Submitted by Chuck H.
Despite what the USCCB apparently maintains, there is no right to national health care in authentic Catholic doctrine
It is important to emphasize that this is not a mere pragmatic consideration. For a central government, or any level of government, to intervene when it is unnecessary for it to do so is not merely not required. It is not merely unwise. It is, in the words of Pius XI, nothing less than an “injustice,”“gravely wrong,” a “grave evil and disturbance of right order.” It is disturbing, then, that the USCCB does not balance its emphasis on the Church’s teaching about the “right to medical care” with equal emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity – a principle which has a longer history in Catholic social teaching than the (very recent) affirmation of a “right to medical care,” and which has a much more sophisticated and worked out theoretical basis in Catholic moral theology and natural law theory than the latter right has ever been given. (Astonishingly, the USCCB’s online summary of the basic principles of Catholic social teaching includes no reference to subsidiarity at all; and its more extended online overview of Catholic social teaching mentions subsidiarity only once, in passing, without explaining what it means.)
In particular, it is disturbing that no consideration of subsidiarity or the rights of the family seems to have informed the USCCB position on the health care bill, which, as I have noted already, seems to allow that the bill is acceptable or even required by Catholic teaching apart from the elements concerning abortion and coverage of illegal immigrants. How does respect for a “right to medical care” justify the federal government forcing every citizen to buy insurance, of a kind the government (rather than parents or individuals generally) decides the citizen needs? How does it justify increasing government power to determine for citizens what sorts of treatments are worth paying for? How does it justify moving towards a de facto monopoly as health insurance companies are transformed into heavily regulated government contractors? How does it justify the bill’s “marriage penalties”? Even apart from considerations of subsidiarity and the independence of the family, it is hard to see how such policies could be justified; in light of those considerations the policies seem positively immoral. Add to that the bill’s staggering increase to the already crushing debt we are facing, the dubious constitutionality of some of its components, the rushed and irresponsible way a transformation of one-sixth of the economy was cobbled together for political reasons without sufficient attention to unforeseen consequences, and the bill’s Rube Goldberg system of bribes and special breaks – as well as the USCCB letter’s admission that the bishops are “not politicians, policy experts or legislative tacticians” and thus without any special competence vis-à-vis the practical side of health care policy – and it becomes mystifying why the USCCB should think that, apart from the matter of abortion, the bill is something to “applaud” (as Cardinal George put it). The bill is not even an improvement on the existing system; it’s not even equally bad. As Steve Burton points out, it takes what is already wrong with the existing system and doubles down on it.
Bob Stanley of “The Catholic Treasure Chest” recommends the History Channel’s special on the Shroud of Turin
The History channel ran a special last night called “Resurrecting Jesus”.
It is about the latest findings of the shroud and I thought, very good.
I say that because the History channel does not have a very good track record when it comes to Christianity. They tend to emphasize the nay-sayers.
This one was a put down to the nay-sayers. They showed a few recent findings that drove nails into the coffin of the flawed carbon dating test. The shroud ended up with being dated centuries before that test result.
It is a 2 hour program with 30 minutes of that being commercials. They will no doubt show it many times, so watch for it. – Submitted by Bob Stanley
Fatima: The Message and the Miracle – Remarkable eye witness testimony that still holds up, today.
…And then the Miracle began. We recount here the testimony of a reporter who cannot possibly be accused of partiality in this matter and for a good reason! We refer to Avelino de Almeida, the chief editor of O Seculo, the large “liberal” anticlerical and Masonic daily newspaper of Lisbon. He writes:
From the road, where the carriages were crowded together and where hundreds of persons had stayed for want of sufficient courage to advance across the muddy ground, we saw the huge crowd turn towards the sun which appeared at its zenith, clear of the clouds. It resembled a disc of silver, and it was possible to stare at it without the least discomfort. It did not burn the eyes. It did not blind. We would say that it produced an eclipse. Then a tremendous cry rang out, and the crowd nearest us were heard to shout: “Miracle! Miracle! … Marvel! … Marvel!” Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumbfounded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky, the sun trembled, it made strange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants …7
Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review, Ilustração Portuguesa. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw … I saw … I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: “Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church.”8
CBS Poll: Grade Obama’s First Year in Office
With President Obama completing his first year in office this week, we are giving you the chance to weigh in on how you think he has done on the job.
Below are 10 categories for you to give the president your grade (in A-F format), including an overall grade at the end.
Radical Michigan Christian militia group arrested. Rev. Jeremiah Wright still at large.
Hard hitting, in-depth reporting (just kidding) from the mainstream media outlets gives us the government ‘s position on the alleged intentions of the “radical Christian militia group” in Michigan.
Other than that, little or nothing is known.
I’m betting the raid was the result of something that was overheard in a local bar, after everybody had one or two beers, too many.
Just another way for the Obama administration to keep Christians in their “rightful” place. Watch this high level raid and subsequent prosecution lead quickly to nothing and nowhere.
If this is, as Attorney General Eric Holder says, “an insidious plan by anti-government extremists” then why is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright still at large?
PepsiCo, Inc. is leading corporate sponsor of homosexual advocacy groups ($75 million)
Plano, Texas, Mar 30, 2010 / 12:41 am (CNA).- Shareholders of PepsiCo should vote for a shareholder proposal that the food, drink and snack company disclose its standards for donating over $75 million in corporate assets to controversial groups such as those advocating homosexual causes, an ex-gay group says.
Reminiscent of Pontious Pilate’s hand washing, Weakland “kicked” the Murphy case up to the Vatican
In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.
However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the church. He wrote that since he had become aware that “solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation,” the case belonged at the doctrinal office.
With no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Weakland wrote a different Vatican office in March 1997 saying the matter was urgent because a lawyer was preparing to sue, the case could become public and “true scandal in the future seems very possible.”
Recently some bishops have argued that the 1962 norms dictating secret disciplinary procedures have long fallen out of use. But it is clear from these documents that in 1997, they were still in force.
But the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.
In an interview, Archbishop Weakland said that he recalled a final meeting at the Vatican in May 1998 in which he failed to persuade Cardinal Bertone and other doctrinal officials to grant a canonical trial to defrock Father Murphy. (In 2002, Archbishop Weakland resigned after it became public that he had an affair with a man and used church money to pay him a settlement.)
Archbishop Weakland said this week in an interview, “The evidence was so complete, and so extensive that I thought he should be reduced to the lay state, and also that that would bring a certain amount of peace in the deaf community.”
Father Murphy died four months later at age 72 and was buried in his priestly vestments. Archbishop Weakland wrote a last letter to Cardinal Bertone explaining his regret that Father Murphy’s family had disobeyed the archbishop’s instructions that the funeral be small and private, and the coffin kept closed.
“In spite of these difficulties,” Archbishop Weakland wrote, “we are still hoping we can avoid undue publicity that would be negative toward the church.”
Editor’s note: Archbishop Rembert Weakland’s lame attempt to avoid responsibility in this matter is probably the only thing that even remotely links the Pope to this scandal.
(Then) Cardinal Ratzinger would have been primarily charged with evaluating the doctrinal issues regarding Fr. Murphy’s alleged violation of the sacrament of reconciliation … not the abuse allegations.
Weakland had all the authority and evidence he needed to have Fr. Murphy removed from priestly ministry for abuse, but Weakland was simply too guilty, too gay, and too gutless to get it done. It was much easier (and politically, much smarter) for Weakland to key in on Fr. Murphy’s alleged violation of the confessional, something which gave Weakland a perfect excuse to “kick the matter upstairs” and let the Vatican “take the rap” and the “heat”.
Weakland’s own lurid personal behavior while in office is a scandal of even greater proportions, and it should be noted that it was Benedict XVI who finally demanded Weakland’s resignation.
Democratic Rep. Bill Lipinski explains his “NO” vote on Obamacare
“It’s not just about being against something, it’s believing that every individual deserves dignity and respect, whoever they are, at whatever stage of life they’re in,” Lipinski said. “That is something I hear my Democratic colleagues say. And I say that it’s self-evident that the individual is there at conception.”
Lipinski has degrees in mechanical engineering, economic systems, and political science. He’s not a biologist.
“We know that at conception, the genetic code is there, for a unique individual. This is not something that is just a religious belief,” Lipinski said. “If you look at what we know about reproduction, you can see it.”
Some liberal Catholics are thinking: It’s payback time, Ratzinger!
If I was Benedict XVI, I’d be asking myself if I even wanted to visit Britain this autumn. For, when he does, he will meet English bishops, Catholic journalists and self-appointed spokesmen for the Catholic community who did not dare offend liberal opinion by defending him properly, or whose judgment was clouded by personal dislike of the Pope and his agenda.
Some Catholics – not many, but they are prominent – are actually thinking: it’s payback time, Ratzinger. If we can make this mud stick, then we can continue to sabotage your liturgical reforms. In other words, they are using the victims of clerical child abuse to fight internal political battles. Why am I not surprised?
(2nd Vatican) Council paved the way for the diffusion of error by declining to teach the whole truth – or through teaching opposing, ‘politically incorrect’, truth.
…I have discovered that the near-silence and inactivity of the post-conciliar Church establishment regarding the Jews’ need for conversion can probably be traced to a conscious decision of the Council itself during the preparation of this Declaration. When the revised draft of NA was circulated, with the original draft in parallel columns, the Fathers found that the aforesaid section in article 4 about the conversion of the Jews, with its specific citation of Romans 11: 25, had now been totally omitted. And (unlike Bishop De Smedt) the relator for this document, the German Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea, was quite open about the reason why the original version was now considered unacceptable: “Very many Fathers,” Bea announced in his relatio, “have requested that in talking about this ‘hope’, since it has to do with a mystery, we should avoid every appearance of proselytism. Others have asked that the same Christian hope, applying to all peoples, should also be expressed somehow. In the present version of this paragraph we have sought to satisfy all these requests” (ibid., p. 648, emphasis added). The tactic of His Eminence and all those “very many” (but unnamed) Fathers was thus to tarnish the previous draft with the pejorative label “proselytism”, and to ‘elevate’ the future conversion of the Jews to the ethereal status of a “mystery”, thereby insinuating that it will somehow ‘just happen’ spontaneously one day without the necessity of any human missionary activity on the part of Catholics.
The tactic, combined with the great personal prestige of Cardinal Bea, worked perfectly. The vast majority of the Fathers duly voted in favor of the new draft, thereby relegating to the finest of fine print this particular point of our “unshakable faith” regarding the Jews. It proved to be literally unmentionable in a modern conciliar document, and so has been ‘buried’ in the middle of a much longer passage of the Epistle to the Romans which is indicated (but not cited) among various other biblical references to NA #4. What now appears in that passage is a much blander statement referring to Christian hopes for mankind in general. And in accord with the non-threatening spirit of this ‘pastoral’ Declaration, all explicit mention of anyone actually joining, entering or returning to the Catholic Church has been carefully excised. We read that “the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Soph. 3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65: 4; Rom. 11: 11-32)”.
Still Trying to Interpret Vatican II… over 40 Years Later
Why the Council’s “true interpretation” remains elusive even to its staunchest defenders should be obvious after forty years of wandering in the post-conciliar desert: Except where it simply repeated a constant teaching of the Church, Vatican II is utterly meaningless. Insofar as its supposedly “distinctive” teaching is concerned, the Council is a collection of ambiguities that tend to cancel each other out, leaving us, in essence, with nothing. It is precisely the nothingness of Vatican II that has led to the endless debate over what it means…
When the ’60s radicals took over the Catholic church
When Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in l960, almost every bishop in the world was puzzled. Vatican Councils historically are only called when the Church is in some desperate need or is fighting a very serious heresy (a widespread attack on a dogma of faith, i.e., Mary was not the Mother of God). But this was a time when the Catholic Church seemed to be in her glory. We had an abundance of priests and nuns. Seminaries were full. Catholic schools were overflowing. It was not uncommon that attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was standing room only. Almost every Saturday, there were lines for Confession.
So why call a council? Pope John was warned by some Bishops that in their midst were some (not many) liberal Bishops who would use the council to “modernize” the Church. Previous Popes, especially Pope St. Pius X, had warned that the Church must never be “modern”. She must be unchangeable because what is modern in 1940 will not be modern in 1960 and what is modern in 1960 will not be modern in 1980. By remaining FOREVER unchangeable, you are always relevant. Pope John promised it would be a PASTORAL Council and not DOCTRINAL or DOGMATIC so that the Deposit of Faith (our beliefs) and the liturgy of the Mass will not change. It has been said that before he died, he saw the council change in a direction he was unable to stop and thus welcomed death knowing the council would die with him. Unfortunately, it was re-opened by Pope Paul VI, his successor, who invited 6 Protestant clergy to act as “observers”. Behind the scenes, these “observers” were allowed much more input and became unofficial participants. Thus, the Roman Catholic Mass could become “Protestantized.” At the end of the council, one of the Protestant ministers is quoted as saying: “This is the best council the Protestants ever had!”
It is not our intention to give you a step by step history of Vatican II. However, you should know that when the council closed, the wheels were in motion like a train at full speed. In the driver’s seat were the “modernist” bishops who’d used the council like a vehicle to take it to their own destination—a more “modern” church, open to innovation, causing weakening of faith and much confusion. Pope Paul VI seeing the end result of Vatican II said in no uncertain terms: “THE SMOKE OF SATAN HAS ENTERED THE CHURCH!”
Free will and eternal destiny
Submitted by Bob Stanley
Bishop Morlino of Madison,WI sets the record straight on a number of critical issues
I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”
The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.
And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.
The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.
In this way, very serious harm is being done to the Church because people in the Church wonder, “Who speaks for Christ? Does the Catholic Health Association speak for Christ? Does Network, an organization of religious Sisters, speak for Christ? Do they teach with the authority of the bishops? Is the bishops’ teaching just another opinion?”
Settlement reached in free speech dispute between Aurora, Illinois and pro-lifers
Aurora, Ill., Mar 26, 2010 / 01:12 am (CNA).- The city of Aurora, Illinois has settled a lawsuit alleging it violated the First Amendment rights of protesters of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility. Protesters had complained of conflicting legal advice from city officials and threats of mass arrests from the local police chief.
At one protest in 2007, police arrived on the scene with an armored paddy wagon and constant video surveillance, which protesters said was intimidating.
The settlement requires the city to amend two ordinances claimed to be unconstitutional, mandates First Amendment training for city police and establishes a grievance process to handle disputes between protesters and city officials, a press release from the Chicago-based Thomas More Society reports.
True story of famous atheist who dies, meets “divine being” and promptly comes back to life
…On the day of that first “death” (the second and final one occurred eleven months later), Dr. George returned to Ayer’s bedside. “I came back to talk to him later that evening,” he told Cash. “Very discreetly, I asked him, as a philosopher, what was it like to have had a near-death experience? He suddenly looked rather sheepish. Then he said, ‘I saw a Divine Being. I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise all my various books and opinions.’
“He clearly said ‘Divine Being,’” said Dr. George. “He was confiding in me, and I think he was slightly embarrassed because it was unsettling for him as an atheist. He spoke in a very confidential manner. I think he felt he had come face to face with God, or his maker, or what one might say was God.
Later, when I read his article, I was surprised to see he had left out all mention of it. I was simply amused. I wasn’t very familiar with his philosophy at the time of the incident, so the significance wasn’t immediately obvious.”
(Ayer never wrote or spoke of this conversation with the doctor who saved his life—not to his wife, nor to Nicholas his adult son. It may be that he had no recollection of it. When it came to light as result of Dr. George’s contacting William Cash, both my mother-in-law and Nicholas were skeptical. Why, though, would one doubt the word of an upstanding and seemingly discreet senior consultant physician? I have no reason to disbelieve him.)
When Ayer was released by his doctors a month later, friends and family did notice that he’d changed.
“He became so much nicer after he died,” was the mordant way my mother-in-law, Dee Wells, put it to Cash. “He was not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people.”
What she also noticed is that as his life ebbed away, Ayer began spending a great deal of time with Father Frederick Copleston, his former opponent in the BBC debate. Until then they’d never been particularly close, though Ayer had grudging respect for Copleston’s muscular mind. (The erudite Jesuit had taken on Bertrand Russell on the BBC a year before arguing with Ayer, to defend St. Thomas Aquinas’ five metaphysical proofs of god’s existence, not a position guaranteed to endear him to many modern rationalists). Nevertheless, in the last year of his life, Ayer spent many hours in Copleston’s company, talking and arguing about who knows what. The must have made an odd couple seated together in the darkest recesses of London’s Garrick Club. The Catholic divine even graced Ayer’s scrupulously secular cremation.
“In the end, he was Freddie’s closest friend,” said Dee. “It was quite extraordinary.”
Computer graphics artists use Shroud of Turin images to create 3-D figure of crucified man (photo courtesy of the History Channel)
The Shroud of Turin bears the full-body, back-and-front image of a crucified man that is said to closely resemble the New Testament description of the passion and death of Christ. The 14-foot cloth long has posed mysteries because of its age and its negative image of a bloodstained and battered man who had been crucified. Believers claim it to be the miraculous image of Jesus, formed as he rose from the dead.
The History Channel will air “The Real Face of Jesus?,” a special two-hour event that premieres March 30 at 9 p.m. EST. It aims to bring the world as close as it has ever come to seeing what Jesus may have actually looked like.
Computer graphics artist Ray Downing of Studio Macbeth used today’s most sophisticated electronic tools and software in a yearlong effort to recreate the face imprint on the Shroud of Turin.
“The presence of 3-D information encoded in a 2-D image is quite unexpected, as well as unique,” Downing said. “It is as if there is an instruction set inside a picture for building a sculpture.”
Doug Lawrence's Catholic Site 