and others have been railing against the Obama adminstration for attacking religious liberty by forcing Catholic institutions to go against the clear teachings of the church in supplying contraception to their employees.  Father Z's blog has one posting after another attacking the Obama administration on this issue.  But even he had a posting quoting from Humanae Vitae, which says that if contraception is allowed to be commonly used, government forces would start using it against the people.

From Humanae Vitae:

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

If you have never read Humanae Vitae, please click on this link and do so.  It will be an eye-opening experience as to why there is so much evil in our world.  Pope Paul VI, led by the Holy Spirit, gave a sober warning to all of us.  We have no excuse.  We can try blaming Obama, the liberal media, entertainment, etc. etc., but we really have no one to blame but ourselves.  First and foremost, those Catholic authorities who told us that we did not have to follow Humanae Vitae but instead follow our consciences, will have to bear much of the blame.  The use of artificial contraception lies at the heart of most of the world's problems.

Majority of Births for Women Under 30 Are Out Of Wedlock

The following article was the headline in the New York Times on February 17.  It is actually a very distressing article explaining that for all women under 30, there are now more out-of-wedlock births than babies born to married women.  This paints a very bleak picture for both the women and children involved.  As pointed out in this article, "Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems."  And amazingly enough, this New York Times article also points out that contraception is a direct cause of this problem.  "The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill." 

There doesn't seem to be any resolution to this nightmare.  The United States is fast descending into hell.  Yet I must give credit to the New York Times for printing this article and not trying to whitewash it in any way, but showing just how tragic it is. 

Again, if the world had just listened to Pope Paul VI when he gave us Humanae Vitae, we would never see headlines like this.  All of those bishops and priests who told Catholics that they could make up their own mind about using birth control have much for which they must answer. 

February 17, 2012

For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage

By JASON DePARLE and SABRINA TAVERNISE

LORAIN, Ohio — It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage.

Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.

Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.

One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.

The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.

Here in Lorain, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, dozens of interviews with young parents suggest that both sides have a point.

Over the past generation, Lorain lost most of two steel mills, a shipyard and a Ford factory, diminishing the supply of jobs that let blue-collar workers raise middle-class families. More women went to work, making marriage less of a financial necessity for them. Living together became routine, and single motherhood lost the stigma that once sent couples rushing to the altar. Women here often describe marriage as a sign of having arrived rather than a way to get there.

Meanwhile, children happen.

The Safe, Legal, Rare Illusion - The New York Times Shows the Lie Behind Abortion and Contraception

Very few media outlets have promoted abortion as consistently and vigorously as the New York Times.  So when I read this editorial, written by Ross Douthat, who has many times in the past promoted abortion, I could have been knocked over by a feather.  There must be an awful lot of prayers being said on behalf of the pro life cause to produce an editorial like this one in the New York Times.  This article seems to be at least partly the result of the ongoing conflict between the Bishops and the Obama administration.  I wonder what Mr. Douthat would think if he actually took the time to read Humanae Vitae?  Much of what he writes here was written by Pope Paul VI.  Artificial contraception leads directly to abortion.

 

The ‘Safe, Legal, Rare’ Illusion

By ROSS DOUTHAT

AMID the sound and fury of the latest culture-war battles — first over breast cancer dollars and Planned Parenthood, and then over the White House’s attempt to require that religious employers cover contraception and potential abortifacients — it’s easy to forget that there is at least some common ground in American politics on sex, pregnancy, marriage and abortion.

Even the most pro-choice politicians, for instance, usually emphasize that they want to reduce the need for abortion, and make the practice rare as well as safe and legal. Even the fiercest conservative critics of the White House’s contraception mandate — yes, Rick Santorum included — agree that artificial birth control should be legal and available. [I always find it ironic that those who promote abortion as a good thing still say they want it to be done only in rare circumstances.]  And both Democrats and Republicans generally agree that the country would be better off with fewer pregnant teenagers, fewer unwanted children, fewer absent fathers, fewer out-of-wedlock births.

Where cultural liberals and social conservatives differ is on the means that will achieve these ends. The liberal vision tends to emphasize access to contraception as the surest path to stable families, wanted children and low abortion rates. The more direct control that women have over when and whether sex makes babies, liberals argue, the less likely they’ll be to get pregnant at the wrong time and with the wrong partner — and the less likely they’ll be to even consider having an abortion. (Slate’s Will Saletan has memorably termed this “the pro-life case for Planned Parenthood.”)

The conservative narrative, by contrast, argues that it’s more important to promote chastity, monogamy and fidelity than to worry about whether there’s a prophylactic in every bedroom drawer or bathroom cabinet. To the extent that contraceptive use has a significant role in the conservative vision (and obviously there’s some Catholic-Protestant disagreement), it’s in the context of already stable, already committed relationships. Monogamy, not chemicals or latex, is the main line of defense against unwanted pregnancies.

The problem with the conservative story is that it doesn’t map particularly well onto contemporary mores and life patterns [I congratulate Mr. Douthat for his honesty in this statement]. A successful chastity-centric culture seems to depend on a level of social cohesion, religious intensity and shared values that exists only in small pockets of the country. Mormon Utah, for instance, largely lives up to the conservative ideal, with some of America’s lowest rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births and abortions. But many other socially conservative regions (particularly in the South) feature higher rates of unwed and teenage parenthood than in the country as a whole.

Liberals love to cite these numbers as proof that social conservatism is a flop. But the liberal narrative has glaring problems as well. To begin with, a lack of contraceptive access simply doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in unplanned pregnancy in the United States. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception.

At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.


But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.

What’s more, another Guttmacher Institute study suggests that liberal states don’t necessarily do better than conservative ones at preventing teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place. Instead, the lower teenage birth rates in many blue states are mostly just a consequence of (again) their higher abortion rates. Liberal California, for instance, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than socially conservative Alabama; the Californian teenage birth rate is only lower because the Californian abortion rate is more than twice as high.

These are realities liberals should keep in mind when tempted to rail against conservatives for rejecting the intuitive-seeming promise of “more condoms, fewer abortions.” What’s intuitive isn’t always true, and if social conservatives haven’t figured out how to make all good things go together in post-sexual-revolution America, neither have social liberals.

At the very least, American conservatives are hardly crazy to reject a model for sex, marriage and family that seems to depend heavily on higher-than-average abortion rates. They’ve seen that future in places like liberal, cosmopolitan New York, where two in five pregnancies end in abortion. And it isn’t a pretty sight. [Can you believe this was printed in the New York Times?!]

Mother Dolores Hart - The New York Times and Maureen Dowd Praise a Holy Catholic Nun

Mother Dolores Hart in her days as a
Hollywood actress with one of her
co-stars, Elvis Presley

Satan must be getting awfully cold down there.  Here is yet another positive article from this weekend's New York Times, this one about Mother Dolores Hart.  Dolores Hart was a young, beautiful Hollywood actress headed for a big Hollywood career, who instead turned away from Hollywood and answered the call to become a Catholic nun.  This story was not just printed in the New York Times, but written by Maureen Dowd, who has basically made a career of attacking the Catholic Church. 

It is not mentioned in the article, but Mother Dolores played the role of St. Clare in the movie, Francis of Assisi.  St. Clare left a comfortable lifestyle to become a nun and one of our greatest saints.  Ironically. St. Clare is the patron saint of television because towards the end of her life, when she was very ill and could not make it to Mass, she saw the Mass projected on her wall.  It would still be several hundred years before TV was invented.

I have to admit that I had tears in my eyes at the end of this article.

Where the Boys Aren’t

By MAUREEN DOWD

HOW do you marry God after you’ve kissed the King?

Easy. Just ask Dolores Hart.

The 73-year-old Benedictine nun is planning to attend the Oscars next Sunday. She will be a lot more covered up than she was the last time she went to the ceremony — in 1959, as a presenter and a gorgeous starlet who had given a blushing Elvis his first screen kiss.

Grace Kelly deserted Hollywood at 26 to become the bride of a prince. Hart, dubbed “the next Grace Kelly,” deserted Hollywood at 24 to become a bride of Christ.

That stunning spiritual elopement is the subject of an Oscar-nominated documentary called “God Is Bigger Than Elvis,” a rare look behind the walls of the cloistered abbey in rural Connecticut where Hart has lived for half a century. (It will be shown on HBO in April.)

“God was the vehicle,” she said of her odyssey. “He was the bigger Elvis.”

Nuns in America are a dying breed, and the church’s antediluvian male hierarchy gets more worked up about allowing Catholic women contraceptives than investigating sexual abuse of children by priests. [Maureen just couldn't resist this jab at the church.]

But Hart soldiers on at the bucolic Abbey of Regina Laudis, a Benedictine monastery and working farm in Bethlehem, Conn., which observes three periods of silence a day. She is a mother prioress and spiritual guide to 38 other nuns (and she is the only nun who is a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences).

Audrey Hepburn and Ingrid Bergman played luminous nuns in movies, but Hart was the luminous beauty who, in real life, cut her hair and put on the habit. When I was little, we would watch her old movies on TV — especially “King Creole,” “Where The Boys Are” and “Come Fly With Me” — and puzzle over why anyone would leave sparkly Hollywood for a strict nunnery.

The British tabloids considered it such lunacy that they kept trying to scout out the “real” reason, reporting on a rumor that Hart had scurried off to the convent in shame after bearing Elvis’s love child.

“If anybody knew me, I mean, I was just too Catholic,” she said, denying the gossip to ABC’s “20/20” in 2002.

Mother Dolores Hart today

The documentary begins with Hollywood publicity shots and clips showing Hart — with her big blue eyes, creamy voice and lithe figure — draped in furs, gowns and men. Flash forward to the senior citizen in her old-school habit, leavened with a jaunty black beret decorated with three bird pins. As you watch her playing cancan music for a pet parrot, you wonder: Could she be the only woman who starred in movies who has never had any cosmetic enhancements?

Her parents were beautiful too, and tried to make it in Hollywood. But they didn’t flourish in the movies or in their marriage and divorced. They were only teenagers when they had her and could not handle it, she said, noting, “This was a tragedy to my grandmother; she wanted to have me aborted.”

Hart became a star effortlessly, praying for roles and receiving daily Communion. But in 1958, while on Broadway in “The Pleasure of His Company,” she felt fatigued. A friend suggested taking a break at the abbey’s guest cottage.

“And I said: ‘Nuns? I don’t want to go anyplace where there’s nuns,’ ” she recalled. Her friend replied: “Oh, don’t be so stiff. Just try it. They’re contemplative and they won’t talk.” She arrived once in a studio limo yet loved the simplicity, feeling she “could find my inner certitude.”

She confessed to the mother superior that she was worried “that it was wrong as a Catholic to be in the movies because sexually you could be aroused by boys and you could get involved sexually with men. And my leading star was Elvis. She said: ‘Well, why not? You’re a girl. Chastity doesn’t mean that you don’t appreciate what God created. Chastity says use it well.’ ”

She was preparing for her wedding to Don Robinson, a Los Angeles architect, with a dress designed by Edith Head and a home designed by her fiancé, when it hit her that she was in love with God.

She wore a bridal dress and lace veil when she entered the monastery, but it was a rocky honeymoon. The other women considered her, as one put it, “a lightweight.”

“The first night,” Sister Dolores recalled, “I felt like I had jumped off a 20-story building and landed flat on my butt. I had no idea that it was going to mean singing seven times a day, working in the garden, 10 people in one bathroom, the sternness.” She compared it to being skinned alive.

Robinson never married. “I never found a love like Dolores,” he told the documentarians. He came to visit his old love for 47 years until he died in November.

In the last scene, on one of their final walks, the pair hold hands. Afterward, by herself, Sister Dolores’s eyes fill with tears as she makes the sign of the cross.

The Catholic Argument Against Artificial Birth Control - From the New York Times!

The New York Times has been called by many, including yours truly, Satan's bible.   It is one of the most left-leaning newspapers in existence, has seemingly campaigned against traditional value and morals, and has printed article after article bashing the Catholic Church.  But this weekend, something happened at the paper.  Here is the first of several articles from the NY Times that actually shows the negative outcome of liberal, secular values and even shows the Catholic church in a positive light.  As far as I know, hell has not frozen over, but I could be wrong.

The first article is about a priest in New Bedford, Massachusetts who unashamedly defends the Catholic Church teaching on artificial contraception and has even convinced many people in his parish to change from a contracepting life style.  Catholic bishops, priests politicians, and anyone else who is in the public eye would do well to read this article.

The Message on Contraception, Without Apology

By MARK OPPENHEIMER

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — It was last Sunday morning, and the Rev. Roger J. Landry, whose accent is from working-class Lowell, Mass., but whose college degree is from nearby Harvard, had just finished officiating at the 8:30 Mass at St. Anthony of Padua, his church in this old whaling town. After his fiery sermon attacking the Obama administration, several people in the pews applauded — a sound striking for its echoes in the cavernous, awesome church, and for its rarity. One does not applaud in Mass.

But Father Landry did not mind the enthusiasm. He is a traditionalist, and he is eager to share his opinions with his flock. This is a priest who believes official Catholic teaching about contraception, and who is not afraid to say so.

Such men may not be the exception, but it’s not clear that they are the rule [unfortunately, all too true]. As the furor over the Obama administration’s mandate for employee health insurance has made clear, Roman Catholic bishops condemn contraception, equating some forms of it with abortion. But many parish priests are conflicted. Some disagree with the teaching, and others agree with it but avoid discussing the topic, knowing how thoroughly their parishioners have embraced birth control.

Father Landry worries that other priests’ reticence keeps Catholics in the dark on church teachings on contraception. “In most places,” he said, “they don’t hear about it because there are a lot of priests who are conflict-averse, and when you preach in a way that people aren’t pleased, not only do you lose parishioners, but you lose their budget envelopes along with them, and you’ll also get some nasty e-mails and face-to-face conversations.”

Father Landry, 41, is balding, ruddy and blue-eyed, and he speaks quickly and confidently. He gives his parishioners the stiff, 80-proof doctrine: the church hierarchy bans all artificial contraception, and the withdrawal method. The only permissible forms of birth control are abstinence and “natural family planning,” using knowledge of a woman’s cycle to restrict intercourse to times when she is unlikely to conceive.

He was just a small boy at morning Mass, watching the priest give Communion, when he first heard a whisper of a calling: “I just had the little insight as a 4-year-old that the priest must be the luckiest man ever, to be holding God in his hand and giving him to others.” He entered seminary after graduating from Harvard in 1993, and he arrived at St. Anthony’s in 2005, after stints in Fall River and Hyannis, Mass.

As a priest, Father Landry has tried, gently, to lead couples away from contraception. “I know from their having told me that many of the couples here have stopped contracepting,” Father Landry said. “In terms of the numbers, it’s probably between 15 and 20 couples who have explicitly told me that.”

Father Landry gets his message across in several ways. First, he talks to engaged couples about their plans for a family. To facilitate that conversation, he gives them a questionnaire.

“The last question,” Father Landry said, “is always ‘Are you planning to have children? Are you planning to start right away after you’re married?’ The vast majority of couples answer, ‘Yes, we definitely want to have children, but we want to wait two or three years.’ ”

The priest asks if they are aware of church teaching about contraception. “Shockingly, 50 percent of the couples that I prepare for marriage have never heard that the church teaches about contraception,” he said.

Father Landry also gives sermons on contraception, something very few priests do. [When is the last time you heard a sermon on contraception?]  He says he relies on Pope John Paul II’s argument against contraception, which he summarizes. “That God has made us fundamentally for love,” Father Landry said, “and that marriage is supposed to help us to love for real. In order for that to happen, we need to totally give ourselves over to someone else in love, and receive the other’s total self in love.


“What happens in the use of contraception, rather than embracing us totally as God made the other, with the masculine capacity to become a dad, or the feminine capacity to become a mom, we reject that paternal and maternal leaning.”

Father Landry argues that contraception can be the gateway to exploitation: “When that petition is made for contraception, it’s going to make pleasure the point of the act, and any time pleasure becomes the point rather than the fruit of the act, the other person becomes the means to that end. And we’re actually going to hurt the people we love.”  

Many non-Catholics — and many Catholics — see the church’s teaching on contraception as cruel toward women. But Father Landry says it’s women who intuitively get how divorcing sex from procreation allows men to use them; in his experience, it is almost always the woman who moves a couple toward abandoning artificial contraception.

“They have a lot of times experienced having been used in their marriage or their previous relationship,” Father Landry said.

After Mass, during the coffee hour in the church basement, parishioners expressed a range of views on the pastor’s teachings.

One couple with grown children agreed that if they had benefited from Father Landry’s teachings years ago, they would have had more children. “We definitely would not have used contraception,” the wife said, “not if we had it to do over again.”

An older woman with white hair, sitting near the doughnuts being sold for $1, appeared to disagree. “Don’t get me started on him,” she said, rolling her eyes when asked about Father Landry’s teachings on contraception.

Father Landry does not think contraception is the most important issue he faces. He worries about couples living together before marriage, not to mention the poverty and violence that afflict New Bedford. But he sees the Catholic sexual ethic as crucial to his message — and not just the part about contraception.

Last spring, scenes of a movie called “Whaling City” were being shot in St. Anthony’s. During the filming, the priest noticed that the church’s rack of sexuality pamphlets was being depleted.

“I saw all the camera men and sound guys,” Father Landry said, “and in their back pockets, coming down the main aisle, one had one on pornography, the other had ‘Sex and Contraception’ hanging out of his pocket, the other one had ‘In Vitro Fertilization.’ ”

Father Landry aimed his cellphone camera at one of the men and “snapped a photo of his derriere,” he said. “Because it’s exactly what I’m trying to do.”  

Rick Santorum Is Hurting the Catholic Message

In a 2006 interview, Rick Santorum seems to be trying to have it both ways on birth control.  As a practicing Catholic, he knows and seems to believe that birth control is inherently evil. although he never makes this statement in this particular interview.  He is actually all over the place in this interview, seemingly trying to please all sides. 

He starts out by making a statement that goes against the plain truth of birth control: His first statement is: "I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life." What?????? This statement is in direct contradiction to the plain teaching of the Catholic Church and of the very nature of birth control. Most birth control is an abortifacient, which means that it does not prevent pregnancy, but simply aborts the fertilized egg, not allowing it to implant in the womb but instead dispelling it. Maybe Senator Santorum is in agreement with Speaker Gingrich who said he believed that life does not begin at conception but at implantation, although Gingrich backtracked on this one within a couple of days when the uproar began among Catholic voters. 

In the very next statement in this interview, Santorum does a Mario Cuomo (Cuomo is famous for originating the sickeningly hypocritical saying "I'm personally against abortion but I don't have a right to impose my views on others."). Senator Santorum says "I'm not a believer in birth control, at least artificial birth control." But if you combine this with his first statement, that birth control "is not the taking of human life", then what is his problem? He says birth control allows people to do what they want without taking personal responsibility. He clarifies that this is a personal point of view, and makes very clear that from a "government point of view" he has voted for contraception, although he doesn't think it works and that it is harmful to women and to our society because it promotes sex outside of marriage. Can we get any more confusing than that?

Here is the full interview:



I really have no patience for "dancing politicians"- those who try to have it both ways, especially Catholic politicians who want to appear to be supporting Church teaching and at the same time support a popular position which goes directly against Church teaching. And it usually ends up backfiring on them, as shown in this article in which Santorum is attacked by a pro-contraception author:

Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 02/15/2012

Santorum: Birth control ‘harmful to women’

By Jennifer Rubin
Yesterday I speculated on some of the reasons Rick Santorum has problems with women voters. This interview from 2006 sure isn’t going to help.For starters, does he realize that married women (men too!) use birth control? [If Santorum had stated the clear truth about birth control, that it is for the most part an abortifacient, and not tried to straddle the fence by admitting he had actually voted for it, the author of this article would have never been able to make this statement]  The impression that Santorum finds the prevalent practice of birth control “harmful to women” is, frankly, mind-numbing. If he meant to focus on teen sexual promiscuity, he surely could have, and thereby might have sounded less out of touch. [See my prior comment]

Now, he qualifies his religious views by saying he doesn’t vote against contraception “because it’s not the taking of a human life” (in other contexts he has emphasized that as a legal matter he has no problem with contraception) [this from a "good" Catholic??]. But how does that square with his professed belief that a candidate’s values are essential to understanding and predicting his behavior? [My point exactly] Perhaps that’s an abortion-only rule. (And really, where are George Stephanopoulos’s questions on this topic when you need them?)
In any event, this sort of thing undermines Santorum’s electability argument.  [I agree but for totally different reasons] (Current polling match-ups between President Obama and each of the two front runners, before the GOP has a nominee and before Santorum’s record is out there, are virtually useless.) This is how, in part, he lost Pennsylvania — by appearing extreme and schoolmarmish, too far to the right of average voters in a purple state. If he is the nominee in 2012, he might get some blue-collar fellows, but what about those women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.? And what about more secularized suburban communities? Fuggedaboutit.

Santorum has done nothing to promote the truth about how harmful contraception actually is and in fact, has given ammunition to those who support it.

For a much clearer explanation of the Catholic teaching on birth control:

Rick Santorum - Big Government "Conservative"

From Redstate.com, here is a great post explaining the problems with Rick Santorum.  As Erick Erickson, the author explains:  "Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state."

Santorum is definitely a better choice than Romney or Gingrich, but nothing will change under a Santorum presidency.  We will continue right along as we have.  There will be more pro life talk, but as it has been under all Republican administrations since 1973, abortion will remain the law of the land.  Spending will continue unabated, we will continue to get involved in more and more wars.  The Federal Reserve will still be given a free reign to do whatever it wants to do.  And the Federal Government will grow and grow and grow. 

Take a look at the article:

What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like

I'm rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

Suddenly we’re all forgetting what a big government conservatism is. The term was coined by Fred Barnes in defense of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” agenda. Bush intended to use domestic social welfare policy for conservative ends. In the process, he expanded the welfare state to do so through No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, etc. Rick Santorum was a willing participant in this.

Santorum is a conservative. He is. But his conservative is largely defined by his social positions and the ends to which government would be deployed. But he has chosen as the means to those conservative ends bigger government. We see big government conservatives most clearly when they deviate from the tireless efforts of people like Mike Pence and Jim DeMint and the others who were willing to oppose George W. Bush’s expansion of the welfare state. Rick Santorum was not among them.

I and some friends, none of us Romney fans, have set about exploring Santorum’s record since Wednesday morning. Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc. 

This is not the record of a man committed to scaling back the welfare state or the nanny state. Had he been up for re-election in 2010 instead of 2006, this is the record of a man who the tea party movement would have primaried. The only real justification for supporting him now is he is not Mitt Romney, but I still believe we can do better.

See for yourself

A Reminder of Judgment Day

There are good things coming out of this conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration.  One very good thing is that the Gospel is being preached, and the Bishops are promoting the teachings of the Catholic church and calling out those who do not follow it.  Below is an article that should be sent to every Catholic politician in this country.  God bless Bishop Daniel Jenky for saying what has needed to be said for many years.  Those in positions of power will have much to answer for.  They need to be made very much aware that there is a day of reckoning for each one of us, and it will weigh much more heavily on those "to whom much has been given."  To call them out and even excommunicate them from the Church could very well be the most loving thing we can do.  It is the only chance to wake them up and possibly save their souls and the souls of those whom they are leading astray.

Catholic politicians who attack Church
should remember God's judgment

Rome, Italy, Feb 11, 2012 / 01:46 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Politicians who consider themselves Catholic but collaborate in “the assault against their faith” should remember they will one day have to give account for their acts before God, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois said Feb 10.

“There is a last judgment. There is a particular judgment. May they change their minds and may God have mercy on them,” he told CNA during his visit to Rome.

When asked specifically about recent actions of Democratic Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius Kathleen Sebelius and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Bishop Jenky replied “I am utterly scandalized.” [Yes!!!]

“The Lord once said ‘if you deny me at the end, I will deny you,’ this from our most merciful, good Savior. And so if it is a choice between Jesus Christ and political power or getting favorable editorials in leftist papers, well, that’s simply not a choice.”

Both Sebelius and Rep. Pelosi have been at the forefront of attempts to force Catholic institutions to cover contraception, sterilizations and abortifacients as part of their staff’s health insurance plans.

Bishop Jenky said there are too many Catholic politicians in the U.S. who “like to wear green sweaters on St. Patrick’s Day and march” or “have their pictures taken with the hierarchy” or “have conspicuous crosses on their forehead with ashes” but who then “not only do not live their faith they collaborate in the assault against their faith.”

The 64-year-old Chicago native is currently making his “ad limina” visit to Rome to discuss the state of his diocese with the Pope and the Vatican. He is part of a larger episcopal delegation from the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Bishop Jenky said the issue of religious freedom in the United States has featured in all their meetings so far, including their audience with Pope Benedict XVI Feb. 9.

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

“I am a Holy Cross religious and my own community had six colleges in France and they turned our mother house chapel into a stable,” he said. As for the United States in 2012, “it is always difficult to predict the future but the intensity of hatred against Catholic Christianity in elements of our culture is just astounding.”

He believes the present White House administration is also motivated by a “determined secularism,” while Communist dictator Joseph Stalin would “admire the uniformity of the American press, with some exceptions.”

In 2010 the Illinois legislature voted to legalize same-sex civil unions, a move which led to the closure of Catholic foster care services. This, said the bishop, took the Church “entirely out of the work that we started when the State of Illinois could not have cared less about beggar kids running up and down the streets.”

Bishop Jenky is very conscious of this patrimony of Catholic schools, hospitals and other social services “built by the sacrifice of Catholic believers” in previous generations of Illinois Catholics. “There weren’t a lot of multi-millionaires who built the churches, opened those orphanages or built those schools,” he said.

The bishop fears that socially liberal elites ultimately want to secularize such institutions by stealth. “I assume that is the underlying goal,” he suggested, “so that is robbing Christ but it is also robbing the heritage of generations of believers. So we would try to resist this in every way possible. It would be an incredible injustice.”

In conversation, he quoted the stark 2010 prediction of Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, “I will die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.” So is Bishop Jenky prepared for prison or worse?

“I hope I would always prefer Christ to anything so, if it came to it, yes but I would be one of the trembling martyrs.”

He recalled how in ancient Rome some Christians would run towards their martyrdom. He, on the other hand, would “probably be walking down the Forum with eyes downcast a little.”

“I think most of the bishops of our Church, though, would be faithful to Christ above anything, including our own personal freedom.”  [We can certainly pray that this is true]

The Temptations of This World

Satan tempts Jesus by offering Him the world

Whitney Houston is dead. 

Another "superstar" falls from the sky and the world is in shock and mourning.  We are told now that her death was probably a combination of alcohol and drugs.  Whitney Houston is just another sad story of what the "riches" of this world have to offer - death and destruction.  We have seen it so many, many times in our contemporary culture:  Elvis Presley, Judy Garland, Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, etc. etc. etc.  And then there are those who have achieved fame and fortune outside of entertainment, such as Gadafi and Hitler.  The god of this world offers them instant gratification, they grab the ring, and it all ends in a terrible, sad death.

We have seen those who are still alive as I write this, such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, who are living miserable unhappy lives despite all of their fame and fortune, and unless something drastic happens in their lives, they are headed for very sad endings.  Princess Diana - another desperately unhappy person despite the fame and fortune - died just one week before Mother Teresa.  I will always remember Mother Angelica's comment:  One who had everything died with nothing, and another who had nothing, died with everything. 

Satan's temptation of Christ as outlined in Matthew 4:1-11 is exactly how he tries to get to each one of us and how, sadly, he destroyed each one of these tragic persons.  Satan first tried to tempt Jesus by taking his mind off of the spiritual and concentrating on the physical.  Satan says: 

"If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."

This is very cunning on Satan's part.  He first tries to attack Jesus' pride by saying if you are the Son of God, thinking that Jesus is like the rest of us who would get very defensive and self righteous at this remark:  "What do you mean if?  Of course I'm the Son of God and I can prove it!"  By doing so, we take all the glory away from God and put it on ourselves, which is exactly what self righteousness and pride is all about.  Satan then tries to put Jesus' focus on the physical by offering him food, which represents all the physical comforts of life. 

Jesus replies: 

"It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." 

Like everything else Jesus said, this has many different meanings. This statement points to the written Word of God - the Bible, of course.  But he is also alluding to the Eucharist, where we receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Living Word of God - Jesus Christ.  Jesus doesn't deny that we need physical food to sustain us, but he says that the real food is the Word of God, because that is where we find eternal life.  Physical comforts and sensations, fame and fortune, can give us instant gratification, but if that is our goal in life, we will reap death.  If we try to sustain ourselves only on the physical, we will die right along with it.  Where our treasure is, there will our heart be also.

Satan then tries to attack Jesus through pride, taunting Jesus that if He really is God, he can easily prove it by throwing himself off the mountain and showing that legions of angels will come to his side.   Satan is also saying that if Jesus is the Son of God, and there actually is a God, then God has to abide by His own scripture and not allow any harm to come to Jesus.  And Satan bolsters his argument by quoting scripture, attempting to show that this is actually the Will of God.

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone." 

Jesus immediately calls Satan on what he is really trying to do: 

"It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

How often have we shaken our fists at God and said if you're really God, you would or would not let this happen!  If you're God, prove yourself to me!   If there is a God, how could he let this happen?  When we do this, we are actually tempting God.  When we tempt God, we are saying we doubt him and he must prove himself to us.  We are not believing God's plain statements to us.  We are saying that what he tells us is not enough for us, we need more.

Satan had one more trick up his sleeve.  When we fall for this temptation, it will cause the greatest destruction of all.

Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,

And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me.

Jesus knew that in just a few years he would have to pour his blood out on the cross in order to redeem the world from Satan.  We know that Jesus actually prayed at one point to be spared the agony of this great sacrifice.  And here was Satan saying to him that he didn't have to go through it.  Jesus could have the whole world without the sacrifice of the cross.  There is one "little" catch:  he has to worship Satan. 

Jesus doesn't try to answer Satan, he doesn't argue with him.  He says without hesitation:

Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.

This is actually the same temptation that Satan tried to use through Peter, when Peter rebuked Jesus for saying he would "suffer many things."  Jesus called out Satan through Peter in the same way as he did on the mountain (Matthew 16:21-23):

From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.  And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

We need to ask ourselves - are we savoring the things of men and not of God?  If so, whether we realize it or not, we are worshipping at the altar of Satan and glorifying him.  We have example after example of what happens when people accept the temptations of Satan and reject God.  As Christ said in Matthew 16:26:  "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?"  Whitney Houston is just one more tragic example that we can point to.  There is nothing in this world, apart from God, that can give us life.  Everything in this world is going to die and fade away, and if that is where we put our heart and treasure, we will die and fade with it. 

All of the media is glorifying Whitney Houston, despite the great lessons we could be learning from her life and death.  It is true that she was gifted with a tremendous voice.  Yet, we need to look honestly at her life and reject it, realizing that she chose the wrong way.  She is not someone to be admired, but someone who desperately needed our prayers while she was alive, and we can only hope that it is not too late to pray for her now.  Whitney Houston chose the way of Satan.  She chose the physical over the spiritual, and she paid for it with her life.  

As we enter into the season of Lent, let us resolve that we will not follow the way of this world, which is the way of Satan but instead, we will live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Sexagesima Sunday: Preparation for Lent

Today is Sexagesima Sunday, the second Sunday before Lent.  I was very remiss last week in not pointing out Septuagesima Sunday, which is the First Sunday before Lent.  We are now in the pre-Lenten period, which is the time we prepare for Lent.  Sexagesima denotes that there are now 60 days before Easter.  In the Traditional calendar, the Gloria and the alleluia have already been removed from Feria celebrations of the Mass.  The Introit for today is:

Arise, Lord, why sleepest thou? Arise, and cast us not off for ever. Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and forgettest our trouble? For our soul cleaveth unto the ground. Arise, Lord, help us, and redeem us.

This is showing a time of mourning and repentance for our sins, which have caused to be be separated from God. 

The Gospel is most interesting, being the parable of the Sower in Luke 8:4-15:

At that time, when much people were gathered together, and were come to Jesus out of every city, he spake by a parable: A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

This always scares me because it shows that if we are not diligent, we can lose the salvation offered to us by our Lord.   The Traditional Breviary has an excellent reading on this parable by St. Gregory the Pope:

Dearly beloved brethren, the passage from the Holy Gospel which ye have just heard, needeth not so much that I should explain it, as that I should seek to enforce its lesson. For what the Truth himself hath explained, human weakness may not presume to comment upon. But there is, in that very explanation by the Lord, something which we ought to consider carefully. For if we had told you that the seed is meant to signify the Word, ye might have doubted our understanding. Or if we had said that the field is the world ; and the birds, devils ; and the thorns, riches ; ye would perchance have denied the truth of our explanation. Therefore the Lord himself vouchsafed to give this explanation ; and that, not for this parable only, but that ye may know in what manner to interpret others, whereof he hath not given the meaning.

Beginning his explanation, the Lord saith that he speaketh in parable, that is he sheweth his language to be figurátive. Hereby he giveth confidence to the preacher when, in spite of his incapacity, he must needs endeavour to lay open to you the hidden meaning of the Lord's words. If I spake of myself, who would believe me when I say that riches are thorns? Thorns prick, but riches lull to rest. And yet riches are indeed thorns, for the anxiety they bring is a ceaseless pricking to the minds of their owners. And, if they lead into sin, they are thorns which made us bleed with the wounds which they inflict. But we understand from the Evangelist Matthew that in this place the Lord speaketh, not of riches themselves, but of the deceitfulness of riches.

Here St. Gregory goes into a beautiful explanation of what deceitful riches are and why and how they can destroy us.  Our society puts all importance on what the Bible calls "deceitful riches" and we must be very diligent into not being drawn into this trap:

Those riches are deceitful riches, which can be ours only for a little while ; those riches are deceitful riches, which cannot relieve the poverty of our souls. They only are the true riches, which made us rich in virtues. If then, dearly beloved brethren, ye seek to be rich, earnestly desire the true riches. If ye would be truly honourable, strive after the kingdom of heaven. If ye love the bravery of titles, hasten to have your names written down at the Court of the heavenly King, where Angels are. Take to heart the Lord's words which your ear heareth. The food of the soul is the Word of God. When the stomach is sick it throweth up again the food which is put into it ; and so is the soul sick when a man heareth and digesteth not in his memory the Word of God. For if any man cannot keep his food, that man's life is in desperate case.

Lent is all about getting rid of the garbage and the spiritual poison that has come into our lives.  As St. Gregory says, if we are sick, we will not be able to digest the Word of God, and if we cannot keep our food, "that man's life is in desperate case." 

We can never let down.  We must always be aware of the spiritual dangers around us and constantly be drawing close to the True Physician who can cure us of all our spiritual ailments and give us not the death that this world offers, but True Life.  Only then will we be able to bear true fruit.

Romney On Abortion Through The Years

Here is Romney in his pro-choice days when it was convenient for him to be pro abortion.  Mitt Romney cannot be trusted.

Catholics Support Artificial Birth Control

Life Magazine Cover
of March 20, 1970

The fight continues between the White House and the Catholic Church about the healthcare law forcing Catholic employers to provide free contraception and/or sterilization for their employees.  Speaker John Boehner, himself a Catholic, has gotten into the fray and has said that "If the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must."   The White House is now talking about reaching a "compromise", although I don't know how you compromise with evil.  The Catholic Church's plain teaching is that artificial contraception and sterilization are inherently evil and constitute a mortal sin, which means complete separation from God, and if this sin is not confessed, repented of and absolved in confession, these men and women will die and remain separated from God for all eternity. 

Again, I think in many ways the Catholic bishops have only themselves to blame for this situation because they have allowed Catholics in their jurisdiction to disobey this law and nothing was ever said.  But now that they are actually being threatened, they have no choice but to defend Church teaching.  And as a result, the true message of God is being taught, which is a reason for rejoicing.

However, far too many Catholics don't believe this is even an issue, as they have no problem with artificial contraception and do not hesitate to make that known, as shown in this article from USA Today.

New surveys: Catholics want birth control coverage

Pundits and bishops warn President Obama he could lose the white Catholic vote over requiring a contraception option for insurance plans. But Catholic women say they want birth control covered in employee health plans.

The pivot point is how you see this. Is it a battle over birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives -- or over government intrusion into the right of religious organizations to live by their teachings? 

The Catholic bishops, backed by conservative evangelicals, say the Obama administration shouldn't include contraception coverage as part of free preventive care options in employers' health insurance plans. 

Hence the showdown: As our editorial Monday says, religious liberties fight or, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says, a free choice issue. 

And here's where the Catholic women come in. According to the Public Religion Research Institute poll released today, 

A majority (55%) of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost." Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement. 

Key breakdowns 

• 58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics.
• 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say employer plans should cover contraception.
• 50% of white mainline Protestants want the coverage. However, for evangelical Protestants, that drops to 38%  

 And perhaps of greater note among election-watchers  

Women are significantly more likely than men to agree that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception (62% vs. 47% respectively).  

A second poll, also released today from Public Policy Polling, has similar findings. This poll, conducted at the request of Planned Parenthood, finds 

...a majority of voters, including a majority of Catholics, don't believe Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from providing the benefit.

...Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents. 

I was listening to an interesting interview with the late Fr. Malachi Martin in which he compared the state of the Catholic Church to the brutally beaten and scourged Jesus Christ.  Just as Jesus Christ, as a result of the horrific scourging he received, was no longer recognizable even to his own mother, so the Catholic Church is so beaten and in such tatters that it is hardly recognizable as the same institution it was even 50 years ago.  Fifty years ago Catholics accepted the teachings and pronouncements of the Holy See and obeyed without question. Catholics faithfully attended Mass and received the sacraments. I remember the long lines at confession, the packed churches at each and every Sunday Mass.  If there was dissent among the laity and hierarchy, it was muted and only in pockets here and there.  Now it is widespread and common, and many millions of souls are at risk.

Fr. Martin says we can do only what Christ himself did - continue on the way carrying our cross.  It is still possible to be a good and loyal Catholic in these evil and turbulent times, but just as it took all of Christ's efforts and more to continue on the way to Calvary, it will mean giving everything inside of us to continue this fight.  When it became too much for Christ, another named Simeon came along to carry the burden.  When we have given all we can, God will supply the help we need.  But we must never back down.  We must always stay loyal to Christ's Holy Vicar and to the Church founded by our Savior.

Romney, Catholics and Abortion

Just this past weekend I was talking with a very devout and holy Catholic who told me that I absolutely must vote for Mitt Romney because we had to do whatever it takes to defeat Barack Obama, and Romney is the only one who can do it.  Yes, he agreed that Romney was far from perfect, but he completely deflected my arguments that Romney and Obama are basically the same person and nothing will change under Romney.  My good Catholic friend insisted that Romney will appoint the right judges and we have our best chance of defeating Roe v. Wade by electing Mitt Romney.

I saw this article today on townhall.com which would seem to belie my friend's faith in Romney.  My friend is convinced that Romney will repeal the Obama Healthcare law.  Well, friends, it just ain't gonna happen.  Ann Coulter tells us Romney is the most conservative candidate we have.  The truth is Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Obama are all "workin' for the man." 

Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills

A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions.

Romney announced this decision -- saying it was the "right thing for hospitals" to do -- just two days after he had taken the opposite position.  

The story begins in 1975, when Massachusetts enacted a law that said, "No privately controlled hospital .. shall be required to permit any patient to have an abortion ... or to furnish contraceptive devices or information to such patient ... when said services or referrals are contrary to the religious or moral principles of said hospital ... ."

Twenty-seven years later, when Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. It said: "Emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Rather, it prevents pregnancy from occurring. Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"

Romney said: "Yes."

The next year, the Massachusetts legislature considered an "emergency contraception" mandate. It would have allowed pharmacists to sell Plan B -- an abortifacient -- without a prescription and without parental consent. It also would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such "emergency contraceptives" and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion.

Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state's Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

The normal Catholic ban on artificial contraception did not apply in a rape case, Parker said. But while contraception was acceptable in such a situation, killing an unborn child was not.

In keeping with this moral understanding, one Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain would later explain to the Boston Globe that its practice was to test a rape victim to make certain she was not pregnant and only then give her emergency contraceptives. If the test proved the woman was pregnant, the hospital would not give the woman the drugs because they could not prevent conception but they could kill her child.

Parker concluded her testimony by quoting what Cardinal Frances George of Chicago had told the Illinois legislature when it proposed a similar law: "Our hospitals cannot and will not comply with this law."

In that session, the Massachusetts Senate passed the "emergency contraception" bill, but it was blocked in the House.

As Planned Parenthood and NARAL demanded action on the bill, and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference continued to speak out against it, Gov. Mitt Romney remained mum.

"Shawn Feddeman, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney, declined to comment on the governor's position on the bill," the Boston Globe reported on July 1, 2004. "'We'll review it when it reaches the governor's desk.'"

The bill was reintroduced in the next session -- and Romney remained mum.

Romney had "no opinion on the bill," his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstorm, told The Associated Press in April 2005. "We'll take a look at the bill should it reach the governor's desk."

But the bill had veto-proof support in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature in 2005. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith.

At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. The House had included language to "expressly apply" the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply "notwithstanding" any existing law.

"In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill," said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. "House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals' right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect."

The conference provided me with a copy of this bulletin, and Rogers assured me its account was "accurate and true."

The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved -- or so it seemed.

On July 25, 2005, Romney vetoed the bill -- even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. "The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception," he wrote. "The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception." Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state's abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

On Dec. 7, 2005, a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran a piece headlined: "Private Hospitals Exempt on Pill Law." The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law "does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception."

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: "We felt very clearly that the two laws don't cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other."

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, "respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue."

"The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis," Romney's spokesman told the Globe. "The brought it to us, and we concur in it."

The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: "A Plan B Mistake." "The legislators failed, however," the Globe said, "to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services."

Liberals joined in attacking Romney's defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.


"On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said. "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."

A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion -- against those who would force them to participate in abortions -- all the way to the Supreme Court.

Romney cannot be trusted.  He is a globalist and committed to the New World Order.  When asked about the National Defense Authorization Act, he said without hesitation that he supports it.



From thepoliticalguide.com

Governor Romney is a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act, and the expanded powers given to the government for homeland security purposes. He supports the use of Guantanamo Bay for holding detainees, supports military tribunals, and opposes habeas corpus rights for detainees and civilian trials for terrorists. He has also expressed support for extraordinary rendition.

At a campaign event in 2007, Governor Romney stated that he supported enhanced interrogation techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, but that he was opposed to torture. He praised President Bush for the passage of the PATRIOT Act, for the pursuit of wiretapping calls made by possible terrorists, and for interrogating prisoners.

During the New Hampshire Debate, Governor Romney was asked about previous statements that he believed mosques should be wiretapped if a credible threat existed. He reiterated this stance, but noted a judge's approval would be required. He stated that while he hears people worry about encroachment on civil liberties, he believes that the most important civil liberty that government can provide is to keep it's citizens alive.

At a 2009 policy speech, Governor Romney lamented the possibility that CIA interrogators would be investigated over possible violations. He stated that there were times when other countries helped us out by allowing us to have prisoners interrogated there. Investigations into those actions only weakens trust in the US and may lead to nations refusing these extraordinary renditions in the future.

As part of his 2012 campaign, Governor Romney issued a white paper on foreign policy. In that document, he outlined a vision of the world that had the US under constant assault from all sides, and noted that the military and other tools of the government needed to be adjust to accomodate those threats. He advocated for restructuring the DHS, for focusing on domestic radicalization, and for updating the authorization for the use of force to include new terrorist entities and new countries.

In 2012, Governor Romney stated in a debate that he would have signed the 2012 National Defese Authorization Act. That legislation gave the President the authorization to arrest and indefinitely detain US citizens who are suspected on being allied with al-Qaeda.

Yes we have a choice between Romney and Obama, just as we have a choice between Lucifer and Satan.