Over this past weekend, several people mentioned to me Representative Patrick Kennedy’s blast at bishops for allegedly dividing the nation on the issue of healthcare; you can view the video here. His remarks were sad, uncalled-for, and inaccurate.
The Catholic community in the United States hardly needs to be lectured to about just healthcare. We’ve been energetically into it for centuries. And we bishops have been advocating for universal healthcare for a long, long time.
All we ask is that it be just that -- universal -- meaning that it includes the helpless baby in the womb, the immigrant, and grandma in a hospice, and that it protects a healthcare provider’s right to follow his/her own conscience.
This is what the President says he wants; this is what we bishops say we want.
... from The Hill, which reports on the way Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has made himself into the fly in the ObamaCare ointment. While Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-NC) tries to whip 218 votes out of the Democratic caucus, Stupak claims to control 40 of those votes, thanks to the federal funding of abortions in the House plan. Stupak now threatens to collaborate with Republicans on a procedural motion that will kill ObamaCare for the session unless Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Nancy Pelosi allow an amendment to block all federal funding for abortions ...
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written. “I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion...
Written by Bishop Leonard P. Blair Monday, 26 October 2009
... Far from being immune from this trend [of separating out one's "spirituality" from organized religion], it would appear that Catholics form a significant part of it. Throughout the country we see things that earlier generations of believers would find incomprehensible from the perspective of both faith and human reason.
In the sphere of religious practice, for example, many who claim to be Catholic not only fail to go to Mass on Sunday, but reject the belief that one is obliged to worship God as part of a church community at the Sunday Eucharist in observance of the Third Commandment. This attitude also applies to the sacrament of penance and other religious obligations and practices that are the spiritual heart and soul of what it means to be a Catholic.
When it comes to living the faith, it has to be asked how any person familiar with the foundations of Catholic belief, the interconnection of the mysteries of faith and teaching on faith and morals, could honestly claim to be Catholic and at the same time reject, and even undermine, fundamental moral truths that the Catholic faith believes are part of the deposit of faith from the Apostles.
[...]
There will always be people who fail to live up to the religion they profess, but it is not rationally coherent to insist that one can be a Catholic and not accept the fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith.
The question then arises: who has the authority to say what is Catholic? Even if one were to reject the answer from the Catechism that I wrote about in my last Chronicle article, what the Catechism says is a simple fact of history that goes back to the very beginning of Christianity.
This leads to an even more fundamental question about the very nature of Christianity and the Church. Is it a human project or a divine one? If it is human, it simply reflects what human beings think at any given time. If it is divine, then it is a revelation of truths about God, human life and the world that require conversion and the obedience of faith. If the core beliefs of Christianity and the Catholic Church are a human project, then they can — to use a favorite contemporary expression — be “re-defined.” If they are of divine origin, then it is sinful humanity that is meant to be re-defined.
Every pastor in the Church, and all Catholics in relation to one another, have an obligation “to speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). The ultimate judgment of every person belongs to Christ alone, whom we await “to judge the living and the dead.” In the meantime, however, as St. Paul says, we must “proclaim the Word; be persistent, whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching” (2 Tim 4:2).
All of us need to pray and do penance for ourselves and others, because “God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:25f ).
... I read Maureen Dowd’s column in the New York Times yesterday in which she attacks the Catholic Church for…well, it is hard to tell exactly what she is attacking the Church for because her brushstroke is so wide...
What is clear is that dear Mo not only attacks the Holy Father (which, of course, is de rigueur), but she also goes after my own Bishop, Leonard P. Blair:
... The nuns are pushing back a bit, but it’s hard, since the church has decreed that women can’t be adversarial to men. A nun writing in Commonweal as “Sister X” protests, “American women religious are being bullied.”
She recalls that Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, who heads one of the investigations, moved a meeting at the University of Notre Dame off campus to protest a performance of “The Vagina Monologues.” [ED.: So, what's your point? Is this supposed to be considered a "bad" thing? By the way, have I mentioned lately that I LOVE my Bishop?] “It is the rare bishop,” Sister X writes, “who has any real understanding of the lives women actually lead.”
[...]
Marcy Kaptur, a Democratic congresswoman from Toledo and one of Bishop Blair’s flock [ED.: Don't even get me started on Marcy Kaptur], got a resolution passed commending nuns for their humble service and sacrifice. “The Vatican’s in another country,” she said. “Maybe people do things differently there. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will intervene.”
My Comments: Hey, Mo! I have just one thing to say:
Catherine Zeta-Jones!!!
Okay, that was a bit below the belt, I know. But that's about all the effort I can manage for one of Dowd's tantrums.
I'm afraid that if you want a more substantive response (and less ad hominem) to Mo Do's nonsense, you'll have to read it over at Fr. Z's blog or at Winters' piece linked above.
Alfred was a remarkable man. A brave and hardened warrior, he had grown up fighting the Danes at the side of his father and brothers who had been kings before him. A great leader and clever organiser, he was also - thanks to his mother - able to read in an age when few people could. He was educated, cultured and a gifted musician. He was also a devout Christian who had seen churches and monasteries destroyed and monks and priests slaughtered throughout the land by the invading Vikings. Was this to be the end of the Christian faith in these islands?
In January 878 Guthrum's Danish army had broken a treaty, and defeated Alfred in a surprise attack at Chippenham while the Saxons celebrated the end of the twelve days of Christmas. Every Saxon Kingdom had now fallen to the invading Vikings, and Alfred's two forts were all that remained of Saxon England.
In March, King Alfred oversaw the remains of his broken army digging earthwork defences around the tiny inland islands of Athelney and nearby Lyng, areas of higher ground surrounded by the miles of flooded marshland that were the Somerset Levels.
The story of Alfred burning the cakes dates from this time. While he was sheltering in the home of a herdsman, the herdsman's wife asked him to watch some cakes that were being baked. Alfred was so distracted by his desperate worries that he forgot the cakes and they were badly burned. Not knowing who he was, the woman returned and angrily shouted at him. Alfred meekly accepted the telling off.
When the Gospel was first preached in Britain, the island was inhabited by Celtic peoples. In the 400's, pagan Germanic tribes, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, invaded Britain and drove the Christian Celts out of what is now England into Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The new arrivals (called collectively the Anglo-Saxons) were then converted by Celtic missionaries moving in from the one side and Roman missionaries moving in from the other. (They then sent missionaries of their own, such as Boniface, to their pagan relatives on the Continent.)
In the 800's the cycle partly repeated itself, as the Christian Anglo-Saxons were invaded by the Danes, pagan raiders, who rapidly conquered the northeast portion of England. They seemed about to conquer the entire country and eliminate all resistance when they were turned back by Alfred, King of the West Saxons.
Alfred was born in 849 at Wantage, Berkshire, youngest of five sons of King Aethelwulf. He wished to become a monk, but after the deaths (all in battle, I think) of his father and his four older brothers, he was made king in 871. He proved to be skilled at military tactics, and devised a defensive formation which the Danish charge was unable to break. After a decisive victory at Edington in 878, he reached an agreement with the Danish leader Guthrum, by which the Danes would retain a portion of northeastern England and be given other concessions in return for their agreement to accept baptism and Christian instruction. From a later point of view, it seems obvious that such a promise could not involve a genuine change of heart, and was therefore meaningless (and indeed, one Dane complained that the white robe that he was given after his baptism was not nearly so fine as the two that he had received after the two previous times that he had been defeated and baptized). However, Alfred's judgement proved sound. Guthrum, from his point of view, agreed to become a vassal of Christ. His nobles and chief warriors, being his vassals, were thereby obligated to give their feudal allegiance to Christ as well. They accepted baptism and the presence among them of Christian priests and missionaries to instruct them. The door was opened for conversions on a more personal level in that and succeeding generations.
In his later years, having secured a large degree of military security for his people, Alfred devoted his energies to repairing the damage that war had done to the cultural life of his people. He translated Boethius's Consolations of Philosophy into Old English, and brought in scholars from Wales and the Continent with whose help various writings of Bede, Augustine of Canterbury, and Gregory the Great were likewise translated. He was much impressed by the provisions in the Law of Moses for the protection of the rights of ordinary citizens, and gave order that similar provisions should be made part of English law. He promoted the education of the parish clergy. In one of his treatises, he wrote:
"He seems to me a very foolish man, and very wretched, who will not increase his understanding while he is in the world, and ever wish and long to reach that endless life where all shall be made clear."
He died on 26 October 899, and was buried in the Old Minster at Winchester. Alone among English monarchs, he is known as "the Great."
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.
“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, [ED.: What you can't understand "for the life" of you - pun intended - is that "the biggest social justice issue of our time" is - and has been for over 30 years - the cause of protecting the unborn in law and in dignity. Once you've come to that realization and start to use your political power to further that cause, then maybe we'll start listening to the rest of your social justice pontificating.] where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person--that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when asked about a letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had sent to members of Congress stating the bishops' position on abortion funding in the health-care bill.
“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” [ED.: You wouldn't know "pro-life" from Adam. What chutzpah for this death merchant to lecture the Bishops on what it means to be pro-life! I deleted the choice words I first typed here. I'll leave it to Kennedy's Bishop to take him to task - more on that in a moment.] said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform[ED.: If I support it, it must be "Catholic", abortion funding notwithstanding.] because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord[ED.: Well, now you're talking within your area of expertise. You - and the rest of your clan - certainly know a thing or two about dissent and discord.]and I don’t think it’s productive at all.
(PROVIDENCE, R.I.)-The Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, today issued the following statement in response to a Cybercast News Service article that reported:
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.
“Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s statement about the Catholic Church’s position on health care reform is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. But the Congressman is correct in stating that “he can’t understand.” He got that part right.
As I wrote to Congressman Kennedy and other members of the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation recently, the Bishops of the United States are indeed in favor of comprehensive health care reform and have been for many years. But we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.
Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and morally responsible leadership for our state.”
(emphasis added)
My Comments: Typical Kennedy mindset: the Church isn't being truly"Catholic" unless it's supporting Democrats and Democrat policies.
But the gene pool at the compound in Hyannisport is getting shallower and shallower.
At least the previous generation of Kennedys had enough residual Catholicism to pretend to be faithful to the Church, and fudged their political preferences as being consistent with the demands of their faith because of their so-called "personal opposition" to the immoral B.S. for which they continued to vote and publicly advocate. Unburdened, however, by such hypocrisy - or by the need to be seen as the face of Catholic America, this present generation of Kennedy's - from Kathleen "Obama is more Catholic than the Pope" Kennedy Townsend right down to Patrick "disappointment to the Catholic Church" Kennedy - have absolutely no qualms about directly attacking the Church, her Bishops, and her Magisterial teaching.
... Many issues and concerns in addition to protecting the baby in the womb fall under the rubric of the right to life—child care, poverty, racism, war and peace, capital punishment, health care, the environment, euthanasia—in what has come to be called the consistent ethic of life. All those issues, and even more, demand our careful attention and promotion.
But the most pressing life issue today is abortion. If we're wrong on that one, we're just plain wrong.
When our critics—and their name is legion—criticize us for being passionate, stubborn, almost obsessed with protecting the human rights of the baby in the womb, they intend it as an insult. I take it as a compliment.
I'd give anything if I could claim that Catholics in America prior to the Civil War were "passionate, stubborn, almost obsessed" with protecting the human rights of the slave. To claim such would be a fib. But, decades from now, at least our children and grandchildren can look back with pride and gratitude for the conviction of those who courageously defend the life of the pre-born baby...
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --It appears House Democrats will likely not allow a vote on an amendment that would strip abortion funding from HR 3200, the legislation that will meld the three health care "reform" bills into one. Although a coalition of pro-life Democrats is hoping for a vote, it appears none is forthcoming.
Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat from Michigan, has been leading the way in an attempt to get an amendment that would remove the massive abortion funding and subsidies from the bill.
However, in a new report issued today, the Associated Press makes it appear that's not going to happen.
"Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail, since it likely would attract the votes of most Republicans as well as some Democrats. So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it," AP indicates.
[...]
However, abortion funding is still in the bill and, because it is, Stupak has said he will urge pro-life Democrats and Republicans to vote against the rules for debate on the health care bill.
“I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.”
At the time, I gave him “pro-life kudos” for that declaration, although I knew full well that he was merely grandstanding to bolster his pro-life creds, and that his statement almost certainly came with an expiration date. Michael Sean Winters was NEVER going to abandon his beloved Democrats over abortion coverage.
It was inevitable that Mikey Sean would need to come up with some justification for backing out of his promise.
Which is exactly why pro-life Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak is pushing to include Hyde Amendment language in the House version of the bill, and why the Democrat leadership keeps killing all such attempts.
President Obama, the man trusted by the USCCB to do the "right thing" on health care, has declared war on marriage and, by implication, the Catholic Church.
Speaking to the nation's leading homosexual rights lobbying group, the Human Rights Campaign, Obama said:
You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.
As Deacon Keith Fournier reports and comments, "The leading voice for this Cultural Revolution is now President Barack Obama."
The question becomes whether or not the leadership of the Catholic Church, both bishops and laity, are going to respond vigorously and loudly to Obama's direct challenge to one of its non-negotiable teachings.
How can the USCCB remain silent when the President of the United States said he wants Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
[...]
Perhaps the upcoming bishop's pastoral on marriage -- still a month away -- will provide an opportunity for more pointed comment on Obama's threat to the Defense of Marriage Act.
... the centerpiece action-item of this year's USCCB November Meeting has been leaked.
Currently weighing in at 57 pages, the final committee draft of "Love and Life in the Divine Plan" -- the US bishops' long-awaited pastoral letter on marriage -- was published in full late in the day by the National Catholic Reporter, which ran the proposed text alongside an editorial calling for it to be scrapped... at least, in its current form...
GOOD! That's outstanding news! We can be comforted by the fact that if the National Anti-Catholic Distorter hates it, it MUST be full of solid Catholic teaching on the sanctity of marriage.
And don't miss out on all the comments from the dissident readership of that rag, including several instances of proving "Anderson's Law" (a.k.a. the reductio ad pedophilium).
Rachel Living in the Real World; The View Hags, Not So Much [UPDATED]
I am a little embarassed to admit that there was a time in my life when I watched MTV's The Real World - more out of car wreck curiosity than anything else.
Of all the cast of characters that filtered through that show during its several seasons, Rachel Campos of The Real World San Francisco was one of my favorites. For obvious reasons. Not only was she a beautiful Latina woman, but she was an unapologetic spokesman for conservatism and traditional values (not that she always lived up to them in that particular cultural milieu) to an audience of MTV viewers who weren't likely to hear those values espoused anywhere else - at least not from a generational peer.
To his credit, Patrick Archbold apparently never watched The Real World. Last night, at Creative Minority Report, Patrick proclaimed
"I have never heard of [the now-married-with-6-kids] Rachel Campos-Duffy before. Nope. Didn't even know she existed."
Well, he's heard of her now and he's not likely to forget her anytime soon:
Mrs. Campos-Duffy filled in for Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the view as the token conservative. Only problem is Mrs. Campos-Duffy is no token anything.After announcing that she is having her sixth child on the show, she is asked by Whoopi Goldberg what she thinks of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Her answer is one of the absolute best that I have seen. Witness. (From the wonderful Newsbusters)
And, before I forget, congratulations to Rachel and her family on baby # 6.
Rachel Campos-Duffy, mother of five children under the age of 10 and an active member of Ashland, Wisconsin’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Community, just wrote what she calls a “love letter” to stay-at-home-moms. The letter is actually a book, “Stay Home, Stay Happy: 10 Secrets to Loving At-Home Motherhood,” which was published at the end of August by the Penguin Group.
In her late-night writing and editing of the new book, Campos-Duffy took care to include “common sense and practical ideas that we all need to be reminded of,” she said in a recent interview.
“I wanted to edify women who have chosen to be at home with their families,” she said.
The world at large can often be oblivious to what transpires in a home, including the ongoing efforts of stay-at-home mothers, Campos-Duffy said.
“There’s just not a lot of validation,” she said. “But it’s never been a better time to be an at-home mom.”
K Lo, I turned on the TV this morning, and the news woman, going to commercial said , " Next, the Vatican announces five new saints. Find out why people in Hawaii are celebrating." You can guess where my mind immediately went!
The surprise decision to bypass the usual formalities of canonization in the case of the newly minted President St. Barack - just 9 months into his presidency - is a news story just waiting to be written by the Archbold boys at Creative Minority Report or Jeff Miller at The Curt Jester.
The Nobel "Peace" Prize has, to some extent, been a politicized joke for many, many years. The award of the prize to, first, Jimmy Carter and then to Al Gore as overt slaps at former President Bush by the Nobel Committee might have been the icing on the cake ...
... but for this ginormous pantload of leftist Euroweenie excrement:
OSLO (AP) -President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
[...]
The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.
Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming...
Nobel Prize officially "jumps the shark".
What a joke! Somebody please tell me we're celebrating April Fool's Day 6 months early.
UPDATE So when do they change the name of this joke-of-an-award to "The Nobel Prize for Not Being George W. Bush"?
Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
[...]
The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
UPDATE #3 Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
"Ann" gets the prize for "Pathetic Catholic Shilling on Behalf of the Indefensible by Someone Not Named Tony or Doug".
Pretty sad, but hardly surprising, that some Catholics are uncritically celebrating this turn of events. But other Obama supporters are, quite rightly, a little embarassed by what has taken place. I mean, even Obama idolator Michael Sean Winters is "ambivalent" about the award.
Congratulations to President Barack Obama, recipient of the 89th Nobel Prize for Peace, as well as the fourth Nobel Prize for Not Being George W. Bush.
The NPFNBGWB was first established in 2002, when the Nobel Committee awarded its Peace Prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, ostensibly for monitoring elections in far-flung hellholes, but really for being the most prominent American critic of then President Bush's buildup to a war in Iraq. The NPFNBGWB returned after a short hiatus in 2005, when the prize went to the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei for refusing to confirm the existence of Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction before the war in Iraq — in other words, for standing up to Bush. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change probably deserved the Nobel in 2007 for spreading the word about global warming, but the committee wouldn't have dreamed of adding former Democratic Vice President (and almost President) Al Gore if it hadn't wanted to contrast his advocacy with Bush's climate denial.
Apparently, it wasn't enough for the Nobel Committee to swerve off the road to run over Bush once, then back up to run him over twice more. Even though the official representative of Ugly American culture and cowboy diplomacy has remained graciously silent in retirement, the committee decided to stick it to him one more time by choosing his newly minted successor, who has been in office for only nine months but has made some of the right noises about rejecting some of his global policies. There will of course be some bogus cover story about Obama's vision for nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace and climate change, but the anti-Bush message couldn't have been clearer if the Nobel had gone to Keith Olbermann.
This ill-concealed crusade is clearly damaging the prestige of the Nobel; the winners are supposed to be honored for their achievements, not for symbolizing the committee's grudges. And it probably won't do Obama any favors; he wants to be a leader, not a symbol, and honoring him for his rhetoric about a new American approach to diplomacy only reinforces the meme of his critics that he's merely a man of rhetoric...
Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary (Patronal Feast of the Diocese of Toledo) - 7 October
Cathedral of Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Toledo, OH
Today is the patronal feast of the Diocese of Toledo. It also marks the beginning of the 2-year-long celebration (from October 7, 2009 through October 7, 2011) to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Catholic Diocese of Toledo in 1910.
The festivities kick off at 12 Noon today with a televised Mass from Rosary Cathedral that will be aired internationally on EWTN:
October 7, 2009 Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary Principal Patroness of the Diocese of Toledo
Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Cathedral 2535 Collingwood Blvd., Toledo. 12:00 p.m.
Celebrant: Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair, S.T.D. Bishop of Toledo
Information on EWTN's broadcast of the Mass:
CATHEDRALS ACROSS AMERICA: FEAST OF OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY LIVE (90 mins)
From Our Lady Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Cathedral in Toledo, OH. Bishop Leonard Blair, Celebrant and Homilist.
Wed 10/07/09 12:00 PM ET / 9 AM PT Wed 10/07/09 6:30 PM ET / 3:30 PM PT
The feast of the Holy Rosary was established by Saint Pius V on the anniversary of the naval victory won by the Christian fleet at Lepanto, October 7, 1571. The victory was attributed to the help of the holy Mother of God whose aid was invoked through praying the Rosary.
The celebration of this day invites all to mediate upon the mysteries of Christ, following the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary who was so singularly associated with the incarnation, passion and glorious resurrection of the Son of God. From the Christian Prayer (Liturgy of the Hours)
Prayers
Collect: Lord, fill our hearts with your love, and as you revealed to us by an angel the coming of your Son as man, so lead us through his suffering and death to the glory of his resurrection, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
First Reading: Acts of the Apostles 1:12-14 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
Gospel Reading: Luke 1:26-38 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.
Apart from the signal defeat of the Albigensian heretics at the battle of Muret in 1213 which legend has attributed to the recitation of the Rosary by St. Dominic, it is believed that Heaven has on many occasions rewarded the faith of those who had recourse to this devotion in times of special danger. More particularly, the naval victory of Lepanto gained by Don John of Austria over the Turkish fleet on the first Sunday of October in 1571 responded wonderfully to the processions made at Rome on that same day by the members of the Rosary confraternity. St. Pius V thereupon ordered that a commemoration of the Rosary should be made upon that day, and at the request of the Dominican Order Gregory XIII in 1573 allowed this feast to be kept in all churches which possessed an altar dedicated to the Holy Rosary. In 1671 the observance of this festival was extended by Clement X to the whole of Spain, and somewhat later Clement XI after the important victory over the Turks gained by Prince Eugene on 6 August, 1716 (the feast of our Lady of the Snows), at Peterwardein in Hungary, commanded the feast of the Rosary to be celebrated by the universal Church. A set of "proper" lessons in the second nocturn were conceded by Benedict XIII. Leo XIII has since raised the feast to the rank of a double of the second class and has added to the Litany of Loreto the invocation "Queen of the Most Holy Rosary". On this feast, in every church in which the Rosary confraternity has been duly erected, a plenary indulgence toties quoties is granted upon certain conditions to all who visit therein the Rosary chapel or statue of Our Lady. This has been called the "Portiuncula" of the Rosary.
(Taken from Catholic Encyclopedia)
UPDATE I'm not sure what the delay is, but the Mass at Rosary Cathedral is not currently being shown on EWTN. It's somewhat annoying, as this is a big deal for those of us here in the Diocese of Toledo.
The Toledo Diocese will begin its centenary celebration today with a Patronal Feast Mass at Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary that will be broadcast live on the EWTN as part of their "Cathedrals Across America" program.
The Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair, S.T.D., Bishop of Toledo will be the Celebrant, with Assisting Deacons James D. Caruso, and Ronald D. Henderson and Gospel Deacon Alfredo M. Diaz. The Most Reverend Robert W. Donnelly, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Toledo and the Most Reverend Albert H. Ottenweller, D.D. retired Bishop of Steubenville will participate as Concelebrating Bishops. Masters of Ceremony are the Very Reverend Michael R. Billian, VE, Reverend Charles E. Singler, D.Min., and Daniel J. Demski.
The 90 minute inauguration of the centenery year will include General Intercessions in nine languages in honor of the immigrant parishes in the diocese. The Mass will also include the debut of the winning submission in the diocese's Hymn Competition for the centenary celebration. The hymn was submitted by Toledoan Daniel J. Knaggs. The Centenary Cross will be blessed by Bishop Blair during the Mass and the cross will begin its centenary pilgrimmage across the 19 counties of the diocese.
Admission to today's Mass is by ticket only. The Mass will be broadcast live on EWTN at noon, and a will be repeated at 6:30 pm.
UPDATE #2 Finally, an hour late, the broadcast begins.
... Regrettably and unintentionally, Cardinal Cottier’s articulate essay undervalues the gravity of what happened at Notre Dame. It also overvalues the consonance of President Obama’s thinking with Catholic teaching.
There are several key points to remember here.
First, resistance to President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame had nothing to do with whether he is a good or bad man. He is obviously a gifted man. He has many good moral and political instincts, and an admirable devotion to his family. These things matter. But unfortunately, so does this: The President’s views on vital bioethical issues, including but not limited to abortion, differ sharply from Catholic teaching. This is why he has enjoyed the strong support of major “abortion rights” groups for many years. Much is made, in some religious circles, of the President’s sympathy for Catholic social teaching. But defense of the unborn child is a demand of social justice. There is no “social justice” if the youngest and weakest among us can be legally killed. Good programs for the poor are vital, but they can never excuse this fundamental violation of human rights.
Second, at a different moment and under different circumstances, the conflict at Notre Dame might have faded away if the university had simply asked the President to give a lecture or public address. But at a time when the American bishops as a body had already voiced strong concern about the new administration’s abortion policies, Notre Dame not only made the President the centerpiece of its graduation events, but also granted him an honorary doctorate of laws – this, despite his deeply troubling views on abortion law and related social issues.
The real source of Catholic frustration with President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was his overt, negative public voting and speaking record on abortion and other problematic issues. By its actions, Notre Dame ignored and violated the guidance of America’s bishops in their 2004 document, “Catholics in Political Life.” In that text, the bishops urged Catholic institutions to refrain from honoring public officials who disagreed with Church teaching on grave matters.
Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics. It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness – triggered by Mr. Obama’s views -- which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood.
Third, the Cardinal wisely notes points of contact between President Obama’s frequently stated search for political “common ground” and the Catholic emphasis on pursing the “common good.” These goals – seeking common ground and pursuing the common good – can often coincide. But they are not the same thing. They can sharply diverge in practice. So-called “common ground” abortion policies may actually attack the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus. The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn.
Fourth, Cardinal Cottier rightly reminds his readers of the mutual respect and cooperative spirit required by citizenship in a pluralist democracy. But pluralism is never an end in itself. It is never an excuse for inaction. As President Obama himself acknowledged at Notre Dame, democracy depends for its health on people of conviction fighting hard in the public square for what they believe – peacefully, legally but vigorously and without apologies...
... Asked by NCR if there were any other bishops who agreed with him, Archbishop Sheehan replied, “Of course. The majority.” This majority, he said, only remained on the sidelines so as not to start a public internecine fight.
Thus, if Sheehan is correct, a majority of the American Catholic bishops opposes the official policy that they themselves established in their June 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life.” That document told the world that, “the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” The protesting bishops based their opposition on this plain, unambiguous declaration.
But if, as Sheehan contends, a majority of the Catholic bishops in the United States actually disagrees with this policy, why did they vote for it in the first place? What sort of organization officially adopts a policy that most of its leaders reject? Such patent dishonesty seems rather more detrimental to the Church than “loud tactics.”
The archbishop thinks that opposition, even to a president as aggressively pro-abortion as Barack Obama, is to be deplored because it risks isolating Catholics from the rest of American society. But why should anyone think remaining in accord with a morally decadent society is somehow part of the Church’s mission? According to what principle is the Church supposed to lay aside her fundamental moral principles in order to conform to a society that has in so many respects long abandoned Judeo-Christian moral principles? Of course, the Church as a whole has not decided to “go along to get along” in this fashion. The only question is whether some bishops, as Sheehan’s statements suggest, are no longer in sync with the Church...
[...]
“Catholics in Public Life” and Ratzinger’s directive simply manifest the Church’s recognition of the seriousness of the American situation: More than fifty million babies have been killed by abortion since it was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. This rivals and in some cases exceeds the death tolls inflicted by the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, and Pol Pots of the twentieth century. Dozens of American Catholic episcopal statements have reiterated that abortion is in a class by itself, currently outweighing by far nearly all other public moral issues combined.
In his NCR interview, however, the archbishop effectively treats abortion as just one more issue. He brags that “we have gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty in New Mexico, which he was in favor of.” Sheehan goes on to admit that the same Richardson is another one of those pro-abortion Catholic politicians, whom he has evidently not “counseled,” however. His reaction when the interviewer mentions Governor Richardson’s pro-abortion stance is to ask defiantly (and here I quote directly), “So?” An archbishop of the Catholic Church thinks the death penalty constitutes an evil on the same scale as the unlimited abortion license.
God forbid that such obtuse and callous moral equivalence should represent the views of the majority of the American Catholic bishops. Sheehan should be pointedly rebuked by the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for venturing into the public print with views so much at variance with the USCCB’s official position.
My Comments: Do the American Bishops really mean what they say, at least with respect to abortion? Do they really believe abortion to be what they claim it to be?
On the basis of recentevents, one must wonder. (Although there is no doubt in my mind that there is a solid minority of Bishops - probably roughly equivalent to the 80+ Bishops, including my own, who rebuked Notre Dame for its decision to honor a pro-abortion President - who are seriously pro-life.)
(CNSNews.com) –The health care bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate do not bar federal funds from being used to pay for abortion, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) explains in a Sept. 30 letter sent to members of the Senate.
“So far, the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama’s challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws,” states the letter. “These deficiencies must be corrected.”
The letter also says, “We urge you to … Support a fair and just health care reform bill that excludes mandated coverage for abortion, and upholds longstanding laws that restrict abortion funding and protect conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential to clearly include longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding/mandates and protections for rights of conscience.”
IRONDALE, AL, October 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI has awarded EWTN foundress, Mother Mary Angelica, and Deacon Bill Steltemeier, Chairman of EWTN's Board of Governors, the Cross of Honor for distinguished service to the Church. The medal, officially known as "Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice" (literally "For the Church and the Pope"), is the highest honor that the Pope can bestow upon laity and religious.
The acknowledgement of Mother Angelica's work by the Pope is highly significant in light of high profile criticism that the EWTN foundress has sustained over her unwavering fidelity to the faith. Mother Angelica had to endure crushing criticism and even attempts to take over her station by various left-leaning Catholic bishops in the United States.
As Catholic League President Bill Donohue wrote in a 2005 review of Raymond Arroyo’s nationally best-selling book on Mother Angelica, some bishops actively fought EWTN at its inception. “Indeed, the bishops tried to outdo her by launching their own effort, the Catholic Telecommunications Network of America (CTNA). It was clear from the beginning that Mother Angelica was seen as a threat: EWTN had a traditional orientation and CTNA took a modernist stance. EWTN won. CTNA collapsed.”
Donohue added: “Mother Angelica did not take kindly to those clerics who questioned her authority to showcase some bishops, but not others. ‘I happen to own the network,’ she instructed. When told that this would not be forever, she let loose: ‘I'll blow the damn thing up before you get your hands on it.’”
From its beginning the station has placed a strong emphasis on explaining and defending Catholic moral principles related to life and family. It has extensively covered the annual Washington March for Life, featured numerous pro-life leaders and broadcasted exceptionally hard-hitting talks by EWTN regulars such as Fr. John Corapi, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of HLI and Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life.
[...]
EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 28th year, is available in over 150 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website http://www.ewtn.com/ and publishing arm, EWTN, is the largest religious media network in the world."
... In an opinion piece in London's the Independent, Weinstein Co. co-founder Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."
In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." ...
(emphasis added)
My Comments: Anally raping a 13-year-old girl against her will is a "so-called crime"? And he's "not convinced that public opinion is running against" such criminal behavior? What a big, fat jerk! Yeah, only the "best" values come out of Hollyweird.
A convert to the Catholic Church who became Catholic because of a belief in and devotion to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. * A graduate of Baylor University and the University of Virginia School of Law. * Former Mayor of the Town of Columbia, Virginia. * Married with four children: two boys and two girls. * Primary interests include the Catholic Church, family, Early American History, and law/politics * Primary purpose of this blog is fostering enlightened discussion about the roles played by the institutions of religion, family, and state in our daily lives. * Under the protection of St. Thomas More, martyr, and patron of lawyers, judges, civil servants, politicians, statesmen, and large families (not to mention troubled marriages).
O Glorious St. Thomas More, Patron of Statesmen, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers, your life of prayer and penance and your zeal for justice, integrity and firm principle in public and family life led you to the path of martyrdom and sainthood. Intercede for our Statesmen, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers, that they may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life - the foundation of all other human rights. We ask this through Christ our Lord. AMEN.
Pray that, for the glory of God and in the pursuit of His justice, I may be able in argument, accurate in analysis, keen in study, correct in conclusion, loyal to clients, honest with all, courteous to adversaries, trustworthy with confidences, courageous in court. Sit with me at my desk and listen with me to my clients' tales. Read with me in my library and stand always beside me so that today I shall not, to win a point, lose my soul.
Pray that my family may find in me what yours found in you: friendship and courage, cheerfulness and charity, diligence in duties, counsel in adversity, patience in pain -- their good servant, and God's first. AMEN.
Dear Scholar and Martyr, it was not the King of England but you who were the true Defender of the Faith. Like Christ unjustly condemned, neither promises nor threats could make you accept a civil ruler as head of the Christian Church.
Perfect in your honesty and love of truth, grant that lawyers and judges may imitate you and achieve true justice for all people. AMEN.
"Give me the Grace Good Lord, to set the world at naught; to set my mind fast upon Thee and not to hang upon the blast of men's mouths. To be content to be solitary. Not to long for worldly company but utterly to cast off the world and rid my mind of the business thereof."
"The ordinary acts we practice every day at home are of more importance to the soul than their simplicity might suggest."
*****
"What does it avail to know that there is a God, which you not only believe by Faith, but also know by Reason: what does it avail that you know Him if you think little of Him?"
*****
"The things that we pray for, good Lord, give us grace to labour for."
Give me, good Lord, a full faith and a fervent charity, a love of you, good Lord, incomparable above the love of myself; and that I love nothing to your displeasure but everything in an order to you.
Take from me, good Lord, this lukewarm fashion, or rather cold manner of meditation and this dullness in praying to you. And give me warmth, delight and life in thinking about you.
And give me your grace to long for your holy sacraments and specially to rejoice in the presence of your blessed body, sweet Saviour Christ, in the holy sacrament of the altar, and duly to thank you for your gracious coming. AMEN.
"It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life... In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life" (Centesimus Annus, #39).
Sense and nonsense
.jpg)
