The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

An interesting piece posted at Catholic Advocate:

... We now know the story: After months of public statements alternating between passionate endorsements of Obama’s “universal health care” legislation, sometimes qualified by calls for the bill to respect the right to life of all persons, CHA president Sr. Carol Keehan had a chance to show exactly where the CHA stood.

Negotiations had stalled in Congress as Democratic leaders’ flagrant bribing and arm-twisting of hesitant colleagues had failed to achieve clear majorities in favor of passage. The bill was held up by a small cadre of “pro-life Democrats” who, like the majority of the American people, claimed to find the bill’s expansion of federal funding for abortion unacceptable.

This small group threatened to bring down their own party’s largest domestic policy initiative in generations rather than consent to the largest expansion of abortion since Roe. In the end, however, all but a handful caved in to party pressure to support the bill, and the backbone of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), their erstwhile leader, simply crumbled into dust.

Although feverishly denied by its increasingly desperate proponents, every serious analysis of the Senate bill (the version that would eventually become law) found that it would in fact expand federal funding of abortion. Through an accounting loophole at the level of individual “care,” and through a seven billion dollar appropriation to community health centers, including Planned Parenthood, the law would circumvent Hyde amendment restrictions on federal funding for abortions.

That fact is what led the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to oppose the bill, even after the bishops had made it clear that many would have supported almost any version of the bill that didn’t expand abortion coverage. The bishops have been publicly supportive of government-funded universal health care since 1996.

Yet the controversial law ended up earning Sr. Keehan’s and CHA’s 11th-hour endorsement which, along with those of a coalition of female religious and various “Catholic” leftist groups, were cited by the bill’s proponents as proof that it had Catholic support.

[...]

The bill of course passed, and Sr. Keehan, for her efforts and on behalf of the CHA, received a “signing pen” from President Obama, one that was used put into law a bill that was opposed by every bishop, and every Catholic organization faithful to the Church.

So the CHA’s historically unprecedented power affected neither the legislation itself, nor the highly questionable means of its passage—it merely made its being signed into law possible by giving cover to a small handful of wavering Catholic Democratic congressmen...

[Read the whole thing]

Heavily quoted in this piece is a story from Catholic News Agency on a joint statement issued on May 21 by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Bishop William Murphy, and Bishop John Wester that reprimanded the CHA for wounding Church unity in acting as what I refer to as an "alternative magisterium" set up against the teaching authority of the Bishops:

"Catholic bishops: CHA wounded Church unity with health care endorsement".

Well worth the read.


(Hat tip: Deal Hudson)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

The Bishops Strike Back Against Dissenting Women Religious [UPDATED]

Sister Carol Disinvited from D.C.-Based John Carroll Society Speaking Gig

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Time for the BCS to Follow Suit

The NFL announced yesterday that the 2014 Super Bowl will be played in a cold-weather climate ... outdoors:

IRVING, Texas -- If you build it, they will come -- wearing winter coats.

The New Meadowlands Stadium, the $1.6 billion jewel co-owned by the New York Giants and Jets, will host the 2014 Super Bowl, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announced Tuesday afternoon at the league's spring meeting.

"It's a historic moment for the league," Goodell said.

Saying that New York is a unique market, Goodell added: "It will be a great experience for our fans. It will be a great experience for the NFL."

The league's 32 owners, undaunted by the prospect of a wintry championship game, awarded Super Bowl XLVIII to the New York/New Jersey region after also considering bids from Tampa and South Florida, both traditional sites. South Florida and Tampa have hosted the Super Bowl 10 and four times, respectively.

One commentator notes that the namesake of the trophy awarded to the Super Bowl winner would be thrilled:

"Lombardi would love this Super Bowl"

I agree, as does my friend the Cranky Con, that this is a good move:

... I have always thought they should play the Super Bowl in a cold weather city. It is ridiculous to see the championship game of a winter sport played in balmy 80-degree weather in southern California or Florida. Not that it is always inappropriate to play the Super Bowl in warm weather cities, after all there are franchises in these cities, but this is a welcome development ...

And now it's time for the powers-that-be at the BCS to follow suit and hold a “National Championship” game in a northern city. Under the current practice, which has been in effect for the past 3 years, the title game is no longer tied to any particular bowl, so there’s absolutely no reason why this couldn’t be done.

Football is a fall/winter sport meant to be played outdoors. In the elements. On REAL GRASS. Northern teams who are built to play in cold/wet-weather conditions on soggy fields are put at a disadvantage when they must travel to warm-weather climates every December and January to play bowl games against teams built to play in more moderate and dryer weather.

Let’s see how the SEC powerhouses or Southern Cal perform in a “National Championship” game in Big 10-type weather and field conditions.


UPDATE
My preference for scheduling an occasional cold-weather BCS "Championship" Game is applicable only so long as Division 1-A college football insists on this farce of definitively crowning a "National Championship". It becomes moot as soon as they do the right thing and return to the traditional bowl alignments*.


*Surely you didn't think I was going to call for a playoff, did you?


UPDATE #2
Ignore the cries and complaints regarding the NFL's decision (and my argument that the BCS should do the same thing) by those who believe playing football in 70+ degree weather or, Heaven forbid, in-frickin-doors, is some sort of birthright.

(Especially ignore the pissing and moaning if said complainer apparently happens to believe that his NFL team's having sniffed Super Bowl success for the first time in said franchise's entire history suddenly makes him some sort of expert and/or decider on where Super Bowls ought and ought not to be played. And especially, especially ignore the pissing and moaning if said complainer is still smarting from his college team's loss in the Capital One Bowl, despite said team's much-vaunted "overall team speed", to a "slow" Big 10 team because - waaaaaaah! - they had to play outside in the cold rain and muck.)

Besides, NFL football was being played and NFL Championships being decided in cold-weather climes for decades before the first Super Bowl was even played. Ironically, the coldest Super Bowl ever played - at 39° F - took place in the home city (at Tulane Stadium) of the team just now sniffing Super Bowl success for the first time in its history.

Must be Something in the Water Down in 'Bama

The political ads coming out of Alabama this year are quite something:















Almost like they're all trying to one-up each other.

Some Shameless Self-Promotion ...

... using a tool that I learned about from the Regular Guy:





UPDATE
By the way, I hope no one takes this seriously. I was just staying up too late last night having a little fun with the Google Search Stories tool and the comments from the "What They're Saying" portion of my sidebar.

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules NFL Not a Single Entity, But 32 Separate, Competing Businesses

This is probably the correct outcome:

... "Directly relevant to this case, the teams compete in the market for intellectual property," Stevens said. "To a firm making hats, the Saints and the Colts are two potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks."

American Needle was one of many companies that made NFL headgear until the league awarded an exclusive contract to Reebok. Lower courts threw out American Needle's lawsuit, holding that nothing in antitrust law prohibits NFL teams from cooperating on apparel licensing so the league can compete against other forms of entertainment.

But the high court turned away that theory and sent American Needle's antitrust lawsuit back to the lower court.

"Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that 'deprive the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking ... and therefore of actual or potential competition,' " Stevens said.

Just because NFL teams have a single organization, the National Football League Properties, to jointly develop, license and market its logos does not mean it can escape antitrust scrutiny, Stevens said.

"If the fact that potential competitors shared in profits or losses from a venture meant that the venture was immune from" antitrust law, Stevens said, "then any cartel" could evade the antitrust law simply by creating a 'joint venture' to serve as the exclusive seller of their competing products." ...

My Comments:
One NFL owner who is somewhat vindicated by this is Jerry Jones. He'll make a killing on separate licensing agreements of Dallas Cowboys paraphenalia.

Actor Jeremy Irons: “One Always Returns to the Fact That There Are Just Too Many of Us”

Guy with 7 mansions and a pink castle rants about "consumption", "sustainability" and "overpopulation":

The world is becoming so overpopulated that nature will one day wreak its revenge, claims Jeremy Irons, the actor.

Launching himself as a green campaigner, Irons has revealed plans to make a documentary about sustainability and waste disposal, likening himself to Michael Moore, the controversial film maker, although “not as silly”.

The increasing global population would put an intolerable strain on the world’s resources, Irons said, and the gulf between developing countries and westerners living a bountiful “pie-in-the-sky” existence must be addressed.

“One always returns to the fact that there are just too many of us, the population continues to rise and it’s unsustainable,” [ED.: "One" does, huh?] he said in an interview with The Sunday Times. “I think we have to find ways where we’re not having to scrap our effluent junk and are a really sustainable planet.”

[...]

In a film on the website 1billionhungry.org, Irons declares: “People around the world suffer hunger — 1 billion. Now that’s bad, worse than bad, that’s crazy! We’ve got to get mad. I want you to get mad. I want you to get up right now, stick your head out of the window and yell, ‘I’m mad as hell’.”

Irons, who owns seven houses, including a pink castle in Co Cork, Ireland, believes a new economic vision is needed in the wake of the global financial crisis. “We are facing an economic revolution,” he said. “I don’t think things can ever be the same again. The next generation will have to think laterally and find ways to cope with this.”

He dismissed the idea that a recovery in consumption would help Britain out of recession: “You walk down the high street and it’s just clothes, clothes, clothes. How many clothes do people need? [ED.: Asks the guy with 7 houses and a pink castle. "One" might very well ask: "How many houses do self-important, bloviating, pseudo-sophisticate actors need?] We’re on a hiding to nothing with that.

“We’ve always known the City was a bubble. We can’t continue to divide the world between people who live a pie-in-the-sky life [ED.: You mean, for instance, like some guy owning 7 mansions and a pink castle?] and people who are starving.”

Irons, who says he runs “very old motor cars” including a 13-year-old Range Rover, also launched an attack on today’s throwaway society. “Why does it make sense for us all to be buying a lot of motor cars [ED.: or houses?], selling our old ones and scrapping them? [ED.: Ah, I get it. You're not selling or scrapping your houses; you're accumulating on to them.] Why don’t we make cars that last for 40 years? We could,” he said.

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Actors ... is there anything they don't know?

Teen Suspended for Bringing Rosary to School

Check out the reasoning:

A devout Catholic teenager was suspended for the crime of bringing his rosary beads to school. The school claimed it could be showing gang affiliation or endangering “the safety, health, morals or welfare of himself or others”.

[...]

Yeah, this kid belongs to a gang all right. It’s called “the Catholic Church”, and those thugs are dangerous. They’ll shank you if you don’t watch your back!

In all seriousness, how could rosary beads, of all things, endanger the morals of others? The health and safety part will obviously get the typical school administration double-speak about how they could offend some poor non-Christian and cause violence (just like wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo!). But morals?! I really want to know where they got that one from. One would think that being a devout Catholic, and showing it by wearing rosary beads, would speak well to this boy’s morals. But not at this high school!

[More]

(emphasis added)

Bishop Takes a Stand and ... Well, You Know the Routine

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."
~ Anderson's Law

Readers of this blog know that I have an oft-discussed rhetorical pet peave regarding invocations of the priest sex-abuse scandal in an ad hominem effort to shut down debate and call into question the moral authority of the Church whenever the Church or one of her Bishops takes a stand on an issue.

Matthew Archbold provides a recent example of the phenomenon in this post about a priest going on NPR to attack Bishop Thomas Olmsted after the Bishop confirmed that Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix's Saint Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center had automatically excommunicated herself, latae sententiae, after approving an abortion:

The Church's sexual abuse scandal is the "blame Bush" of Catholicism. Anything that goes wrong anywhere that has even the remotest connection to Catholicism can be explained by or blamed on the sex abuse scandal.

It's reflexive now. Liberal Catholics can't say anything about the Church without bringing up the sex abuse scandal. Whether it's a conversation about altar rails, mass times, abortion, vestments, or gay marriage liberal Catholics will instinctively raise the specter of the abuse scandal as if the very existence of sin in the Church is evidence that they're right.

A priest who's made quite a name for himself by attacking the Church every chance he gets is now attacking the Church for the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride who approved of an abortion being performed on a woman whose life was in danger. The media is, of course, making this the most famous excommunication since Theodosius'. The Rev. Thomas Doyle is joining in the bashfest on National Public Radio by calling out Bishop Thomas Olmsted.

He said Sister McBride shouldn't be excommunicated because of...(wait for it) the sex abuse scandal...

[More]

Of course, we know that it's not just leftists opposed to the Church's teachings that engage in this line of attack. Bring up the Bishops' views on immigration reform, and you're just as likely to see Catholics on the right dragging up the scandal in an effort to diminish the teaching voice of the Bishops.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
If You Want to Experience Bishop Hatred from the Right That Rivals Anything You Might See on the Left ...

Newsweek Bigot: "When Bishops Play Politics"

Noted Loser Bob Shrum Crawls Out from Under Rock, Invokes Anderson's Law

President Goes to War Against Marriage and the Catholic Church: How Will the Bishops Respond?

A Personal Message from Bishop Blair

Vaguely Familiar

TIME: "Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?" [UPDATED]

"Godwin's Law" for Sex Scandal Revisited

A Version of Godwin's Law for the Sex Scandals

What Arlen Specter's Loss Tells Us

That Pennsylvania Democrat Primary voters are apparently a helluva lot smarter than Pennsylvania Republican Primary voters.

Algore Offers Words of Encouragement to College Graduates

So uplifting.

An Ecumenicism I Can Support

Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Shintoist, Wiccan, Animist, whatever. Fine is fine, and fit is fit.

And make no mistake: the new Miss USA, Rima Fakih, is smokin' hot, notwithstanding whatever her religion may be. In this instance, I'm ALL for ecumenicism.

The Anchoress has more.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress Accused by Opponent of Being "Too Busy" With Kids to be Effective Representative

American Papist has the details.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats in Wisconsin try this tactic against Sean Duffy, also a young Catholic father of 6 children. (Duffy needs to update his campaign website - his wife, Rachel, just had their 6th child a little over a month ago.)

Gov. Christie Rips Reporter a New One

My friend Don McClarey has brought this awesome video to my attention:


Head over to The American Catholic to read the comments and participate in the discussion on Don's post.


UPDATE (15 May 2010)
Apologies to my good friend, Tito Edwards, the person who ACTUALLY posted the Christie video at The American Catholic.

Tradition, Authority, Religion, and Constitutional Jurisprudence

A fairly interesting discussion from yesterday at The American Catholic, in case you're interested.

Pro-Life Search Videos

Thanks to my old friend the Regular Guy for sending along these great pro-life Google "SearchStories" videos:

Ross Douthat: Blue Families Better Than Red Ones [UPDATED]

Okay, I'll admit it. Something about Ross Douthat just gets under my skin. So, I don't know if I'm reading his latest NY Times piece with an open mind or not. Probably not.

So, I ask you to please read what he has written and tell me whether I'm justified in being even more ticked off at Douthat than usual:

... This is one of the themes of “Red Families v. Blue Families,” a provocative new book by two law professors, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone. The authors depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), [ED.: Just had to drag Sarah Palin and her kids into this, didn't you? As if the children of liberals and/or those living in "blue" families don't get knocked up young and out of wedlock? More on this in a moment.] leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates.

This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.

[...]

Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. [ED.: STOP RIGHT THERE! Okay, then, so what was the point of dragging up Bristol Palin's name? Oh, that's right, you're writing for an audience in which you get extra "reasonable" points as the house "conservative" every time you hit on all the correct left-wing Pavlovian stimuli, such as attacking certain hated conservative figures and their family members. Jerk.] But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah.

[...]

Whether it’s attainable for most Americans or not, the “blue family” model clearly works: it leads to marital success and material prosperity, and it’s well suited to our mobile, globalized society.

By comparison, the “red family” model can look dysfunctional — an uneasy mix of rigor and permissiveness, whose ideals don’t always match up with the facts of contemporary life.

But it reflects something else as well: an attempt, however compromised, to navigate post-sexual revolution America without relying on abortion.

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

The irony is that my disagreement with Douthat is generally over style and tone - which, as is often the case for the house "conservative" at left-leaning media organs like the NY Times, is all apologetic for not being more liberal, aches to be liked and respected by the leftists he sees as his intellectual peers, and self-aggrandizes into a bash-as-an-extremist-any-conservative-to-the-right-of-me schtick. On the substance, I rarely ever disagree with Douthat (in fact, I've stated on many occasions that he is one of the political pundits whose ideology most closely resembles my own).

However, with respect to this latest piece, I couldn't disagree with him more on the substance. Oh yes, he plays his usual little "but, on the other hand" game of equivocation and moral equivalency, where he tries to play both sides against the middle (in, as one email correspondent and friend puts it, "an impressive attempt to say nothing whatsoever") and makes noise about how so-called "red" families are more pro-life than "blue" families. But, in the end, Douthtat, at best, puts up not so much as a half-hearted defense of the virtues his Church professes, and, at worst, unmistakably identifies the "blue" family model as superior. As my email-corresponding friend put it:

Douthat makes no attempt to critically engage the book, but seems to accept the thesis and moves on. That was a pretty poor job from someone who at least is fairly solid when it comes to social issues.

In fact, this is the lazy effort of a man not terribly interested in defending against the onslaught of the cultural left in the seemingly neverending so-called "culture wars", and who so wants the clash of cultures to be over that he is willing to surrender the moral high ground to achieve that end. Not surprising coming from someone so obviously embarassed to be saddled with a conservative movement that includes all those Jesusland yokels.


UPDATE
See also the Cranky Con's take here. (After doing so, you'll probably be able to guess who my email correspondent was.)


UPDATE #2
I've amended some of my language in this post to make it a little more family friendly.


UPDATE #3 (12 May 2010)
See the Cranky Con's second post on this subject, "So Just Say It", which addresses Darwin Catholic's post at The American Catholic and some of the comments thereto.

For me, here's the key paragraph:

Here’s the thing. Why couldn’t Ross Douthat just write that himself? Instead of holding up a philosopher’s stone in order to gauge the deeper meaning of his column, wouldn’t it have been more worthwhile for Douthat to clearly spell out his objections?

Exactly.

Digest of Today's Posts (10 May 2010)

Rachel Campos Duffy: A Real Housewife of Wisconsin

Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: Not As Bad as It Could Have Been ...

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

(Digest of Friday's Posts (7 May 2010))

Rachel Campos Duffy: A Real Housewife of Wisconsin

At National Review, Kathryn Lopez interviews "Real World" alumna Rachel Campos Duffy, a Catholic mom of 6 kids and the wife of Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin GOP candidate for the House of Representatives seat currently held by retiring Democrat David Obey:

... a book like Stay Home, Stay Happy: 10 Secrets to Loving At-Home Motherhood, by Rachel Campos-Duffy — which will wind up in the self-help section, if we’re lucky — is so welcome. The author is looking to preserve that which many prominent women — and men — ran away from for all too long, and have paid a price for losing. And she is living, breathing credibility: a young, Catholic, Hispanic mother of six. Who — for a pop-culture reality check — was once on MTV’s The Real World (she and her husband met at a Real World reunion, as it happens) and was almost a co-host of The View (she has been a guest co-host). And she may also be spending time in Washington come January, when her husband, Sean, hopes to be sworn in to the seat of Rep. David Obey, an appropriations powerhouse who has been in office since 1969 (longer than Duffy has been alive). Obey is now retiring, Duffy having run him out of the race.

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: When did you decide to become “a self-described advocate and cheerleader for at-home moms”?

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY: I was a finalist for co-host of ABC’s The View twice. The second time I narrowly lost out in the competition, it occurred to me that I was already doing what God was calling me to do — being home, taking care of my kids. Before that, I sort of thought I was “between gigs,” waiting for my next big break. My oldest was five at that time, and I was starting to see the fruits of my time at home with them — their manners and sense of compassion, the things that happen when you parent well. As I began to appreciate what I was doing as a mom, I simultaneously became aware of how little the culture values it. I’m grateful that Sean verbalizes his appreciation for my choice to be home, but so many other women don’t get that validation. Even if we feel good about our days and choices, we still crave that outside validation. I guess I hoped that by writing this book I might in a small way help elevate this noble profession.

LOPEZ: Isn’t it a betrayal of the women’s movement to announce that a woman can stay home and be happy?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Absolutely not! I’ve heard old-school feminists refer to the trend toward at-home motherhood as the “recolonization of women back into the home.” It’s so patronizing. They say our education and degrees are wasted on our children. The truth is that, despite the hard work and long hours, there are many pleasurable aspects of motherhood, and women derive very real satisfaction from feeling like they are doing it well. I think there’s a certain type of feminist who finds that truth threatening to the movement. It’s silly. I have made a choice to fully enjoy my kids and this particular season of my life. It’s a very conscious, powerful decision. In some ways, it takes more guts to buck the financial rewards and adulation that come from a professional career to pursue something so culturally undervalued as at-home motherhood.

[...]

LOPEZ: How often do you run into fellow thirtysomethings with six children? And how often do people say inappropriate things about the fact that you have them?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Not too many thirtysomethings with six kids these days. People always wonder how we do it. I don’t know how we do it. It’s our normal. I do know people who have been chastised by strangers for their big brood and yes, sometimes I worry about environmental fundamentalism and its propensity to see and treat children of large families as environmental “terrorists” guilty of violating some arbitrary carbon-footprint quota. Look no further than the Internet comments on the Duggar family. The vitriol hurled at them is off the charts.

My sister has four kids, and we both find that kids from small families love to come to our houses. One little girl, an only child who was playing at my sister’s house, didn’t want to leave when her mommy came to pick her up. When her mom insisted she get her shoes on, she said, “No, I want to be one of them!”

LOPEZ: You were on a totally different track — Los Angeles and glamour. How did you wind up in Wisconsin and Walmart, and when did you realize you were happy with that life?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I have MTV to thank for that. Only on The Real World would a conservative Latina from Arizona meet an Irish-American lumberjack attorney from rural Wisconsin. We fell in love and married while I was auditioning for The View. The deal we made was if I got the job, we’d move to New York City. If I didn’t, I would move to Hayward, Wisconsin, his hometown. I didn’t get the job, and I moved from Beverly Hills to rural Wisconsin. I have fallen in love with the people of Wisconsin for the same reasons I fell in love with Sean. They are kind, unassuming, good-natured, and honest. In a nutshell — so not L.A. There is truly no better place to raise kids. As for Wal-Mart, well, I’m not above admitting that most of my date nights with Sean end with a trip to Wal-Mart to pick up diapers and anything else I need. Shopping sans kids is a luxury for me these days!

[...]

LOPEZ: You spend a good amount of time talking about the dad’s role in the life of the at-home mom. Has the feminist movement been damaging to the life of the husband and wife at home? Beyond academic arguments, is it impossible not to see damage that has been done even in fairly conservative family life?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: In some ways, feminism has helped. 1950s dads rarely “partnered” with their wives in matters of home and kids. Boomer dads talked the talk, but ultimately, their wives were “super moms” who ended up burnt out from the double shift. Gen X husbands like Sean walk the walk. Sean’s as comfortable in the courtroom or wielding an ax as he is changing a diaper. He may not always know what I want or need, but he’s genuinely open to being a partner in the relationship and in the division of labor in our home. Clearly, there are some gender differences. For example, Sean splits the wood to heat our home, and in the winter, he also brings it in from the porch every morning and evening. He’s better suited to doing that, and frankly, I don’t want to do it. I’d rather stay in and cook. And that’s okay too. I think today’s men are a big reason why being a wife and mom is getting better. In many ways, men are better. I guess we have their moms to thank for that.

LOPEZ: What’s been the importance of prayer in your life? How do you even do it with kids running around, a busy husband, and your various projects? Isn’t it one of those things that could easily find itself getting dropped?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I need prayer for sustenance. As a busy mom, I can’t get picky about when or where it happens. I take the moments when and as they come. My prayers include short appeals to God to get me through a difficult “toddler moment,” or our chihuahua peeing on the carpet . . . again! I also learned to count the time I spend with my kids or in service of my family as prayers. We’re driving a lot these days for Sean’s campaign events, and those are perfect times to pop in a CD of the rosary and pray together as a family. It’s easy to let your prayer life fall by the wayside, and sometimes it does. But again, the secret is to remind yourself of the benefits. When I take excellent care of myself from the inside out, I have more to give to my family.

[...]

LOPEZ: Your husband, Sean, is running for Congress. How can that possibly work with six children?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: It’s very tough, and there have been some serious sacrifices. Sean’s a very hands-on dad, and the kids miss him a lot. Sean hits the trail by himself so I can stay home and try to keep things as normal as possible for the kids. In many ways I’m operating like a single mom, and I’ve gained a new respect for at-home moms. . . . Parenting is definitely meant to be a two-person job, and I believe I’m a better parent when he’s around. I hope that as the weather gets warmer, we’ll be able to do more events together as a family. Right now, the kids are looking forward to parade season this summer. I figure they’ll either start to enjoy the campaign more, or they’ll start to hate parades.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
I find myself torn on Sean Duffy's election prospects. On the one hand, I hope he wins because we need more young, strong Christian family men leading our nation, and the Duffy family would be an excellent example to our country of a young Catholic family who walks the walk. On the other hand, Washington corrupts whatever it touches, and I'd hate to see this beautiful family taken from the Midwestern lifestyle that is so obviously serving them well and placed inside the Beltway cesspool.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Rachel Living in the Real World; The View Hags, Not So Much [UPDATED]

Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: Not As Bad as It Could Have Been ...

... but being not quite as radical as Diane Wood is not exactly the ideal standard and is cold comfort once one realizes Kagan is only 50 years old and, lack of radical bona fides notwithstanding, nevertheless represents a vote in favor of furthering a leftist, anti-life agenda via an unelected and life-tenured judiciary.

As my friend Steve "Feddie" Dillard says, "elections have consequences". And our First Thoughts co-blogger, Prof. Rick Garnett, writes on that topic today: "Kagan Proves Elections Matter":

... No one should think that this nomination is inconsequential. Some commentators have suggested that it will change little—that the Court’s “balance” will stay the same—because the President is simply replacing one “liberal” justice (Justice Stevens) with another. This is not the right way to view the matter, though. With the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor, and now with this nomination, President Obama is entrenching (as any President would want to do) on the Court a particular approach—his approach—to constitutional interpretation. A “conservative”, attached to a different approach, may someday win back the White House, but he or she will probably have to settle for playing defense with his or her Supreme Court selections.

With his second Supreme Court pick—and, to be clear, he will almost certainly have more—President Obama is on the way to having had more influence over the Court than any President since Reagan, and perhaps even Roosevelt. Future elections might undo some of the President’s policies, but his views about the Constitution, the powers of the national government, and the role of unelected federal judges, are now being locked in securely on the Court. Again, elections matter.

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

Writing at Inside Catholic, Deal Hudson notes that Sister Carol Keehan is trying to have it both ways by claiming to have supported the Bishops' position on federal abortion funding while also supporting passage of Obamacare:

Sister Carol Keehan responded to the standing ovation she received at a gathering of Obama’s Catholic coalition by making a very strange claim about her support of the recent health care legislation signed by President Obama.

"We were in complete accord with our bishops and our church that abortion is a grave evil. There is no justification for abortion, and we would not ever have supported this bill if we thought it funded abortion."

Huh? The bishops made it very clear they did not want the health care bill to pass the Congress precisely because it did contain abortion funding.

If somehow, Sr. Keehan missed the series of press statements from the USCCB opposing the health care bill, perhaps she also missed the national parish bulletin insert sent out by the USCCB prior to the final House vote. In the March 11 insert, the bishops explained the Senate bill rejected the Hyde Amendment "and passed health care reform that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions."

Why did Sr. Keehan misrepresent her opposition to the bishops’ position on the health care bill? Why would she underscore her "accord" with the bishops, when she directly rejected their request that she, and all Catholics, oppose the bill?

It’s a fascinating study in political-ecclesial double-talk. The standing ovation itself confirms the position Sr. Keehan took against the bishops. There’s no way the Catholics who support Obama would have risen to their feet if she had joined forces with the bishops in an effort to kill the bill. No, Keehan was applauded because she ignored the bishops...

[...]

More than one bishop has called out Sr. Keehan and her Catholic Health Assocation for supporting the health care bill. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, in a column for his diocesan paper, responded to Keehan’s denial of abortion funding in the bill:

I find this statement by Sister Keehan either incredibly naïve or disingenuous. Either the bill permits previously prohibited government funding of abortion or not. This is not a technicality.

Archbishop Naumann also encouraged the Catholics of the diocese of Kansas City, KS "to contact Sister Keehan and the Catholic Health Association expressing to them your disappointment in their willingness to accept government-funded abortion as part of health care reform."

The scope of the fall-out for Sr. Keehan and the CHA has not been made public, apart from the decision of Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI to remove his two hospitals from membership. In a previous column, I reported the decision of a prominent lawyer in Columbia, SC to leave the board of the Sisters of Charity Foundation because of its support of the health care bill. There are undoubtedly more consequences down the road for the Catholic Health Association as the ramifications of the promised abortion funding become more public. Planned Parenthood is already crediting the health care bill for the opening of a new clinic.

[Read the whole thing]

Also, be sure to read Hudson's related blog post, "Rise Up, Rise Up for Sr. Carol Keehan".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Bishops Strike Back Against Dissenting Women Religious [UPDATED]

Sister Carol Disinvited from D.C.-Based John Carroll Society Speaking Gig

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Digest of Today's Posts (7 May 2010)

U.K. Election Results

House Minority Leader John Boehner Receives Henry Hyde Pro-Life Award

2010 Cannonball Catholic Blog Awards

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (6 May 2010))

U.K. Election Results

I, myself, was pulling for the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party, since there wasn't much of a choice between New Labor and New Labor Light ... errr ... I mean the Conservative Party.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Peter Hitchens: Tories NEED to Lose Again

House Minority Leader John Boehner Receives Henry Hyde Pro-Life Award

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

2010 Cannonball Catholic Blog Awards

Voting starts today in the 2010 Cannonball Catholic Blog Awards.

Last year, Pro Ecclesia actually won a Canonball Award - my one and only Catholic blog award in my entire 5 years of blogging.

This year, not even a frickin' nomination.

Thanks. Bastards.

;-)

Digest of Today's Posts (6 May 2010)

If You Want to Experience Bishop Hatred from the Right That Rivals Anything You Might See on the Left ...

"Edgy" Comedy Central, After Cowering to Islamic Threats Over Depiction of Mohammad, Decides Jesus Fair Game

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (5 May 2010))

If You Want to Experience Bishop Hatred from the Right That Rivals Anything You Might See on the Left ...

... just get into a discussion about immigration. Even so-called "faithful Catholics" aren't above engaging in vile attacks upon the Bishops whenever this issue comes up:

... On a human level, men who can't figure out that they should keep child molesters out of their rectories shouldn't presume to tell us who to let into our country. A decent sense of SHAME should compel America's bishops to 20 years of penance and silence--or better, a mass resignation of the 2/3 who enabled the abusers.

And when confronted about such language ...

Wow. What an unfortunate ad hominem comment. I expect that sort of thing from enemies of the Church who wish to shut the Bishops up on matters like abortion and the sanctity of marriage, etc. But I expect better and more enlightened argumentation from faithful Catholics, especially in the context of a commentary about the inappropriate use of a particular rhetorical device as a conversation ender. But then, that's exactly what you did by making that comment: by bringing the scandal into a discussion that wasn't about the scandal, the goal wasn't rational discourse, but to end the argument. The Bishops should just shut up and no one should listen to them because of the sex-abuse scandal.

... they just keep piling on:

... Two thirds of these bishops have disgraced themselves and their office, as surely as if they had collaborated with the KGB. Their willingness to speak corporately on any issue outside the strict confines of defined doctrine is effrontery that deserves contempt.

By the way, among the Bishops that this gentleman specifically names as undeserving of our respect is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. I wonder, has Archbishop Chaput "disgraced" himself in the manner that the writer of the linked piece describes? Has Archbishop Chuput earned nothing but "contempt"?

If not, then one might wonder why this gentleman paints with such a broad brush in dismissing our Bishops as unworthy of our attention.

"Edgy" Comedy Central, After Cowering to Islamic Threats Over Depiction of Mohammad, Decides Jesus Fair Game

Fresh off of heavily editing a depiction of Mohammad in "South Park" following threats from practitioners of the "Religion of Peace", the "edgy" comedy network, Comedy Central, shows its artistic "courage" in announcing a new series blaspheming Jesus Christ:

Comedy Central might censor every image of the Prophet Muhammad on "South Park," yet the network is developing a whole animated series around Jesus Christ.

As part of the network's upfront presentation to advertisers (full slate here), the network is set to announce "JC," a half-hour show about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City.

In the show, God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ, "the ultimate fish out of water," tries to adjust to life in the big city.

"In general, comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable," [ED.: just so long as the practitioners of Islam aren't among said "some people", right?] said Comedy Central's head of original programming Kent Alterman.

When asked if the show might draw some fire, especially coming on the heels of the network's decision to censor the Muslim faith's religious figure on "South Park," Alterman said its too early in the show's development to be concerned about such matters.

"We don't even know what the show is yet," he said.

Like all Comedy Central executives, Alterman declined to address the recent controversy over "South Park," where the network aired a heavily redacted episode after the show's creators were threatened by an extremist Islamic Web site.

"JC" is produced by Reveille ("The Office"), Henrik Basin, Brian Boyle ("American Dad"), Jonathan Sjoberg and Andreas Ohman.

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

I'm shocked. Not.

Ed Morrissey minces no words in his criticism of Comedy Central's double standard:

Yes, Kent Alterman, you’re quite the brave individual for making “some” people uncomfortable. Those would be the “some” people who won’t issue threats of violence for your satires. Comedy Central and Viacom have no appetite for making some other people uncomfortable — the very people who would not waste a moment in shutting down Comedy Central if given the opportunity.

South Park takes an honest approach to satire by skewering everyone equally. They lost a major cast member when they satirized Scientology, and no doubt have had complaints from many groups about their portrayal of Jesus, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Lao Tze, and other religious figures. But one never got the sense that Parker and Stone had it out for any one group because their satires ran the entire gamut, at least until Comedy Central began censoring them.

And even that would have been understandable — had CC made the decision to avoid religious satire altogether. Instead, they’re launching a new effort to parody Christianity while imposing the rule of radical Islamists on satires of Islam. There’s a word for the kind of people who only pick fights with no risk whatsoever: pussies.

(emphasis added, except for that last word - emphasis is in original on that one)

The Anchoress offers this most appropriate critique on Comedy Central's pathetic bluster and pretense of being cutting edge:

This move by Comedy Central is like watching the ultra-hip smart-aleck in the cafeteria who, having peed himself during an encounter with a bully, is now trying to re-establish his edgy bona fides by making fun of the non-threatening AV Crew; high school bravado, nowhere near as sophisticated as it believes itself to be.

As a Christian, I am unoffended by this move. The Triune God has awfully big shoulders; he can take it.

It is Comedy Central that betrays the tiny fragility that lies behind its strut.

I am embarrassed for them.

(emphasis added)

Digest of Today's Posts (5 May 2010)

Undocumented Fan Attendance Night in Phoenix

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Will Obama Pick Judge Diane Wood for Supreme Court?

The Mother Teresa Stamp is Coming!

Undocumented Fan Attendance Night in Phoenix

Fresh off the newswires:

Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver has announced that tonight is "Undocumented Fan Attendance Night" in Phoenix when his NBA franchise meets the San Antonio Spurs in Game 2 of the Western Conference Semifinal.

Unticketed Fans welcome
In a statement released from the Suns' public relations office, Sarver said:

"Any fan who manages to make it into US Airways Center tonight without a ticket - whether by sneaking in via an unguarded entrance or walking past a ticket taker who is uninterested in enforcing the ticket requirement - will not be removed from the arena. If someone makes it to a courtside seat and the rightful ticket holder objects, we will not have our ushers check to ensure that the offending fan has a ticket that entitles the fan to that seat. The unticketed fan will not be escorted from the premises, but will be allowed to stay in the seat for which he or she has not purchased a ticket. Unticketed fans are fans nonetheless, and we will not treat them like law breakers. We have informed our ushers and ticket takers that no profiling of unticketed fans will be tolerated."

Undocumented Tailgate Party
Many undocumented fans have already gotten a head start on the promotion. Hundreds of unticketed people have cut through the chain link fences surrounding the VIP parking areas and have begun one big fiesta of a tailgate party just right outside the entrance of US Airways Center. "Man, this is what Cinco de Mayo is all about!" shouted an exhuberant Walter Schmidt, 55, a retired auto worker from Detroit who permanently settled in his second home in Tempe after leaving General Motors 10 years ago. "After the announcement that tonight was going to be Undocumented Fan Night, no way was that chain link fence going to keep us out!"

Some fans mightily pissed
Some Suns fans, however, were not so pleased. Seventy-five-year-old season ticket holder Ruth Weidner, a life-long Phoenix resident who has been attending Suns games for over 20 years, expressed dismay and frustration that she might arrive to the game and find the handicapped parking filled with cars without proper tags and someone without a ticket in her seat. Said the septuagenarian who just last week attended a Tea Party rally in downtown Phoenix, "I have crippling arthritis and can't get around without my motorized wheelchair. It takes me a long time to get from the parking lot to my seat inside the arena. Now that I'm likely to have to park even further away from the entrance, I fear that by the time I get to my seat it will be taken by someone who broke the law to get into the game and then stole the seat that I've spent my hard-earned savings to pay for."

Suns organization says no place for anti-undocumented fan bigotry
Gordie Braun, a spokesman for Sarver, called those fears unfounded and reacted strongly to the underlying sentiments behind the experssion of fear. "Fears like those expressed by this so-called fan are a symptom of something much uglier that lies in the hearts of those who give voice to them. People like this are only interested in scapegoating others as soon as they are asked to share their precious 'hard-earned savings' with those less fortunate. Such hatred for unticketed fans who are only trying to experience for themselves what a ticket purchaser like Mrs. Weidner apparently believes to be her birthright should not be tolerated in our society. Bigoted woman!"

NOTA BENE:
First, this is, obviously, a parody.

Second, I oppose the Arizona law (and wrote a fairly strongly worded blog post in opposition to it a couple of weeks ago). It is bad public policy because some provisions, namely the ones regarding harboring and transporting undocumented aliens, are extremely vague and arguably make certain acts of charity illegal. I also believe that the bill will make policing in Latino neighborhoods more difficult, as residents could be less trusting and less forthcoming with information regarding criminal activity. I also support a fairly liberal immigration policy that would provide a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants who are already here and would make legal immigration into this country much easier and available to more people.

Third, my purpose in writing this parody is that I am disgusted with the overheated rhetoric directed toward Arizona by some of my fellow opponents of this bill, and I find utterly laughable and counter-productive the empty symbolic gestures like boycotts, calls for Major League Baseball to move next year's All-Star Game, and this silly jersey protest by "Los Suns" (and shouldn't that be "Los Soles", anyway?).

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Will Obama Pick Judge Diane Wood for Supreme Court?

Thomas Peters is reporting that President Obama may be leaning toward picking a radically pro-abortion judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Justice Stevens:

The buzz around DC is that Diane Wood is in the final run-off for President Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee pick.

She would be the worst possible choice for life issues, because as Bill Saunders wrote for APP, she has the most radical views:

But probably no one, at least at the top of most short-lists, would elicit the fight that Wood would provoke. She is a sitting appellate judge (the 7th Circuit), and she has a record of rather outrageous opinions – she dissented against partial-birth abortion bans in Illinois and Wisconsin, and dissented against an informed consent law in Indiana that was nearly identical to one upheld by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Wood even ruled that the federal law designed to counter organized crime, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), was properly applied against pro-life demonstrators – an opinion summarily rejected by the Supreme Court.

If Obama, who it is reported is “impressed” by Wood, nominates her to be the next Supreme Court Justice, he will only further cement his reputation as the most pro-abortion President to date. This even as the number of Americans who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned reaches a new high. The majority of Americans sure wouldn’t be impressed by Wood (or Obama’s) views on abortion and the law.

My Comments:
For those pro-life activists who I warned against going on the attack with Sandra Sotomayor's nomination: THIS is the person (should she be nominated) that you want to go after with EVERYTHING YOU HAVE.

Diane Wood is, indeed, a judicial radical with the intellectual bona fides to shift the Court SIGNIFICANTLY to the left. Our friend, Steve Dillard, refers to Wood as a "brilliant radical". She is manifestly pro-abortion, as her record shows. Wood would vote to strike down anything remotely seen as a restriction on unfettered access to abortion on demand at any time, for any reason, and using any gruesome procedure (such as partial birth abortion).

I'm not sure the GOP would have much success derailing the noimination, but they may be able to peal off enough Southern and Midwestern Democrats who want to make amends to angry constituents for their Obamacare votes to make it a little bit of a closer vote. And maybe there would be enough of a public backlash against Wood's radical views - assuming those opposing the nomination can successfully bring those views to the fore - that a big confirmation battle could pay dividends.


This Obama Culture of Death Update™ has been brought to you by Douglas Kmiec, all the fine folks at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good / Catholics United / Catholic Democrats, and countless other Catholics for whom "Hope" and "Change" trumped LIFE.

The Mother Teresa Stamp is Coming!

From CatholicVote.org:

... The Mother Teresa stamp is coming!

Over 138,000 friends of CatholicVote.org joined together to defend the stamp to honor Mother Teresa. And the Postal Service took notice.

Roy Betts, a spokesman for the Postal Service, told CatholicVote.org yesterday:

“The stamp will be dedicated September 5 [at] the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. Feel free to post information about the stamp, the image and the dedication ceremony on your website. Thanks!”

Wow. Launching the stamp at a church. The anti-religion radicals are going to go wild!

When the stamp was first announced, a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation began spreading lies about Blessed Mother Teresa, accusing this holy nun of having a ‘darker side,’ and calling her a ‘polarizing Roman Catholic figurehead.’

Mother Teresa gave a pro-life speech when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. This radical group called her speech a “disturbing, befrogged religious rant.”

That’s why we swung into action to “Stamp Out Bigotry!”

If you or your friends would like to add your name in support of the Mother Teresa stamp and against those who attack this holy nun, visit www.stampoutbigotry.com.

Too often only one side of this debate is heard. This time the Post Office heard from us. A separate spokesperson for USPS even told a reporter that our efforts were appreciated.

You would think attacking Mother Teresa would be off limits. But in our world, respect and decency can be discarded so long as you're bashing Christianity. A small but vocal segment of our country will stop at nothing to cut down the role of religion in our public life.

These groups are relentless. So we must defeat them at every turn.

This past week, the anti-religion zealots were dealt another blow. They fought for years to tear down a cross at the Mojave War Memorial in California – a cross honoring our fallen heroes. We filed an important brief in this case with the Supreme Court on behalf of you – the members of CatholicVote.org – and we won.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of the cross (which has been covered up by a plywood box since 2002!).

CatholicVote.org is committed to protecting and promoting the role of religious faith in our culture and national life.

We think it’s proper and fitting that our Supreme Court has a statue of Moses. We think it’s great that three Catholic priests (one is now a Saint!) are honored in the National Statuary Hall located in the United States Capitol. This is the history of our nation. We should be celebrating the role of religion in America, not destroying it.

And that’s why we’ll be in Washington at the ceremony unveiling the Mother Teresa stamp on September 5.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us...

Digest of Today's Posts (3 May 2010)

Michael Schiavo Threatens to Sue Schindler Family Over Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation

UVA Men's Lacrosse Player Charged With 1st Degree Murder in Death of UVA Women's Lacrosse Player [UPDATED]

Springfield Bishop-Designate Thomas J. Paprocki's Homily on St. Thomas More and Catholic Politicians

Peter Hitchens: Tories NEED to Lose Again

Palin Forces Media to Pony Up a Pro-Life Donation in Order to Cover Her Speech to Pro-Life Group

Can My Side Tone Down the Overheated Rhetoric Just a Little, Please?

Digest of Weekend's Posts (2 May 2010)

Sunday, 2 May

Jamie's First Holy Communion

Saturday, 1 May

The May Magnificat

First Communion Day

Michael Schiavo Threatens to Sue Schindler Family Over Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation

Despicable, hateful, vindictive excuse for a man:

St. Petersburg, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Terri Schiavo's name could be back in court, but this time for a different reason. Her former husband says he is considering a lawsuit against her family because they started a foundation in her name to assist other disabled who may be deprived of their legal rights and medical care.

The foundation was once named Terri's Fight and existed before Terri's death, which saw Michael Schiavo starve and dehydrate her to death over 13 days after winning a court order to take her life.

The Schindler family -- Terri's mother and father and brother and sister -- headed up the foundation to defray legal expenses and costs to provide Terri the rehabilitative treatment and medical care Michael deprived her when he gave up on her recovery.

Following Terri's painful euthanasia death, the Schindler family change the name to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation and it has raised a modest amount of money -- less than six figures -- to provide help and support for disabled people like her.
But, Michael, who said he never wanted anyone to profit from the use of Terri's name, claims the helpful nonprofit organization is doing just that.

Michael says a court document gives him rights to the name Terri Schiavo and he says it means no one can use her name without her permission. His attorney has written to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation telling it that its use of the name violates that court order.

Schiavo's attacks are ironic given that he attempted to profit politically from Terri's death, by starting a political action committee that supported candidates until it closed down after the FEC repeatedly fined it for late reports and violating reporting guidelines.

David Gibbs, a pro-life attorney who helped the Schindler family during their legal battle to protect Terri's right to live, told WTSP that the Schindler's are doing a good job running the nonprofit and helping hundreds of people.

Gibbs also says the foundation has the right to use Terri's name since she is a public figure and they are related to her.

Wesley J. Smith, an attorney and bioethicist based in California, says what Michael Schiavo “believes” is "irrelevant and beside the point."

"Had the reporters wanted to find out the kind of help the foundation offers others, producers could have called me or a myriad of others active in this field, who are quite aware of the selfless giving and effort each surviving member of Terri’s family offers to others," he said. "Indeed, I have personal knowledge of case after case in which the Schindlers worked selflessly–and without financial compensation of any kind–to assist family members save their cognitively disabled loved ones from suffering the same dehydration fate as Terri."

Smith says neither Terri's brother Bobby Schindler nor her sister Suzanne Vitadamo are making any money off of Terri's name.

"And as for profiteering–Bobby Schindler’s salary is $37,500 annually, and all speaking fees he receives go to the foundation," he explained. "His sister Suzanne, makes less and is 14 months in arrears in receiving her compensation."

"It is also worth noting, that after receiving complaints, the IRS investigated the foundation and gave it a clean bill of health in 2008," Smith continued. "The hatred of this family is pathological and obsessive."

Smith says the Schindler family is a wonderful one who have been unfairly attacked.

"Father Bob gave everything he had to save his daughter’s life, and seeing her die slowly by intentional dehydration when the family was prepared to love and care for her the rest of her life, destroyed his health and eventually took his life," he said. "I stand wholeheartedly and unreservedly with the Schindler family and against the continual calumny mounted against them."

Related web sites:Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org/

Dude, you've already put their daughter and sister to death (albeit with the sanction of Florida judge). Leave them the hell alone.

UVA Men's Lacrosse Player Charged With 1st Degree Murder in Death of UVA Women's Lacrosse Player [UPDATED]

What the heck is going on at my alma mater?!?

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- A University of Virginia men's lacrosse player has been charged with first-degree murder in the death of a women's lacrosse player at the school.

Charlottesville police said in a news release that 22-year-old George Huguely of Chevy Chase, Md., is charged in the death of 22-year-old Yeardley Love of Cockeysville, Md.

Both were fourth-year students.

"Although we know nothing other than what appears in the Charlottesville Police Department's more recent statement, this death moves us to deep anguish for the loss of a student of uncommon talent and promise," a statement released by The University of Virginia says, "and we express the University's and our own sympathy for Yeardley's family, teammates, and friends."

Police were called to an off-campus apartment around 2:15 a.m. Monday about a possible alcohol overdose. Officials have not determined the cause of death but say there were signs of physical trauma.

Witnesses told police Huguely and Love were in a relationship.

"That she appears now to have been murdered by another student compounds this sense of loss by suggesting that Yeardley died without comfort or consolation from those closest to her," the school's statement says.

Huguely is being held in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.

Bringing back unpleasant memories of something that happened a few years ago at my other alma mater.


UPDATE
Message from President Casteen Regarding the Death of a U.Va. Student Today

Springfield Bishop-Designate Thomas J. Paprocki's Homily on St. Thomas More and Catholic Politicians

Thomas Peters has the details at American Papist.

Peter Hitchens: Tories NEED to Lose Again

The "good" Hitchens brother (i.e. not the one who hates Mother Teresa and wants to arrest the Pope) angstfully urges "Please do not vote Tory":

Many of you are going to hate me for what I am about to say. I regret this. Perhaps the fact that I am going to do it anyway will convince some of you that I am deadly serious, and prefer unpopularity to doing the wrong thing.

It is one of the most important and urgent tasks I have ever undertaken. I warned, 13 years ago, against New Labour.

I warned, seven years ago, against the Iraq War. I was right (as I usually am – full list on application).

But in those cases I might as well have tried to halt a tsunami with a feather duster.

The country had gone into a sort of craze, and believed what it wanted to believe.

This time, I think and hope that what I say might actually have some effect on an unusually close Election.

And it is this. Please do not vote Tory. It will have the opposite result to the one you intend.

[...]

But I beg and plead with you not to fall for the shimmering, greasy, cynical fraud which is the Cameron project. You will hate yourself for it in time if you do.

[...]

You may want to ‘Get Gordon Brown out’. So do I. And he’s done for anyway.

But do you really want to put in a man who agrees with Gordon Brown on almost every major issue, and is so confident of his liberalism that he doesn’t even try to keep it secret?

No muttered remarks in the car about ‘bigotry’ for him. He has said openly that he regards the conservative-minded people of this country as ‘fruitcakes and closet racists’ – and nobody made him apologise for it afterwards.

If you now endorse the Cameron Tory Party, you will destroy all real hope of change for the better.

I assume here that my readers mostly agree with me about what this country needs. It needs its independence back, so it can make its own laws and control its own coasts and territorial seas, its armed forces, its foreign policy – like a proper nation.

It needs to regain control of its borders and end the mass immigration which is neither necessary nor good.

It needs to stop the destruction of the married family and the undermining of adult authority.

It needs to use the law to restrain the grotesque abuse of alcohol and the dangerous spread of drugs.

It needs to restore the idea that crime and disorder should be prevented by a police force patrolling on foot – and where that fails, the criminals should be punished in austere and ­disciplined prisons.

It needs schools which teach proper subjects in orderly and peaceful classrooms.

It needs to shrink and reform a grotesque, unjust welfare state which rewards sloth and neglects the truly poor.

It needs – urgently – to defeat the politically correct fundamentalist zealots, who sneer ‘Bigot!’ at anyone who dares defend the reasonable beliefs and opinions which were normal a generation ago.

Some of you may also agree with me that it needs to reassert its debt and its allegiance to the Christian religion, on which our unique civilisation of orderly freedom is based.

David Cameron pretends skilfully to agree with these positions because he knows that is what you think.

But he does not really agree with you or me. He is himself deeply politically correct (he has just sacked a parliamentary candidate for having the ‘wrong’ opinions about homo­sexuality, a fact a grovelling media have not publicised)...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/election/article-1270363/General-election-2010-The-important-article-Ive-written--loyal-Conservative-voters-hate-it.html#ixzz0msV41XQE

Palin Forces Media to Pony Up a Pro-Life Donation in Order to Cover Her Speech to Pro-Life Group

Creative Minority Report calls it a "Win-Win":

... The media follows her relentlessly attempting to find one slip of the tongue that they can use against her. They video tape every public appearance in hope that this time she will slip up and they will have the video to prove it.

Sarah knows this and has decided to use it for advantage. Not her own advantage, mind you, but to the advantage of the unborn.

Palin was giving a speech to a pro-life group. She and the group decided if the media wanted to tape her speech in their perpetual pursuit of the soundbyte o'death, they would have to support life to do it.

Palin made the media purchase tickets to the event and the proceeds went to the pro-life cause. That is sweet...

[More]

Even some on the left grudgingly acknowledge that this is "a pretty neat trick".

Can My Side Tone Down the Overheated Rhetoric Just a Little, Please?

Opponents of Arizona's new immigration law (and I am one of them) need to stop to consider whether much of the overheated rhetoric in which they have engaged is indeed (1) accurate, or unfair hyperbole and/or (2) helpful, or hindering, to their cause.

In light of the most unhelpful (and one might argue unbecoming) remarks on this subject by a certain soon-to-be-retiring Cardinal Archbishop with a large Hispanic population in his diocese, some Catholic bloggers have, understandingly, reacted strongly against the stone-throwing.

Look, I oppose the Arizona law (and wrote a fairly strongly worded blog post in opposition to it a couple of weeks ago). It is bad public policy because some provisions, namely the ones regarding harboring and transporting undocumented aliens, are extremely vague and arguably make certain acts of charity illegal. I also believe that the bill will make policing in Latino neighborhoods more difficult, as residents could be less trusting and less forthcoming with information regarding criminal activity.

That said, the most vocal opponents of this law (including that certain Cardinal Archbishop) are speaking and acting completely irresponsibly. I have long been a proponent of immigration reform that creates a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants who are already here and makes it easier to legally immigrate to the U.S. But the folks who are supposed to be on my side in this argument are completely alienating me with their overheated rhetoric and name calling.

By the way, I DARE Bud Selig to move the 2011 MLB All-Star game from Arizona, as some idiotic busy-body lefty sportswriters like Mike Lupica have suggested. Like it or not, most people support Arizona’s efforts, and they might not take kindly to Major League Baseball poking its nose in other people’s business.

Digest of Weekend's Posts (2 May 2010)

Sunday, 2 May

Jamie's First Holy Communion

Saturday, 1 May

The May Magnificat

First Communion Day