Tag Archives: Culture

One Man’s Prayer

by

Paul Edwards, a columnist writing for Townhall.com,  is compelled to pray for President Obama and more. After just 50 days in office:

“President Obama has clearly acted in opposition to righteousness by lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, reversing the Mexico City Policy which forces the use of your tax dollars to fund abortions at overseas abortion facilities, and by acting to rescind the “conscience clause” which protects doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other medical personnel from participating in abortions against their personal, private convictions.”

“He has elevated science above God by appealing to science rather than to morality in deciding to sacrifice the lives of future generations of unborn children for the false promise of “cures” for the present generation.”

Edwards says he will pray for wisdom, strength and protection for our President but cannot pray that plans, that clearly oppose righteousness and do harm to people, succeed.  He says that there is precedent for praying that unrighteous plans come to nothing:

“There is scriptural precedent for praying that the ungodly plans of God’s appointed leader fail. David repeatedly prayed that King Saul’s plans against him would fail.”

Does the agenda that so clearly “devalues the cause of life” that  President Obama has instituted deserve our support?  I’m praying for a righteous, moral, conscientious America, and that God will bring to naught evil plans that destroy life, make science a god and institute convenience as a dictator.

Edwards points to mainstream media pundit writing for Newsweek , Howard Fineman and American Enterprise Institute ‘s Kevin Hassett as reasonable men who “are now beginning to question whether or not Barack Obama is intentionally acting to harm the interests of the American people.”

Things Hidden and Brought to Light

by

The Anchoress talks about “things being ‘hidden’ and ‘brought to light’.”  She says ,

“We all of us make instinctive moves to hide those parts of ourselves of which we disapprove, or which we fear others might hate. Hating ourselves, we project that hatred onto others, and then assume the worst: that people will be ungenerous, rather than generous, hateful rather than accepting.”

Once again the Anchoress pulls back a veil that reveals the beautiful person. Isn’t that what her writing has already brought to light? I’m uneasy when she jabs at herself. I can feel it.  I’ve done that myself. Say it before someone else says it!

She speaks of “Irish thighs” and here I thought we Italians had a corner on that market.  The memory of my mom’s weight looms like a prophetic utterance. However, beyond my own fears, it is the Anchoress’ revelation of her fear that touches me.  She has dissected it and found that in hating those unacceptable parts of herself, the really beautiful parts of the package get lost. Wholeness is halved or quartered or…you know what I mean.  She’s tempted to become less than she actually is.

The Anchoress writes about her brothers “coming out” and the peace that followed.  I’m sure that didn’t end the struggles but was a big step into the light.  Our crosses certainly come in all kinds and complexities. Our pain brings to light our real need which isn’t perfection.  The Anchoress speaks of the need to love herself.  For me realizing Who loves me changes everything. My battles, my wins and loses,all find meaning, as do I, in a Heart which treasures all.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel, in his Healing the Original Wound, says that one of his favorite groups of the wounded are the alcoholics of Alcoholics’ Anonymous.  “When asked,’Well, when are you going to completely recover?’  ‘When we’re dead.’ they will tell you.” No easy platitudes or solutions here, just a continuing struggle, knowing that you are loved by that One great Love.  Armed with the knowledge of Whose Arms embrace you this side of Heaven carries you onward, or at least that how I go on (and with a little love from my friends.)  Fr. Groeschel puts it this way. ” Hello, I’m a recovering sinner.  I’m becoming a saint.”

So I have no answers.  My loved ones, come in all shapes and sizes as do I depending at what time in my life you’ve  known me.  My friends have assorted temperaments and problems, none of which hides their beauty.  Fr. Groeschel says that with crosses “we need to turn to the mystery of Salvation.”

“Indeed, if the cross, with all that it represents, with all that it signifies, symbolises and indicates, of sufferings, sicknesses, disasters, various afflictions, catastrophes, pains and injuries to which all people are subject, if the cross is a constituent reality of all human life, there is an obligation for all people, like Jesus, to carry the cross together, in order to disburden the one charged with it and together to bear it with love and solidarity. (From a letter by Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch (Melkite) for  Lent)

Expansion of Human Embryo Experimentation.

by

Thoughts of the Great Unwashed point  here for a read on the label given Obama as the “abortion president”:

One of the most outspoken abortion opponents in Congress labeled President Obama the “abortion president” on Friday in response to news that Obama intended to sign an executive order Monday lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., accused Obama of launching two attacks on pro-life measures. In addition to lifting President Bush’s stem cell restrictions, Obama intends to lift regulations from the Bush administration that allow health care providers and institutions to refuse to participate in abortions on grounds of conscience.

“Why does the president persist in the dehumanizing of nascent human life when better alternatives exist? Human embryo-destroying stem cell research is not only unethical, unworkable and unreliable- it is now, demonstrably unnecessary,” Smith said.Smith labeled Obama’s stem cell policy an expansion of “human embryo experimentation.”

Obama’s ‘Science’ Fiction – Possible vs Permissible

by

“Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.”

Although Charles Krauthammer is wrong on where to draw the line in stem cell research, I think you will find his stance against President Obama’s stance a must read.  Krauthammer is “not religious” and so to his mind sees no definitive guideline as to when person-hood is bestowed. To my mind the science of it tells the tale.  Peering into the beginning moments of life with powerful cameras records the change from ova and sperm entities to new being with all the where-with-all to command the hormones and functions of the mother’s body to make possible its continuance and growth. It has not only presence but power to command.

The Truth of the matter, and our relationship to the Creator from the instant of our becoming a unique individual at the conjoining of ovum and sperm,  is still hidden from Krauthammer.  It does help to have the Truth that is revealed by the Creator through the Scriptures, the Church and the Tradition of both Church and Man (Natural Law.) I leave this as another issue for another day.  Krauthammer does believe in Evil. He opposes Obama’s replacing Bush’s line with “no line at all.”

This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom. [My emphasis]

Though Krauthammer does not know when to confer person-hood, he says:

“I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research — a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

Krauthammer judges Obama as morally arrogant in the extreme, dismissing “his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.” Or so Obama expects us to believe.

Krauthammer says of President George W. Bush:

“Bush’s nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.”

I am reminded of the recent movie, I Am Legion, a futuristic nightmare with basis in possibility if not history for a scenario of science run amok. Krauthammer concludes his dismembering of Obama’s so called reasoned logic:

Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said “if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” Obama clearly has not.

“Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.”

General Public – Generally Duped! Update

by

1

Update:

Thoughts From the Great Unwashed – putting it in the vernacular so no one has a reason to be uninformed or unconcerned – simplifies the thinking behind the   Obama/Pelosi/Reid attack on America and human life:


If We’re Going to Murder Babies We Might As Well Use the Tissue.

Update: Cardinal Rigali :

Obama stem cell order  “a sad victory of politics over science and ethics”.

According to the Catholic News Agency, the Cardinal explained:

” that embryonic stem cell research is wrong due to the fact that it destroys “innocent human life” by “treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested,” and also noted that the executive order “disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life.” “It ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support.”


Connecticut Catholic Parishes Beware – Prepare!

by

Connecticut Catholic and the bishops of the Catholic Church had better get their ducks in order for the next volley.

Ed Morrissey writes that Connecticut lawmakers “finally got around to reading the founding documents”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a result of the mass outcry,the bill that would have deprived bishops of  legitimate power in their parishes was cancelled  on the grounds of it being clearly unconstitutional.

As soon as word spread about the bill, the Legislative Office Building was flooded with telephone calls and e-mails on Monday. The bill, virtually overnight, became the hottest issue at the state Capitol.

The cancellation came less than 24 hours after Senate Republican John McKinney of Fairfield called for the cancellation, saying that his caucus was unanimously against the bill because they believe it is clearly unconstitutional.

The bill itself according to Morrissey, and the agreeing protesters, was “a piece of work”

(a) A corporation may be organized in connection with any Roman Catholic Church or congregation in this state, by filing in the office of the Secretary of the State a certificate signed by the archbishop or bishop and the vicar-general of the archdiocese or of the diocese in which such congregation is located and the pastor and two laymen belonging to such congregation, stating that they have so organized for the purposes hereinafter mentioned. [Such archbishop or bishop, vicar-general and pastor of such congregation and, in case of the death or other disability of the archbishop or bishop, the administrator of the archdiocese or diocese for the time being, the chancellor of the archdiocese or diocese and the pastor of such congregation shall be members, ex officio, of such corporation, and, upon their death, resignation, removal or preferment, their successors in office shall become such members in their stead. The two lay members shall be appointed annually, in writing, during the month of January from the lay members of the congregation by a majority of the ex-officio members of the corporation; and three members of the corporation, of whom one shall be a layman, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.]

(b) The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote.

We do live in interesting times.  Sleep only with one eye open!