3). The doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church are not consumer products that the Church’s employees sell to those who want them; Catholic doctrine and dogma express the unchanging truth of the faith.

6). Leaving the Catholic Church because a priest was mean to you, or because sister whacked you with a ruler, or because the church secretary looked at you funny is as stupid as giving up on the truths of math because you hate your high school algebra teacher.

9). The Catholic Church owes no one a revision of her doctrine or dogma. She didn’t change to save most of Europe from becoming Protestant, why would you imagine that she would change just to get you in one of her parishes?

You better go read the whole list!

“Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose…With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.”

“When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

I saw a really good editorial comment all about this on the new RealCatholicTV.com, from a guy named Michael Voris.  He starts out with the thesis that all Democrats have ever done about abortion is lied.  They claimed that abortion must be legal due to all the hundreds of thousands of back-alley abortions taking place; since then, the man who made up the fake statistic they always cited has confessed to making it up.  They’ve said that it’s just “tissue.”  Biology has proven otherwise.  They’ve said “it’s just potential human life, and doesn’t have rights until the state says it does.”  So now to top it off, they say they want to reduce the number of abortions.  The best argument that proves this is just another lie is one of basic logic.  If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, if the “right to choose” is a basic human right, then why would a Democrat suggest that there’s any good reason to reduce the number of abortions?  It makes no sense – why try to dissuade me from exercising this most basic of human rights?

It’s worth watching this video…Mr. Voris has a substantial level of bravado and may be a shade over the top, but it’s simply to illustrate his points and the absurdity of the claims.  Check it out.

Check out the video here! -Note – you need to log in to view the video…use the username RCBC and the password RCBC2008.

To help end confusion caused by recent misrepresentations of Catholic Church teaching on abortion, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities has issued a two-page fact sheet called “Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching.”

Public debate on the topic was prompted by misleading remarks by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, August 24 in an interview on Meet the Press.  On August 26, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of their Committee on Doctrine, issued a statement to correct her remarks.

That link will take you to the document.  They’ve also put out a brochure called “The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church.”

They aren’t stopping there on correcting and clarifying misinterpretations of Church teaching, as evidence by this statement:

Many communities within the United States are now engaged in a new conversation on the meaning of the word “marriage”, questioning whether it should describe a union only between a man and a woman. As leaders of our respective faiths, we, as Orthodox Rabbis, communal leaders and representatives of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, wish to affirm our shared commitment to the ordinance of God, the Almighty One, who created man and woman in the divine image (Gen. 1:26-27), so that they might share as male and female, as helpmates and equals (Gen. 2:21-24), in the procreation of children (Gen. 1:28) and the building up of society.

We now confront a demand that same sex unions be classified as marriage. Advocates of this position argue that to do otherwise is to engage in a form of discrimination against homosexuals.   We recognize that all persons share equally in the dignity of human nature and are entitled to have that human dignity protected, but this does not justify the creation of a new definition for a term whose traditional meaning is of critical importance to the furtherance of a fundamental societal interest.

God’s design for the continuance of human life, as seen in the natural order, as well as in the Bible  (Gen. 1-3), clearly revolves around the union of male and female, first as husband and wife, and then as parents. A unique goal of marriage, which is reproduction and the raising of families, exists apart from that of same sex unions, which cannot equally participate in this essential function. While others may claim the right to establish private relationships between persons of the same gender that simulate marriage, the legal classification of such relationships as marriage dilutes the special standing of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the future of every society depends upon its ability to reproduce itself according to this natural order and to have its young people reared in a stable environment, it is the duty of the state to protect the traditional place of marriage and the family for the good of society.

While others have the freedom to disagree with us, we hope that even those outside of our common religious traditions will recognize that we speak from the truth of human nature itself which is consistent with both reason and the moral life.  We also call upon our local faith communities to consider carefully the long held traditions of Jews and Christians on the nature of marriage as built upon the commitment of a man and a woman desirous of establishing a family for contributing to the common good of humanity.

Here we have a statement which can only be described as quintessentially Judeo-Christian, and it doesn’t beat around the proverbial bush at all.  Great stuff.  No doubt the formerly “closed cafeteria” will be in a tizzy about this.

Here’s the video clip – you have to see and hear it to believe it.

And here’s Archbishop Chaput in yesterday evening’s homily:

“If you’re Catholic and you disagree with your Church. What do you do? You change your mind.”

What the Speaker has done here is essentially decided to speak on behalf of all Catholics and in fact for the hierarchy based on her alleged research.  The Great One made a great point on his talk show today – that a person’s historical frame of reference begins with their birth – hence the Speaker believes that this hardcore pro-life position on the part of the Church has only been around the last 50 years or so, when in fact even 2 minutes of googling will show you that the position has been completed unchanged for the entire history of Christianity.  She’s made herself an arbiter, and a doctor of the Church, by stating not only that the scholars of the Church have never taken a firm position on when life begins, but that since they haven’t she can (even though she still didn’t actually take a position.)  Her concern, and therefore the Church’s concern, is not when life begins, but rather that nothing should interefere with a woman’s “right to choose.”

Meet Nancy Pelosi, newest member of protestantism.  No, never mind, she’s been a protestant for decades.  Oh for her bishop to be as loving and concerned for her as Kansas City Bishop Naumann was toward Governor Sebelius.

By the way, apparently “Faith Community” means something similar to “church.” And apparently, it’s okay to advertise the race of your local parish. I’m going to go over to SMCRome.org right now and change it to say that we are a White European and Hispanic Catholic Parish. Watch how fast Father Jim would be on the phone calling me and telling me to change it!

New York Cardinal Edward M. Egan will request a meeting with Rudolph Giuliani, saying in a statement he deeply regretted that the former New York mayor received Communion during a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI at St. Patrick’s Cathedral April 19.

A statement issued by Cardinal Egan April 28 said that when he first came to the archdiocese and Giuliani was mayor the two of them “had an understanding … that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.” Giuliani has long opposed efforts to limit access to abortion and supported state funding of abortions for poor women in New York. He was widely described as a pro-choice candidate during his run for president that ended earlier this year.

Cardinal Egan’s statement said he would be “seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

Giuliani was among guests invited to attend the Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral celebrated by Pope Benedict. The Mass was described as being for clergy and religious, although there were other invited guests including Giuliani and current Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is Jewish.

Giuliani told reporters as he left the Mass that he had received Communion.

Cardinal Egan’s statement said “the Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind.

It’s reasonable for Egan to raise this issue – a public person involved in publicly removing themselves from Communion with the Church.  He’s been told not to receive but he did anyway.  It will be interesting to see what happens if they have their meeting.
 More

Barack Obama was campaigning recently and explained how he would educate his daughters…he said he’d teach them values and morals, but if they made a mistake, he didn’t want them punished with a baby or an STD.  Apparently, he isn’t interested in teaching them the value of personal responsibility or natural consequences.  They need to have an “out.”  Hmm…think that you might repeat the same mistake over and over if there’s no consequence?  Also telling is that he considers a baby and and STD to be on a similar plane.

Don’t believe me?  Here’s your video clip.

In response to the article in the Feb. 21 edition of The Georgia Bulletin, “Young Catholics Embrace Jesus’ Message, Not Practices,” I would ask the faithful of Georgia to call upon Archbishop Gregory to make a statement. Throughout the article, the impression is given that church teachings are negotiable. Statements such as, “Increasingly, people want a dialogue with bishops and other church leaders on moral issues” gives the false impression that church teachings are up for discussion—that the laity could meet with the clergy and have a discussion and get her teachings changed or at least softened a bit.

Not sure if it’s insidious or just some sort of journalistic standard, but throughout the letter, I capitalized the word “Church” as well as the pronouns “She” and “Her” in reference to the Church, and the editor went through and un-capitalized them.

The whole editorial is here

Now then, here’s a story on Italian Bishops suggesting Christian actors should stay out of steamy sex scenes:

A row has erupted over “Vatican interference” after the Italian Synod of Bishops appealed to actors to exercise their consciences and refuse to take part in “vulgar and destructive” erotic scenes in films.

The appeal follows public condemnation by the bishops of an explicit sex scene in Caos Calmo, starring the Italian actor and director Nanni Moretti, which has just been released. In the film, directed by Antonello Grimaldi, Moretti plays a television executive who experiences a mid-life crisis after the death of his wife in the course of which he has a torrid affair with a woman he saves from drowning.

Father Nicolò Anselmi, head of the youth section of the Italian Bishops Conference, said that Moretti was normally noted for his “idealistic and sensitive” films. But the “gratuitous” sex scene with Isabella Ferrari, his co-star, would have an undesirable effect on the “impressionable young” since it was shown without any context involving love or tenderness.

Franco Zeffirelli, the film and opera director, said: “The Church is full of pedants who have lost all sense of proportion.” It was a “fourth-rate” film that did not merit the publicity generated by the bishops’ intervention.

more… 

In America, we still struggle with a woman openly nursing in public.  A few weeks ago, I was in public with my friend–a new mom–and every time she nursed she placed a blanket over her child’s head.  I asked her why she was covering herself and she said “It makes people so uncomfortable to see a baby connected to a female breast.”  She couldn’t have said it better.  In American culture, boobs are purely for sex so we really have a difficult time when we see an innocent child connected to that boob.  Some women I know so hate nursing their hungry baby in public, THEY DON’T DO IT!  They bring formula to Church with them.  How many Catholic women at Mass have I seen pop a bottle in their babies mouth when they are hungry?  Far more than seeing a nursing mom at Mass.

Gerald at Closed Cafeteria exhibited some of his ignorance (borne in part of the fact that he does not have any kids yet) with his comments, and of course the comments on the post are a mixed bag comprising those who say “breastfeeding is great and should be done unashamedly” to those who say “breastfeeding is okay as long as I don’t know it’s happening in my general vicinity.”