New contender for bishop of the year award

Archbishop of Milwaukee, Jerome E. Listecki recently used his pastoral authority to let folks know in a news release that the organization Young Catholics for Choice may be young and ok with abortion, but they sure aren't Catholic.

Full text of the bishop's statement (with my emphases and comments):

"It has come to my attention that an organization calling itself “Young Catholics for Choice” has recently entered into collaboration with Family Planning HealthServices of Wausau. Through media advertising, “Young Catholics for Choice” is attempting to convey the message that Catholics can disregard Church teaching regarding contraception, abortion and human sexuality in general and remain Catholics in good standing. [Should we file this under 'catechesis FAIL' or 'secular outlook WIN'?]
Nothing could be further from the truth. [Now that's a bishop who knows how to bish!] While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like “Young Catholics for Choice” in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called. We pray that they may reconcile their position which is contrary to the Catholic Faith they claim to profess." ["Nothing could be further from the truth," "grave contradiction" "disown their Catholic heritage" " tragically distancing themselves, " "contrary to the Catholic Faith" - no mincing words here!]

Bravo to Bishop Listecki! May these misguided people come to know the truth that sets them free.

On a somewhat related note, as much as these "Catholic" groups annoy me to no end, they do kind of point out that the Catholic Church is the Church. I mean, it would be so very easy for these "Catholics" to simply become Episcopalian and have all these beliefs affirmed. Heck, they'd even get some liturgy, and women's ordination.

But that's not enough for them. I think, deep down, buried under several layers of "what-do-a-bunch-of-old-men-in-Rome-know-about-life?" scorn, they know that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be. And that scares them into staying. They continue to dissent, continue to try to change her, but they know that they cannot leave Jesus's Church.

So while they've leaped off the back of the Barque of Peter, they've still got a rope tied to the ship. They think they're doing the Church a favor by trying to tug her towards "modernity."

However, hopefully sooner rather than later, they'll realize that, while that ship has its barnacles, it has weathered the Albigensians and the Arians, the Manicheans and the Modernists, the Nestorians, Napoleon and the Nazis, the profilgate popes and the Protestants.

"Young Catholics for Choice" won't be able to budge her. With the pope at the helm, the Church will sail on, with the between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Eucharist as the guides, no matter what.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

Last minute gift idea

Suitable for small children or that relative who thinks he's oh-so-punny.

From Allen's Brain.

Study uses African women like lab rats

The Catholic Church gets a bad rep for promoting that the ways to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa are abstinence and marital fidelity.

Somehow, the the bad rep persists, even though Uganda has experienced "the greatest decline in HIV presence of any country in the world" by promoting abstinence and fidelity to one's spouse as the best way to prevent HIV transmission.

Yeah, no one ever said anti-Catholicism was logical.

But what's worse is that some scientists are willing to let women die of HIV or AIDS. From Diogenes:

most unfortunate

by Diogenes

Hey folks, do your acquaintances include any consequentialist Safe-Sin ethicians of the type who argue that the Church is proved wrong by AIDS infection rates in Africa? Well round them up to take a look at this BBC report on field-testing their moral theology:

A major trial of a vaginal microbicide has produced no evidence that its use reduces the risk of HIV infection in women.

The gel, PRO 2000, is intended for use before sexual intercourse to help reduce HIV infection.

It was tested in a trial involving 9,385 women in four African countries.

The risk of HIV infection was not significantly different among women supplied with the gel than in women given a placebo gel.

Got that? In order to gauge the effectiveness of the trial microbicide some of the "participants" were given a substance with no medicinal properties whatsover -- a placebo -- with the instruction to begin or resume sexual relations in a population with a notoriously high incidence of HIV infection.

To put it bluntly, the "lab rats" in this experiment were human beings with human hopes, loves, fears, responsibilities. Keep in mind that the participants necessarily had to be uninfected women at the outset of the trial. It is undeniable that the researchers wanted the women to be inseminated by men infected with a lethal disease agent. The trial would be pointless otherwise.

We are not told how the women in question were induced to comply (it is reported that they got "free condoms and access to counseling about safe sex"). It is all but certain that they were not truly brought to understand and accept 1) what a placebo actually is, 2) what each woman's chances of using an inert and useless substance were, 3) what the range of likelihood was for the trial medicine's being effective or ineffective. It is hard to imagine that 9,000 volunteers could have been assembled without some blurring of the truth.

Well, it turns out that the trial gel has no discernible effect in reducing the transmission of HIV. The reaction?

Lead researcher Dr Sheena McCormack, of the Medical Research Council, which part-funded the study, said: "This result is disheartening."

Bully for you, Doc. I trust the women in the study whose subsequent infection helped you draw your conclusion are equally stoic about the results. Let me go further: did you, Dr. McCormack, "field test" the gel with your own body in the same sub-Saharan circumstances? Did you ask your research colleagues or their wives and daughters to do so as well, for the sake of scientific progress? If, on the other hand, you were unwilling to put your own European middle class professional immune systems on the line, do you not feel a certain uneasiness at the "asymmetry of consequence" between your clinical discouragement and the discouragement of your, ahem, test population?

And yet people try to claim that the Catholic Church is anti-woman.

The world really has turned upside down.

May God have mercy on these scientists and shower His grace upon these poor women.

Heaven kisses Earth

Proof here.

Bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest

I love the British sense of humor, especially some of the Monty Python skits and of course, Mr. Bean.

It's a pity this isn't a joke:

English, Welsh bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest

By Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- The Catholic bishops of England and Wales said they could be at risk of prosecution under a proposed law unless they accept women, sexually active gays and transsexuals as candidates to the priesthood.

They made their claims in a briefing for Catholic members of the House of Lords [some of who think the title 'lord' should be capitalized, apparently...], Britain's upper political chamber, ahead of a scheduled Dec. 15 debate on the Equality Bill, which aims to stamp out discrimination in the workplace [by discriminating against the Catholic faith].

The bishops said the bill defines priests as employees rather than officeholders. [Up next: prosecuting the Church for violating minimum wage laws, since priests probably are paid much less than minimum wage, considering how many hours they work.] Under the terms of the bill, the church would be immune from prosecution only if priests spend more than 51 percent of their time in worship or explaining doctrine.

According to the briefing, a copy of which was obtained by Catholic News Service Dec. 8, the government definition will, in effect, make it "unlawful to require a Catholic priest to be male, unmarried or not in a civil partnership, etc., since no priest would be able to demonstrate that their time was wholly or mainly spent either leading liturgy or promoting and explaining doctrine."

"The bill fails to reflect the time priests spend in pastoral work, private prayer and study, administration, building maintenance, etc.," the briefing said.

"This contentious definition was drafted without consultation and has been maintained by the government despite the concerns of the bishops' conference and representations made by most religious bodies in the U.K.," the briefing added. [So it's an "equality" bill in that, all things being equal, all religions are being discriminated against.]

The bishops asked Catholic lords to try to either strike out the contentious definition or widen it to protect priests and lay employees "whose credibility ... would be fatally compromised if their personal lives were openly at variance with the church's teaching."[Call me a conspiracy theorist, but isn't this what many people want? To destroy the credibility of the Church, so that it can be ignored as irrelevant? Yes, the priest abuse scandals have already done incalculable damage on that front. But to have the government openly working against the Church?]

In a Dec. 8 statement given to CNS, a government spokesman rejected the claims of the bishops, saying that an exemption "covers ministers of religion such as Catholic priests."

An amendment to the bill to protect the liberty of the churches was voted down in the House of Commons in November. [Why? Because this bill doesn't intend to protect churches.] The bill is likely to become law early next year.

Richard Kornicki, the bishops' parliamentary coordinator, told CNS in a Dec. 8 telephone interview that the bishops believe it is not possible to meet the criteria of the government definition of a priest. [Since when is government allowed to define who is a priest? Shouldn't they be looking at the Catholic Church's definition of who is a priest? But, alas, perhaps this is part of the Henry VIII legacy in England?]

According to legal advice received by the bishops, he said, this could lead to legal actions for sex discrimination if the church rejected women, married men, gays in civil partnerships or transsexuals who asked to join the priesthood.

"The government is saying that the church cannot maintain its own beliefs in respect of its own priests," he said. [Bingo. And that's frightening.]

Neil Addison, a Catholic lawyer who heads the Thomas More Legal Centre, which specializes in religious discrimination law, said that in the worst-case scenario the church could not only be sued but bishops could face imprisonment and unlimited fines and church assets could be sequestered. [As awful as this sounds, I wonder if such open and active legal persecution would help people recognize what's going on here. And I wonder how many bishops are fantastic speakers who could use some pithy British wit to denounce these actions while they head off to gaol.] He said the bill would have the effect of making it impossible for the bishops to discipline clergy who wanted to live "alternative lifestyles."

Earlier, the bishops said the bill could force Catholic schools and health care institutions to remove crucifixes from their walls in case they offend non-Christian employees. [If you're "offended" by Catholicism, why oh why would you want to work for the Catholic Church in its schools or hospitals?]

First, secular culture decided that religion should stay inside the church, and that people shouldn't let their faith affect their day-to-day lives. Now we have the government trying to tell the bishops how to deal with intrachurch matters. How about that for a slippery slope?

What is particularly disturbing about this is that the U.S. is probably next; President Obama has nominated Chai Feldblum commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum has argued that "sexual liberty" should trump religious liberty, and that the First Amendment should no longer apply to religious liberty.

From her paper, Moral Conflicts and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion:

“...I want to suggest that the best framework for dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people’s claims as belief liberty interests under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than as free exercise claims under the First Amendment.” (p. 3)

From "Banned in Boston," in the Weekly Standard (5/15/2006)

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

I hope and pray that the Brits wake up and stop their government from discriminating against people of faith.

And that Americans take note and prepare for our own upcoming battles.

Patron Saint of the Day: St. Thomas More

St. Thomas More, Martyr (Patron of Lawyers) St. Thomas More was born at London in 1478...In 1534, with his close friend, St. John Fisher, he refused to render allegiance to the King as the Head of the Church of England and was confined to the Tower. Fifteen months later, and nine days after St. John Fisher's execution, he was tried and convicted of treason. He told the court that he could not go against his conscience and wished his judges that "we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to everlasting salvation."

Fr. Barron: "I want Catholicism to be disturbing, unnerving..."

Another gem from Fr. Robert Barron, discussing his book, "The Strangest Way":

How not to report about the Pope

From the AP, as published in the New York Times:

Pope Keeps Spanish Steps Tradition in Rome

ROME (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday lamented what he described as a steady diet of news about evil in the world, saying it hardens hearts, as he prayed at the Spanish Steps in a Christmas season tradition. [Ok, so one would expect, from the headline and this lead, that we're going to learn about what this tradition means.]

Shoppers who jammed the narrow streets, including Via Condotti with its posh shops, paused from buying Christmas gifts to catch a glimpse of Benedict as he was driven in a glass-sided popemobile to the square below the Spanish Steps. [What are the Spanish Steps and why are they a Christmas season tradition?]

''Every day, through the newspapers, television, radio, evil is reported, repeated, amplified, making us used to horrible things, making us become insensitive, and, in some way, poisoning us,'' the pope said after kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary to mark the Dec. 8 Catholic feast day in her honor. [Which is...? Surely what feast day is pertinent information.]

''Hearts harden and thoughts darken,'' Benedict said.

He also complained that the mass media ''tend to make us feel like spectators, as if evil regards only others and certain things could never happen to us.''

Instead, Benedict said, ''we are all actors, and for better or worse, our behavior has an influence on others.''

An aide held a white umbrella over the 82-year-old pontiff in a drizzle at dusk. Benedict wore an ermine-trimmed, crimson cape to guard against the chill. [Ok, so let me get the straight: what the Pope wore is more of a story than what he was doing and why?]

Benedict's next major public holiday appointment is Christmas Eve Mass, which he will celebrate at 10 p.m. instead of the traditional starting hour of midnight in St. Peter's Basilica.

The announcement by the Vatican that the pope had agreed with his aides to move up the appointment by two hours raised some concern about the pontiff's health.

But Vatican officials have insisted his health is fine, and that Benedict had agreed with aides to have more time to rest before a noon appearance to crowds in St. Peter's Square on Christmas Day.

Although Benedict at the start of his papacy ventured that he would travel far less than his globe-trotting predecessor, John Paul II, did in his 26-year-long pontificate, the German-born theologian has been making several international and domestic trips each year.

On Tuesday, church officials announced that Benedict would make several Italian pilgrimages in 2010, including a visit in October to Sicily, where the local church has been speaking out against organized crime. Other trips include a visit in May to Turin to see the famed Shroud and a journey in July to the central town of Sulmona, the spiritual home of the 13th-century hermit pope, Celestine V, the only pontiff to have resigned. [I wonder how many journalists hope Pope Benedict also resigns. ;-) ]

At least two foreign trips have been announced for next year: separate pilgrimages to the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus. Britain and Fatima, Portugal, are possibilities for other trips.

So, the reporter failed to include:

1. What the Spanish Steps are
2. Why the Spanish Steps are a Christmas tradition and
3. What feast day is December 8th (the Immaculate Conception, just FYI, AP).

But he/she did remember to include a description of the pope's hat. Gee, thanks.

Either the writer is a frustrated fashionista, stuck reporting real news when he/she would rather be covering the catwalk or some editor seriously forgot everything she learned in journalism school when she approved this for publication.

Regardless, this is a case of serious religion reporter FAIL.

God in the Streets of New York City

Another great one from Grassroots Media:



You know you're Catholic when this video gives you goosebumps...

Bishop Tobin wasn't kidding, Kennedy

I wonder if Kennedy has yet regretted opening Pandora's box...

RI bishop asked Kennedy in 2007 to avoid Communion

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 22, 6:05 pm ET

EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A month of harsh words between Rep. Patrick Kennedy and a strident critic, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, escalated Sunday when the bishop acknowledged asking Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion because of the Democratic lawmaker's support for abortion rights.

The bishop's attempt to publicly shame Kennedy on his abortion stance comes just a few months after the death of his father, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Tobin told The Associated Press that the younger Kennedy, who has been in and out of treatment for substance abuse, has been acting "erratically." [Deciding to take on the U.S. bishops is kind of erratic. However, did Tobin tell the AP about substance abuse? I doubt it. Which makes that indirect quote kind of weird.]

Their dispute began in October when Kennedy criticized the nation's Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation's health care system unless lawmakers included tighter restrictions on abortion, which have since been added to the House version of the bill. Tobin said he felt [I don't think he said 'felt'] Kennedy made an unprovoked attack on the church and demanded an apology.

"The point is, because of his obstinate ... public support of abortion, which is clearly contrary to an essential teaching of the church of a matter of critical morality ... he is then not properly prepared to receive Holy Communion," Tobin said in an interview Sunday. "No one has a right to receive Holy Communion." [Amen.]

The feud escalated after Kennedy told The Providence Journal in a story published Sunday that Tobin instructed him not to receive Communion. Kennedy also claimed the bishop had told diocesan priests not to give him communion, an allegation that Tobin denied. [Remember this: Tobin tried to correct Kennedy privately first, like any good shepherd. Kennedy took it public. Therefore, what right does Kennedy have to complain about public statements that Tobin makes?]

....

Tobin said he wrote Kennedy in February 2007 and asked him not to receive Communion because of his voting record supporting abortion rights.[Sooo, it's not like Kennedy has been unaware of the Church's beliefs.]

The bishop said his letter was prompted by a statement two months earlier from the nation's Catholic bishops. They said that believers who knowingly and consistently break with church teachings on moral issues such as abortion should refrain from Communion, the focus of Roman Catholic worship.

Abortion is a major concern for the Catholic bishops because opposition to the procedure is based on the church's earliest teachings on preserving human life, which have not changed. By comparison, church teaching on the death penalty is not as definitive and has changed over time, making it difficult for church leaders to demand that Catholic lawmakers agree.[Where did the AP come up with this!? The Catechism states:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."]

Only a few U.S. bishops have said they would outright deny Holy Communion to a Catholic lawmaker who supports policies that violate church teaching. A larger number of prelates have publicly asked a Catholic politician to voluntarily abstain from the sacrament.

For example, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas had repeatedly said publicly that former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Communion until she changes her stance. Sebelius is now President Barack Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services.

.....

Kudos to Tobin. Decent article by the AP, although the contrast between abortion and the death penalty was just plain weird. Where did they come up with the distinction?

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Today might just be a watershed moment: 148 Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox signed a joint statement calling for protection of life, marriage and religious freedom.

The Catholic signatories included Archbishops Charles Chaput of Denver and Timothy "I'm not holding my breath" Dolan of New York City and Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D.C., among others.

You can (and should!) read the whole declaration at First Things. But I think the most important section of the document is the last three paragraphs (with my emphases):

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Did you get that? We have 148 Christian leaders who will not give in to government and cultural pressures to turn a blind eye to the evils of abortion, celebrate the undermining of marriage or accept restrictions on religious freedom.

They have made the statement that they are willing to exercise civil disobedience rather than obey unjust laws.

How many of them will end up living out these words?

My bet is definitely more than a few.

Thank God for the gift of these leaders.

Not one cent to the CCHD

This week there will be a second collection for the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development.



Don't support them.

Fr. Barron on "2012"

Definitely worth watching.

Wherein the Boston Globe shows its illiteracy

Scripture and Catholic illiteracy, that is. Find the Boston Globe article here.

With my [comments] and emphases.

Verbally, bishop isn't turning cheek
[Aside from the fact that the Scripture is totally taken out of context - Matthew 5:39 has nothing to do with a bishop correcting an errant member - note how this headline sets the tone that the bishop isn't acting like Jesus. Jesus, in the Gospel according to Globe, wouldn't correct Kennedy.]
R.I.'s Tobin welcomes tussles with politicians [Because opposition to abortion is political, not moral, not religious. Note how this is also a popular angle for coverage.]


by Noah Bierman
Globe Staff/November 12, 2009

PROVIDENCE - The bishop from America’s most Catholic state, and increasingly one of the church’s most provocative prelates, has provided a rather concise explanation for his willingness to clash with politicians: Christians are not supposed to be nice, at least not all the time.

“In confronting moral evil, Jesus wasn’t nice, kind, gentle, and sweet,’’ Thomas J. Tobin, the bishop of Providence, wrote in his diocesan newspaper column earlier this year. “He lived in a rough and tumble world and He took His message to the streets.’’

Tobin has followed his interpretation [um...has this journalist ever read the story of the temple moneychangers? Has he read what Jesus called the Pharisees?] of Jesus’ demeanor most devoutly, and he is quickly positioning himself at the national forefront of a renewed debate over the role of Catholic orthodoxy in the public square, most recently in a very personal feud [Again, this wording tries to marginalize what's going on. If Kennedy is acting in the public square, his views may be personal, but they are not private.] with Representative Patrick Kennedy. As the abortion issue has taken on prominence in the national health care debate, Tobin has insisted Catholics get involved in the rough world of politics [because it's only political, not moral, not religious]- even if it means tangling with prochoice Catholic [a contradiction in terms] legislators. And he has led by example.

Since his installation in 2005, he has challenged the Republican governor’s crackdown on illegal immigration, inserted himself into last year’s Republican presidential primary with a rebuke of Rudolph Giuliani on the abortion issue (in which he addressed him familiarly as “Rudy’’ in a commentary), and took on President Obama in a mock interview published in another of his columns (in which he facetiously quotes Obama advancing the rights of foreigners “to kill their children and use abortion as a form of birth control.’’) [If the shoe fits...]

His commentary, published regularly in the Rhode Island Catholic, is titled, not surprisingly, “Without a Doubt.’’ [Can we at least pretend to be objective?]

“He speaks his mind. He has his convictions,’’ said Beverley Smith, a 59-year-old nurse who attended lunchtime Mass at the gold-accented [relevant because..?] downtown cathedral in Providence yesterday.

Tobin and Kennedy, a member of one of America’s most prominent Catholic families, have been exchanging fiery words for weeks. But the rhetoric may have reached a climax in Tobin’s most recent column, in which he disputes Kennedy’s contention that disagreeing with church hierarchy makes him no less of a Catholic. [It's not just Tobin's opinion, though. It's what the Church teaches.]

“Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does,’’ Tobin wrote. “Your position is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church.’’

A planned meeting between the men, scheduled for today, has been postponed indefinitely. According to the diocese, it was by mutual agreement. In a news conference Tuesday, Kennedy said he was willing to meet with Tobin but not willing to discuss his faith in public anymore. [In other words, Kennedy knows that this is a fight he cannot win, but he refuses to admit his errors.]

“I had initially agreed on a meeting with him, provided that we not debate this in public, in terms of my personal faith or things of that sort,’’ Kennedy said, according to the Associated Press. “And, unfortunately, he hasn’t kept to that agreement. And that’s been very disconcerting to me.’’ [Mr. Kennedy, millions of Catholics find it disconcerting that you are willing to ignore the Church's constant and ancient teaching about abortion, and willfully disregard the rebuke of your bishop.]

Earlier, Kennedy had questioned why church leaders would oppose the opportunity to insure millions of poor Americans because the bill could possibly provide [read: would] coverage for abortions. [Never mind that the Catholic Church leads the world in charitable giving.]

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life-saving health care?’’ Kennedy told the Catholic News Service last month. [Red herring. Note also that the reporter also fails to report any facts about what health care the Catholic Church provides or the fact that Catholic bishops have long advocated for reform of the health care system.] A health care bill was passed by the US House of Representatives over the weekend, with a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion - considered a major victory for the nation’s Catholic bishops and other abortion opponents. Kennedy voted against the amendment [Thereby demonstrating that he is not acting as a Catholic should.] but supported the final bill.

Kennedy, through a spokesman, declined an interview request for this article. Tobin’s spokesman could not make him available, but the bishop said in a radio interview yesterday that it was Kennedy who started the fight [I wonder if those were Tobin's words. I somehow doubt it.] by making an unfortunate and ill-advised attack on church leadership.

But Tobin, a 61-year-old from Pittsburgh, has entered the debate with apparent relish.[Because it's all political and he's just enjoying his moment in the spotlight.] His office has been quick to send out responses and commentary as the debate has continued. His folksy yet pointed writing was singled out for praise by the Catholic Press Association in 2000, for columns he wrote for his former diocese in Youngstown, Ohio.

“I admit it; I’m a political junkie,’’ Tobin wrote in a column this month. “I follow political news pretty closely and if I weren’t a cleric, I’d probably run for something or other. In His wisdom, though, and perhaps to protect the public, the Lord has led me down a different path.’’ [Say it with me now: it's all political.]

Even in Rhode Island, where church estimates put the Catholic population at 58 percent of the state, bishops have not always entered the public sphere so readily. [The implication being that they need to stay in their churches.] The church was chastened by its effort in 1986 to pass a nonbinding referendum that called for severe restrictions on abortion. Much to everyone’s surprise, it failed miserably, said Maureen Moakley, a University of Rhode Island political scientist.

“After that defeat, the church kind of stepped back, and the next bishop was this live-and-let-live’’ leader [perhaps this was part of the problem - past bishops failing to govern their flocks] when it came to the political [always 'political'] establishment, Moakley said. “But the arrival of Tobin has been a very different attitude, a willingness to be confrontational about issues.’’

Moakley said the political impact remains a question that will not be settled until Kennedy and other members of the delegation face reelection. Tobin also has something at stake: a test of the church’s clout in a modern world [as opposed to the medieval world where faithful Catholics live?] where many in the flock disagree about abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues in which the leadership has taken an uncompromising stance.[Is it really so hard for journalists to understand that a.)the 'leadership' is not making it up as they go along and b.)the leadership doesn't have the authority to suddenly say that abortion and same-sex marriage are ok? Really? Is it so hard to comprehend that not everything can be negotiated away, that sometimes things are simply right or wrong?]

On the streets of Providence yesterday, opinions seemed divided on the Tobin/Kennedy issue, though some self-identified Catholics said they had little knowledge of Tobin or his commentaries. [IOW, Tobin is irrelevant.]

“He was ordained to uphold the Catholic doctrine. That’s what he’s doing,’’ said Fran Whitworth, the 42-year-old owner of Old World Cigar on Federal Hill.

But Janelle Ploude, who said she attends Mass weekly and keeps a large portrait of Jesus near her station at a downtown beauty parlor [wherein the reporter establishes her credentials], said Tobin has taken things too far.

“I feel like church and state should be two totally different things,’’ said Ploude, 31. [Aarrrgh. How many times must we point out that abortion isn't a political issue alone - it's a moral issue as well, and the Church has an obligation to weigh in on moral issues.]

Still others managed to find a middle ground [always a happy buzz word in a relativistic world] in a debate many find irreconcilable. [And for good reason: Tobin can't declare abortion morally permissable, and Kennedy probably won't admit his errors.]

“I can see both sides,’’ said Jim Aceto, a 59-year-old accountant from North Providence.

The bishop, who needs to set a tone for all Catholics, had no choice but to address the actions of a congressman who holds himself out as a Catholic, Aceto said. But the congressman, Aceto noted, needs to represent more than one group of people in his public role. [Not an excuse. In the early years, Catholics died rather than offer a speck of incense to a Roman god or be complicit in moral evils. Kennedy, like any good politician, should be willing to risk his seat in Congress to do what is right. It's a much lesser martyrdom than being torn apart by wild animals.]

“Abortion’s always a topic of discussion,’’ [except that Rome locuta est - Causa finita est. No room for nuances. Abortion is intrinsically evil.] said Aceto, who does not support Kennedy. “I know some very good Catholics that feel the way Kennedy does.’’ [By definition, however, they are no longer "very good Catholics" if they support abortion.]

It's also worth pointing out how this article is structured in its final paragraphs. By ending on that quote, the reporter is making sure that the reader's last thought is that one can be a "very good Catholic" while agreeing with Kennedy - which is untrue. The article would have a whole different feel if the reporter pointed that out, or ended on Fran Whitworth's quote.

It's a shame the reporter didn't bother to a.) check the relevant Scriptures and b.) learn a thing or two about the Catholic Church before writing this article.

It's also a shame that bishops acting with conviction are so newsworthy. In this Year of the Priest, pray for them, that they might have the courage to be vastly unpopular for the sake of Jesus and His Church.

Bishop Tobin takes off the gloves

Bishop Tobin - my favorite bishop of the week - is not letting Rep. Patrick Kennedy get away with his antics. (Click here for the backstory, and here for continuing coverage.)

Tobin took the opportunity to school the congressman - and his flock - in a piece in The Rhode Island Catholic.

WITHOUT A DOUBT
Dear Congressman Kennedy
by BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

St. Ambrose - who had experience with politicians connected to the brutal murders of children - would be proud.

Pray for Rep. Kennedy, that like Theodosius, he too might repent, do public penance and sin no more.

Texas abortionist: "Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that."

Kyrie eleison.

Excuse me while I vomit.

HT to Creative Minority Report.

Worth reading

Check out these great posts from around the web:

• Jill Stanek's blog: "Catholic Bishops frighten Planned Parenthood CEO" (It's always a good day when that happens.)
  
  
• Creative Minority Report: "We Are Not a Pro-Life Nation" (It's heartbreaking.)
  
  
• American Papist: "Update: Dominican sister caught volunteering at abortion clinic censured by congregation"
  
  

Euro court bans crucifixes in Italy's schools

Apparently, the European Court of Human Rights has far, far too much time on its hands.From BBC News:

The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions."


It also restricted the "right of children to believe or not to believe", the seven judges ruling on the case said in a statement quoted by AFP news agency.

How exactly does it do that?Italian mother Soile Lautsi - who brought the case - is not prevented in any way from educating her children. Her children have the right to become diehard Catholics or diehard atheists or whatever else they choose. The Italian schools were not mandating that the children pray before the crucifix or making them memorize the Catechism.

But apparently even the presence of a crucifix offends. Hmm. So I guess one of two things will happen next:

1. The European Court of Human Rights will start banning children from wearing crucifixes in the classroom. Because, well, peer pressure, you know. That might interfere with the kid's choices.

2. We'll learn that Italy - and indeed, much of Europe - is suffering from a high rate of vampirism.

The first is a lot more likely, but the second makes so much more sense.

USCCB: Contact your representatives

The House and Senate need to hear from you about the health care bill. Voting might start this week.

[Ad from LifeSiteNews.com]

The op-ed the New York Times wouldn't print

Remember Maureen Dowd's anti-Catholic screed?

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who rocks, wrote to the New York Times. They didn't publish it. Shocking, I know.

So here it is - because we can't take this anti-Catholic attitude lying down:

FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York

October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!

Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.

It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”

If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:

• On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”

Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.

• On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.

• Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.

• Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.

True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.

I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?

The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.

I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.

Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.

We need more bishops like him. Kudos to Pope Benedict XVI, for appointing him to the New York diocese.

Planned Parenthood executive director converts

Great news out of Bryan, Texas.

Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart

by Ashley Sigman, KBTX.com

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson's life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. [Wow. No wonder Planned Parenthood hates ultrasound requirements.]

"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.[How about that? Planned Parenthood wants women to have abortion. Amazing.]

"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson. [Yep. It's all about the money.]

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

"I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."

Johnson is now part of Coalition for Life, a pro-life group located near the Planned Barrenhood facility.

Planned Barrenhood is really unhappy about this:

On Friday both Johnson and the Coalition For Life were issued temporary restraining orders filed by Planned Parenthood.

Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson issued the following statement: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary."

The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information, but does not bar Johnson or Coalition For Life volunteers from the premises. [Like...the information that Planned Parenthood pushes abortions because they make $$$ from them?]

This is why 40 Days for Life is so awesome. And why Planned Barrenhood is so despicable.

They claim they want abortion to be rare, but it's so profitable that they don't really mean it. According to their website, 1st trimester abortion costs $350-900.

HT to the Creative Minority Report for the great news.

Kennedy's non-apology apology

Remember this story last week, in with Rep. Patrick Kennedy slammed the Church (rather ignorantly) about opposing the health care bill because of abortion?

Good news is he's going to meet with Bishop Tobin.

Bad news is he hasn't really apologized. From the AP:

Kennedy, who is Catholic, says that he never meant to slight the church and that it has every right to promote its beliefs.

But he says the issue facing Congress is, in his words, "access to health care and nothing else."

Right. Because saying

“I thought they were pro-life. If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all.”

certainly doesn't indicate a desire to slight the Catholic Church. Give me a break, Kennedy.

Not to mention (say it with me now): "Abortion is not health care."

If this is truly about "access to health care" then work to ensure that true health care is provided. If this is truly about "access to health care" then work to ensure that babies in the womb get health care, not vaccuumed to death or ripped limb from limb. If this is truly about "access to health care" help people with morals work in health care, knowing that their conscience rights are protected.

But it's not about "access to health care."

It's about extending the culture of death, because hey, it's certainly profitable.

Bishop Tobin, I could think of a few good uses for that crozier of yours...

Bishops step up opposition to health care bill

Apparently, the USCCB wants every parish in America to put this insert in their Sunday bulletin.

I, for one, am impressed. It's so great to see bishops acting as bishops.

Go do your part and contact your congressional leaders.

Check out the American Papist for more information about the urgent campaign.

The 13th Day trailer

Trailer from the new Fatima movie, The 13th Day:



I really want to see this.

Thanks God for the gift of Our Lady of Fatima.

[Learn more about Our Lady of Fatima here.]

Another one bites the dust

May the pro-life principles of Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) rest in peace. (HT to Creative Minority Report and Larry D).

From the Oct. 27 News/Talk 760 interview with Frank Beckmann:

"The president said there'd be no public funding for abortion, so we're just trying to hold him to his word...And we don't want to see abortion in the health care bill. It's not U.S. law and we don't want to change the law."

Beckmann asks him how tough it is to be a pro-life Democrat.

"Well, it's not easy, especially right now...My job is not to vote for legislation that has public funding for abortion." [emphasis mine]

But, in a Oct. 23 town hall meeting, he said he'll vote for the health care bill if it pays for abortion:

"Ok, if everything I want in a bill, the final bill, I like everything in the bill, except the public funding for abortion, and we have a chance to run our amendment and we lost. Ok, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district - would i vote for health care? Yes, I still would."

Sing it with me now:

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

Reason 4,781 to be Catholic

Changing the meaning of Catholic

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, who writes for the On Faith blog of the Washington Post, recently argued that Michael Moore should be considered as "Catholic of the Year."

Should Michael Moore be named "Catholic of the Year"? Some people love his films and some hate them: but his newest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," provokes such passion on either side that -- on that count alone -- it becomes a tribute to his skill as filmmaker. Avoiding a film review here, let me offer reasons for considering "Capitalism" a special kind of Catholic achievement.

I haven't seen the film. The only Michael Moore film I've seen was "Fahrenheit 9/11", which I liked.

However, it seems to me that to be "Catholic of the Year," to be upheld as a role model, one should be in full communion with the Church - not a cafeteria Catholic. And Moore is indeed, a Cafeteria Catholic:

• Moore supports the "right" to abortion, calling Roe v. Wade "a great victory."
• Moore denies that birth control is a sin and believes women should be priests.
• Moore also seems to support gay marriage.

"You cannot be Catholic and pro-choice!"as Fr. Corapi likes to say.

A better nominee would be Mary Ann Glendon, who refused the Notre Dame Laetare Medal because Notre Dame refused to act like a Catholic university.

Bishop Tobin: 1, Rep. Patrick Kennedy: 0

Rep. Patrick Kennedy makes an idiot of himself:



But, Bishop Thomas Tobin won't let him get away with it. From the Diocese of Providence website (with my emphases and comments):

“Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s statement about the Catholic Church’s position on health care reform is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. But the Congressman is correct in stating that “he can’t understand.” He got that part right. [Oooh, Bishop Tobin, takin' off the gloves.]

As I wrote to Congressman Kennedy and other members of the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation recently, the Bishops of the United States are indeed in favor of comprehensive health care reform and have been for many years. But we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.

Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church [No mincing words here!] and to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and morally responsible leadership for our state.”

How's that for some effective, orthodox, take-no-prisoners leadership? It's so nice to see bishops laying down the law.

I'm sending him a thank you letter. Anyone else want to join me?

Could the Russian Orthodox be next?

This interesting tidbit comes courtesy of the head of the Traditional Anglican Communion, Primate John Hepworth, in an interview with The Australian:

Already there are stories circulating that the Patriarch of Moscow has urged his ecumenical negotiators in the Vatican to hurry in order that the Anglicans do not get too far ahead. They're probably apocryphal, but we do know that the Russian Orthodox Church is very close to achieving unity with Rome. It is the largest of the Orthodox churches of the East. We also know that the Orthodox are watching the Anglican process very closely to try to assess the extent to which Rome is serious about tolerating many different traditions of Christianity within the scope of the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with members of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church about the parallels between their conversations with Rome and ours. Christian unity throughout the world is at a very similar moment. Conversation and co-operation are beginning to evolve into forms of organic unity that still protect diverse Christian traditions of worship and spirituality.

This would be utterly amazing. It's almost unbelievable.

And yet...

"The Anglican experiment is over."

The Telegraph reported that the Bishop of Chichester, Rev. John Hind, is considering the Vatican's offer to join the Church.

This is monumental because Rev. Hind is a bishop of the Church of England - not a smaller group like the TAC.

Now Bishop Hind, the most senior traditionalist in the Church of England, has confirmed that he is willing to sacrifice his salary and palace residence to defect to the Catholic Church.

"This is a remarkable new step from the Vatican," he said. "At long last there are some choices for Catholics in the Church of England. I'd be happy to be reordained into the Catholic Church."

While the bishop stressed that this would depend on his previous ministry being recognised, he said that the divisions in the Anglican Communion could make it impossible to stay.

"How can the Church exist if bishops are not in full communion with each other," he said.

Conservative archbishops and bishops have broken ties with their liberal counterparts following the US Episcopal Church's consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop.

Bishop Broadhurst said that the Pope has made his offer in response to the pleas of Anglicans who despair at the disintegration of their Church.

"Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues," said the bishop, who is chairman of Forward in Faith, the Anglo-Catholic network that represents around 1,000 traditionalist priests.

"There is widespread dissent across the [Anglican] Communion. We are divided in major ways on major issues and the Communion has unravelled.

"I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own.

"I personally think it has gone past the point of no return. The Anglican experiment is over."

It will be interesting to see how many members of the flock will be following their clergy. Gloria in excesis Deo!