31 August 2012

Thought of the day

While Romney did indeed sound like a human being last night. (his coaches taught him very well and he did a great job of listening). I'm still not boarding the Romney cruise control express.

29 August 2012

Thought of the day

In some ways it's nice to be thought of as a student....in many ways it isn't

28 August 2012

7/2 Time out Tuesday...The one sentence version

AOA as usual is our host


1) Cats are overlords, they demand cuddles...and they get them

2) Dogs think they can walk up and kiss anything they want....

3) Keep a bird in its cage....it won't crap all over the floor that way

7/2) I really do want a cat....much easier to take care of :D

Thought of the day

I'm no where near holy to bi-locate...but that's something that's really necessary for me right now, LOL!

26 August 2012

Thought of the day

I often wonder if I spoke what was truly on my heart to every single person I knew...how many people would try to kill me?...I keep quiet on the suffering that I undergo, whatever the cause of that suffering is.

25 August 2012

Thought of the day

Patience may very well be a virtue...but I must say 5 months is a long time of waiting...I only hope I don't have to wait that long for my staff parking pass :p

24 August 2012

Thought(s) of the day

4 Thoughts....for the price of one

a. God is indeed good, and does answer prayers. I work now at NIC...a semester away from hopefully professorship.

b. Cardinal Dolan once again got played like a fiddle. My inner inclination is to laugh, or say I told you so. So thus I'll do both. Engagement only works when the other party is interested in what you have to say. Obama and the democrats have proven once again...they're not interested.

c. Lance Armstrong probably "cheated." I use it in quotation marks. WIth having testicular cancer, I'm sure his levels of testosterone were below normal, so he had to take something to balance the levels out. If he just said this, he wouldn't of had a problem with all the drug allegations. Of course this is what happens when one doesn't think.

d. Just because I'm protective (over) of certain people does NOT mean I get jealous....

23 August 2012

21 August 2012

Thought of the day

For all of the Talk of Akin's comments, people tend to forget that we all have moments where we misspeak or something that we say comes off as wrong. I think it's absolutely shameful that people abandon people over misunderstandings or what not...I did not read all of the venom into his comments that people say that he intended.

7/2 Timeout Tuesday....the Coeur d'Alene intro edition

AOA is our gracious host once again



1) I have recently moved to Coeur d'Alene, ID. It's actually nice to be able to be in a city that has stuff in it. I have found all of the necessary things for survival: Domino's Pizza, a name brand grocery chain, and NIC.

2) Speaking of NIC....I walked on campus, and scored myself an interview for Thursday. I ask for your prayers that I be guided by the Holy Spirit, and that the interviews go well, that I may land a job for this semester. 

3) Everyone knows that I hate people, but it's nice when my existence is acknowledged. A friend of mine is hosting me, until my new place is ready. 

7/2) There are more things to be annoyed at...that will be for later in the week....


19 August 2012

the SSPX...

Parish is gorgeous. The people actually acknowledge your existence...and there was a very sermon on the sins against charity....The parish picnic in the afternoon rocked....Will I always go, no, are they as horrible as people say...not so much.

Thought of the day

Latin brings out demons. Demons hate Church Latin....and I mean HATE it...offer reparation for this scandalous act that I heard about via Fr. Z

18 August 2012

17 August 2012

Thought of the day

A blessed feast day to my priest friend Fr. Hyacinth Kalu, who I hope is doing well back in Nigeria.

16 August 2012

Font choices

this one, 

this one

or this one


UPDATE on the Cardinal Dolan issue

You know, on second thought....maybe it would be a good idea for him to come to the dinner....If it was done a la this comment here:

"  I just had a GREAT IDEA!!! If Cardinal Dolan wants to show Mr. Obama about the REAL CATHOLIC FAITH…..I have a GREAT IDEA! Cardinal Dolan and Mr. Obama can be the ones SERVING the guests at this GALA Dinner!!! That’s RIGHT! Show Mr. Obama the lesson of Jesus to be the GREATEST in the Kingdom of Heaven you must be THE SERVANT OF ALL!!! Just break the news to Mr. Obama that he is still invited but that the Catholic Church is going to give him an opportunity to get to be REALLY GREAT like the Catholics do it! NO Speeches, No Dinning on sumptuous food or drinking gin toddies…..just GET THE APRON ON and hey! If you want to be REALLY FAIR…invite Mr. ROMNEY to ALSO do this!!!
Then you invite NOT THE RICH….but you be sure to make a certain number of seats available for the POOR on the Streets of NY! Be sure to invite those that you find on the streets that are there who were once home owners and productive citizens but due to the mishandling of the country’s wealth have lost their jobs and their homes!
I think it’s BRILLIANT….I think it will WORK…….AND….THE PRESS WILL BE ALL OVER IT!!!"


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/a-warning-for-the-cardinal#ixzz23jBAjpVa

Thought of the day

If I blog more, I will probably get back to the level I was at before....

15 August 2012

Religious LIberty....ick

As we all know, with the HHS Mandate, our friends at the USCCB have been doing everything to preserve "Religious Liberty." I've mentioned off hand that I disagree with the concept of Religious Liberty and we should be arguing the HHS Mandate upon a different point rather than the religious liberty argument.

a. A Pluralistic society, not in of itself a problem...but a problem nonetheless.

Let me start by proposing a simple question: "Where does life begin" Different groups have different answers to this question....let's look at the possible answers:

Group A: Life begins at conception
Group B: Life begins when a baby comes out of the mother.
Group C: Life begins at the first heartbeat
Group D: We can't have a definite answer of when life begins
Group E: Life does not begin until you graduate from college
Group F: Life begins when you die.

Each of these answers would be respectable to give in a debate. There is of course an objective correct answer to this question of when life begins. I suppose that someone could technically ignore the question and leave everyone to their own devices. Of course the reality is that this can't be ignored because of the implication of different aspects of our lives. From when do our rights begin, to what sorts of laws can be applied.

We have seen in our society a tendency to want to ignore fundamental questions. In the whole debate on abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, it comes down to a simple point...where does life begin (that has been answered) and where do rights begin (subject to the laws of each country). This is by no means a perfect example, I am just using it to illustrate what happens when fundamental questions are ignored.

In American society, we have many different religions, that so seem to co-exist relatively peacefully. The government plays to the role of neutral when it comes to the matter of which one is right. Does anyone see the problem in this?

The whole notion of Religious Liberty has bothered me from the beginning.If you want to see real Religious LIberty being violated, I suggest you read this article....here

The HHS mandate is not a violation of religous Liberty, as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not illegal, and priests will still be able to teach the Faith. It is however, a material cooperation with evil, and that is something that we as Catholics can't accept. This is what we should be fighting the HHS mandate on, we are cooperating with evil. We are cooperating with the destruction of innocent human life.

My problem is that we're not calling evil evil, we're just dancing around the issue like we have been expecting different results...

When o when?

14 August 2012

7/2 Timeout Tuesday...the Cardinal Dolan Edition

h/t to AOA of course



Cardinal Dolan has a blog...he has written an official response to the Al Smith dinner....

I'm giving the full response here, my comments will make up 7/2 points


Last week I was out in Anaheim for the annual Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus. It was, as usual, a most uplifting and inspirational event.
In his rousing address to the thousands of delegates, representing 1.8 million knights, Dr. Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight, exhorted us to a renewed sense of faithful citizenship, encouraging us not to be shy about bringing the values of faith to the public square. This duty, he reminded us, came not just from the fact that we are Catholic, but also from the fact that we are loyal Americans.
He then went on to announce a promising initiative of the Knights of Columbus to fostercivility in politics. Quoting a very recent study, he noted that over 80% of Americans are fed up with the negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging of our election-year process, and eagerly want a campaign of respect, substance, amity —civility!
For seven decades, the Al Smith Dinner here in New York has been an acclaimed example of such civility in political life. As you may know, every four years, during the presidential election campaign, the Al Smith Dinner is the venue of history, as it is the only time outside of the presidential debates that the two presidential candidates come together, at the invitation of the Al Smith Foundation, through the archbishop of New York, for an evening of positive, upbeat, patriotic, enjoyable civil discourse.  This year, both President Obama and Governor Romney have accepted our invitation. I am grateful to them.
The evening has always had a special meaning, as it is named after Governor Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated, in 1928, as a candidate for president, who was viciously maligned because of his own Catholic faith.  Smith was known as The Happy Warrior,because while he fought fiercely for what he believed was right, he never sought to demonize those who opposed him.  And, the dinner named in his honor is truly life-affirming as it raises funds to help support mothers in need and their babies (both born and unborn) of any faith, or none at all.
The Al Smith Dinner has never been without controversy, since, as Carl Anderson reminded us, politics can inspire disdain and negativity as well as patriotism and civility.
This year is surely no exception: I am receiving stacks of mail protesting the invitation to President Obama (and by the way, even some objecting to the invitation to Governor Romney).
The objections are somewhat heightened this year, since the Catholic community in the United States has rightly expressed vigorous criticism of the President’s support of the abortion license, and his approval of mandates which radically intruded upon Freedom of Religion. We bishops, including yours truly, have been unrelenting in our opposition to these issues, and will continue to be.
So, my correspondents ask, how can you justify inviting the President? Let me try to explain.
For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.
Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.
Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagementand dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States.  And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences.  What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?
Finally, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner in no way indicates a slackening in our vigorous promotion of values we Catholic bishops believe to be at the heart of both gospel and American values, particularly the defense of human dignity, fragile life, and religious freedom. In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.
Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?
No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be?
In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.




Your Eminence: Thank you sincerely for this explanation of your actions....That said, I still disagree with the action at hand, and here's why:

1. Obama has proven time and time again to be an enemy of the Church...

We've tried to converse with him, dialogue so to speak. He has done nothing but insult our intelligence (paraphasing your words) and lie to us about trying to seek common ground. He has no intention on seeking common ground with us at all. I don't really think he has any respect for the Church at all, or what respect he does have is for a warped image of the Church. And while Jesus did eat with sinners, he certainly corrected them, and he certainly was not a pasifist, even questioning why the guards were doing things to him during the via Crucis. The heart of Obama is hardened towards matters of the Church, and the process of engagement has failed. I think it's time to try a new approach.

2. Good intentions have bad consequences...

While I certainly admire the fact you want to be civil with the president, this is a good thing and certainly should be practiced by all of us when engaging the culture,  the perception will be that this talk about Religious Freedom, HHS Mandate, etc, was just a political facade and really it was just cover while in reality, you support the president and his goals towards the Church. I know that this is not the intent of the invite of Obama, but this is how we the faithful will see it. The Gospel of Good Intentions has been tried and really hasn't worked too well so far. 

3. There are major differences between the Holy Father meeting the President, and this dinner.

The Holy Father as head of Vatican-City state, meets with the heads of state often. The Holy Father also gave a fraternal correction to Obama, giving him Caritas et veritate, and a copy of Humane Vitae as well. That is to say the Holy Father wasn't civil, he taught the Truth of the Faith, while Obama hasn't listened to Him, He presented the Truth in charity and clarity. He also met with Nancy Pelosi and didn't give her an opportunity for a photo. He did not make it appear as if he was supporting her position. Whether you like it or not, the reality wil be that you are by default supporting Obama by him being there.

7/2. Seeing as if the dinner isn't a reward...I agree...

I agree with you that the dinner is not a reward and shouldn't be seen in that light (it wil be anyway). An invitation was not extended to Bill Clinton because of his moral stance on abortion.  By an earlier Cardinal Archbishop of New York. Seeing as the dinner has declined invitations to people before, perhaps now is a good time to try again. 

I will of course pray for you, Your Eminence as well as for our Bishops in this fight. I know this was not an easy decision to make, and while I do disagree with it, and understand your reasoning...It just seems to be a repetitive cycle of things that we have tried and have failed. There comes a time where all of us (I include myself) need to stand up for what is right, regardless of whether it hurts peoples feelings or doesn't seem "nice."  The Gospel of nice and good intentions has been tried before, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again, and expecting different results. 

Our Lady Queen of martyrs: Pray for us. 

12 August 2012

Dear old ladies in pants...

genuflect....it's much easier on the eyes....MUCH easier on the eyes. I don't care if you have to grab something to do it, genuflect, this goes during Mass as well, it looks so tacky when you bow and the view just isn't there....just genuflect....public service announcement over....Thanks


07 August 2012

7/2 Timeout Tuesday....The since everyone else is talking about the olympics...

Thanks again to our host AOA


1) I have watched exactly zero hours of the olympics....I am by no means ashamed of this...I boycott NBC. (With the exception of the voice, Season 3...Jordan Pruitt will be on, I will not boycott that)...but back to the olympics. I am a huge fan of Alex Morgan on the Women's Soccer team. She scored the game winning goal vs. Canada yesterday....Serves the Canadians right for infecting us with Justin Bieber....:p

2) Let's just be perfectly honest there are some olympic "sports" that need to be scrapped....there of course should be criteria...
a. Any game that can be played drunk should probably be scrapped (or maybe the opposite is true)
b. If the words rhythmic or synchronized are involved (unless the word after is genuflection)

3) Onto the scrapping....

a. Rhythmic Gymnastics....I'm sorry, it just has to go....if Lizzie McGuire can do rhythmic gymnastics...it should definitely be scrapped. If I wanted to watch someone play with a "skip it" I'd rewind to 1994 and look outside my front yard. And if I wanted to see anyone play with a ribbon or balloon, it'd be like this car here: 


b. Synchronized Swimming: While this does take actual skill, this is moreless on the stupid scale. Synchronized genuflecting on the other hand, should absolutely be an olympic sport. I've MC'ed several Masses....it is a hard craft to get down...but I must admit, sometimes, I do get a kick out of some not doing it right :p.

c. Ping Pong....Rebecca at Shoved to them said it best: "When I saw that they could medal in ping pong.....seriously?  Ping Pong?  You want to be that gold medalist?  "What did you medal in?" "Ping Pong."

Really?

Really, really?"

d. Speedos: While not an olympic sport....there are better things for my eyes...

7/2) I do confess that I would like to visit England...of course by that time it will probably be illegal to leave the country.

05 August 2012

Thought of the day

"God desires that we participate in the very act by which we were saved" Fr. Mariusz Majewski Pastor Ss Peter and Paul Parish Grangeville, ID...

04 August 2012

Thoughts on a Saturday morning


  • Pray for 2 very special intentions of mine....I can't specify what they are at this time. But they are directly proportional to something that's going on. 
  • I'm excited that my parish has added times for Confession and Mass. Anything to help a poor sinner like me. 
  • Not going to lie, if the person I had in mind sung this to me, I would be a very happy person. 
  • From Grangeville, ID the closet Chic-fil-a is 161 mi....all the Chic-fil-a posts last week made me hungry....Why do I live in the middle of no where again? 
  • As for boycotting Chic-fil-a, why not boycott OPEC?  I hardly think Chic-fil-a puts homosexuals to death....but some of the nations in OPEC do....much more worth boycott time. 
  • I do have a wish for Zero on the date of his birth. I wish that he gets a new job in November....
  • Love does conquer all....nothing breaks it

I just had to parse this comment....

this is a comment from this entry at CatholicVote.org

Firstly, I am not a liberal, but do lean left in many issues and take strong offense to many of your questions and your hostile tone towards those of us who support the democratic party in some issues. While I am against abortion, the Catholic Voter guide says to not vote for a candidate who supports abortion UNLESS NO OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVE exists (In most situations, there exists a clear difference between candidates. One will typically be against abortion, the other not. Abortion outweighs any other situation because it ALWAYS involves the taking of innocent life. Other situations SOMETIMES involve the taking of innocent life). It also says to note based on our conscience (yes, this is right, but our consciences must be properly formed in the mind of the Church), and the following post will show you why my conscience leads me to more strongly favor the democratic party (alright, go for it). You wanted answers, but first: I have some questions for you. How many innocent lives were lost in a war that a Republican President launched? (too many, I agree. But war is not an intrinsic evil unlike abortion. For a war to be considered just there have to be conditions that are met. St Thomas clarified what these are. War should be the last means possible, but it is not an intrinsic evil) How many innocent lives have been lost while waiting for healthcare the Republicans won't support? (healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing. What the democrats are proposing is NOT universal health care, but universal health insurance...this again is a matter of prudential judgement which 2 Catholics can disagree upon. Our health care system is flawed, but on the accounts that human beings run it, and we're all dealing with the consequences of original sin. To say that we're going to be able to have perfect healthcare is impossible, human beings run it. I could easily make the argument that government has done more to ruin our healthcare system than make it better, but I'm not trying to do that) And here are some answers and rebuttals to your questions. "Do you think that only the Democratic Party cares about helping the poor" YES! (But does that mean one has to take from someone that has rightfully earned their money to give to someone that has not? Helping the poor is important and something that Jesus did command of us, but he never said HOW best to go about it) The Republican record supports a system that makes the rich richer and the poor, poorer. (Could this not be just a situation of the ideal not working out on paper. Could it not be a consequence of original sin? Is it possible that some people choose to stay in that situation for insert whatever reason, or could it be a misunderstanding of an economic system?) If you look at tax rates for the extremely rich (define extremely rich), the Republican party wants them to be almost non existent (Well, let's look at why...typically the rich own businesses and things like that. If you take away more of their income, they have less of an ability to hire workers and to pay for the things that are necessary to run a business properly. Businesses cost money to run, just like anything else in life, and a person should be able to run their business without having to worry about the government stealing their money), they are unwilling to give their tax money for services for the poor (Is it that they're unwilling to give to the poor, or is it that they're unwilling to be COERCED into giving money to the poor? Those are 2 different situations. One should not be forced against one's own free will to give to something. In the ideal world, all comes voluntarily. Or perhaps they don't want their names attached to giving to the poor. Perhaps they do so in an invisible way. Maybe they don't want the attention that comes with doing certain activities. Many rich people I know do this). This is completely NON Catholic (The Catholic principle to keep in mind is subsidiarity, things should be done by the lowest branch whenever possible). "But is it really sensible, to say nothing of charitable, to think that Republicans don�t care about the poor?" See above answer. The record shows that the Democratic party supports the poor more (show me which record). The Republican party may SAY they care about the poor, but I care more about actual legislation and action (but does helping the poor automatically mean that there has to be governmental legislation? why can't someone out of the goodness of their own heart help the poor without the government? I could argue that the government has done more to KEEP people in poverty than help them to escape poverty) , that claims. "Isn�t the issue between Republicans and Democrats in this field really a dispute about how most effectively to help the poor, about which institutions can be relied upon to do it most effectively?" YES this is the actual issue, and the institutions that can be most relied upon to help the poor aren't supported by the Republican party (Or it could be that the Republicans are more for individuals doing it without a mandate fromt the government. Or it could very well be that those same programs are breaking the government's back and keeping us as a nation broke. It used to be that the Church did many of the things that the state is now doing. Why can't we go back to the time where the Church did most of the social services instead of the government? The government is secular, the Church has the mind of Christ to see Christ in all people. It would properly make sense that the Church would be able to better serve the needs of the poor than the state. The Church has religious orders that are dedicated to this exact charism. The state does not). Moving on to the issue of gay marriage (it is not possible for gays to marry) you say: "What is more important to get right than the sanctity of innocent life, the preservation of the correct definition of marriage (one that is affirmed even in Scripture), and the protection of religious liberty?" Allowing states to make (and that's a problem, the state does not make marriage, marriage existed before the state, marriage is the sacramental union between one man and one woman. It is a vocation, not a right)  gay marriage legal does NOT inhibit religious liberty (On this point, I would actually agree, but you do understand that if marriage is a right, it cannot be denied under the law, meaning Churches would have to conform because it is a right to be married, even if the Church is a private organization.). The laws would never make the Catholic church recognize gay marriage (Not quite in some states, in the military, they are already trying to get the Church to cave in), therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with our religious liberty. (While our ability to go to Mass would not be affected by the legalization of so called gay marriage, the Church's moral authority (or what little of it that's left) would be completely underminded in an indirect manner) 

03 August 2012

02 August 2012

THIS is why i'm not really on the Cardinal Dolan Bandwagon

story here, h/t of course to Dymphna and Steve

my emphasis and comments.


NEW YORK, July 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Although controversy dogged his first appearance at the charity’s annual fundraiser in 2008 alongside Sen. John McCain, Catholic Charities has again (read, do the same thing over again and expect different results) extended an invitation to President Obama to speak at this year’s event.
Meghan Myers, the Executive Director of the annual fundraiser, told LifeSiteNews today that U.S. President Barack Obama has accepted the invitation to speak at the charity’s Al Smith Dinner in October. 

Obama and Sen. John McCain at the 2008 Al Smith Dinner, with Cardinal Egan, then archbishop of New York.
The annual fundraiser has traditionally featured the presidential candidates from each party during an election year. No word yet on whether Mitt Romney will attend.
While the event typically takes a lighter tone, with the presidential candidates roasting each other in humorous speeches, this year’s event comes at an especially awkward time, with the U.S. bishops having recently concluded their “Fortnight for Freedom” (which of course everyone knows, I thought the idea was a joke, here's my proof) - a response to the Obama administration’s HHS mandate that will force employers, including many religious employers, to include contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs in their health plans. That mandate, as well as other attacks on religious freedom coming from the Obama administration, have been condemned in the strongest terms by many (actually I think there was a statement from all of the US Bishops' for once) of the country’s bishops and religious leaders.
Another major conflict with Catholics and other Christians developed when the president began toactively oppose the Defense of Marriage Act last year; he has also just recently announced his support for same-sex “marriage.”
The Al Smith dinner also comes a little over three years after 83 U.S. bishops publicly opposed the invitation and award given to President Obama by Notre Dame because of the president’s pro-abortion record.
When asked if consideration was given to the Obama administration’s recent attacks on religious freedom, particularly Catholicism, in inviting the president, Myers replied that she could not comment on the invitation since she did not extend it. Obama was invited, she said, by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan. (welcome to reason number 1 why I'm not Cardinal Dolan's biggest fan. He continues to negotiate or compromise with evil. It makes me think that much of this is a glorified political ploy to make the Bishops' seem alright, when they're secretly in bed with these guys)
The White House did not return calls for comment by press time. 
Joe Zwilling, Director of the Office of Communications at the archdiocese of New York, told LifeSiteNews that he had not heard that the invitation had gone out, nor that it had been accepted.
The appearance of Obama at the Al Smith Dinner in 2008 caused considerable controversy.  At the time some pro-life leaders questioned the appearance in light of a 2004 policy of the U.S. bishops regarding politicians who “act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”
In ‘Catholics in Political Life’, the U.S. bishops said: “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.”
The idea of cancelling the traditional appearance of the presidential candidates is not without precedent. On two occasions since 1960 the presidential candidates were not invited by the Archdiocese of New York to the dinner - in 1996 (Cardinal John O’Connor), when strongly pro-abortion Bill Clinton was a candidate, and in 2004 (Cardinal Egan), during the candidacy of also strongly pro-abortion Democrat John Kerry.
Obama is often referred to as “the abortion president” because of his record that is viewed by pro-life leaders to be the most extreme in U.S. history.
Deal Hudson, a well-known Catholic political activist and author of “Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals” in the United States opined after Obama’s 2008 appearance:
What are we doing here? If abortion really is what we say it is—the gruesome murder of unborn children—do our actions reflect that belief? And if those who support abortion are guilty of facilitating such a horror, how should we respond to them?
If this were 1855, would we be inviting pro-slavery politicians to take a break from a hard fought race, and share a laugh and a meal? As one who finds courage and inspiration in the example of the Radical Republican abolitionists, I just can’t imagine it.
But isn’t that what we’re doing today? I know that wasn’t Cardinal Egan’s intention—of course not. (I also recognize that I’m raising these concerns after the fact.) However, in today’s media driven society, images matter. The sight of Obama and the cardinal palling around sends the message—whether intentional or not—that the pro-choice senator is fine in Egan’s eyes.
Obama’s appearance at this year’s fundraiser would be no less contentious.  Michael Hichborn of American Life League told LifeSiteNews, “Regardless of what they’ve done in the past, it is unthinkable for a Catholic charity to invite the man seeking the destruction of religious freedom in America to a fund raising event.“Hichborn added: “This sends the wrong message to pew-sitting Catholics, who are anxiously looking to our bishops to stand up and fight against this clear enemy of the Church who will be joining them for dinner. The Apostle Paul said it best in his second letter to the Corinthians: ‘Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?’”

My comments extra
1. When will he learn? Absolutely ZERO compromise with evil, NONE! I don't care even if it is the president of the US! NO compromise..
2. Cardinal Dolan, if he did issue this invite completely undermined the so called "fortnight for freedom" (Which I of course thought was a joke). It's as if his words mean nothing. As I've said before, his personality undermines his message. 
3. I'm glad I found this, it will find a prominent place on my blog :D



01 August 2012

bordem on a Weds afternoon

borrowed from Orthometer

11 Questions for my friends:

1. Do you cut your sandwiches into squares or triangles?

I make them into letters of the greek alphabet, at least when I have time, otherwise I eat them whole. 

2.  Do you know Beethoven as one of the worlds greatest composers, or as a big dog in a rather ordinary children's movie.

Both...

3.  What color is your toothbrush? And, is your toothbrush interchangeable with your spouses?  With their full knowledge and consent?

Lavender....and no. 

4.  Do you stir your coffee right to left or left to right?  And do you ding your spoon on the edge of the cup until the rest of the family screams blue murder?

I don't stir, I cause rotational motion of a fluid. No, I don't do that....

5.  Do you ever wear odd socks?  And if you do, do you always start the day by saying you hope you don't die today?

All things are normal, and no, I don't do that. 

6. Is perspicacious part of your vocabulary?

No, I put the SAT in my distant memory. 


7.  What was Donatello before he became a world famous Ninja Turtle?

An artist....either that...or my science experiment

8.  Does your exerciser regime challenge more than your wii controller muscles  

no 

9. Do you laugh hysterically at your own jokes?  At confession?


Depends on the joke...and no, I don't laugh during confession. 

10.  What are the names of Donald Duck's nephews?

Huey, Dewey and Louie--I'm surprised they didn't come out so angry. 

11.  And, lastly, for fans of the brilliant Charles Schultz, have you ever had occasion to call any of your children "Pigpen"?

No, children...yet