Pewsitter News Pewsitter News en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:39:51 GMT Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:39:51 GMT none <![CDATA[ Mobile App Enables Users Catholics To Contact Bishop or Diocese ]]> Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Over-the-Top? - CCD Kids' Mass Attendance Enforced Through Biometric Fingerprint Scanner ]]> biometric fingerprint scanners have been installed to verify their physical presence on Sunday. Parents who balk at the dystopian surveillance used to guarantee CCD compliance are reassured that no DNA or tracing of their child's physical features is involved!

These inescapable enforcement techniques are part of new "membership management" programs being applied at churches like St. Thomas More. The systems designed by firms like Accellerated Biometrics allow churches, synagogues, or mosques to provide "safe and orderly management of member information" and ensure individuals aren't "fraudulently accessing Church facilities." We all know what happens when the wrong person prays in Church.

I wonder what's in store for the RCIA converts?

... ]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ CDC Data Shows Alarming 16,000% HIV Risk increase in the Homosexual Population ]]> 1 (to the right) showing HIV by transmission category. Though I had read about HIV transmission rates in the secular press I had never before seen the actual numbers. As I began to review and analyze them I was shocked at what this analysis revealed.... ]]> Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Christmas and the Religion of Atheism ]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ A Canonical Defense of Father Guarnizo ]]> March 27, 2012 - As a priest and canon lawyer, I'd like in canonical terms, to revisit the controversial events surrounding the denial of Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson by Father Marcel Guarnizo. First of all, while I agree with many of the points by the very well-respected canonist Dr. Ed Peters, I believe that even with the rather limited information currently available, Father Guarnizo very possibly and correctly satisfied the conditions of canon 915 in denying Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson. Secondly, I would like to comment on Father Guarnizo's unjust "administrative leave" in light of the Code of Canon Law.

Part 1 - Canon 915 and Father Guarnizo

The first rule of interpretation in canon law is to read the canon.  Canon 915 reads

"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

As Ed Peters clearly points out, canon 915 lays an obligation on the minister distributing Holy Communion to deny Holy Communion to certain parties. Who are these parties? The first two parties are those who have been excommunicated or interdicted by imposition or declaration. The third party to be denied Holy Communion are those who fulfill all of the following three conditions, i.e., those who

1. Obstinately persist... ]]> Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ The Church's Pro-Choice Position in the Contraception Debate ]]> Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Regarding the HHS Mandate: It’s The Constitution Stupid ]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Convent of the Sacred Heart pleased with their Lady Gaga special ]]> “A Very Gaga Thanksgiving” .

Gaga’s alma mater, was happy to offer up its students and faculty to ABC as props this holiday season. In the 90-minute primetime Thanksgiving show, which drew 5.5 million viewers, Gaga performed four selections from her notorious videos including the latest, “Marry the Night”. Third grade girls in pinafores were coached to be ‘little monsters’ as they sang along to her LGBT anthem, “Born This Way”. During “Bad Romance” the upper school girls watched Lady Gaga crow, “I’m a free bitch, baby!” through a plastic penis microphone.

Lady Gaga’s Manhattan girls’ school, the elite Convent of the Sacred Heart, was founded by Jewish convert to Catholicism, Otto Kahn, who donated his huge 5th Ave. mansion to a cloistered order in the 1930’s. The school was dedicated to the mission and values of Saints Madeleine Sophie Barat and Phillippine Duschene. Today Sr. Bayo is the only remaining nun and it is apparently not the same Catholic school it once was.

Though the administration encouraged family involvement with the Gaga special, many parents couldn’t imagine a worse role model for their kids.

If you would like to reach Archbishop Dolan or Sacred Heart and let them know how you feel about the school’s endorsement and collaboration with this perverse telecast, the contact information is here:

... ]]>
Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ European Commission to Take Legal Action against Vatican in Holocaust Money Laundering Case ]]> Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Reform CCHD releases report: 24% of organizations funded by USCCB's CCHD program involved in anti-Catholic work ]]> Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Is There a Discipline Double-Standard in Catholic Church? ]]> Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Fr. Frank Pavone: A rush to judgement ]]> Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ It's Bishop Zurek's Turn for Transparency in the Priests for Life Scandal ]]>
In the statement released by Bishop Zurick he said: "My decision is the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priest For Life (PFL) organization." The bishop further states: "Since he has consistently refused to subject the PFL to a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures, I have reasons to be alarmed at the potential financial scandal that might arise if it were the result of my failure to correct Father Pavone’s incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority as his Bishop."

Compare this with what we know from the statement released by Fr. Pavone.

"I want to say very clearly that Priests for Life is above reproach in its financial management and the stewardship of the monies it receives from dedicated pro-lifers, raised primarily through direct mail at the grassroots level. To this end, Priests for Life has consistently provided every financial document requested by Bishop Zurek, including annual financial audits, quarterly reports, management documents—even entire check registers! In fact, on June 20, 2011, Priests for Life received the results of its independent audit examination for the year ended December 31, 2010. The organization's auditors issued an unqualified audit opinion indicating that the financial statements 'present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Priests for Life, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America'. This marks the tenth consecutive year that the organization's auditors have provided a 'clean' audit opinion, when reporting on the respective year's financial statements. Priests for Life has been completely transparent with Bishop Zurek and any other bishops who have requested information regarding our management and finances. Indeed, we have 21 bishops and cardinals who sit on our Advisory Board, and they are kept fully informed about our finances."

At first glance, these two positions, with regard to the financial stewardship of the organization, cannot be reconciled. One would think they are looking at different sets of books. However, upon further reflection, there is a way to read and interpret the statements by both parties – which allows for them both to be truthful… and it is not something an audit would reveal, because it is not an irregularity.  The heart of the disagreement, I suspect, is HOW the money is being spent – managerial differences, if you will, in HOW the organization is being run its priorities, and its money spent.

This is further supported by a statement made by Monsignor Harold Waldow, vicar of clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo. The Amarillo Globe quotes Msgr. Waldow, when referring to Priests for Life and their donations:  “This is patrimony of the church. It belongs to the church. People give their money over the understanding that it goes to the church or church auspices and programs and ministries.”

You may recall that after being critical of Fr. Pavone’s stewardship of the finances, Bishop Zurek also then referenced: “Father Pavone’s incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority as his Bishop.”

I suspect the obedience issue the Bishop is referring has to do again, with the HOW part of this equation, meaning that Fr. Pavone disagrees with the Bishop's advice and vision for Priests for Life - and therefore has not been following them.. In fact, Father Pavone in a letter addressed to Cardinals and Bishops dated September 12 states the following:  “Bishop Zurick is my Ordinary, but he is not the Bishop of Priests for Life.”

So it appears that the bottom line in all of this is the control of a $10 million dollar organization.  

With all due respect to the Bishop as a person, and the position of his office as a successor to the Apostles, he has some explaining to do if he is to convince the legions of pro-life people who know of the tremendous work Fr. Pavone has done – of the correctness of his (the Bishop’s) decision. Transparency should be a 2-way street…,  and now it’s the Bishop’s turn to show some transparency and reveal the facts that support his statements and decision.

1. We need to see an itemized list, with specifics and details, of the “deep concerns” that the bishop has with Fr. Pavone’s financial stewardship.

2. We need to have an adequate explanation, in light of the mountain of financial data provided by PFL, of how Fr. Pavone has failed to provide “a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures”.

3. And lastly, to be convinced of the appropriateness of the Bishop’s decision, we need to have specific details of Fr. Pavone’s “incorrigible defiance” of the bishop’s legitimate authority.

... ]]>
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Bishops, Budgets and Baggage ]]> Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Jesus the Major Professor: Newman Society and Archbishop Burke spread eucharistic adoration in universities ]]> encourages an active faith in the real presence of Christ, and shows the graces young people can find in holy hour devotions.

... ]]>
Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Recollections of Reagan ]]> February 6, 2011 - I'm not sure of the year, but I think it was 1975, I was asked to give the invocation at a luncheon in a Philadelphia hotel. Most of those present were economists, of whose subject I am innocent. Beforehand, I was left in a side room, solitary save for one stranger at the far end of the room. He was studying lines on small note cards. He noticed me standing alone, preparing my spontaneous remarks just as he was doing. After some moments of silence, he walked the length of the room and offered his hand: “How are you, Reverend? My name is Ronald Reagan.” His kindness was natural, and in his humility he assumed correctly that I did not know who he was, and he did not mind that at all. Not long after that he became better known.

On the death of President Reagan, Pope John Paul II wrote to Mrs Reagan:

"I recall with deep gratitude the late president's unwavering commitment to the service of the nation and to the cause of freedom as well as his abiding faith in the human and spiritual values which ensure a future of solidarity, justice and peace in our world.. Together with your family and the American people I commend his noble soul to the merciful love of God our heavenly Father and cordially invoke upon all who mourn his passing the divine blessings of consolation, strength and peace,”

When Reagan addressed the parliament of Portugal, he became the first president to mention Our Lady of Fatima. He recalled how the Pope went to Fatima after the attempt on his life, “to fulfill his special devotion to Mary.” He added, “ the prayers of simple people everywhere, simple people like the children of Fatima, there resides more power than in all the great armies and statesmen of the world.” When Communist members of the parliament stormed out, the President drew laughter: “I notice that those on the Left have found their seats uncomfortable.”

Many of our cultural elite were uncomfortable when on March 8, 1983 he called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” Anthony Lewis of the New York Times said the speech was “primitive...simplistic theology” and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia University called it “the worst speech ever given by an American president.” But when news of the speech reached Natan Sharansky, confined to an eight-by-ten foot cell on the Siberian border, the reaction was different: “Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s ‘provocation’ quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth — a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.”

I catechized and received into the Church a friend, Peter Robinson, who went on as presidential speechwriter in 1987 to pen the line “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Various advisors urged that it be removed, but President Reagan shouted it in Berlin, and soon the wall came down.

Some patronized Reagan as just "a great communicator.” He said, “I am not a great communicator but I communicate great things.” Mother Teresa visited him in June after he was shot and told him: “You have suffered the passion of the cross and have received grace. There is a purpose to this…This has happened to you at this time because your country and the world needs you.”

On January 14, 1988 he signed a document: “Now therefore I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children.”

Only those who support that are fit for public office.

... ]]>
Sun, 06 Feb 2011 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Readers respond to ‘The Catholic Who’s Anti-Catholic’ ]]> ... ]]> Sat, 01 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ The Catholic Who's Anti-Catholic ]]> actual victims of clergy and religious abuse, with whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I’m talking about those who condone the evils of abortion and/or the homosexualist agenda; or who desire to regularly, willfully and unremorsefully engage in immoral sexual practices that the Church rightly condemns—be it sodomy, contraception, masturbation, adultery or fornication—and who feign outrage at clerical corruption to make themselves feel better about abandoning Christ’s Church.

One example of the latter category can be found in an e-mail recently sent to the editors of, one of the best websites, in my humble opinion, for Catholic news and views. The e-mail (slightly edited), printed below in italics, was sent by the editor/publisher of a left-wing “news and views” website that PewSitter’s editors link to on various occasions. I’ve decided to redact the name of the editor/publisher and the website so as to not give it further publicity.

... ]]> Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ CCHD Coalition Finds Radical Group Featured in Bishop's Renewal Document, Urges Delay of Annual Collection ]]> has released a report detailing multiple problems with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), the first grantee featured in a document intended to outline the review and renewal of the controversial Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).

“The very idea that the CCHD would praise CIW in a document that apologizes for funding pro-abortion, pro-homosexual organizations in the past and promises to make a stronger effort to avoid doing so in the future seriously undermines their credibility,” said Michael Hichborn, lead researcher for RCN member American Life League.  “How is anyone to believe that CCHD can make good on its promises if it can't even get it right from the beginning?”

RCN’s report outlines in specific detail how CIW participated in the US Social Forum 2010; something the RCN reported on back in June.  The US Social Forum ran a collection of workshops, many of which were devoted to abortion rights, homosexual rights, and Marxist Socialism.  RCN's report also specifies three of CIW’s coalition and network partnerships that are in and of themselves pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, and whose mission is to encourage cross-issues advocacy of their members. The report can be found on the Reform CCHD Now web site here:

... ]]> Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Planned Parenthood misrepresents CDC report on teen pregnancy ]]> Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Pro-life Group's Take on Bishops' CCHD Statement ]]> Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ A.L.L. PRESIDENT CALLS ON VATICAN TO DISMISS L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO EDITOR AFTER SIMPSON ‘DEBACLE’ ]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Leo XIII Decried Socialism, 150 Years Later The USCCB Embraces It ]]> surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women.

... ]]> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Obama's Counterfeit Catholics ]]> has released a brand new production of its Catholic Investigative Agency series. This second installment of this series exposes and reveals all the gory details as to how leftist Catholics joined forces with anti-Catholic groups behind the scenes to ensure Obama captured the White House.... ]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ NYC Catholic Parish Listed as Official Participant in this Weekend's Gay Pride March ]]>

Last week we reported that Archbishop Dolan had sent a letter to the pastor of St. Francis Xavier parish, requesting that the parish not participate in the “March.” In spite of his directive plans were still in the works for parish participation in this event  At the time that article was written the Lesbian and Gay Ministry group within the parish was continuing to promote the March and distributing flyers encouraging support.

Last weekend, on June 19, Archbishop Dolan was the celebrant at the rededication Mass of St. Francis Xavier in which a ten year renovation project was concluded.  Cardinal Egan was also present. Archbishop Dolan welcomed all the parish organizations at the end of the Mass including the lesbian, gay, and transgendered group members, and those wearing rainbow ribbons.  No public mention was made during the rededication Mass of the parish defying the archbishop’s request.

The official roster for this week’s Pride March can be found here.  On page 1 of 4 of this document, dated June 22, 2010 is the listing for St. Francis Xavier Parish as an official participant.  A picture of a section of that page appears below and the entire document can be found here.   ... ]]> Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Ella: The Sexual Exploitation of Teen Girls - Abortifacient as Contraceptive ]]> Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Hyundai Motor Corporation pulls blasphemous anti-Catholic soccer ad ]]>

Today the Korean car giant issued a general statement apologizing for their ‘insensitivity’ in speaking to the “passion of international soccer fans.” The text of their response appears below:

... ]]>
Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ NYC Parish Defies Archbishop Dolan's Request To Not Participate in Gay Pride March Later This Month ]]> Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Religious Freedom Advocates Concerned about Obama Administration’s Indifference ]]> Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Supreme Court Nominee Kagan and the Abandonment of Natural Law ]]> Fri, 21 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Virgin: It's Not a Dirty Word ]]> Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Despite Disappointments, Monaghan's Faithful Witness Rings True at AMU ]]> Mon, 10 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Pope Benedict: An Innovative Social Thinker For Our Time ]]> Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope). The final, formal vote of approval took place next day.

Here, thought many bishops—and many others as well, was the signature document of Vatican II, its most important achievement. For here the Church at long last engaged contemporary secular culture as a worthy interlocutor and, to some extent, even as a mentor for itself.

Forty-five years later Gaudium et Spes still stands as a major achievement of Vatican II, but the overall judgment of it by now is mixed. The pastoral constitution, it is commonly pointed out, was in many ways a product of its time and that shows—not for the best either. For these were the tumultuous, confused 1960s when cultural revolution had entered the mainstream, including even the mainstream of the Church.

In this context, the big problem with Gaudium et Spes is its “uncritical acceptance of modern progressivism,” said to cause Christians to neglect “the necessary distinction between progress conceived politically, economically, and scientifically…and the advancement of the kingdom of heaven.” This in turn is responsible for a kind of collective amnesia concerning “the most fundamental political insight that faith has to offer,” namely: “that politics is not the working out of the divine plan, that it is essentially limited and anti-utopian, and this for its own good.”

The words quoted here come from an important—and unusual—new book, The Social and Political Thought of Benedict XVI (published by Lexington Books). It is the work of Thomas R. Rourke, professor and chair of the department of political science and philosophy at Clarion University in Pennsylvania.

Rourke’s study can rightly be called “unusual” for an obvious reason. Although Pope Benedict—Joseph Ratzinger—is widely recognized as one of the most important Catholic theological figures of the last half-century, not many people think of him as a significant social thinker as well.... ]]> Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Leniency by Notre Dame Toward Other Protest Groups Not Extended to ND88 ]]> Tue, 04 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Reform CCHD Now Coaltion Statement About Recent Developments Regarding the Catholic Campaign for Human Development ]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ US Catholic Bishops Opposition To Arizona Immigration Law Leaves Many Unanswered Questions ]]>

There is a gigantic problem though. The bishops’ opposition lacks any detail or specificity – and it is the details that are important. It’s a lot like saying one is opposed to war and for peace.  Almost everyone can agree on that point. The disagreement arises in the details—because there are circumstances where war is justified and necessary to achieve peace.

Archbishop Dolan of New York addressed the AZ immigration bill in his blog.  In this column he laments and condemns the fact that immigrants often become scapecoats.  He also, quite rightly, points to the Catholic ethos of welcoming everyone, and the important role that immigrants have played in the U.S. There is only one problem with his analysis:  immigrants can be separated into legal and illegal categories.  By an overwhelming majority, those that entered the U.S. in the latter part of the 19th and the first of half of the 20th century, were LEGAL immigrants.  The immigrants that the AZ law is attempting to address are ILLEGAL ones. 

Cardinal Mahoney was one of the first to comment on the new law, he compromised his credibility by comparing it to Nazism.  His comments really served no purpose but to ratchet up the rhetoric.  One wonders if he even read the law.  It’s only seventeen pages and having read it, there is nothing in it that would justify such an over-the-top slam. I would call it a quite reasonable and commonsense law – and one that I support.

So you see, there is a huge disconnect between the bishops’ almost universal criticism of this bill and my understanding as a Catholic layman as to why.  Frankly, the President has the same problem with the citizens of this country; an overwhelming majority of U.S.  citizens oppose illegal immigration – NOT immigration – illegal immigration.

Catholic bishops studied moral theology in the seminary; I have not. I admit that I may be ignorant on this topic and am very much willing to be educated about the moral imperatives of this subject.  To that end I have a few questions to ask Your Excellencies.  The answers may help me understand your moral opposition to this law.

  1. Is it moral for a state or the federal government to impose controls on immigration?... ]]> Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Catholic News Portal,, Releases Browser Plug-in, Seeks Faithful Catholic News Clippers ]]> Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Jesuit University of Detroit Mercy Fails to Act on 11,000 Requests to Remove Planned Parenthood Links ]]> career & professional resources” and “external sites of interest.”... ]]> Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Free Catholic News Ticker Now Available ]]> Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Bishop Vasa: The "Positively Evil" Health Care Bill ]]> Baker Diocesan Newspaper, Bishop Robert Vasa explains why one cannot support the Health Care Bill, which funds abortion, even if one believes enormous good benefits would result.  It appears the Bishop is indirectly answering the position of Sr. Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, that even with the abortion issue the good outweighs the bad.

    The Bishop writes that not only is such a position “a serious understatement,” but also a “serious error.”

    “If they were further to claim that the plan has so many other good features that an insistence on the elimination of abortion provisions is really a demand for an unrealistic “perfection” then they are in serious error.”

    To clarify his point he uses the example of the importance of fidelity in marriage.

    “No one would claim that a fiancee’s insistence on fidelity … is an enemy of an otherwise “good” relationship.  Absurd!  No one would counsel a fiancee to ignore the present infidelities  … on the grounds that he or she is really a good, well-intentioned person.  No, the infidelity destroys the possibility of an authentic relationship.”

    No matter which side of the fence you are on for authentic health care reform, as a Catholic “the provision of abortion funding or abortion expansion destroys the very heart of health care.”  Which means that one  in good conscience cannot support the Health Care Bill.  How can true social justice include Satan’s number one attack on our society today, consisting of murdering innocent little babies?

    Sometimes when writing about such controversial topics one might water down what is true, but Bishop Vasa is very clear when he says, “a plan that includes funds for the direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings is much more than imperfect, it is nothing short of positively evil.”

    Although the Bishop did not mention Mr. Bart Stupak by name he does refer to his misconceived thought process.   “I do not at all believe it is legitimate to conditionally support such a plan even if there is a “promise” that the objections to abortion will be worked out once the plan is approved.”

    Bishop Vasa concludes by saying , “besides involving the federal government in the business of killing pre-born children, such a policy would coerce men and women to pay for a procedure they find absolutely abhorrent.”

    ... ]]>
    Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[ Statement By CMSWR, Which Represents 10,000 Women Religious, Affirms Bishops' Opposition to Obamacare ]]> Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ Catholic Medical Association: Health Care Bill Substantially Flawed ]]> March 18, 2010 - Philadlephia PA - The following statement was released today by the Catholic Medical Association about the Senate health care bill, H.R. 3590:... ]]> Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT <![CDATA[ The Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal Parallel to Abortion in Health Care ]]> Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT