psalm123

Christmas- Illegal or politically incorrect?

2009-12-03T04:19:31Z

The Rutherford Institute is calling for people to recognize the difference between "illegal" and "politically correct" in matters concerning Christmas.

The idea behind The Twelve Rules of Christmas is to give people an idea of what they can and cannot legally do in the workplace and at school. John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, says that political correctness is often confused with the law.

"As our 'Twelve Rules of Christmas' show, there [are] a lot of things that you can do in the schools that are legal -- and they are legal," he emphasizes. "It's just political correctness now that removes Christmas from public schools because of those first six letters of the word 'Christmas': Christ."

A few years ago, the Rutherford Institute advised a group of people just outside of Chicago in a case where political correctness "sabotaged" Christmas celebrations.

"They had eliminated all the Christmas programs from the schools, [so some of the parents] talked to us. We gave them the Twelve Rules of Christmas. About 200 people went to a school board meeting" -- and according to the attorney, school officials reinstated traditional holiday celebrations. Whitehead contends that "this is what you can do with the Twelve Rules of Christmas."

Twelve Rules Of CHRISTmas.

2009-12-03T04:03:00Z

The Twelve Rules of Christmas®

(Compiled by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute)

Unfortunately, Christmas has become a time of controversy over what can or cannot be done in terms of celebrating the holiday. In order to clear up much of the misunderstanding, the following twelve rules are offered:

1. Public school students’ written or spoken personal expressions concerning the religious significance of Christmas (e.g., T-shirts with the slogan, “Jesus Is the Reason for the Season”) may not be censored by school officials absent evidence that the speech would cause a substantial disruption.1

2. So long as teachers are generally permitted to wear clothing or jewelry or have personal items expressing their views about the holidays, Christian teachers may not be prohibited from similarly expressing their views by wearing Christmas-related clothing or jewelry or carrying Christmas-related personal items.2

3. Public schools may teach students about the Christmas holiday, including its religious significance, so long as it is taught objectively for secular purposes such as its historical or cultural importance, and not for the purpose of promoting Christianity.3

4. Public school teachers may send Christmas cards to the families of their students so long as they do so on their own time, outside of school hours.4

5. Public schools may include Christmas music, including those with religious themes, in their choral programs if the songs are included for a secular purpose such as their musical quality or cultural value or if the songs are part of an overall performance including other holiday songs relating to Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or other similar holidays.5

6. Public schools may not require students to sing Christmas songs whose messages conflict with the students’ own religious or nonreligious beliefs.6

7. Public school students may not be prohibited from distributing literature to fellow students concerning the Christmas holiday or invitations to church Christmas events on the same terms that they would be allowed to distribute other literature that is not related to schoolwork.7

8. Private citizens or groups may display crèches or other Christmas symbols in public parks subject to the same reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that would apply to other similar displays.8

9. Government entities may erect and maintain celebrations of the Christmas holiday, such as Christmas trees and Christmas light displays, and may include crèches in their displays at least so long as the purpose for including the crèche is not to promote its religious content and it is placed in context with other symbols of the Holiday season as part of an effort to celebrate the public Christmas holiday through its traditional symbols.9

10. Neither public nor private employers may prevent employees from decorating their offices for Christmas, playing Christmas music, or wearing clothing related to Christmas merely because of their religious content so long as these activities are not used to harass or intimidate others.10

11. Public or private employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs require that they not work on Christmas must be reasonably accommodated by their employers unless granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.11

12. Government recognition of Christmas as a public holiday and granting government employees a paid holiday for Christmas does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.12

For more information, email The Rutherford Institute at staff@rutherford.org.

To request assistance, complete our online form or contact our Legal Department at (434) 978-3888.

1. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969); Nixon v. Northern Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 383 F. Supp. 2d 965 (S.D. Ohio 2005).

2. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506 (“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”). See also Tucker v. California Dep’t of Ed., 97 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1996) and Nichol v. Arin Intermediate Unit 28, 268 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D. Pa. 2003).

3. See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980); Grove v. Mead Sch. Dist., 753 F.2d 1528, 1534 (9th Cir. 1985).

4. See Pickering v. Bd. of Ed., 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Wigg v. Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, 382 F.3d 807, 814 (8th Cir. 2004).

5. Bauchman v. West High School, 132 F.3d 542, 554 (10th Cir. 1997); Florey v. Sioux Falls School Dist., 619 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1980); Sechler v. State College Area Sch. Dist., 121 F.Supp. 2d. 439 (M.D. Penn. 2000).

6. Id. at 557.

7. Hedges v. Wauconda Comm. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295, 1297-98 (7th Cir. 1993). See “Secretary of Education’s Statement on Religious Expression,” http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html, site visited Oct. 21, 2005.

8. See Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995); Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 1993); McCreary v. Stone, 739 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1984); Snowden v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

9. See County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984); ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999); Amancio v. Town of Somerset, 28 F.Supp. 2d 677 (D.C. Mass. 1998).

10. § 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)(j); Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir. 2004); Tucker v. California Dep’t of Ed., 97 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1996); Brown v. Polk County, 61 F.3d 650, 659 (8th Cir. 1995).

11. Pielech v. Massasoit Greyhound, Inc., 668 N.E. 2d 1298 (Mass. 1996).

12. Ganulin v. United States, 71 F.Supp. 2d 824 (S.D. OH 1999), aff’d 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 33889 (6th Cir. 2000). See also Bridenbaugh v. O’Bannon, 185 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2000); Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 1999).

Refuting Richard Dawkins

2009-12-03T03:30:50Z

I haven't viewed this video featuring Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, but going by his body of work, I'm sure its decent.

-William Lane Craig refutes atheist Richard Dawkins' central argument from THE GOD DELUSION. Dawkins says this is his "unrebuttable refutation" of God's existence. Hmmm. At least that's what the video claims.

ACLU Sues to Block Alaska Personhood Initiative

2009-12-02T17:06:58Z

No surprise that the ACLU would be getting their hands dirty in trying to shoot down a personhood initiative.

"To me it's clear evidence we're doing the right thing, because they only found out about this a month ago, and they're already suing. They're afraid it might protect the unborn,"

By Kathleen Gilbert
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, December 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the latest in a string of court proceedings against personhood initiatives nationwide, the Alaskan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is backing a lawsuit against state officials for giving voters an opportunity to decide on a ballot initiative that would declare all human beings "persons."
The suit alleges that the proposed language does not adequately present to voters the possible consequences of its enactment, such as the outlawing of abortion, and thus Lieutenant Governor Craig Campbell should not have approved it. Plaintiffs, including Vic Fisher, a former Alaska Democratic legislator, argue that the signature-collecting process should be halted immediately.
The proposed ballot measure states: "All human beings, from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms, including the single-cell embryo ... shall be recognized as legal persons in the state of Alaska."
The office of Alaska attorney general Daniel Sullivan in October issued an opinion favoring introduction of the initiative in its current form, saying that whatever impact it may have on existing state law would be left to the interpretation of state courts. The initiative's backers will begin collecting signatures next month, aiming for a spot on the 2012 ballot.
Alaska Civil Liberties Union executive director Jeffrey Mittman called the initiative "insane," and argued that the personhood language could have unforeseen consequences such as requiring unborn children to receive Permanent Fund dividend checks.
Christopher Kurka, the initiative's sponsor, countered that his opponents were employing absurd scenarios to muddy the issue. He pointed out that dividends can only go to citizens, not just persons, and that therefore the persons in question must be born.
"To me it's clear evidence we're doing the right thing, because they only found out about this a month ago, and they're already suing. They're afraid it might protect the unborn," Christopher Kurka, the initiative's sponsor, told LifeSiteNews.com Monday.
"It seems the American Civil Liberties Union is not concern with protecting the civil liberties of unborn children," he added. "It's tragic."
Kurka acknowledged that one of the plaintiffs' cited fears was true: should personhood win voter approval, Kurka says he would challenge legislators to change abortion laws to recognize the measure.
The personhood initiatives in both Missouri and Nevada also became the subject of lawsuits by pro-abortion advocates earlier this month.
In 2007, Colorado's Planned Parenthood and ACLU also sued officials in that state for its personhood initiative, the first in the nation at the time. The initiative nonetheless made it onto Colorado's ballot the following year.

Godly Irony

2009-12-01T22:50:28Z

Kids who advertise UK atheist campaign are Christians

Two children, chosen to help advertise British atheist Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God, are actually from one of the UK's most devout Christian families, reports Michael Ireland, chief correspondent, ASSIST News Service.

ates: "With the slogan 'Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself,' the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

"Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country's most devout Christian families," says Gledhill.

Gledhill reveals their father, Brad Mason, is "something of a celebrity within evangelical circles as the drummer for the popular Christian musician Noel Richards."

Gledhill says that now a web designer and photographer, Mason has been supplementing his income for years by providing photographs to agencies who sell them on to newspapers and advertising campaigns.

Mason said: "It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children."

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through.

"Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy."

Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, said: "I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian."

Evangelizing Muslims.

2009-12-01T03:53:51Z

I've heard about this priest. I need to learn more about his story. The video claims he has a 60 million dollar bounty placed on his head by extremist Muslims.

http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2009/11/and-now-meet-other-father-z.html

For the last several years, I've been following with great interest the astonishing success that Father Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest, has had in evangelizing the Muslim world — in Arabic, using the Koran. As an Arab, he understands the mindset that so many Muslims have toward Christianity, and he exploits that knowledge quite effectively, not by simply presenting the claims for the divinity of Christ, as an example. Rather, he firmly turns the tables on Muslim apologists by relentlessly critiquing and refuting their own claims, using mainly the Koran as his tool. The reports are, he is successfully converting large numbers of Muslims (albeit secretly, for fear of deadly reprisals from their erstwhile co-religionists), and this is causing a lot of consternation among many Muslims who see Father Z as a real threat to Muslim hegemony.

And they are right to think this.

We should all be praying for this courageous priest. For one thing, he is almost single-handedly evangelizing hundreds of millions of Muslims every day through his television program. Anyone in that situation needs a lot of prayer. As one would expect, his life is in danger because of his work. May the Lord bless and protect this worthy servant of His

Obama Exploiting the Church 11-30

2009-12-01T02:59:19Z

Say what you want about him, Michael Voris makes you think. Good stuff.

Writing Catholic Doctrine Into law?

2009-11-30T03:35:39Z

I don't think so. Here is quick take on the silly argument that Catholics Bishops are trying to legislate Catholic doctrine. You have to look at the big picture here.

"Is abortion the killing of a human being? The answer to that question depends entirely on scientific fact, not religious dogma. And the scientific facts settle the question clearly in the affirmative."

"The Church condemns abortion in the same way that the Church condemns racism. It is wrong not just for Catholics but for all people, at all times, for reasons that everyone should understand."

By Phil Lawler | November 25, 2009 3:32 PM

The many vocal critics of Bishop Thomas Tobin-- from Chris Matthews to the Boston Globe editorial page and beyond-- are complaining that (as the Globe put it) "the bishop is insisting that the congressman use his position to enshrine church teachings into public policy." Not so.

Opposition to abortion is not based on some sectarian doctrine accepted only by the Catholic Church. The only "teaching" in question here is the ancient directive: "Thou shalt not kill." That moral imperative was written into Mosaic law, and advanced separately by Hippocrates, long before the Catholic Church was established on earth.

Is abortion the killing of a human being? The answer to that question depends entirely on scientific fact, not religious dogma. And the scientific facts settle the question clearly in the affirmative.

So when he says that Patrick Kennedy cannot vote to support the slaughter of the innocent unborn and remain a Catholic in good standing, Bishop Tobin is not demanding that the Congressman write Catholic doctrine into civil law. He is simply saying that a legislator cannot engage in grossly immoral public activity and still present himself as a good Catholic. The offense that Kennedy has committed-- and vows that he will continue to commit-- is a violation of a universal natural law, applicable to all men.

The Church condemns abortion in the same way that the Church condemns racism. It is wrong not just for Catholics but for all people, at all times, for reasons that everyone should understand. If it was wrong for Bishop Tobin to chastise Patrick Kennedy, then it was wrong for Archbishop Rummel to excommunicate the segregationist Leander Perez in Louisiana in 1962. Anyone who thinks that Pope Pius XII should have spoken out more forcefully against Hitler's racial policies should applaud Bishop Tobin for speaking out today. And those who criticize Bishop Tobin should-- if they are consistent-- believe that Pope Pius should have maintained an absolute silence about the Holocaust, to avoid the perception that he was trying to "enshrine church teachings [against racial genocide] into public policy."

Pro-life conference sells out months early

2009-11-29T23:05:06Z

News like this is always good to hear. What we continue to see in the pro-life movement is a growing number of very enthusiastic, educated, and dedicated young people. The American youth of today can look back at 40 years worth of abortions ( nearly 50 million dead babies) and all the hardships that come along with it. They realize that this country cannot continue another 40 years of the unjust slaughter of its children if it is to avoid a total decay of morality and justice.

Washington D.C., Nov 28, 2009 / 03:54 am (CNA).- The National Conference of Students for Life of America, scheduled to be held on Jan 23, 2010, has already sold out.
“I was amazed to see our national conference sell out so quickly this year. It is a true reflection of what my staff has been witnessing on college campuses for the past several months,” Kristan Hawkins, the Executive Director of Students for Life of America, told CNA.
The conference will be an opportunity for students across the U.S. to receive training on how to be effective advocates for life, be educated on all of the current issues affecting the pro-life movement, and meet and network with other pro-life students from across the country. It will be held at the Catholic University of America on January 23, the day after the March for Life in Washington, D.C.
“Pro-life students are tired of the some old politics as usual in Washington, D.C. and on their campuses. They are activating like never before to provide resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies in their communities and are standing up to the culture of death policies of Congress and the current presidential administration,” Hawkins added.
The conference's website assures readers that next year's conference will be held in a larger venue. But for the 778 participants lucky enough to be registered, the day itself will feature talks on “Knowing Your Rights on Campus” and “How Abortion Affects Real Women and Men.”
The afternoon will host a number of breakout sessions aimed at helping students become better and more effective ambassadors to their campuses. The sessions will discuss a variety of topics ranging from stem cell research and bio-ethical reform to sidewalk counseling and breaking through apathy on their campuses.

More information on the conference and the host organization can be found at www.studentsforlife.org

A pushback against the culture of death and beyond.

2009-11-28T17:26:42Z

I haven't had a chance to read the whole declaration but my immediate thought was that I like the coming together of all Christians to push back against a culture of death that is leading this world into dark times. These issues should be addressed directly and firmly using reason and debate. A sense of charity should always remain.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of prominent Christian leaders and scholars unveiled a manifesto Friday declaring firm opposition to current and future laws infringing upon the sanctity of life, marriage, faith, and liberty.
The 4,700-word "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson and signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders, including Focus on the Family Dr. James Dobson and National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., were among the signatories.
The declaration issues a clarion call to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not - under any circumstance - abandon their Christian consciences.
For more information: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/

"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths," reads the declaration.

"We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."

The document lays out the groups' arguments against anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religious public policy as contravening "foundational principles of justice and the common good," in defense of which the group says they are "compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act."

In asserting Christians' right to conscientious objection to such policy, the declaration says it is "ironic" that those who advance as "rights" various immoral practices "are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage."

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family," it concludes.
"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Co-author Timothy George, who is founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today, said the Manhattan Declaration "represents an ecumenism of the trenches that has been going on for a number of years among many denominations and confessional traditions."

"While we recognize that many important differences of doctrine and discipline still divide us, we nonetheless earnestly seek that unity for which Jesus prayed when he asked that his disciples be one in their love for God, for one another, and for the world," said George.

On his radio show BreakPoint Wednesday, Evangelical leader Chuck Colson called the Manhattan Declaration "probably the most important document I've ever signed."

No God, no problem?

2009-11-28T16:34:52Z

I look at stories like this and just shake my head. I don't think people always fully realize the consequences that are entailed in a so called atheistic worldview. If taken to its logical end when dealing in morality, atheism as a worldview cannot provide a basis for objective moral values. The moral argument is very often misunderstood. Its about an objective basis for morality and not the ability for an individual to act morally without belief in God. You DO need God as an objective foundation for saying that something is objectively morally good or bad. So, when the question is asked "Was Hitler Right?", an atheist who truly understands the logical consequences of their worldview, the best they can respond with is "I don't agree with what he did." Any appeal to an objective moral standard is inconsistent with a truly atheistic worldview. This is one of those philosophic arguments that took awhile to completely sink in. Once it did, it really did make a lot of sense.

What?

2009-11-28T02:31:14Z

From the....tell me this isn't true files. Sorry, I can't seem to get the cut function to work.

Drive Starts to Make Dutch Psychiatrists Justify Not Killing Suicidal Patients!

Friday, November 27, 2009, 12:14 PM

Wesley J. Smith

I interviewed Dutch lawyer Eugene Sutorius in 1996 for my book Forced Exit. I found him gracious, intelligent, and a quick legal mind. I liked him a lot. But he’s Darth Vader.
Sutorious is absolutely committed to using the law as dynamite to create the broadest possible euthanasia license in his country, and indeed, I interviewed him because he represented the psychiatrist who won a Dutch Supreme Court ruling that assisting the suicide of the depressed is in keeping with euthanasia law. Since then, Dutch doctors have been allowed to kill their mentally ill patients, but according to Sutorious and others, not enough are being put into the grave. It’s time for change! From the story:

Of the 2,331 cases reviewed by the regional euthanasia review committees in 2008 only two involved psychiatric patients. All doctors are obligated to report assisted suicides to the committees, who then investigate if all the legal requirements were met. [Me: Studies show that about half are not reported.] “Psychiatrists have a holier-than-thou attitude,” Hans van Dam, a nurse and a teacher, said at a symposium organised by the Right to Die-NL foundation in the Dutch town of Ede on Monday. The taboo on assisted suicide for mental patients needs to be broken, Van Dam argued. “To put it bluntly: cancer will kill you in a matter of years, but schizophrenia is forever. The suffering of psychiatric patients can be just as intolerable as many forms of physical suffering,” said Eugène Sutorius, a professor of criminal law and a former president of the foundation.
At Monday’s symposium many attendees had horror stories about people who ended up killing themselves in the most atrocious ways after their treating psychiatrist refused to help them. “At some clinics they will say right away: we don’t do that here,” according to Van Houwelingen. And suicide attempts are not always successful, said Sutorius, “leaving people to go through life even more damaged than before. If euthanasia wasn’t such a delicate subject I would be tempted to bring it before the disciplinary tribunal,” added Sutorius. “Doctors have a duty to discuss this if patients have a death wish and there is no treatment available.”…
Sutorius is hoping for a change of culture at the psychiatric clinics will change. He suggest making it obligatory for psychiatrists to report and motivate why they declined a patient’s request for assisted suicide.”I don’t want to see psychiatrists dragged into court,” he said, “but I do want them to make their case.”

Get that? Sutorious is considering bringing action to force psychiatrists to explain why they didn’t kill patients, not why they did. That, in turn, would lead to policies that would eventually require psychiatrists to assist suicides. The Netherlands has fallen off a vertical moral cliff.
Anyone who believes that institutionalized medical killing can be kept under strict control is delusional. Moreover, once the culture of death sinks deeply into the culture, eventually efforts will be made to force health care professionals to engage or be complicit in killing. For more on this last point, see my most recent piece in First Things.

Bishop Tobin’s response to Rep. Kennedy ‘eminently reasonable,’ non-Catholic political expert says

2009-11-25T21:27:56Z

This has been a big story recently. Actually, the content of the story seems to date back a few years. Apparrently, the story was made public by Rep. Kennedy and not Bishop Tobin. This is another case of someone who is Catholic in name only who is either ignorant of the teachings of the Church or they have diminished doctrinal issues into the realm of personal opinion. The issue of abortion is a moral issue. Abortion is what the Church calls an intrinsic evil. There is no wiggle room for subjectivity in relation the the major moral implications involved here. No Catholic in good standing can participate in or directly and knowingly support abortion. To think you can willfully support an intrinsic moral evil and still remain 'in good standing' with the Holy Roman Catholic Church is to admit ignorance of your own so-called Catholic faith. In this case, you need to swallow your pride and do some homework.

"While some critics of Bishop Tobin invoke Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about the “wall of separation between Church and State,” Roff said this line appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and the phrase is his own opinion as president in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut."

Washington D.C., Nov 25, 2009 / 04:40 am (CNA).- A non-Catholic political expert says Bishop Thomas Tobin’s request that U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy refrain from receiving Holy Communion is “eminently reasonable” and an “appropriate” encouragement of the Congressman to examine his commitment to his faith.
Rep. Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat and son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, was criticized by Bishop Tobin of Providence for his attacks on the Catholic bishops’ opposition to abortion funding in health care legislation. Recently, Kennedy revealed that Bishop Tobin had asked him to refrain from receiving communion because of his public contradiction of Catholic teaching.
Peter Roff, a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and a former senior political writer for United Press International, wrote at FoxNews.com that Americans look to “our institutions of faith” to define moral issues like abortion. Though not a Catholic, he said he understands the hierarchical nature of the Church and the role doctrine plays within it.
Speaking with “the greatest respect,” he said that the Catholic Church is not a place where “free thinking” about doctrinal issues is encouraged.
“There is such thing as absolute truth and not all things are relative or left to the discretion of the believer,” Roff continued. If Rep. Kennedy wishes to consider himself Catholic, he should “show appropriate deference to church teachings” about life beginning at conception and about abortion being a sin.
“By asking Kennedy to act of his own volition, rather than threaten to deny him the sacraments or ordering those subservient to him in the church to refuse to offer them, Bishop Tobin is encouraging the Congressman to consider his commitment to his faith -- something one should argue is the appropriate role for a member of the clergy,” Roff commented.
He said the issue is being “spun” as a case of a church trying to impose its will on politicians who represent a “cross-section of the world’s religions.”
While some critics of Bishop Tobin invoke Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about the “wall of separation between Church and State,” Roff said this line appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and the phrase is his own opinion as president in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.
Nowhere does Jefferson suggest that the church should be “prohibited from enforcing its own disciplines within its own walls among its own members, even where matters of public policy are concerned.”
The purpose of the First Amendment, in Roff’s view, was to “protect the faithful from coercion by the state,” not to protect the state from “interference from the church.”
However, he said, it is hard to see how Bishop Tobin’s request is interference.
“If Congressman Kennedy wishes his church to consider him a Catholic in good standing, then he best pay attention to its concerns and act accordingly,” Roff’s essay at FoxNews.com concluded.

Euphemisms

2009-11-25T20:59:05Z

Euphemism of the day: "voluntary termination of an unwanted pregnancy"

Meaning in reality: Intentional killing of an innocent/unwanted human person through the act of abortion.

Pointed anger

2009-11-21T16:07:11Z

Here is a short article from a Bishop that I have come to respect as a great leader in the church. The angry profanity filled email he quotes in his column is similar to many discussions I have had with those that call themselves "new atheists".

A reality check from the discipleship front

What the hell don’t you understand about the term separatin [sic] of Church and State. Keep your evil hands off of our Health Care Bill. Mind your own business. We don’t care about your beliefs, and if you want to meddle in our affairs, we will be coming for you. If that’s how you want to play, we will come for your pedophile priests, your ill-gotten money you stole for decades. The Catholic church is just another organized crime syndicate that should be put out of business. Get the f--k away from Congress, or you will regret it … .

That’s a real e-mail from a real person. The man who sent it last week was either very candid or very foolish about his anger: he added his real name and e-mail address. I’ve withheld them here because I like to hope that most people, or at least many of them, are better than the poisonous things they sometimes write. But this e-mail does teach a useful lesson, because it’s not just a case of a random bigot getting in touch with his inner bully. Instead, it’s a snapshot of the anti-Catholic bitterness that drives some of the loudest voices in the current health-care debate.

Let’s remember that the Founders encouraged an active role for religion in the nation’s public life. Let’s recall that freedom of speech for Catholics, their leaders and their Church is constitutionally protected, just as it is for all citizens. Let’s also finally remember that Catholic-baiting is one of America’s oldest and most favored forms of hatred. The irony is that some of today’s ugliest bigots posture themselves as socially “progressive” and work in politics or the mass media, or both.

</div>

Catholics entered this year’s national health-care discussion with good will and a long track record of public service. Catholic medical care is a national network. Most Catholics, as part of their Christian faith, see decent health care for all persons as a social obligation. They’re eager for some form of good health-industry reform. But “reform” isn’t a magic word. It isn’t an end in itself. The content of the reform matters vitally.

For months Catholic leaders have worked vigorously with congressional and White House staff to craft sound health-care reform legislation. Service to the poor, the sick and the suffering is part of the Church’s Gospel vocation. The bill passed by the House on Nov. 7 was a step toward a goal that is shared, in principle, by most Catholics. Like most bills, it was a mixed success. Critics argue that it lacks adequate conscience protections; that its penalties are extreme and largely unknown to the public; that it’s too complex; that it violates the Catholic principle of subsidiarity; and that it’s financially damaging and unsustainable.

These concerns are serious; they demand our reflection. There is nothing “mandatory” for faithful Catholics about supporting or opposing this legislation in its current form. That’s a matter for personal decision. But the House bill does seek to address the health-care crisis in a comprehensive manner; and it does—at least, so far—meet a minimum moral standard that makes Catholic support possible.

Those two words, “so far,” bring us back to the point of this column. The House health-care bill—the Senate will now develop its own version—meets the minimum threshold for Catholic support for one simple reason: Catholic pressure forced abortion and abortion funding out of the legislation. Abortion has nothing to do with advancing human health. Abortion and public funding for abortion, no matter how discreetly it’s hidden, have no place in any genuine health-care reform. This has been a key moral principle for Catholics every step of the way in the health-care discussion. With Roe v. Wade likely to be secure under this president, excluding abortion and its funding from reform legislation would be a modest, sensible compromise for “pro-choicers.” It might prove that something like common ground on abortion policy really is achievable in a Washington that describes itself as post-partisan.

Instead, the opposite has happened. The abortion-driven anger dumped on Catholic beliefs, leaders and the Church at large since Nov. 7 would make the Know-Nothing bigots of the last century proud. We’ve seen it from members of Congress, the news media, the abortion industry, and sad, deluded people stuck in their rage like the man quoted at the beginning of these remarks.

Here’s the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost. When we’re willing to pay it, we prove who we are as disciples—and the nation benefits. When we’re not, life’s a lot more comfortable. But that was never the point of the Gospel.

Where does the money go? Part 2

2009-11-21T14:50:32Z

Where does the money go?

2009-11-21T14:43:45Z

This is a story that broke a few months ago. This Sunday a second collection of money will take place at mass. This second collection is for the Catholic Campaign For Human Development to supposedly help alleviate poverty. It would seem that this organization is involved in promoting a radical social agenda which includes abortion and homosexuality. So, it appears at this point that money donated by Catholics each year has been helping to support groups that are anti-Catholic in their agenda. It's time to smoke out the liberal Bishops and laity in leadership positions who have been involved in this. The Church has a lot of internal cleaning to do in order to become what it is supposed to be, the mystical body of Christ on earth. Much damage has been done to the Church over the past 40 years by anti-Catholics within the church from Cardinals and Bishops on down.

As for me, there remain too many questions. I will not be donating to the CCHD this year.

Adopt A Family

2009-11-19T23:55:21Z

One of our callings as Christians is to assist the poor and weak among us. Here is a good chance to help out some very needy families during the upcoming Christmas season. The link takes you to the Archdiocese Of Detroit website where there are many more examples of families who could use some help. You can donate online.
http://www.aodonline.org/AODOnline/Giving%20Opportunities%202259/Adopt%20A%20Family%2012207/Families.htm

Families in Need in 2009
20th Annual Adopt a Family Program

Donate Online
While many local families in need receive gifts of clothing or toys from a parish giving tree, many still need help to meet more direct financial needs, such as food, prescription costs, rent and utilities. Your generosity is deeply appreciated.

1. 34 year old mother, pregnant with her fourth child has been diagnosed with cancer. She has lost her job and her healthcare. Family picks up food twice a month from the food pantry and is receiving help with gas cards and financial help from the parish.

2. Husband had surgery 3 days ago. His wife has heart problems and is unable to work. They are surviving on donations from neighbors and food from the parish

3. Parents are very ill. They are in need of assistance to help cover the cost of their many medications.

4. Father of four children currently does not have beds, a table, or chairs. The house is almost empty.

5. Active parishioner has suffered from Lupus for several years. She is on disability but the medication costs more than the money she receives. She is also behind on her utility bills.

6. Single mother of 5 children under 9 years old has moved from one rental to another due to foreclosure. She is now working in a low paying job but needs help with car repair bills, clothing for winter, a mattress for a bunk bed and school supplies for the children.

7. Mother of eight children who was homeless for a period of time is still working with Social Services to regain custody of all of her children. She needs a job, help with rent, transportation, and utility bills. This Christmas will be very glum for her family.

8. Mother of three children has been abandoned by her abusive husband. Her infant child suffers from frequent seizures. Medical expenses have drained all available finances and ability to care for the children. A helping father died.

9. Grandmother lost her husband recently. Both had struggled with poverty for years. She is raising two grandchildren whose parents are both deceased. She tries to work but is hampered by an on-going illness, making a permanent job unlikely.

10. A veteran and victim of traumatic shock from military action was diagnosed unemployable because of his trauma. He has suffered a stroke and is physically and emotionally debilitated. He survives on a very small pension and lives in near to slum living conditions.

Reality Check

2009-11-18T19:07:03Z

Images like this always disturb me. It's not that I don't know there are people like this out there, rather it's more of an astonished feeling that so many people are utterly blind and deceived on the issue of abortion. I know that the pro-abortion crowd represents a minority view in this country but there is still a lot of work to do. Don't people realize that the signs they boldly carry which read "ABORTION IS A RIGHT!" means in reality "I HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL MY CHILD"? "My Choice" in this context has no more validity than a parents "choice" to kill their unwanted 2 year old.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Angry and upset that the House-approved health care bill contains the Stupak amendment to ban virtually all abortion funding, pro-abortion activists have mobilized for a protest day on December 2 at Congress that could see tens of thousands of people attend. That has pro-life advocates worried. As LifeNews.com reported last week, the main pro-abortion organizations Planned Parenthood and NARAL have recruited their friends in the labor union and gay rights movements to help turn out participants.
They are following the tried-and-true game plan of the pro-life community that uses buses to bring in thousands of people to the March for Life and they are working overtime to bring in massive amounts of donations for their efforts.
Last week, pro-abortion leaders from 20 different organizations met for a strategy summit at Planned Parenthood's office to talk about next month's "National Day of Action" and map out lobbying tactics.
In new comments to Roll Call magazine, the heads of pro-abortion groups say their members are furious at the prospects of a health care bill that stops the government from forcing taxpayers to fund hundreds of thousands of abortions.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, outlined the anger and frustration her members feel.
“We're not out there enough. We have to demonstrate this is huge. I have been getting calls from people who are just beside themselves," she said.
</div>Ted Miller, a spokesman for the pro-abortion group NARAL, told Roll Call that the fundraising levels for the organizations in response to the vote against abortion funding is “incredible on all levels.”
Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List, added that her members are "pretty upset and energized."
There is a noticeable lack of energy and punch on the pro-life side as the strong unity that existed against abortion funding and the bill has dissipated in the wake of the vote. The in-fighting over the Stupak amendment strategy has resulted in a noticeable decline of activity from pro-life groups on the health care front.
With the Senate expected to take weeks before a final vote, the pro-life movement needs that time to recharge and re-engage in the debate -- though the time gives abortion advocates the ability to organize as well.
Operation Rescue president Troy Newman apparently senses the need to re-energize the pro-life movement as his sense of urgency in comments to LifeNews.com today is obvious.
"Now more than ever we must ring the phones off the hook in Washington, DC, and let the Senate know that 71 percent of the American people oppose taxpayer funded abortions," he said.
He says pro-life advocates need to take seriously comments from Obama's advisors that he wants the abortion funding ban out of the bill.
"Don't believe Obama when he says that there will be no federal funding for abortions in the health care bill. He has made it well known that he places a high priority on abortion funding," Newman said.
"The abortion cartel will not be happy with anything less than full tax-funding for every abortion, but the conscience of pro-lifers cannot bear even one cent going to fund abortions. There isn't any middle ground," said Newman.
Last week Obama's top aide, Rahm Emanuel, met with an angry group of women from pro-abortion organizations disgruntled that Obama did not ramrod abortion funding through the House.

According to the Associated Press, Emanuel told them, "We're your friends and the president is pro-choice. There's no need for anger here."

But the anger and energy appears to be on their side and the pro-life movement needs to get back in the saddle or a massive government-run health care bill funding 300,000 abortions a year will be reality.

Buzz up!

It really is that simple.

2009-11-18T01:53:19Z

While "the Church cannot judge their subjectivity," he added, those who "directly collaborate" in or promote abortion incur excommunication.

Nancy Pelosi and other 'pro-abortion' Catholics really should pay attention to their Bishops (assuming their Bishops have done their jobs). Receiving Holy Communion while in the state of serious sin is itself a grave sin. I don't suppose a pro-abortion Catholic would follow that teaching either.

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
MADRID, November 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The secretary general of the Spanish bishops' conference, Auxiliary Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino of Madrid, warned that Spanish Catholic legislators who vote in favor of a bill to liberalize abortion which is currently before parliament would publicly place themselves in an "objective state of sin" and therefore may not receive Communion.
"Excommunication is provided in the Code of Canon Law for those who cooperate actively in the practice of abortion," Bishop Martinez Camino stated in an AFP report.
He said Catholics cannot support the legalization of abortion and if they do "they will objectively find themselves in a public state of sin and may not be admitted to Holy Communion."
While "the Church cannot judge their subjectivity," he added, those who "directly collaborate" in or promote abortion incur excommunication.
At the same time, Bishop Martinez Camino said the Church reaches out to women who have had an abortion or who are tempted to abort.
Encouraging those who have aborted to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, he said, "Those who have not gone to confession are encouraged to do so because God wants to offer them a solution and deep peace."
The Church "is not merciless towards those who fall into sin," he continued, and while she "defends the rights of the innocents," she is "conscious of the problem that [abortion] entails."
The bishop then praised doctors and health care workers who promote the cause of life and conscientiously object "with civic and moral courage" to participate in abortion. Warning against the "grave manipulation" of portraying abortion as a medical procedure, he said "abortion is never a cure because pregnancy is not a disease."

We ALL have a voice....yes, that means Catholics too!

2009-11-17T03:13:47Z

"Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?"

CHURCH’S CRITICS WANT GAG RULE

November 13, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Getting Nancy Pelosi to accept a health care bill that bans federal funds for abortion was the greatest victory scored by U.S. bishops in a generation. It also unleashed an unprecedented attempt to censor them. Their latest enemy is Geoffrey Stone writing in the Huffington Post.

Stone finds it troubling that the bishops are so vocal. He yearns for a time when JFK was president, a time when separation of church and state met his approval. Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?

As the following list discloses, Stone is hardly alone in trying to censor the bishops: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Frances Kissling, Planned Parenthood, Feminist Majority, Catholics for Choice, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Organization for Women, and many others favor a gag rule. On Nov. 12, Nancy Snyderman of MSNBC spoke for many when she said that “This is going to be a Pollyannaish statement. The Catholic bishops appearing and having a political voice seems to be a most fundamental violation of church and state.” Brilliant.

The following is a partial list of religious groups that want abortion coverage in the health care bill: Rabbinical Assembly, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, Episcopal Church, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, North American Federation of Temple Youth, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Women of Reform Judaism, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Lutheran Women’s Caucus, Christian Lesbians Out, YWCA.

So why don’t Stone and company want to gag these groups as well? Let’s face it: they don’t have a principled bone in their collective bodies.

An early Christmas for Noah.

2009-11-14T15:06:20Z

This is worth a double post.

I heard about this little fella through my Church. My 8th grade catechism students made Noah some great Christmas cards.

Noah is 5 yrs. old and is in the last stages of a 2 1/2 year battle with Neuroblastoma cancer. His family is celebrating Christmas early this year (next week), and Noah's wish is to get LOTS of Christmas cards. Please help out and send one!!!! His address is Noah Biorkman, 1141 Fountain View Circle, South Lyon, MI, 48178 Thanks!

A voice of reason

2009-11-14T00:12:18Z

I like her approach much more than the militant atheists. It's such shame to see Europe slowly separate themselves from their Christian heritage.

Rome, Italy, Nov 13, 2009 / 02:37 pm (CNA).- A young Muslim writer named Randa Ghazy has written an article entitled, “I, a Muslim, Defend the Crucifix,” in which she expresses her opposition to a ruling by the EU Human Rights Court that ordered all crucifixes be taken down in classrooms across Italy. The article will appear in the December edition of the magazine Mondo e Missione, a publication of the Pontifical Institute Missioni Estere.

“One of the most beautiful memories of my childhood and adolescence was of Father Bruno,” she writes. “I would often go to the oratory with my little brother and the sisters would treat us with great kindness and care.”

Ghazy recalls as well that “Father Bruno made us truly laugh. When it was time for Mass, my brother and I would run off to play ping pong and eat candy. Every day Father Bruno would ask us to stay with the other kids who were there in the church, which we embarrassingly declined to do.”

“One day, Father said to us, ‘Why don’t you come and say your prayers?’ And so we did. During Mass my brother and I slowly recited prayers from the Koran. So the crucifix, all the different kinds that I remember (from grade school to college) was always a symbol of security for me, a projection of the greatness of the heart of Christ, and in some way, of Father Bruno.”

For this reason, Ghazy says, “I support and encourage every possible debate between Muslim and Christian citizens, all discussion about the secularity of the State, but with respect for the great models of humility that each one can find in his past and his experiences.”

“I turn off the television so I don’t see the continuous verbal assaults, I remember Father Bruno and I smile, thinking about those two little Muslims who looked at each other in that beautiful church. I almost feel nostalgia for the 90s,” she writes.

The young Muslim writer was born in 1987 in the Italian region of Lombardy to Egyptian parents. She has written three books, the first when she was only 15, entitled, “Dreaming of Palestine.” The book is about the friendship shared by a group of young people in the occupied territories.

Her second book, “Bloody Trial,” was published in 2005. In 2007 she wrote, “Today I'm Not Going to Kill Anyone: Short Stories of a Young Muslim Who is Not a Terrorist.”

13 or 14?

2009-11-13T00:57:42Z

It will be interesting to see how this is handled. The unborn child was a victim of this crime as well.

Fort Hood, TX (LifeNews.com) -- The military has charged Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the terrible shooting that recently took place at the Fort Hood military base. The initial charges do not include one for the death of an unborn child, who was the little-talked-about fourteenth victim.

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman Chris Grey told a news conference Thursday that additional charges may be filed, which pro-life advocates hope would include one for the baby's death.

Hasan is suspected of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian in last Thursday's shooting and he was shot and wounded by two police officers at the base.

He is currently in recovery at an Army hospital in San Antonio, where his attorneys read him the charges.

Americans United for Life attorney Mailee Smith is disappointed that the death of soldier Francheska Velez’s unborn baby is rarely mentioned. Velez was on maternity leave when she stopped at Ft. Hood, where she and the child she carried in her womb fell victim to Hasan’s bullet.

"There are, of course, many unnamed victims of the attack at Fort Hood. Spouses, parents, children, siblings, friends. Each left to suffer and question why, on American soil, their loved one’s life was violently ended," she said.

"When Hasan took Velez’s life, he took the life of her unborn baby as well," she said. "As the country looks for justice to be served in this horrendous tragedy, we cannot forget that Hasan can and should be charged with the death of Baby Velez as well."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice was modified when President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004, Smith explains.

</div>She says "justice can be sought for Baby Velez" because it allows for prosecutors to bring an additional crime of killing an unborn child when a crime involving the death of an unborn baby occurs on federal land, such as a U.S. military base.
As LifeNews.com opinion columnist Maria Vitale wrote yesterday, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner’s law, is named for the pregnant woman and unborn baby who were murdered in California by Scott Peterson, the baby’s father.
"It would seem that the law applies in this case for three reasons: the act of violence was committed on federal property…the shooting was allegedly done by a member of the military…and the violence could be classified as an act of terrorism," she explains.
Also, under Texas law that took effect in September 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”

"The Obama Administration has a moral obligation to press for prosecution of Hasan under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If such a legal path is ignored, it will demonstrate to the world that the President is caving in to a pro-abortion lobby who will not recognize the legal rights of any child in the womb—even a child whose mother desperately longs to give birth," Vitale concludes.

Leadership part 2.

2009-11-12T21:25:19Z

Here is the entire letter written by Bishop Tobin to Congressman Patrick Kennedy.

"What does it mean to be a Catholic?"

"In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic?"

Dear Congressman Kennedy

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

"The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.

It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of Providence.