Friday, June 24, 2022

Soli Deo gloria

 Mark the date. And celebrate.

Wednesday, May 04, 2022

Letters from Cato: The Anti-Anti-Abortionists

My friend, Paul Zummo, writing at Letters from Cato, takes on some of the putative "pro-lifers" who now make their living attacking actual pro-lifers in exchange for the approval of their new-found followers among the leftist mob.

Paul begins by noting that the overturning of Roe and Casey are by no means a done deal. There is no final decision at this point, and the Justices are still free to change their minds. We've been down this road before in both Webster and Casey itself:

I don’t have much to add on the substance of the leaked decision that may spell the end of Roe. Pro-lifers have had too many Lucy pulling the football away moments to feel comfortable until the decision is actually handed down.
He then notes that IF the decision stands, it's a pretty big deal:
... many conservatives have been quite happy to laud the draft opinion. Personally, I refuse to read it until Dobbs is formally and officially decided, but those who have read it, at least among actual conservatives (more on that in a moment), have universally and unapologetically praised it...
Then Paul gets to the crux of his post:

What I would like to discuss are the erstwhile conservatives and Catholics who have either thrown cold water on the decision or else have actively derided it. I won’t even bring up the folks at the Grifter Project. Everyone already knows their principles are subject to being changed by the highest bidder, so I will go on ignoring them as every good and decent person should.

No, I would like to talk about the more “enlightened,” principled conservatives, especially those whose mission is to conserve conservatism.

Paul follows with a discussion of the various weasel-word responses to the leaked draft of Justice Alito's opinion from such formerly "principled" pro-life conservatives as Evan McMullin (some of y'all voted for this fraud), Bill Kristol (who once wrote a piece for the Weakly Substandard titled (in all caps) "ROE MUST GO"), Jonathan Last (who "was once a staunch pro-life advocate and author of books like What to Expect When No One’s Expecting" and who once wrote “I’m one of those anti-abortion nut jobs who thinks that every embryo is sacred life and abortion is killing an innocent.”), and last, but not least, Mark Shea (who once actually thought with the Church instead of just pretending to while actually aligning himself with the DNC platform).
This one, in particular, rankles:

[Mark] Shea calls the evident reversal of Roe a pyrrhic victory, but perhaps he is upset because it’s a victory he has assured us for decades was never coming because the GOP has been playing us. Now that two decades of doomcasting have been proven to be bogus, Shea wants to pretend it is utterly meaningless...

These people have shown that they would rather “own the right” than rejoice at what *may* turn out to be the greatest pro-life victory of our lifetime … a result for which they ALL once openly advocated. Back when they at least pretended to be pro-life. BUT they’ve all been frauds all along. 

“It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world, but for [‘likes’ from rabid pro-infanticide leftists]?”

Wednesday, June 03, 2020

Do Justice. Love Mercy. Walk Humbly.

He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
~ Micah 6:8

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
~ His Excellency, George Washington
Circular to the States | Sunday, 8 June 1783

Some thoughts:

* Black Lives Matter. Period. No buts.

* The response "All Lives Matter" to the Black Lives Matter movement is the equivalent of the "Seamless Garment" response to the Pro-Life Movement. Standing alone, they are nice-sounding and even laudable sentiments. Juxtaposed against the justice movements to which they are a response, they have the effect -- and perhaps even the intention -- of undermining those justice movements.

* Both / And. It is entirely possible to criticize, protest, and call for the reform of shortcomings in society and in our criminal justice system that unduly and negatively impact the lives of African-Americans, while at the same time criticizing and calling for an immediate cessation of ongoing riots resulting in violence and destruction of personal property.

* Order precedes justice, and BOTH precede freedom. In a review of a biography of Founding Father and first Chief Justice John Jay a few years ago, The Imaginative Conservative noted: "a civ­i­lized so­ci­ety must have order, justice, and free­dom. The se­quence is es­sen­tial. With­out order, noth­ing can func­tion. Once order is es­tab­lished, jus­tice can come into being and once order and jus­tice pre­vail, freedom can arise and flour­ish." The rioting and violence needs to stop -- order needs to prevail. Only once order is established can we then move to the very necessary work of seeing that justice toward our African-American brothers and sisters can be achieved. There is much work to be done. Liberty and freedom follows from that. If only some of us are free, then none of us are free.

* Walk a mile in a man's shoes. If you don't fully understand what Black Lives Matter is all about, try to put yourself in the place of those who do. Not the violent rioters who hijacked the legitimate protests in order to push for revolution. No, I'm talking about putting yourself in the shoes of people for whom their skin color makes every traffic stop a "What if ...?" And even if you think that's BS (and it's not), at least have some empathy for the individuals who do feel that way. Ask yourself why they feel that way. And try to imagine that there might be some legitimacy to their concerns.

* Rioters and their apologists are not showing much mercy to anyone who gets in their way. Beatings and even deaths have occurred. Homes, businesses, livelihoods, life savings, neighborhoods have been destroyed. Most often, those hurt by the destruction are those for whom the protests are supposed to help. And the response of the rioters and their apologists? "F*ck 'em, they have insurance." No, not all of them do. And it's not even clear that insurance will cover riot damage. As others have pointed out, this elitist response is the "Let them eat cake" of this particular crisis (and with the previous crisis and the "Let them eat cake" response of the very same elites -- COVID, remember that? -- not even over yet).

* We need to stop seeing people as nothing more than the sum of their skin color and their political beliefs, and start loving them as individuals and fellow human beings. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to hate. In fact, it's imperative to love.

* Needless to say, EVERYONE could use a good dose of humility right now, including yours truly. No one has all the answers. No one is right all the time. No one is wrong all the time. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that is going to work for everyone. There is no magic wand that can be waved to fix everything. There is no ideological solution that is going to bring about Heaven on earth. Contemplate that you might be wrong about something. Imagine that your ideological opponent might be right about something. Think about ways you can serve others humbly and without regard to whether they might think differently, look differently, smell differently, live differently than you do.

* Seek something higher than yourself. For many, that will be God. Seek HIS will in your life and in this world, not your own. "THY will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." That's not a call for Utopia; that's a call for you to be like Him, to seek Him, to reflect Him in living out your life. For a sadly increasing number, that "something higher" will not be God. For you, seek out what there is to love about humanity. Seek what it is that compels you to do good for all, not just most or some. Seek out what there is to love in EACH individual person, as a person, even when you dislike or disagree with them -- seek that individual's personal well-being, by seeing them as an individual, not as a statistic.

* Pray.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

I May Be Pro Ecclesia, Pro Familia, and Pro Civitate, But I No Longer Call Myself "Pro-Life"

For quite a while now, I have been contemplating briefly -- for just one post -- coming out of blog retirement to explain why I no longer refer to myself as being "pro-life". I had it all written in my head, and had only to actually sit down, revisit my old blogger interface, and start typing.

Fortunately, Eric Sammons, writing at CatholicVote, has saved me the trouble by writing, essentially, the very apologia I had planned:
... No matter the reason, by calling every issue a “pro-life” issue, we dilute and fracture the brand. We make other, less important issues as important as the abortion issue. We needlessly divide pro-lifers over prudential issues about which we should be able to respectfully disagree.

As for me, I’ve come to realize that I’m no longer pro-life. Just call me anti-abortion. It’s accurate, specific, and tells the whole world that I’m unabashedly opposed to child-killing.
So, no longer refer to me as "pro-life" -- not if being "pro-life" means I also have to accept a hodgepodge of DNC platform positions pushed by lefty Catholics and the USCCB bureaucracy. I want to oppose abortion on MY terms ... not the terms of people who, in the end, don't really give two squirts about ending abortion.

Call me "anti-abortion".

(And with that, I sign off.)

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Alternate title for David Mills' piece at Crux today: Crux STILL Telling Converts "Shut Up!"

Alternate title for David Mills' piece at Crux today:  Crux STILL Telling Converts "Shut Up!"

David Mills admonishes that "Newcomers to the Church should speak less, listen more." And here's the thing. On one level I DO agree with what Mills writes about converts needing a period of reflection, adjustment, and additional mystagogy -- of getting our feet wet, so to speak, before pronouncing on any and all things Catholic. In retrospect, I wish I had waited before i began to blog about Catholicism shortly after I converted almost a decade-and-a-half ago (I only had been Catholic for 9 months when I "took up the pen" in the Catholic blogosphere.)

But then Mills completely goes off the rails:
"... He may be full of book-learning. But of the real Catholic mind or imagination - the Catholic paradigm, the way Catholics see the world - he knows little. The new Catholic **must work for many years** to get that, and **never will get it fully**. (emphasis added)

"Most converts, as I wrote in The New Oxford Review, will never think and feel exactly as do cradle Catholics. They do by instinct what we will always do by analysis followed by choice.

"For a long time, and perhaps a very long time, the convert will see the Catholic Thing as you see a garden through a bay window, not as you see it when you’re standing amidst the flowers. He sees its design and beauty, but doesn’t feel the sun or smell the flowers or enjoy walking barefoot on the grass. Nor does he know what it is like to get caught in the rain or stung by a bee, or to spend hours weeding. He has to spend many years outside to know what life in the garden is really like..."

What a crock! This is fetishizing the cradle Catholic experience as being the *REAL* Catholic experience, and holding up any alternative to that as somehow less than. I used to do this exact same thing that Mills is doing when I was a new Catholic. I used to lament that I would never be able to experience the Faith with the instinct and the ethos of a cradle Catholic. That I would somehow always be an "incomplete" or not "REAL" Catholic like all my brethren born into the Faith and that I had somehow been "deprived" of my "birthright" as a "true" Catholic.

Now I recognize that for the utter horseshit that it is. It is nothing more than fetishizing cradle Catholicism ... in the same way many people fetishize the conversion experiences of the new Catholic. Converts are no less or no more "REAL" Catholics than are cradle Catholics. We all have our gifts that we bring to how we live our Faith and we all have our shortcomings. And NONE of those gifts or shortcoming are inherent, innate, ingrained, implicit, instinctive, distinctive, or integral (or whatever other word or clinical diagnosis you choose to plug in) to being either a cradle Catholic or a convert. And they are most definitely NOT fixed or inalienable based upon such status.

St. Paul was no more or no less competent to speak out against St. Peter for his having been a convert than were any of the other Apostles who had been with Peter all along. It is high time we stop criticizing and / or fetishizing the experiences of our fellow Catholics based on whether or not they are cradle, convert, or revert Catholics. How 'bout we all just be CATHOLICS?

Upon further reflection, this piece (and it's "speak less, listen more" headline) is actually far more condescending than "Shut Up!"

It's more like "Shhhhh."

For more background on the anti-convert dustup taking place at Crux (funded by your Knight of Columbus dues) and elsewhere, read Paul Zummo's excellent post at The American Catholic.

Deal Hudson has written an excellent response to Mills' piece ... also published at Crux.


Tuesday, February 07, 2017

The New Catholic Debate: Is It Ever OK to Punch a Heretic?

Catholics can't agree on whether violence is an appropriate response to heresy

Arius, leader of the anti-Homoousian Christology movement and advocate for the Father's divinity over the Son, was punched in the face by Bishop Nicholas of Myra while bragging about the success of Arianism in spreading the heresy denying the consubstantiality of the Father and Son throughout Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and also in various Germanic kingdoms.

Illustrations of the punch were seen more than a million and half times. Arius has said he’s not a heretic — even though his “Arianism” has devolved into supporting heretical tendencies.

The punch has spurred a flurry of parodies and memes on Facebook:

Although the number of views of the memes and the glee with which the memes are being shared suggest many find it fun to watch someone who professed heresy at an Ecumenical Council get clocked, a serious debate over the act is going down over: If you see someone espousing the views of Arius in public, should your knuckles meet their jaw? The Church needs answers, apparently. Even the New York Times jumped into the debate:
There was little substantive debate online about the ethics of punching Bishop Arius. Facebook is not a place where minds are often changed, and the supporters and opponents of the sucker punch were unmoved by one another’s quips.
Opponents of the punch tended to say that violence had no place in theological debate. Supporters tended to say the punch was funny, and more than a few compared Bishop Arius’s attacker to famous punchers from pop culture, like Batman.
A glance at history indicates that violence towards heretics has been something Christians have advocated for a while now.

Thankfully, the Times didn’t bury the most important hidden gem:
Bishop Arius's sore jaw resulted from a sucker punch in what he described as “a safe space.” (It was a Church-sponsored event, after all.) He said he thought the attack happened, in part, because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time — sitting next to Bishop Nicholas.
Maybe the question shouldn’t be, “Is it OK to punch a heretic?” but, “If you don’t want to be punched in the face, maybe you shouldn’t preach heresy to the faithful?”


Thursday, October 13, 2016

WikiLeaks Confirms Democrat Conspiracy to "Plant Seeds of Revolution" in Catholic Church, Vindicates Catholic Blogs That Exposed Front Groups

In case you're wondering, the "middle ages dictatorship" that is the Catholic Church and her Bishops is right there in the middle of Hillary Clinton's so-called "basket of deplorables". And the Clinton team had a plan to rid themselves of these troublesome priests by "plant[ing] the seeds of the revolution" against the Catholic hierarchy and its teachings via infiltration and subversion.

Some of us caught on to this plan a decade ago...

John Podesta.  Image courtesy of the Center for American Progress  via OnePeter5 
(Creative Commons)

Vindication. Yes, an opportunity to gloat. To say "I told you so."

Not a very pretty sentiment, but that's about the only thing that could bring me out of blogging retirement (but only for this one post) in the electoral Annus Horribilis that is 2016.

So it turns out that what we knew ALL ALONG about the Soros-funded DemoCatholic front groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister organization Catholics United was, in fact, 100% on the money. We have an admission right out of the horse's mouth (or, rather, out of the horse's leaked emails). I haven't the time nor the inclination to get into a long retrospective detailing the war of words that I and other like-minded bloggers waged over several years -- beginning a decade ago -- against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Instead, I will direct you to the links below, which will more than fill you in and give you a taste of what was being said and what was at stake.

In short, my part in this drama began a decade ago during the 2006 elections, when Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published a Catholic voter guide that played down the priority given by the Church to traditional life issues in favor of a hodge-podge of issues straight out of the Democrat Party platform. At first, I began by just blogging about and linking to what others were saying about this mysterious group who had suddenly appeared on the scene in the midst of a mid-term election. As the evidence poured in, especially evidence that linked the group to funding provided by none other than George Soros, it soon became clear that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was little more than a front group for the Democrat Party and its efforts to blur the lines on life issues with Catholic voters.

And then, the week before the November 2006 elections, our own Catholic Chronicle -- the usually fairly orthodox newspaper of the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio -- published a front-page puff piece on the efforts of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in our own diocese to promote their vision and their voter guide (the story reported the efforts in a straightforward manner, without questioning the problematic aspects of the group and its voter guide).. The proverbial you-know-what must've hit the fan in the Chancery offices once the very orthodox then-Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair (now Archbishop of Hartford, CT) caught wind of it, because the article was gone from the Chronicle's website within a matter of hours after it was published. Alas, it was too late to remove the article from the print editions, which went out the weekend before the elections on the following Tuesday to parishes Diocese-wide. So, in response to the Chronicle's article, I penned a letter to the editor taking the Chronicle and the main protagonist of the article, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, to task for the misrepresentation and manipulation of Catholic teaching. The Chronicle eventually published my letter, along with a few others disagreeing with the article and its timing, a couple of months later. Following the letter's publication, the response from the Catholics in Alliance crowd was swift and predictably unpleasant. You can read the comments here for a taste. This war of words against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (and various offshoots like Catholic Democrats, etc.) went on for several years and took many twists and turns, which you can read about in the links at the bottom of this post.

In the end, it is my belief that, ultimately, those of us leading the charge against these groups lost that war (at least in the short term covering 2006, 2008, and 2012). Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United accomplished their aims of convincing Catholics that voting for a party that views government-funded abortion on demand as a sacrament, and that views the destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to achieving its policy goals and destroying the institutions -- such as the Church and other religious people and organizations -- that might stand in that party's way of achieving said policy goals, was not only morally acceptable, but was, in fact, the MOST Catholic way to vote. See, e.g., Doug Kmiec.  "These groups are merely drawing attention to long-ignored issues of importance to Catholics," some said. "These groups are doing the Church a service by focusing on the need for a 'consistent ethic of life'," they said (never mind that these groups NEVER talked about such life issues as abortion, euthanasia, or the sanctity of the family). Entire blogs were established for the purpose of propagandizing the issues that the DemoCath groups argued were being ignored because of Catholic voters' allegedly "obsessive" focus on "a narrow spectrum of issues regarding family and sexuality" (i.e. the sanctity of life and the family). Sometimes, these blogs had well-meaning founders who definitely raised important issues for Catholics to consider when they were deciding how to vote, but these blogs often quickly devolved into DemoCath propaganda organs as certain bloggers and frequent combox commentators used those fora to press forward the agitprop that ultimately undermined the good of the Catholic Church and her teachings in favor of the pursuit of Democrat Party policy goals. Far too many Catholics who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the arguments of those whose only purpose was to weaken the resolve of Catholic voters to stand for the Catholic Church's teachings on the primacy of life and family issues, and instead were duped by these malefactors to trade that birthright for a mess of feel-good leftist policy pottage. And that party repaid them by, among many other things, suing nuns to force them to provide birth control in their medical policies. And, in response, Catholic voters had so weakened their resolve to stand for traditional life issues, that they re-elected the guy who has consistently attacked their Church. Which was the goal of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United all along. Today, there is no identifiable "Catholic Vote" left to speak of thanks to the likes of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.

So, it turns out to be a rather bittersweet bit of gloating, at best, when I read the latest WikiLeaks email dump, which includes a 2012 email exchange in which HilLIARy Clinton's current campaign chairman, John Podesta, openly brags about being involved in efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and foment a "Catholic Spring" (i.e. a bottom-up rebellion against the Church hierarchy and its teaching authority akin to the "Arab Spring" -- albeit without the violence, one hopes -- that led to revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria). The means of fomenting this takeover of the Church? Why, none other than Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United:
Hi, John, 
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity? 

Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them.

Just wondering . . .

Hoping you're well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want. 

Sandy Newman, President 
Voices for Progress 

Date: 2012-02-11 11:45
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .

We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I'll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult. (emphasis added)

That there is what we call a "smoking gun". Again, we knew ALL ALONG what these groups were up to, but they always had some plausible deniability along with their apologists making the case that they were honest-to-goodness "Faithful Catholics"™️ just arguing for a "consistent ethic of life" (again, albeit one that never ever quite mentioned abortion). But this Podesta email is a validation and vindication of the efforts of myself and like-minded bloggers such as, for example, Rich Leonardi, to expose this infiltration of the Catholic Church by political subversives bent on "plant[ing] the seeds of ... revolution".

If you have the time, I encourage you to read as many of the links below as you can to get some indication of what these subversive groups were up to and the efforts to which bloggers were going to expose them. You might find of particular interest the links detailing how former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (a Democrat who is now challenging U.S. Sen. Rob Portman for his Senate seat) had a man at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good whom he also appointed to head up the Ohio Faith-Based Initiatives office and who was, at the same time, running a prostitution ring. Yep.

Others commenting on this story:

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Prominent Catholic Professor Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama and Demanded to Know Who Was Paying Her

Soros-Funded Pro-Obama Catholics to Launch News Service?
Catholic Key Blog Asks "Is Catholics in Alliance Kaput?"

Soros-Funded "Catholic" Groups Still Running Cover for Pro-Aborts (Of Course, That's the Sole Reason They Exist)

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United to “Set the Record Straight” by Trying to Convince Catholics That New Healthcare Law is "Pro-Life"

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

CatholicVote Takes on Soros-Funded Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United

Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism - the Catholic Left Declares War on Pro-Lifers

Apologists for Abortion-Loving Catholics Attack Archbishop ... Again

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

What Did Gov. Strickland Know, and When Did He Know It (re: Eric McFadden)? [UPDATED]

Breaking: Catholic Democrat Who Once Headed Up Ohio's Faith-Based Initiatives Arrested for Running Prostitution Ring [UPDATED]

"Seamless Garment Has Lost a Thread"

Catholics in Alliance Voter Survey of "Little Value," Archdiocese of Denver Says

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Attacks the Knights of Columbus

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Hits McCain with Ad Questioning His Pro-Life Credentials

"Non-Partisan" Group of Catholic Obama Supporters Calling Itself "Catholics United" Gets Divisive

The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

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

I Missed the Seminar [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

Fidelis Dismisses Religious Left Media "Report"

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics

Mark Shea in National Catholic Register: "Richard Rich Lives"

Edwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left

Mark Shea: "Whores for Edwards Swings into Action"

Catholics in Alliance Respond With Letter to Editor

Continue to Raise Our Voices on Issue of Voting

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Toledo Blade: "Catholic Voting Guide Gives Church Perspective"

Catholics Find Voting Guides a Test of Allegiance

Weigel: "An Electoral Battle of the Booklets?

More From Amy Welborn on the "Dueling Catholic Voter Guides"

Columnist: "Christian Right Driving Wedge Into U.S."

More on Catholic Voter Guides

Dueling Catholic Voter Guides

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

hit counter for blogger