January 2012

Kind of thick here I guess, but I have to ask, per my last post, why in the world does it take a BRITISH Catholic paper to report the OBVIOUS about the goings on with Obama and Catholicism, just really curious. Some times I think the wheel is still turning but the hamster is gone



for those who missed the “per my last post” comment

here is the link   Catholic Herald UK

Honestly, what did the Bishops believe all these years, playing with the devil would come out good, come on Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan for crap sakes ,wonder how a shiv in the back with a twist feels.  Read the whole damning thing at Catholic Herald UK



About a year ago, I wrote a blog entitled “Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church”. This was picked up by quite a few American Catholic blogs, for example this one, which reproduced the piece in full; and it attracted much favourable attention: but some of the reactions, also from American Catholics – who presumably were from that shameful 54 per cent of Catholics who voted for Obama – were not favourable.

Well, if ever there was any doubt about whether or not I was right, it has now been removed – that is for Catholics who understand, unlike the late Cardinal Bernardin, with his “seamless garment” theology (according to which abortion, say, was just one of a whole raft of other issues like war and peace, opposition to the death penalty, welfare reform and civil liberties), that actually “life issues” are not like others, negotiable or – like the morality of war, for instance – subject to context and circumstance: who understand, in other words, that abortion and euthanasia are always and under all circumstances, just wrong.


So, American Catholics, you now know, if you didn’t know before: you cannot, if you are a faithful Catholic, vote for this man. He is an enemy of your Church and everything it stands for. But that prompts the question: how come so many Catholics voted for him last time? How come, while we are about it, that one of the first things that happened in his presidency was the conferring on him of an honorary degree by Notre Dame, that renowned “Catholic” University?

This is a long and murky story. It involves telling (which I don’t have time for here) all about the links between Notre Dame and certain clergy from the Archdiocese of Chicago (prop. the above-mentioned Cardinal Bernardin) and their connections with a legendary political radical, a Marxist atheist called Saul Alinsky, who despite his many attacks on the Church received vast funding from something called the Catholic Fund for Human Development (CHD), an agency of the USCCB which over the years has raised hundreds of millions from second collections taken up after Sunday Mass. The following are examples of some of the grants made by the CHD:

(note from Egyptian, yeah,” the CHD again”)

• 1985: $40,000 for Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, led by then lead organizer, Barack Obama
• 1986: $33,000 for Obama’s Developing Communities Project, which Obama continued to lead
• 1992: ACORN funding (see below) for Project Vote, a Chicago programme which Obama also led
• 1995: Cardinal Bernardin helped commit $116,000 from the national CHD fund to Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors, an Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation organisation
• 2000 – 2008: $7m went to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), an Alinsky-influenced, leftist network under criminal investigation in several states. ACORN supports radical, ‘in your face’ local and national causes as well as abortion. CHD funding stopped only in November 2008, well after every other American wondered when the bishops would halt the allocation of $1m to the group.
• Ongoing: $20,000 to $30,000 per community group across the country under the guise of ‘community organisation’
• Also ongoing: 4% to 5% of total CHD funds to the Gamaliel Foundation, a Marxist socio-political network of Alinsky-inspired organisations
Still ongoing: Alinsky’s own Industrial Areas Foundation, which receives 16% of CHD funds annually!

No wonder that when Obama received his degree at Notre Dame, he spoke so warmly about Cardinal Bernardin: he was addressing an institution that had been deeply impregnated with the CHD mentality and with Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment theology. No wonder that when he later spoke to a small group of Catholic journalists, he more or less told them that Cardinal Bernardin had given him his (very Left-wing) start in politics:

“The president said he had fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin and that when he started his neighborhood projects, they were funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” he said. “After the first question, from the National Catholic Reporter‘s Joe Feuerherd, the president jokingly asked, ‘Was there really [a controversy at Notre Dame]?’
“The president spoke about how during Cardinal Bernardin’s time the US bishops spoke about the nuclear freeze, the sanctuary movement, immigration, and the poor, but that later a decided change took place,” added Fr Kearns. “He said that the responses to his administration mirror the tensions in the Church overall, but that Cardinal Bernardin was pro-life and never hesitated to make his views known, but he had a consistent ‘seamless garment’ approach that emphasized the other issues as well. The president said that that part of the Catholic tradition continues to inspire him. Those issues, he said, seemed to have gotten buried by the abortion debate.”

Every time Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul say or do something stupid, their backers claim a conspiracy by “the Republican Establishment” is really to blame. The inimitable Charles Krauthammer explains who comprises this establishment:

Karl Rove is the president. We meet every month on the full moon. I’ve explained this. At the Masonic Temple. We have the ritual: Karl brings the incense, I bring the live lamb and the long knife, and we began . . . with a pledge of allegiance to the Trilateral Commission. That is how it works.

We all know what a “Kennedy Catholic” is.

For decades our country has been treated to a slew of Catholic politicians, mostly Democrats, who tell us how pious they are, how much they love praying the rosary, and how much their Catholicism shapes who they are and how they see the world.  They then turn around and promote abortion on demand, speak to Planned Parenthood gatherings, advocate gay marriage, label promoters of real marriage as bigots, and generally promote immoral policies that weaken families and culture.  In the view of these Catholics, the Church’s teachings should not play any role in the public sphere–with the possible exception of “social justice” teachings that can be manipulated to seem supportive of the latest effort to trap the poor in yet another layer of dependency.  Vice President Joe Biden, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the pro-abortion majority of Catholics in Congress can be counted on to consistently oppose the Church’s teaching on non-negotiable moral issues all fit this mold.

This particular brand of political Catholicism traces its origins to President John F. Kennedy.  While running for President, Kennedy gave a speech to Baptist ministers in Houston, Texas, in which he said that he believed in an America “where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source…”  Though relatively restrained when compared to much of what we hear today from the secular left, this statement undoubtedly contributed to a world where the majority of Catholics in Congress are pro-abortion.

The public policy results of “Kennedy Catholicism” have been a disaster.  But for the last half century Kennedy Catholicism has remained virtually unchallenged as a model for Catholics in public life. Is there any way out?

True, the pro-life movement has been significantly shaped by Catholic moral teaching and has produced some great Catholic political champions, such as the late Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). And as the Democrat Party has drifted further and further to the left, and as it has more and more tightly embraced secularism and rejected religious input in the public sphere, we have seen an increase in the number of faithful Catholics in the political arena who have bravely vote as their faith requires on moral issues and who have not been afraid to weave their Catholic identity and their public identity together.  Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Governor and former Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) have been good examples of this promising trend.  Locally in Cincinnati, we have been lucky to have been represented in Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), a pro-life hero whose votes and positions on the issues are consistent with his Catholic faith on a range of issues from life to marriage to subsidiarity.

At the same time, Catholic public intellectuals like Father Richard John Neuhaus and Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput have done important intellectual and theological leg work by articulation a coherent and persuasive vision for how the Catholic faith can and should play a role not just in public life, but in the life and decisions of individual Catholic politicians.  In his excellent book on this topic, Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, Archbishop Chaput wrote:

People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet.  They can’t be.  They’ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and carers.  Obviously the common good demands  respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible.  But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of faith or human dignity.  Christian faith is always personal but never private.  This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to a private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.  As a friend once said, it’s like asking a married man to act single in public.  He can certainly do that–but he won’t stay married for long.

[Page 10, 2008 hardcover ed.]

But as promising as these trends are, none of these Catholic men and women have had a sufficiently prominent role in the political world for the average voter pays attention to their articulation of an intellectual alternative to Kennedy Catholicism.

In other words: none of them have run a serious presidential campaign.

Until now.  (Almost.)

As ronkozar already pointed out, presidential candidate Rick Santorum is an orthodox Catholic whose Catholic faith clearly shapes his personal life, his political views, and the entire way he sees the world.  (See his book, It Takes A Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, which I am reading now.)  As someone who has admired Senator Santorum for years, I have been surprised by Santorum’s staying power in the GOP primaries but not by his clear commitment to principle, especially with regard to his defense of life, marriage, and the family.

At the same time, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is a recent Catholic convert who produced a documentary about Pope John Paul II’s challenge to Communism during his June 1979 pilgrimage to Poland.   While Gingrich’s personal history if certainly not consistent with Catholic moral teaching, his defenders claim his conversion is genuine and deep, and that his remorse is real.  (For a more nuanced view, see this article by Catholic convert Francis Beckwith.)  The New York Times, among others, has written about what Gingrich’s candidacy says about the role of Catholicism in political life.  (Ugh, I feel dirty citing the NYT.)

I am not unrealistic.  I realize that Santorum, the candidate whose views are closest to my own, and who I believe to be an excellent example of what a Catholic can be in the political world, is very unlikely to win the nomination.  On the other hand, I realize that Gingrich would be a less than ideal representative of  what Catholicism in public life should be.  (Note: given Santorum’s probable unelectability, I will likely be voting for Mitt Romney–whose conversion to social conservatism I believe to be genuine, and whose word to govern in favor of life and marriage I trust–in Ohio’s March GOP primary.)

In other words, Santorum and Gingrich are unlikely to be in a position to be the modern-day figure who finally “ends” Kennedy Catholicism.  (After all, there will always be Catholics in political life whose Catholicism is simply a fig leaf or a cultural relic, not a guiding force in their life.)  But maybe Santorum and Gingrich don’t have to be that person.  In the end, what Catholics in America need is not necessarily the election of an orthodox Catholic president, but an environment where Catholic politicians are expected and assumed to be Santorums, not Kennedys.

I think the Santorum and Gingrich candidacies suggest, however humbly, that we are moving in that direction.  Maybe slowly, maybe haltingly, but…surely.

So…Cincinnati Catholic politicians: it’s time to step up.

Archbishop Schnurr has received a fair amount of criticism from Cincinnati Catholics over his perceived timidity and seeming unwillingness to take bold stands.  Yet bold he is in an impassioned letter urging his flock to oppose — one could even say defy — Obama’s assault on Catholic institutions through the new HHS edict.  Bully for him.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.

The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people – the Catholic population and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build Arnerica’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting http://www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to Contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Dennis M. Schnurr

Archbishop of Cincinnati

The Cincinnati Enquirer‘s coverage of the story is here.

A reader informs us that Xavier University has now scrubbed the web page for its Gilligan award of references to and pictures of Obama’s abortion advocate and HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius:

Xavier University is covering their Tracks by removing all traces of Sebelius including pictures
but they are caught by Foundation of Life

Here is the link to the now cleansed Xavier University Website.


However, “Foundation of life” got a copy of the text so all can see the truth.
Where is the Sack Cloth Jesuits? Where is the repentance? Where is the truth?
Where is the Public Statement of the problem? Nothing to see here…….. move on…….

Here is a copy of the original text before it was cleansed from the XU website.


Read the post that almost certainly inspired the Jesuit scrubbing here.

Over at NRO, Michael Walsh asks New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, head of the USCCB, to channel his legendarily pugnacious 19th century predecessor, Archbishop “Dagger John” Hughes, to fight Obama’s* assault on Catholic institutions:

In 1844, faced with a Nativist threat to burn down St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral (at Prince and Mott streets), John J. Hughes, the Irish-born bishop (and later first archbishop) of New York, gathered several thousand of his mostly Irish parishioners and deployed them around the church. Any attack on the cathedral, warned the man known as “Dagger John,” would be repulsed with force. The Nativists backed down.

During the Civil War, Hughes undertook a secret mission to Europe at the personal request of Abraham Lincoln, to rally support for the Union cause and keep Britain from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. This he did in part by explaining the facts of the life to the English: that they’d have no luck in raising troops in restive, famine-stricken Ireland to fight against America, and a great deal of trouble if they tried.

Those were the days of the two-fisted Irish clergy, who understood their dual American roles as both the spiritual leaders of their people and — when necessary — political figures as well. But those days are long gone (Cardinal O’Connor was the last of the line).

So who will protect the American Church from the latest threat, this one from the hatchet-faced secretary of Health and Human Services (and why does such a department even exist?), Kathleen Sebelius, and her boss President Obama?

And this is only the beginning — if the Obama administration, hanging by its fingertips heading into the next election — can be this bold about its inherent anti-constitutionalism and practical anti-Americanism (hello, recess appointments; come on down, Keystone pipeline), just think of what’s in store during a second term when “fundamental change” really gets rolling.

It’s good to see the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops making noises about suing the government, but it would be even better to see Archbishop (and Cardinal-designate) Timothy Dolan get out front on this issue in a very public way. “Conscientious objectors” and “civil disobedience” were all the rage on the left during the Vietnam War and the draft,” and it’s high time we tried the same tactic on them: Catholic institutions should simply ignore the law, refuse to implement it, and refuse to pay the Obamacare fines — and dare the Left utter a peep about “higher morality.” There are 77 million Catholics in the U.S., and an awful lot of them vote.

In other words, Archbishop Dolan and his confreres ought to ask themselves, What Would Dagger John Do? No need for mobs this time, just morals. But if they’re not going to vigorously defend their own faith, in a Church Militant sort of way, who will?

Here in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, we have our own “Dagger John” in Fr. Martin Fox — the Piqua Puncher:

In 236 years, never has our government interfered with your freedom to practice our faith. We have been free to live our faith here; until this moment.

If we do not comply, we will be fined. I tell you, as long as I am your pastor, we will not obey! They can take me to jail.

Now, we have hope that the courts will strike this down, it’s so outrageous. But we might have hoped the courts would do the right thing 40 years ago, but they didn’t.

Who will speak up? There are 70 million Jonahs; 70 million Apostles in this country. God calls us.

I sprinkled you with water today, recalling your baptism. You were chosen to share his mission; you’ve already been called.

* The omission of the word “President” before the White House occupant’s name isn’t accidental. That gangster isn’t worthy of the title.

Next Page »