Digest of Today's Posts (30 May 2008)

Using Food for Fuel ...

Amy Welborn on Abp. Naumann and Gov. Sebelius [UPDATED]

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (29 May 2008))

Highlighted from Yesterday

Obama-Supporting Catholic Priest Thinks White People Should Give Up 401(k) Accounts to Make Amends for Slavery [UPDATED]

Using Food for Fuel ...

... one of the STUPIDEST ideas EVER!

See The Curt Jester's aptly titled post "No Blood for Ethanol":

Speaking on Vatican Radio, Msgr. Volante said: "It is not ethically just to use food for purposes other than human consumption, when there are people who suffer from hunger."

One way to actually make a reality of the Malthusian nonsense engaged in by the environmental doom and gloomers is to utilize our technological advances in agricultural production NOT to feed our populations but rather to fuel our economies.

Amy Welborn on Abp. Naumann and Gov. Sebelius [UPDATED - link fixed]

Amy Welborn talks "A bit of politics".

(Hat tip: Custos Fidei)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
LA Slimes Columnist Defends Sebelius Against Bob Novak Op/Ed; Calls Opus Dei "Sinister" Organization with Fascist Ties

Robert Novak on the Possibility of Sebelius as Obama's Running Mate: "A Vice President for Abortion"

Q and A With Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

Bill Donohue: "Catholic Left Hangs Itself"

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

"Scandalous"

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Digest of Today's Posts (29 May 2008)

Is the "Catholic Conservative" Vote in Play?

The Pope's Social Encyclical ...

Obama-Supporting Catholic Priest Thinks White People Should Give Up 401(k) Accounts to Make Amends for Slavery [UPDATED]

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (28 May 2008))

Highlighted from Yesterday

LA Slimes Columnist Defends Sebelius Against Bob Novak Op/Ed; Calls Opus Dei "Sinister" Organization with Fascist Ties

Obama's "Opportunity Costs" [UPDATED]

Is the "Catholic Conservative" Vote in Play?

Brian Burch writes at the Fidelis Blog:

Douglas Belkin writes in the WSJ today (subscription required) that traditional Catholic conservatives, namely those who vote pro-life, may be up for grabs in November. Belkin quotes an Ohio woman who is pro-life who cites objections to the war and frustrations with the economy. In doing so he suggests that voters like her, who are pro-life and have voted Republican, may vote for Obama instead.

I don’t buy it.

[More]

The Pope's Social Encyclical ...

... hasn't even come out yet, and already some are once again jumping the gun in prematurely condemning those who they assume will be out of step with what the Holy Father will have to say.

This isn't the first time this has happened. Prior to the release of Spe Salvi, many assumed the Pope's second encyclical would be a social encyclical and, just as they do now, got an early start on indentifying those who would balk at and/or try to spin the Holy Father's writings on the Church's social teachings.

However, when the second encyclical didn't pan out as anticipated, focus shifted to the upcoming third encyclical - once again with assumptions made about those who would be vindicated and those who would be roundly repudiated by the Pope.

All the speculation on whose hats will be handed to them by the Holy Father sorta reminds me of how Pope Benedict was going to come to America and deliver a scathing denunciation of Bush's Iraq War policies. Suffice it to say, that particular instance of counting eggs before they were hatched led to some major disappointment in various quarters.

Given that so many have so often guessed so wrong on how Joseph Ratzinger would perform as Pope, I think the most prudent and charitable posture to take until Caritas in Veritate is released is the one Blackadder urges:

Perhaps we should wait and see what the encyclical actually says [ED.: not to mention wait and see how the people being criticized actually respond to the encyclical] before we start condemning people for not abiding by it.

Obama-Supporting Catholic Priest Thinks White People Should Give Up 401(k) Accounts to Make Amends for Slavery [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: The Cranky Conservative)

We all remember the Catholic priest who Sharptonesquely called for the "snuffing out" of Chicago gun shop owners, right? Well, "Fr. Flakey" is back in the news, this time doing his best Jeremiah Wright impersonation:

This YouTube is now being sent to me by many readers. I'll have a transcript in a moment, but it features one of Obama's close friends, Fr. Michael Pfleger, preaching at Trinity United. This seems like an oddly-timed sequel to the Wright brouhaha, as we now have another Obama mentor giving a strikingly similar message.

UPDATE: Much like written words don't do justice to Jeremiah Wright's sermons, the video must be watched to be believed...

I must now to address the one who says, 'don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.' But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did! And unless you are ready to give up the benefits — Throw away your 401 fund! [sic] Throw away your trust fund! Throw away all the money that been put away in the company you walked into 'cause your daddy and your granddaddy and your great grandaddy —

(emphasis added)

Sound like many white people you know? Yeah, me either.

But wait, there's more:

... [garbled] expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don't want ot make this political, because you know I'm really very unpolitical...

***
Imitating Hillary's response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, 'Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

(mocks crying)

She wasn't the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!

[read the whole thing and watch the video].

(emphasis added)

As Jim Geraghty notes, "The argument that 401(k) accounts are inherent representations of white supremacy will be news to many, many Americans."

Uhhh, Cardinal George, I'm certainly not here to tell you how to do your job; but at some point you really ought to do something about this nutcase.


UPDATE
Elizabeth Scalia (aka The Anchoress) also has a post on this subject over at InsideCatholic.


UPDATE #2
Also at Creative Minority Report.


UPDATE #3
Obama “disappointed,” Pfleger “deeply sorry” for comments about Hillary

Wouldn’t you know it, not only is Obama surprised to find his friend of 20 years spouting the sort of rhetoric for which he’s famous in Chicago for spouting, but Pfleger himself sounds surprised. Amazing how much he and his circle of confidants managed to miss about their own behavior over the past few, er, decades.

[Read the whole thing]

Obama is, once again, shocked, shocked. I can't say it any better than this:

Funny how these longtime acquaintances of [Obama's] keep “surprising” him with incendiary racial rhetoric.

And here's the Pfleger endorsement of Obama that has apparently been "disappeared" from the Obama website:



UPDATE #4 (30 May)
Fr. James Martin, S.J., writing at the America Magazine group blog In All Things, reflects on what was most offensive about Pfleger's remarks:

... But there is a much simpler reason why the sermon was so unchristian: because it was uncharitable. Even when confronted the most unrepentant of sinners, Jesus of Nazareth never mocked, but only showed compassion, and gave people the benefit of the doubt. Or, as St. Ignatius of Loyola said in his sixteenth-century classic, the Spiritual Exercises, "Every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it." That includes Hillary Clinton. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Seeing a Catholic priest belittle another human being, and publicly impugn her motives, from a pulpit was shocking to many people. It seemed fundamentally wrong. And it is, for contempt has no place in Christian discourse...

Certainly Pfleger's comments about Hillary! were deeply uncharitable. But she wasn't the only person treated uncharitably.

Pfleger's remarks basically accused ALL white people of piggybacking through life on the efforts of black people who were enslaved by our white slave-holding ancestors (as if we all have a slavedriver somewhere in our family tree - never mind that many of our ancestors may have arrived on these shores AFTER slavery had been abolished; or as if none of us have ancestors who paid the ultimate price in the War that ultimately freed the slaves).

And the notion that those of us who have been able to put back a portion of our own hard-earned dollars for our retirement are somehow obligated to give that "back" (to whom are we to give it, by the way?) in order to be "absolved" from our "sin" of just happening to be "white" is not only completely lacking in charity, but is racist. And racism, as we all know, was recently listed as an intrinsic evil by the USCCB in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

Fr. Pfleger owes an apology to more people than just Hillary! He owes an apology to ALL those he impugned as guilty of white supremacy for the mere crime of being white.

And this is the sort of "religious" figures with whom Obama has chosen to surround himself. "Post-racial", indeed.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Proposed Legislation Would Protect Access to Gun Stores

Catholic Priest Calls for "Snuffing" of Gun Shop Owner and Politicos Who Support 2nd Amendment

Digest of Today's Posts (28 May 2008)

LA Slimes Columnist Defends Sebelius Against Bob Novak Op/Ed; Calls Opus Dei "Sinister" Organization with Fascist Ties

Obama's "Opportunity Costs" [UPDATED]

National Catholic Register: "Marriage Is a Key Election Issue

National Catholic Register on "Our Lady's England"

Blessed Margaret Pole's Day, May 28

Thomas More Law Center Takes Case of University of Toledo Administrator Fired for Criticizing Gay Rights; Alleges First Amendment Violation

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (27 May 2008))

LA Slimes Columnist Defends Sebelius Against Bob Novak Op/Ed; Calls Opus Dei "Sinister" Organization with Fascist Ties

(Hat tip: Custos Fidei)

We've already noted it before, but boy, are the donks REALLY angry over the increasing unlikelihood that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius will be of use to them in winning over the Catholic vote as Obama's running mate. Witness this hit piece in today's Los Angeles Slimes:

... Now, because of Sen. Barack Obama's perceived problems with blue-collar Catholic voters in the late Democratic primaries, some on the right think they see an opportunity to hammer once more on the abortion wedge. Their most public target is Kansas' second-term governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who many believe is the front-runner for the vice presidential slot if Obama secures the nomination.

Sebelius would help the Illinois senator in several obvious ways -- she's a woman, a Catholic and a Democratic officeholder who has successfully reached across the aisle to make strong Republican allies in a deeply red state.

***
Recently, however, she has run afoul of Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas. As the Catholic News Service reported earlier this month, the bishop has told the governor that she "should stop receiving Communion until she publicly repudiates her support of abortion and makes a 'worthy sacramental confession.' "

***
Now there's about as nasty and as utterly avoidable a church-state confrontation as you're likely to see.

That's probably why it was gleefully seized on this week by redoubtable right-wing hit man Robert Novak, who denounced Sebelius in a column titled "A Pro-Choicer's Dream Veep." In the column published in the Washington Post, Novak asserted that Sebelius' "positions are necessary for Democratic politicians to pass their party's pro-choice litmus test, but Sebelius' connection with abortion is more intimate. ... There is substantial evidence she has been involved in what pro-life advocates term 'laundering' abortion industry money for distribution to Kansas Democrats."

The source of those allegations?

Operation Rescue.

***
But hey, guilt by association is fun to play -- and almost nobody is as practiced at it as Novak -- so why not take it in a different direction? Novak is a relatively recent convert to Catholicism, and the priest who helped him into the church is Father C. John McCloskey, who also has been instrumental in obtaining the conversions of, among others, Alfred Regnery, the country's foremost publisher of extreme right-wing literature; Lewis Lehrman, the former New York gubernatorial candidate and conservative think-tank impresario; former GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas; and economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow.

McCloskey also happens to be a priest of the ultra-conservative and secretive -- some would say sinister -- Catholic organization Opus Dei. You don't have to buy into Dan Brown's preposterous caricature of Opus Dei in "The Da Vinci Code" to know that it really never has fallen all that far from its roots in Francisco Franco's Spain.

So, does that make Novak's rhetorical shivving of Sebelius part of a right-wing plot to bring the United States under the sway of neo-fascist clericism?

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
By the way, here are some photos posted by Operation Rescue of Sebelius with infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller:



Yeah, these photos, coupled with Archbishop Naumann's telling Sebelius to refrain from receiving Communion, ought to pretty much end the Obama camp's hopes of making Sebelius his running mate ... at least if they're serious about winning the Catholic vote.

And THAT is why the donks are mad enough to engage in the sort of Catholic-baiting nonsense like attacking certain Bishops as part of a right-wing cabal and labeling Opus Dei as a "sinister" organization with ties to fascism.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Robert Novak on the Possibility of Sebelius as Obama's Running Mate: "A Vice President for Abortion"

Q and A With Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

Bill Donohue: "Catholic Left Hangs Itself"

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

"Scandalous"

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Obama's "Opportunity Costs" [UPDATED]

Jim Geraghty writes at National Review Online:

So, unless you’ve paid no attention to the race so far, you’ve probably heard that Barack Obama could have made more money in the past by taking different jobs, but chose other ones.

From his strategist:

"This is a central part of his life and story," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. "He could have written his ticket at any law firm in the country. . . . He decided instead that he wanted to be a civil rights attorney, and he signed up with a small firm that had a reputation for doing this kind of work."

From his wife:

Michelle Obama: “Barack, yeah, went back to law school. So did I. But he didn’t go into corporate America and make a lot of money. He could have. What did he do? He became a civil rights attorney in a small firm in Chicago, and a Constitutional law scholar. Why? Because to whom much is given, much is expected. And when you’re given the gift of advocacy, you don’t sell it to the highest bidder, according to Barack. So Barack spent years in the shadows when no one was looking, working on issues of justice and fairness, housing discrimination, employment discrimination, voting rights.”

Also: "We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she told a group of women at a day-care center. "Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."

In his ads:

Obama’s law professor Laurence Tribe: “What was most remarkable about him was that even though he could have written his ticket with any Wall Street law firm and had offers for clerkships on circuit courts with a virtual pathway to a Supreme Court clerkship, he didn’t. He chose instead to go back to the South Side of Chicago and work with the community, registering voters, doing civil rights work. He was really just doing good things with his legal education. It was an inspiration to watch.”

And apparently it's been a longtime theme of Obama's campaigns. In David Mendell's biography of the Illinois senator, Obama: From Promise To Power, he writes: “By most accounts, in the Rush contest [the 2000 Democratic House primary] Obama was too fond of reciting his impressive resume, too often mentioned that he had forsaken a high-priced law firm for public office and too often spoke in the high-minded prose of a constitutional law lecturer, all of which could make him appear condescending to his audience.”

***
Clearly, this is something that Obama and those around him see as one of his key character strengths. He invokes this moral trump card almost as often as John Kerry told us he served in Vietnam.

(If Michelle Obama indeed believes the key criteria for picking the next president is the kinds of "choices he made while no one was looking," fine. I’m leaning towards the candidate who turned down early release from torturous imprisonment because he knew the purpose of his captors’ offer was to break the will of the other prisoners.)

[More]

My Comments:
My response to Obama's much-touted "sacrifice" (apart from noting that it seems a little unseemly to brag about such things - though, admittedly, I've been guilty of it myself)?

Big frickin' deal.

I mean people out in the real world make such sacrifices and entail such opportunity costs all the time. Moms decide to stay home and raise their own kids rather than go out and earn that second family income. Dads forego more lucrative employment so that they can spend more time at home with their families and in their communities. Families sometimes relocate to communities with fewer high-paying job opportunities so that their kids can be brought up in settings that meet their spiritual and educational needs. Civic-minded folks who might otherwise spend free time and disposable income engaging in leisure activities instead volunteer their time, efforts, and money toward building better communities. And anyone who goes into public service is, by definition, foregoing better-paying jobs in the private sector.

In short, Obama's story, while evidence of a commendable desire to serve the public interest, is neither unique nor indicative of his being especially qualified for the office of the President of the United States.

And besides, as Geraghty notes, if this presidential race is going to come down to who has sacrificed the most in service of the public interest, the guy who spent years in the Hanoi Hilton while serving his country in the armed forces - foregoing early release as long as his fellow POWs were still being held - wins that contest in a landslide.

Color me particularly unimpressed by Obama's "sacrifices".


UPDATE (29 May)
More from Jim Manzi at National Review Online in "Obamerica":

I don’t have a visceral reaction to Barack Obama one way or the other, but I sure found his commencement address at Wesleyan to be pretty off-putting. He smugly put himself forward as an exemplar of the well-lived life, and proceeded from this to the more politically significant solipsism of imagining how much better America would be if it were filled with people who were a lot more like Barack Obama...

But during my first two years of college, perhaps because the values my mother had taught me —hard work, honesty, empathy — had resurfaced after a long hibernation. . . .

I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.

And I said yes.

***
I’m pretty far from being a John McCain booster, but does Obama not get that he’s running against a guy who spent the directly analogous years of his life in a fetid jungle prison being hung upside down and beaten with sticks until his bones broke?

And I said yes. Cry me a river, pal.

[More]

National Catholic Register: "Marriage Is a Key Election Issue"

Tom McFeely writes in the June 1-7 issue of National Catholic Register:

WASHINGTON — Defenders of traditional marriage say last month’s California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” is both a crisis and an opportunity.

Even before the decision was announced, Catholics and other supporters of traditional marriage had succeeded in placing an initiative on the November ballot next fall that would overturn the May 15 decision by amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

“When we win this in California, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, this will send shock waves throughout the country,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage.

Opponents of same-sex “marriage” stress that they aren’t downplaying the significance of the California decision when they predict it will galvanize Americans to reject the concept decisively at the ballot box.

They say that it’s precisely because the decision is so potentially damaging — because it explicitly equates discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with race-based discrimination — that it highlights to voters what’s really at stake in the national marriage debate.

Brown said the California decision has opened the door to challenges of churches’ hiring practices, tax-exempt status and other areas where they have policies based on their belief that homosexual conduct is immoral.

“In a nutshell, this decision opens up all sorts of fronts for undermining religious liberty,” Brown said. “There is no question that the decision has now made same-sex ‘marriage’ a major issue in the upcoming elections.”

[More - by subscription only]

(emphasis added)

National Catholic Register on "Our Lady's England"

From the June 1-7 issue of National Catholic Register:

LONDON — For five years, a group of 60 Catholics and Anglicans has been visiting the 84 Marian shrines in England that had been destroyed during the Reformation.

“We offered prayers and sacrifices to make reparation and atonement for our sins and the sins of our country,” said Frances Scarr, chairman of Art and Reconciliation Trust, at a press conference April 29. The conference was held, appropriately enough, at the Charterhouse, where proto-martyr St. John Houghton had served and where St. Thomas More had received spiritual formation during his four-year residency as a young man.

The “fruit of that prayer and sacrifice,” Scarr said, is a memorial, a sculpture entitled Mary Most Holy, which is scheduled to be unveiled next year in Chelsea near the very spot where the Marian shrines were burned...

***
Thousands of pilgrims, mainly Anglican and Catholic, visit the Catholic and Anglican shrines at present-day Walsingham, which also has ruins of the monastery destroyed during Henry VIII’s reign.

Art and Reconciliation Trust’s trustees include two Anglicans who are on the College of Guardians, the group that governs the Anglican shrine in Walsingham. One of these, Canon Martin Warner, the head of the College of Guardians, serves at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. Patrons of the Mary Most Holy sculpture include Msgr. Graham Leonard, the former Anglican Bishop of London, who entered the Catholic Church in 1994 and served as president of the Path to Rome conferences, as well as Edward Fitzalan-Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, the highest-ranking duke and Catholic in England.

The Mary Most Holy sculpture will be a bronze triptych about 12 feet high and 10 feet wide. In the two side panels, iconoclastic thugs in modern dress are smashing the statues with sledgehammers. Some mock the figure of Jesus on the cross; one, however, mournfully cradles the decapitated head of Mary — “suddenly realizing that he is destroying the heritage that he and his family and his family’s family were devoted to,” sculptor Day said in an interview the day before the press conference. In the background are headless saints, their hands folded in prayer.

[More - by subscription only]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
London: Plans Unveiled for Memorial to Pre-Reformation Shrines [UPDATED]

A Memorial in Chelsea to the Marian Shrines Destroyed in the English Reformation

Blessed Margaret Pole's Day, May 28

From the Medieval Saints Yahoo Site:

Blessed Margaret Pole

Also known as Margaret Plantaganet

Martyered: imprisoned in the Tower for two years and then beheaded "by a clumsy novice" 1541 at East Smithfield Green, EnglandBeatified 1886 by Pope Leo XIII

Commemorated May 28


The Story of Blessed Margaret Pole

There has always been a Catholic Mission at Havant. However, it is only through the dark days of penal times that the story of Havant's Catholic Community starts to come to life. Our story begins with the stubborn refusal of the people in this small corner of Hampshire to give up the old faith with the onset of the Reformation. The Reformation was in its infancy; before the minority of extreme Protestants had seized upon Henry VIII's split with Rome to sweep the church in England into a path that was to take it further away from the old beliefs and practices than Henry had ever wished or intended.

Our story begins at Warblington - a castle within sight of the sea, less than a mile from the centre of Havant.

In 1514 the Manor of Warblington passed into the hands of Margaret Pole who had been granted the title of Countess of Salisbury and permitted to succeed to her brother, Edward Earl of Warwick's estates in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Essex.

Margaret Pole was the last of the surviving members of the Royal House of Plantagenet and, as such, dangerously close to the throne ofEngland. Her father, the Duke of Clarence, had been murdered by his brother Edward IV and her brother had been put to death by Henry VII, probably because King Ferdinand of Spain had refused his daughter, Catherine of Aragon, to marry the Prince of Wales while this Plantagenet Prince lived to challenge the Tudor claim to the throne.

Catherine of Aragon afterwards believed that her own unhappiness in failing to bear a living son had come as a judgement because her marriage had been made in blood. She behaved with great compassion towards the murdered man's sister, an affection which Margaret Pole repaid with love and staunch support.

Margaret was made godmother and 'lady governess' to Princess Mary, a position which she kept after Catherine's divorce in 1533. Then, in 1534 came the formal separation from Rome. Henry was proclaimed supreme head of the Church in England and the people of England were forced to take sides in the King's quarrel. 'Either acknowledge King Henry as head of the church, or refuse and pay the penalty'. Men like Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher publicly refused to admit the King's right to such a title and died for their stubbornness. Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was firm in her opposition to this new regime. Her lack of loyalty soon made her an enemy of the King and his new Queen. The Royal Commissioners took the Princess Mary from the Countess's care, and Margaret retired to Warblington.

Margaret possibly thought that, in this quiet part of Hampshire, she would be far from the Royal displeasure and be allowed to practice her Catholic faith in peace. However, such thoughts were soon cut short due to the activities of her youngest son, Reginald Pole. Reginald wrote some material denouncing the King's break with Rome. He called him 'wanton, a lecher, an adulterer and a heretic.... '. This provoked Henry to an intense hatred which embraced the whole Pole family. King Henry tried to have Reginald assassinated but he was in Italy and evaded the King's reach. Matters were made worse when Reginald was made a Cardinal. Reginald's brother, Lord Montagu, was executed for seeking absolution from Rome and his son Henry, still a child, was imprisoned in the Tower, as was Edward Courtney, son of Lord Exeter. (The purge had begun).

Margaret was arrested at Warblington on 12th November, 1538. She was taken to Cowdray Park and cross-examined by Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton and Goodrich, Bishop of Ely. No treason was proved against her.

The Castle at Warblington was searched, and some Bulls granted by the Bishop of Rome were found. Also, some vestments, depicting the Five Wounds Of Christ, were found. Henry declared that this connected Margaret Pole with the 'Pilgrimage of Grace'. It was also stated that she refused to allow her tenants to have the New Testament in English and corresponded with her son the Cardinal. Parliament passed an Act of Attainder on June 28th, 1539 and Margaret was removed to the Tower, where she was imprisoned until her death two years later.

Margaret Pole was one of the English Martyrs declared Blessed by Pope Leo XIII. In some contemporary notes on the Consecration of St. Joseph's Church, Havant, in 1907, it is stated that; "She is specially honoured in the Diocese of Portsmouth and is one of the Saints for whom Havant Catholics should have a special veneration."

---------------------------

More on Blessed Margaret Pole at:

http://www.stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id718.htm
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0528.htm#marg
http://www.hullp.demon.co.uk/SacredHeart/saint/BlessedMargaretPole.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARGPOLE.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09656b.htm

Thomas More Law Center Takes Case of University of Toledo Administrator Fired for Criticizing Gay Rights; Alleges First Amendment Violation

(Hat tip: Dave Hartline at The Catholic Report)

From Catholic News Agency:

Ann Arbor, May 26, 2008 / 03:24 pm (CNA).- An administrator at the University of Toledo who was fired for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of homosexual rights to the civil rights struggles of African Americans and expressing her Christian views against homosexuality has accused the university of violating her First Amendment rights when it terminated her employment earlier this month.

Crystal Dixon, former associate vice president of human resources at the state-run University of Toledo, argued in an April 18 column in the Toledo Free Press that those “choosing the homosexual lifestyle” should not be considered “civil rights victims.” Dixon, who did not identify herself in the column as a university administrator, said that while she cannot change her identity as a black woman, “thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle.”

She also quoted two passages from the Bible, one concerning the nature of marriage and another saying that one should hate the sin but love the sinner.

Following a decision by the university to fire her for her views, Dixon spoke to a group of about 60 people at her church, the End Time Christian Fellowship, saying the issue is not the correctness of her beliefs but whether she is free to express them.

“This is a matter of principle, plain and simple,” she said.

Thomas A. Sobecki, Dixon’s attorney, said she was fired from her job “because she exercised her right to free speech… She spoke about something certain people at the university disagreed with.”

“She doesn't want to sue; she'd rather be working right now,” he said.

Dixon has also retained for her defense the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Abor-based organization which says it is “dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians.”

“Essentially she was fired for being a Christian,” argued Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

“Crystal Dixon is a courageous Christian woman whom we are privileged to represent,” Thompson continued. “The University of Toledo brags about being friendly to ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals.’ They apparently are also proud of their hostility toward Christians.”

“Where is the so-called free expression of ideas that universities so adamantly defend in other contexts?” he said.

Crystal Dixon has launched a web site at www.crystaldixon.com, “Crystal Dixon: Faith and Free Speech Defender,” to explain her story and to ask for donations.

My Comments:
Typical university mentality: tolerance for me, but not for thee.

On a somewhat related matter, several recent graduates* of Norwalk St. Paul High School are headed to University of Toledo this fall. I know for a fact that at least some of them are quite serious about their Faith. I hope the atmosphere of political correctness at U of Toledo doesn't negatively impact these young peoples' spiritual worldview, but instead challenges them to stand up for their Catholic principles. (And let's just pray that a certain "Catholic theologian" at U of Toledo doesn't "challenge" their Faith in other ways.)


* I LOVE the photo of the guys smoking stogies, by the way.

Digest of Today's Posts (27 May 2008)

"Pro-Abortion" Chutzpah ...

Deal Hudson: "Are Religious Conservatives and the GOP Headed for a Divorce?"

Robert Novak on the Possibility of Sebelius as Obama's Running Mate: "A Vice President for Abortion"

Q and A With Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

What Kind of Supreme Court Justices Would a President Obama Appoint?

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (26 May 2008))

"Pro-Abortion" Chutzpah ...

... is what it takes to write - as one commenter recently did at this InsideCatholic post - something like this:

I must once again take issue with your use of the term "pro-abortion," especially in reference to any Catholics. [ED.: So, then, there are NO people who call themselves Catholic who could be considered "pro-abortion"? NONE? At all?]

That term suggests that the well-intentioned Catholics who support Obama [ED.: I'll admit that there are "well-intentioned" Catholics who support Obama. But they're the ones voting for Obama IN SPITE OF his record on abortion. They're most definitely NOT the ones who are trying to "baptize" Obama's position on abortion as "not pro-abortion" and making it out to be some sort of middle ground that is actually preferable to what pro-lifers have been doing for the past 35 years.] want to increase abortions; seldom have there been more ridiculous assertions in this primary campaign.

The Catholics supporting Obama, including Sebelius, who are pro-choice have explained their position, which clearly shows their disdain for the practice of abortion [ED.: Are you kidding me? If their actions (not just their words) "clearly show[ed] their disdain" for abortion, then we wouldn't have so much confusion on the issue. I mean, we wouldn't have the spectacle of Governor Sebelius being denied Communion by her Archbishop if she so "clearly shows [her] disdain" for abortion. Would we? Maybe "clearly shows" means something else to these Obamaphiles than it does to most plain-speaking people.] as well as their frustration with the inability of 30 years of mostly Republican appointments to make any progress on the abortion issue. [ED.: WTF? Is this person REALLY trying to claim that Sebelius et al are frustrated that Republicans haven't done MORE to end abortion? More on this below.] What is more, they outlined the many other issues on which they find Senator Obama the best candidate, the least of which is not his pledge for a new politics [ED.: Again with the bald assertion not backed up by anything even close to resembling reality. What concrete steps has Obama EVER taken to show an ability or even an inclination to be anything other than a typical left-liberal Democrat politician? Where is this "new politics" evidenced in his record? Or even on the campaign trail?] in which the searing vituperation of terms like "pro-abortion" would have no home. [ED.: Is that a threat? Is that term suddenly going to find itself on an index of "hate speech"? I can tell you right now, hotshot, that as long as there are politicians who support legalized abortion on demand, there will be plenty of people out here for whom "pro-abortion" will continue to be a legitimate term for describing those committed to that agenda, "new politics" be damned.]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

How does one claim with a straight face that "pro-choice" Catholics like Sebelius have "clearly shown ... their frustration with the inability of 30 years of mostly Republican appointments to make any progress on the abortion issue"?

Yes, and of course, those "pro-choice" Catholics like Sebelius (and Kennedy and Leahy and Durbin and Biden, etc., etc.) - all of whom so "clearly disdain" abortion - have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the inability to make any progress on the abortion issue. No, not at all. /sarcasm

The biggest coup during this election season has been the ability of Obama-supporting Catholics to turn Democrat intransigence on the issue of legalized abortion-on-demand into a liability for the Republicans. They work overtime to keep any progress from being made to end abortion, and then have the nerve to say "Look at those Republicans; they haven't done anything to end abortion." But, of course, that's the height of hypocrisy to blame your opponent for that for which you are chiefly responsible.

Look, I'll say it and mean it: the Democrat Party is a pro-abortion party to its very core. The Democrat Party will not compromise on the issue because they believe legalized abortion-on-demand to be in the common good. As Archbishop Chaput wrote last week:

... very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one... Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children.

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Robert Novak on the Possibility of Sebelius as Obama's Running Mate: "A Vice President for Abortion"

Q and A With Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

Bill Donohue: "Catholic Left Hangs Itself"

Make That a 101% "Pro-Choice" Rating

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion

Bishops' Document on Voting Refers to Purely Hypothetical and Non-Existent "Candidate Who Takes a Position in Favor of ... Abortion"

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

"Scandalous"

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Pro-Life Democrat Calls Being Pro-Life and Voting for Obama "A Psychological Impossibility"

National Catholic Register: "Obama and Abortion"

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield"

Obama "Post-Partisan"? Ask John Roberts

Obama and the "Pragmatic Center"

Sen. Moloch H. Obama Celebrates Abortion, Warns Supreme Court Could Reverse Roe

National Catholic Register: "Religious" Democrat Barack Obama Sticks to the Abortion Line

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

Obama, Clinton Slam Supreme Court on Abortion Ruling

Democratic Candidates for President Give Unanimous Pro-Abortion Views

During First Debate, Democrats Back Abortion, Criticize Efforts to Save Terri Schiavo

Reaction to Court’s Abortion Ruling Falls Along Predictable Party Lines

Deal Hudson: "Are Religious Conservatives and the GOP Heading for Divorce?"

(Hat tip: Custos Fidei)

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

On May 22, 2008,a new era began in the history of what is called the Religious Right. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain rejected the endorsements of two of the leading Evangelical pastors in the United States, Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsley. The impact of McCain publicly disavowing these two major figures will create a new alignment among politically active religious conservatives and the political parties.

***
Within the past two months, McCain has unintentionally aggravated both Evangelicals and Catholics. Both groups had already responded to the McCain nomination with skepticism: Catholics because of McCain's position on embryonic stem cells, Evangelicals because of his blistering attack on Falwell and Robertson after the 2000 South Carolina primary.

As things stand, I believe Catholics are still in play for McCain, if his campaign conducts a vigorous outreach. L'Affaire Hagee will be harder for his campaign to overcome with Evangelicals without significantly ramping up their relationship with grassroots leaders.

And this is no small thing: McCain will need religiously ctive voters over the next five months. It's not the moderate voters who raise money, register voters, print and pass out voter guides, recruit their neighbors, and drive people to the polls. Moderates are... well... moderates. They don't bring passion to a campaign.

The fact is, McCain's moderates can't beat Obama's adoring groupies. With many religious conservative voters feeling benched, and others feeling outright rejection, the Religious Right will begin exploring other options for the investment of its energy. (Bob Barr, the newly nominated Libertarian Party candidate, may find himself the beneficiary of the present unhappiness.)

More likely, new leadership will emerge among religious conservatives propelled to the forefront by the national fight over gay marriage. McCain's best chance to recover their support would be to make the marriage issue a priority of his campaign. Lacking that, it will take another surprising circumstance to bring the Religious Right wholeheartedly back into the presidential campaign.

[More]

My Comments:
While I think there is likely to be something of a break between the GOP and religious conservatives during this election, it has very little to do with Hagee and Parsley. Hudson gives waaaay to much credit to those guys when it comes to how much influence they have on evangelical voters - they're fringe at best. Up until my entering the Church 4 years ago, I was an evangelical and somewhat active in politics, and I'd never even heard of Hagee or Parsley until a few months ago.

So, yes, there's likely to be little enthusiastic support for McCain and the GOP from religiously conservative voters this year, but that has everything to do with policy priorities and very little to do with personalities.

Robert Novak on the Possibility of Sebelius as Obama's Running Mate: "A Vice President for Abortion"

(Hat tip: Brian Saint-Paul at InsideCatholic)

Columnist Robert Novak writes on Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius' abortion connections:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, whose Roman Catholic archdiocese covers northeast Kansas, on May 9 called on Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to stop taking Communion until she disowns her support for the "serious moral evil" of abortion. That put the church in conflict with a rising star of the Democratic Party, often described as a "moderate" and perhaps the leading prospect to become Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate.

Naumann also took Sebelius to task for her veto April 21 of a bill, passed two to one by both houses of the Kansas Legislature, which would strengthen the state's ban on late-term abortions by authorizing private lawsuits against providers. That followed by a year her veto of a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late abortion, which was preceded by vetoing other abortion legislation in 2006, 2005 and 2003.

Those positions are necessary for Democratic politicians to pass their party's pro-choice litmus test, but Sebelius' connection with abortion is more intimate. She is allied with the aggressive Kansas branch of Planned Parenthood in a bitter struggle with anti-abortion activist District Attorney Phill Kline. There is substantial evidence she has been involved in laundering abortion industry money for distribution to Kansas Democrats. Kansas is the fiercest state battleground for abortion wars, making Kathleen Sebelius the national pro-choice poster girl.

***
... Sebelius sits at the apex of a complicated Kansas financing system involving the famous abortion provider Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. She controls Bluestem Fund PAC, distributing money to Kansas Democratic candidates. Tiller, one of the few American doctors still performing late-term abortions, contributed $120,000 to the Democratic Governors Association in 2006, which has given $200,000 to Bluestem.

***
In her 2006 abortion veto statement, Sebelius declared: "My Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong." Yet, a year later, Sebelius invited Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor's mansion. She thanked Tiller for his generosity in financing her election and Morrison's. In May 2007, Sebelius was featured at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Kansas City, Mo.

[More]

My Comments:
Sebelius as the running mate of a presidential candidate who is 101% "pro-choice" seems to be a perfect match for the Party of Death. Moloch would be ecstatic.

The only catch is that Obama has made winning the Catholic vote a top priority, and I don't see picking someone who has been interdicted from receiving Communion by her Bishop as particularly conducive to that effort.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Q and A With Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

Bill Donohue: "Catholic Left Hangs Itself"

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

"Scandalous"

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Q and A With Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

From Creative Minority Report:

Two weeks ago Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann publicly asked Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to refrain from receiving Communion because of her support of legalized abortion. This started a political firestorm on television, talk radio, and the internet. Today, the Archbishop Naumann devoted a page and a half of The Leaven, the archdiocesan newspaper, to answer questions raised by his decision...

My May 9 column, making public my request to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not to present herself for reception of holy Communion until she had sought to repair the public scandal of her long-standing support for legalized abortion, not surprisingly has initiated quite a bit of discussion in secular newspapers, local talk radio shows and coffee-break conversations. I have personally received a significant number of pro and con communications. While I attempt to acknowledge every letter I receive, it is not possible for me to make an in-depth response to each one. Similarly, it is not possible for me to respond to every newspaper editorial, letter to the editor or radio caller. In this column, I want to provide you with my responses to some of the more common questions and misunderstandings regarding my pastoral action. I hope this is helpful for your own personal understanding. However, I also hope that it makes you feel more confident and better informed so that you can explain to others who have questions and concerns...

***
Q. Why was the governor singled out for this pastoral discipline? Are there not others in elective office who hold similar positions?

A. Governor Sebelius holds the highest elective office in the state of Kansas, making her the most prominent Catholic in public life. It is a time-intensive process to enter into verbal and written dialogue, as is necessary, to insure a person is aware of the spiritual and moral consequences of their actions, as well as to understand the scandal their actions cause for others. It is my intention eventually, as much as the limitations of my own time permit, to have similar pastoral dialogues with other Catholics in elective office who support legalized abortion.

***
Q. Is it not wrong for the church to attempt to impose its religious beliefs on others?

A. While one can be a faithful Catholic and support a wide diversity of strategies on the vast majority of issues, it is not possible to compromise on the sanctity of human life.

For the Catholic in public life, the unequivocal defense of such a fundamental human right is not imposing one’s Catholic faith upon others. The fact that the church addresses the morality of such a basic right does not make this an exclusively religious issue. Just as supporting public policies that prohibit stealing, racism, or murder — moral issues also very clearly addressed by the church — is not an imposition of Catholic doctrine, neither is advocating for policies that protect human life in its earliest stages.

Q. Governor Sebelius says that she is personally opposed to abortion, but she supports the law protecting the right of others to choose an abortion. Why is this not a morally acceptable position?

A. Freedom of choice is not an absolute value. All of our laws limit our choices. I am not free to drive while intoxicated or to take another’s property or to assault someone else. My freedom ends when I infringe on the more basic rights of another. On a similarly grave moral issue 150 years ago, Stephen Douglas, in his famous debates with the future President Abraham Lincoln, attempted to craft his position as not favoring slavery but of the right of people in new states and territories, such as Kansas, to choose to sanction slavery. Being pro-choice on a fundamental matter of human rights was not a morally coherent argument in the 1850s, nor is it today. No one has the right to choose to enslave another human being, just as no one has the right to kill another human being. No law or public policy has the authority to give legal protection to such an injustice.

***
Q. Are not the actions of the church requesting Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion not to receive Communion really an attack on Democrats?

A. No. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York has made a similar request of former Republican presidential candidate and former mayor Rudy Giuliani. I encourage Catholics who are Democrats to remain Democrats, but to change the extremist position of the party on abortion. If the majority of Catholic Democrats objected to the platform of the party supporting legalized abortion, it would change tomorrow. In the end, to create an enduring public policy that will protect the right to life of innocent unborn children, we need to build a consensus that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

***
Q. Does the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church discredit it from being able to address moral social issues like abortion?

A. In logic, this type of argument is termed “ad hominem.” It is an attempt to attack personally one’s opponent in a debate, rather than make substantive arguments about the issue being debated. It is usually an indication of a weak position by the person making the “ad hominem” argument. What is needed is a substantive discussion of this important social and moral issue, not personal attacks!

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

"Scandalous"

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

What Kind of Supreme Court Justices Would a President Obama Appoint?

(Hat tip: Civics Geeks)

Here's just a sampling of what to expect from a President Obama's Supreme Court nominees:

... Judges as social workers

Obama has described his views on the role of the courts and the proper criteria for picking judges. In a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer, Obama explained:

Now there’s going to be those 5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases where the law isn’t clear. And the judge then has to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings. And in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves from being — from being dealt with sometimes unfairly. That the courts become a refuge for justice. That’s been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v. Board of Education.

Never mind that it is not the role of unelected life-tenured judges to act as advocates on behalf of certain groups or individuals, ignoring the actual text and meaning of the Constitution and various other laws in order to impose their own values as the "law of the land". What's worse, Obama doesn't even believe his own rhetoric regarding appointing judges who are "sympathetic enough to those ... who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves ..." when it comes to the MOST VULNERABLE AND POWERLESS among us - the unborn:

... Abortion extremism

On abortion, Obama is an absolutist. Last April, he took strong exception to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which had passed the House 281-142 and the Senate 64 [including 16 Democrats] to 33).

This is not simply then someone who believes women should have the last say in deciding whether to have an abortion, but one who believes that the courts should entirely displace the view of huge congressional majorities and public opinion to discern, as Calabresi bluntly puts it, “a constitutional right to dismember babies in a painful and somewhat violent way.” There is virtually no regulation or limit on abortion which Obama would likely find acceptable...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Make That a 101% "Pro-Choice" Rating

Obama’s Support for Judicial Imposition of Same-Sex "Marriage"

National Catholic Register: "Obama and Abortion"

Obama’s Laughable Judicial Philosophy: His Ridiculous Response to McCain's Speech on the Judiciary

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield"

Sen. Moloch H. Obama Celebrates Abortion, Warns Supreme Court Could Reverse Roe

National Catholic Register: "Religious" Democrat Barack Obama Sticks to the Abortion Line

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

Obama, Clinton Slam Supreme Court on Abortion Ruling

Democratic Candidates for President Give Unanimous Pro-Abortion Views

During First Debate, Democrats Back Abortion, Criticize Efforts to Save Terri Schiavo

Reaction to Court’s Abortion Ruling Falls Along Predictable Party Lines

Digest of Today's Posts (26 May 2008)

Memorial Day in Milan, OH

Memorial Day (In Memoria)

Memorial Day: "In Flanders Fields"

(Digest of Friday's Posts (23 May 2008))

Memorial Day in Milan, OH

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Americana Redux

Americana

Memorial Day (In Memoria)

(Originally posted Memorial Day 2006)

In memory of those who gave the "last full measure":






"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

~ Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Americana Redux (or, "I Love My Country and Honor Her War Dead, So I Must be a Bad Catholic")

"In Flanders Fields"

For the Greater Glory: "I am Catholic & I Love America and So Should You

Americana

In Memoria

Memorial Day: "In Flanders Fields"

In Flanders Fields
Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blowBetween the crosses row on row,That mark our place; and in the skyThe larks, still bravely singing, flyScarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead.Short days agoWe lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lieIn Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:To you from failing hands we throwThe torch; be yours to hold it high.If ye break faith with us who dieWe shall not sleep, though poppies growIn Flanders fields.