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.