Some Pictures of Our Dogs..
August 28 2008 | photography | No Comments »
Archive for August, 2008
Some Pictures ~ My Wife and I
August 28 2008 | photography | No Comments »
Creative Minority Report
We laugh because we believe
Surfing through some of the blogrolls, I found this blog which I think is pretty good. I will have to spend some more time reading but I like it! I’ve added it and a couple others to my list of frequently visited blogs. Who knows, I just may learn a thing or two…
August 28 2008 | liturgy | No Comments »
In Response to FrZ’s Call for Bloggers to Unite..
My apologies FrZ of WDTPRS, I am a tad slower than most veteran bloggers.. :->
BLOGGERS UNITE! Keep shaping the conversation on pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
For the last few days we have been focusing our attentions on Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), VP candidate Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), et. al., and reopening the issue of Holy Communion for pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
The Catholic blogosphere has been pushing the conversation but only few reps of the mainstream media have picked this up.
I know talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has discussed the Pelosi Problem from last Sunday’s Meet The Press and has linked back to this blog. I have head Laura Ingraham bring it up. Bill O’Reilly spoke about Card. Egan’s slap down on his show, the highest rated in all cable/satellite TV. Alas, I haven’t heard Bill Bennett discuss it yet. I don’t believe any networks have brought it up since Pelosi appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press.
But the issue is a huge one. Apart from the impact of the Catholic vote on the upcoming elections, we are dealing with the sanctity of human life.
QUAERITUR: Will pro-abortion Catholic politicians and other highly visible pro-abortion Catholics prevail shaping the rank and file attitude about receiving Holy Communion while defying the Church on faith and morals or will the Church’s duly appointed pastors prevail?
A paradigmatic moment came during Speaker Pelosi’s interview with Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press. Watch what happens:
REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about [So, instead of her Church’s teaching, her reference point is Roe v Wade.] very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
August 28 2008 | abortion | 2 Comments »
Great Article!
The Democrats and the Abortion Wars
Are Obama and Pelosi dodging the life-and-death question?
By George Weigel | Newsweek Web Exclusive
There are also serious questions of political theory and governance at stake in the abortion wars. Pro-lifers have long argued that allowing the government to declare an entire class of human creatures—the unborn—outside the protection of the law is a danger for everyone (wherever they may be located on the Doerflinger timeline). Does Senator Obama agree that the abortion debate involves that first principle of justice which teaches that innocent life is inviolable and that the equal protection of the laws must extend to everyone, regardless of condition? Justice Byron White—President John F. Kennedy’s sole appointment to the Supreme Court—described Roe v. Wade as an exercise in “raw judicial power.” Does Senator Obama agree with Justice White that the Supreme Court overreached its authority in Roe v. Wade?
After the class, as the conversation continued with a few students and the professor, Doerflinger took a piece of chalk and extended the timeline to the end of the blackboard, where he wrote “Tenure.” The students laughed, and got the message. The only point along that continuum that wouldn’t be arbitrary was the starting point—conception.
Perhaps Doerflinger should send his extended timeline to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
A few years ago, Richard Doerflinger, a pro-life Roman Catholic intellectual with decades of experience in the trenches of America’s culture wars, was invited to debate the moral and legal status of the human embryo before a large class of Harvard undergraduates. During the course of the discussion, Doerflinger’s Harvard faculty interlocutor drew a timeline of human biological development on the blackboard: conception, implantation, brain waves, viability, birth and so forth. His challenge to Doerflinger was to defend, in a nonarbitrary way and without reference to religious principles, the notion that society should recognize moral value and legal rights at any particular point along that line. If here, why here? If there, why there?
Throughout this lengthy campaign, the Democratic Party has worked hard to present itself as the party of intellect, competence and moral seriousness. Yet it’s off to a very rocky start in addressing the substance of the abortion issue—which remains, 35 years after Roe v. Wade, one of the most volatile in our public life. Talk this week by Democratic leaders about lowering the incidence of abortion in America will rightly be welcomed by pro-life Democrats, including the large number of pro-life African-American Democrats. But the recent public record has to make committed pro-lifers of both parties wonder just how serious the Democratic leadership is about engaging the abortion debate.
At the Aug. 16 “Civil Forum on the Presidency” at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., Sen. Barack Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama quickly changed the subject to when life begins, and then demurred: “… whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” Why, though? An embryology text widely used in American medical schools, “The Developing Human,” is not so reticent about the science involved: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatazoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell—a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” That is the science. It’s quite specific, and understanding the science here is surely not above the “pay grade” of a president who will be making public-policy decisions based on that science.
As for theology, there are, obviously, theological disagreements on the moral question of abortion. But while a president is not a theological referee, a president ought to have some grasp of the basic philosophical issues that have been vigorously debated in the abortion wars over the past several decades; these, after all, are the issues that should inform public policy. For decades now, pro-life advocates have been arguing, on the basis of reason informed by science, that nothing human was ever anything other than human, and that nothing not human will ever become human. These are things we can know prior to our theological convictions (or lack thereof). Does Senator Obama disagree with these claims?
August 28 2008 | abortion | No Comments »
We need more like him!
Source: Catholic Online, www.catholic.org
The Archbishop of Denver is one of the premier leaders not only of the Church in America but in the world. His fidelity to the faith, clarity of conviction and inspired leadership have made the Denver Archdiocese one of the premier Sees in America. His latest book book is a blueprint for the exercise of Faithful Catholic citizenship.
This is a must-read!
The Archbishop has release a book entitled: “Render Unto Caesar” – Serving the nation by living our Catholic beliefs in political life.
Review here.
August 28 2008 | church leaders | No Comments »
The Speaker Blew It! Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Church on Abortion
Another good article on the Pelosi gaff:
The Speaker Blew It! Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Church on Abortion
By Lauren Green
FOX News Religion CorrespondentHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi blew it! At least that’s what my sources are saying. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press” Speaker Pelosi committed a major gaff against the Catholic Church over the issue of abortion. Then she made a scholarly error when she referred to a fifth century theologian to support her position. The first thing one well-respected academician said to me was “What the hell was she thinking?!”
Stump emphasizes that intellectual powerhouses like Augustine and especially Aquinas are so incredible, they could debate their own arguments. Their writings encompass volumes of ideas and thoughts. Taking one of their statements and making it support a controversial political position is… well…like Obama said… above our pay grade. <Ain’t that the truth!>
In deference to the hallowed halls of higher education, that quote will remain anonymous.
So what did Ms. Pelosi say?
On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Ms. Pelosi answered Tom Brokaw’s inquiries about Senator Barack Obama’s statement that knowing when life begins “Was above my [his] pay grade.”
Speaker Pelosi said that “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
Pelosi went on to say that it’s only been about 50 years that the church has understood life to begin at conception.
What’s wrong? Two things. The first, saying that the church has only had the “life begins at conception” philosophy for about 50 years. The second was that St. Augustine, a pillar of Christian philosophy, said “three months”. In these two points, Pelosi made a factual error concerning the church, and an historical error involving one of the great minds of Christian philosophy.
On the first point, the church came out swinging. They responded in numbers and intensity that has surprised Catholic insiders. Statements came in from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop of Washington D.C. Donald Wuerl, Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Denver… and even Edward Cardinal Egan of the New York Archdiocese.
All voiced variations of the same theme: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion (USCCB)…..” and, that “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.” (Archbishop Donald Wuerl), they also pointed out that the church has had this position for about, oh… 2,000 years!”
Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things magazine says one would expect Archbishop Chaput to “whack her around” a bit. — He’s quite feisty. But Bottum says “The fact that these other bishops have joined in… shows how bad things are… It’s a sign that a line has been drawn….. that there will be no nuanced positions on abortion accepted.” The nuanced position refers to politicians who say ‘I’m personally opposed, but legally for it.’
Now to the second point, that reference to St. Augustine, the 5th century theologian. It may sound like “inside baseball” to anyone outside academia, but listen up, because making a misstatement about Augustine’s position on the issue of terminating a pregnancy, would be like saying that although Beethoven composed nine great symphonies, he only intended to write five. It’s ridiculous. <no kidding>
To Pelosi’s credit all the scholars I talked with thought for sure she meant to say St. Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century philosopher, theologian and scientist. Aquinas was one of the “doctors of the church”… and did write about when life begins. Dr. Eleanore Stump, philosophy professor from St. Louis University and author of “Aquinas” (Rutledge, 2003), said that Aquinas speculated that an embryo gets a soul at the point of “quickening”, the time when a woman can feel the baby move, which would be about three months. But, she says “no way in life that Aquinas would have accepted abortion.” <Good point IMHO, but another is confused or not, it demonstrates she has no business trying to expound teachings of the church, Clearly she is NOT QUALIFIED!>
But after Pelosi’s office released this statement late Tuesday, there was no giving her the benefit of the doubt. She meant St. Augustine.
“After she was elected to Congress , and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine who said: “…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21:22)
Dr. Peter Kreeft, professor of Philosophy at Boston College, says that if St. Augustine said this, it was only opinion, ” it was based on uncertainty”.
Bottum agrees, saying that Augustine would never have supported a world view where abortion was okay. Augustine fought against the Roman practice of infanticide — the killing of unwanted or imperfect children.
The verse Pelosi says Augustine refers to says this: “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” (NKJV)
Kreeft says, it sounds like if anything the verse supports protecting the unborn. Now the question is did Augustine mean to circumvent Moses? Hardly.
August 28 2008 | abortion | No Comments »
Profession of Faith
Last night, I had the honor of serving at the evening Mass in which we welcomed into the Holy Catholic Church a new member. When we recited the Nicene Creed, I was asked to hold the Sacramentary for him and as we were professing our faith together, I thought of this whole issue with Catholic politicians defying the Magisterium with regard to it’s teachings. I thought of what I was professing and allowed each statement to penetrate my soul, professing to God that which I placed my faith.
Nicene Creed – Profession of Faith
We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and all that is seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfilment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.Amen.
How people can profess they are Catholic and then support the termination of life and receive Holy Communion is beyond me. I sincerely pity them and pray for them and for them to end their misguidance of others.
I’d like to quote a piece of scripture from last night’s readings:
We instruct you, brothers and sisters,
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
to shun any brother
who walks in a disorderly way
and not according to the tradition they received from us.
For you know how one must imitate us.
For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
nor did we eat food received free from anyone.
On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked,
so as not to burden any of you.
Not that we do not have the right.
Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you,
so that you might imitate us.
In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that
if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.May the Lord of peace himself
give you peace at all times and in every way.
The Lord be with all of you.This greeting is in my own hand, Paul’s.
This is the sign in every letter; this is how I write.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you.St. Paul spoke of the consequences of one acting contrary to the tradition being handed down. The tradition includes instructions or teachings as prescribed by the Holy Catholic Church. He did not say we get to pick and choose what we wanted to adhere to. We must hold fast to the teachings inspired by God the Father through his most Holy Spirit. In the previous article, it was mention we have free will and this is true. But when we act contrary to the law of common good that was placed in our hearts, there will be consequences. While the Speaker has her right to vote, the consequences of voting contrary to the teachings/traditions is not being accepted by a Church she professes to love. The consequences include being publicly admonished in the spirit of love and if needed, in a more severe fashion including being cut off. Grace cannot abide with evil. Evil is the absence of Good. No Good comes from abortion. When a right to choose, becomes more important then a right to life, or when someone believes they know better than God, they are in serious error. What’s even worse is to step up and lead others into the occasion of sin. To knowingly profess as truth something that is so un-true it’s ridiculous.
Our Church as always taught abortion is evil. There is no confusion on this. There is no justification for killing the unborn..
When you profess your faith, you agree to abide by the rules, you submit to the authority of God and his Holy Church out of love and gratefulness, and because you know there is no way for the Church to be in error. The speaker needs to apologize and retract her erroneous statements with regard to Church teaching and she needs to let the Church speak for itself, or she needs to understand she will be taken to task.
My prayers are for her conversion of heart.
August 28 2008 | liturgy and random thoughts | No Comments »
Pelosi gets unwanted lessons on Catholic theology
More coverage from the AP:
Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology
Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.
Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.
The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, who said Pelosi, D-Calif., “stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion.”
It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.
Cardinals and archbishops in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and Denver are among those who have criticized her remarks. Archbishop George Niederauer, in Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco, will take up the issue in the Sept. 5 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, his spokesman said.
Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, Pelosi said “doctors of the church” have not been able to define when life begins.
She also cited the role of individual conscience. “God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions,” she said.
Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she “fully appreciates the sanctity of family” and based her views on conception on the “views of Saint Augustine, who said, ‘The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.’”
But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.
“This teaching has remained unchanged and remains unchangeable,” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
The Rev. Douglas Milewski, a Seton Hall University theologian who specializes in Augustine, said Pelosi seems to be confusing church teaching on abortion with the theological debate over when a fetus receives a soul.
“Saint Augustine wondered about the stages of human development before birth, how this related to the question of ensoulment and what it meant for life in the Kingdom of God,” Milewski said.
Questions about ensoulment related to determining penalties under church law for early and later abortions, not deciding whether the procedure is permissible, according to the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
Augustine was “quite clear on the immorality of abortion as evil violence, destructive of the very fabric of human bonds and society,” Milewski said.
Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering moral issues. However, that doesn’t mean parishioners can pick and choose what to believe and still be in line with the church.
Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and philosophical insights. “It’s not just a personal opinion that you came up with randomly,” she said.
Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the fringes of church life.
However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can they back a politician based on his or her policies on reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?
The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their election-year public policy guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports “an intrinsic evil” such as abortion amounts to “formal cooperation in grave evil.”
In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for “truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences,” according to the document.
It is a complex discussion. The Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, has some advice for candidates who seek to join the debate: Stick to politics — and support programs that truly help reduce the number of abortions.
“It is a big mistake,” Reese said, “for politicians to talk theology.”
August 28 2008 | abortion | No Comments »
Women, Abortion and Mental Health
Women, Abortion and Mental Health
Reactions to Study of American Psychological Association
By Karna Swanson
BOSTON, AUG. 25, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The bottom line regarding abortion and mental health is that women have been hurt and they need help, says the founder of Project Rachel.
“I have met women from every continent,” Victoria Thorn told ZENIT. “I have heard many experiences and reasons for abortions — and the sadness in a woman’s heart is universal.
I remember many years ago, I knew a young girl. I myself was in high school, the summer before the start of my senior year. She was a freshman, and we were close friends. She dated a buddy of mine and was impressed by his fast car and good looks. They dated for about a month when she confided in me that she was pregnant. Young and afraid, I tried to convince her to tell her parents and thought I had succeeded when later she told me, that she went and had an abortion. The abortion paid for by my buddy’s girlfriend (they later reunited). This girl was devastated. This was the first of 3 women I knew that exercised their “choice” and later regretted it. It solidified my belief in my church and her teaching about the evils of abortion.
Evil is the absence of Good. There is no Good in the act of abortion, it’s murder…
My view of my buddy forever changed..
August 26 2008 | abortion | No Comments »
