"Dirty Old Town" by The Pogues

Countdown to St. Paddy's Day.

My countdown would be incomplete without an entry from "The Pogues."

Here is their rendition of an old favorite of mine: "Dirty Old Town."

A Soldier's Deck of Cards

This is pretty neat!

"My Dear Old Galway Bay" by Philomena Begley

Countdown to St. Paddy's Day.

Here's another favorite song of mine, this time in honor of my father's people who are from County Galway.

I love the Illinois reference in the first line of the song.

Hoping for another Santorum upset in Illinois this Tuesday

"The Green and Red of Mayo" by the Saw Doctors

Countdown to St. Paddy's Day.

A favorite from the Saw Doctors in honor of my mother's people who are from the County Mayo.

Irish music: "The City of Chicago" - Luka Bloom

Countdown to St. Paddy's Day.

My favorite song on the subject of Irish immigration and Chicago:

Notable Quote: Francis Cardinal George

Cardinal George:

...What isn’t always understood is that the Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have. The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them. Others disperse... Source

Illinois Presidential Poll: Santorum within striking distance of Romney

From the Chicago Tribune:

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney's campaign has long considered Illinois to be in its win column, but a new Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows the candidate has some work to do to make that a reality.

The survey found Romney slightly ahead of Rick Santorum, 35 percent to 31 percent — within the poll's 4-percentage-point margin of error. Trailing far behind were Newt Gingrich with 12 percent and Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 7 percent. Another 16 percent were undecided.

There's room for movement ahead of Illinois' March 20 primary, however. Fully 46 percent of voters said they could still change their minds before the election... Continued

On campuses across the country, anti-religion zealots seek to ban Chick-fil-A

Activists argue that donations to Christian organizations are an indication of bigotry.

From LifeSiteNews.com:

The fast food chain Chick-Fil-A, which has come under attack in the past for the conservative Christian values of its owners, is now fighting homosexual activists who want to see the restaurant kicked off college campuses across the country.

According to a Baptist Press report, the company has been at the center of controversy on at least nine campuses, including Duke University, Northeastern University, and New York University (NYU).

Students who want to see the restaurant kicked off campus or blocked from coming point to its donations to conservative Christian charities as evidence of its “anti-gay” agenda. According to IRS documents, WinShape, a charitable foundation funded by the company, funneled about $2 million to groups such as the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, and the Family Research Council in 2009.

These donations, say NYU freshman Hillary Dworkoski, show that the restaurant is out of sync with her university’s “open and inclusive campus.”

“Maintaining a contract with an anti-gay vendor like Chick-fil-A undermines what makes this university so great,” she wrote, in a Change.org petition asking the school to give the fast food chain the boot.

Dworkoski, a bi-sexual, acknowledges that the Student Senators Council recently voted against removing vendors for “political reasons,” but argues that the school still allows the removal of companies that “violate human or labor rights.”

“As Secretary Clinton recently announced, ‘gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,’” she writes. “As such, I respectfully request that NYU remove Chick-fil-A from campus”... CONTINUED

Photo Credit

Pretty, Please?

Do young women today want to be pretty? Or, do they simply want to be "hot?"

Pat Archibald, writing in the National Catholic Register, puts words on something that has been troubling me for a long time:

This post is intended as a lament of sorts, a lament for something in the culture that is dying and may never been seen again.

Pretty, pretty is dying.

People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.

Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.

By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.

As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable.

Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our “stars,” the people we elevate as the “ideal.” The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today. Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today.

The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness.

Hotness is a consumable. A consumable that consumes as it is consumed but brings no warmth.

Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.

Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.

But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.

Our problem is that society doesn’t value innocence anymore, real or imagined. Nobody aspires to innocence anymore. Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl. They want to be hot, not pretty.

I still hope that pretty comes back, although I think it not likely any time soon. For every Taylor Swift, there are a hundred Megan Foxs, or Lindsay Lohans, or Miley Cyruses etc.

Girls, please, bring back the pretty. SOURCE

Dale Earnhardt, Jr. - #88

I am excited that NASCAR season is underway, and, as always, I will be rooting for Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

I really like this picture of his #88 car!

University of Illinois has paid $7 million to buy out the contracts of three coaches

The University of Illinois has written checks worth $7 million dollars in order to buy out the contracts of three coaches.

Even if the money came from ticket sales, as the school claims, couldn't those funds have been used elsewhere at the university in order to ease the burden on taxpayers when our state is bankrupt?

Is paying three people $7 million dollars not to work an appropriate use of money at a public institution?

This kind of nonsense is going on all over the country.

From the Chicago Tribune:

...In the midst of Illinois' current economic crisis, any state school willing to dole out $7.12 million in buyouts to three coaches concurrently effectively announced its return to big-time athletics.

All together now: "I-L-L …I-O-U."

Thomas gave ex-football coach Ron Zook $2.6 million to leave. Then Thomas wrote a check for $620,000 to rid himself of women's basketball coach Jolette Law. On Friday, Thomas surprised nobody buying out Bruce Weber's deal for $3.9 million.

Weber all but assured his exit when he publicly blamed players and doubted himself. In briefly losing his composure Weber forever lost a measure of respect from players and potential recruits — a risk Thomas couldn't take.

Cry not for Weber or his fellow former Illini coaches. If you want to feel sorry for somebody, pity Thomas' gardener. Imagine the pressure of having a boss who fires people with Donald Trump-like rapidity.

When Thomas took over last August he stated goals of establishing a national profile and competing for championships. Tribune archives prove Thomas also mentioned graduating players and running a clean program, blah, blah, blah. Honestly, if those were Thomas' top priorities, Weber still would have his job.

Weber doesn't, a good man dismissed after nine clean, respectable seasons because Thomas wanted a great coach. Thomas wants Big Ten titles and Final Fours again at Illinois, and I understand why in today's NCAA climate he would feel compelled to pay whatever it takes no matter the economy.

I find such end-justifies-the-means behavior an unsettling sign of the times, but I understand it.

Not everybody does.

"Oh my gosh, that's ludicrous,'' said state Rep. Monique Davis, a Democrat representing Chicago's 27th district.

A member of the House Higher Education Committee, Davis recently introduced a bill proposing salary freezes for university administrators when their school raises tuition.

"The University of Illinois isn't acting fiscally responsible spending that kind of money on buyouts,'' Davis said. "I'm very sorry they don't understand the fiscal crisis our state is in..." FULL STORY

Priest Challenges HHS Mandate Via Spoken Word.

Short, but sweet!

"Game On" by First Love

A fun song by some Rick Santorum fans:





e

Newt Gingrich turns tables on David Gregory

Mr. Gingrich refuses to let Mr. Gregory frame the on-going health-care mandate controversy as a "contraception" issue, instead focusing on the mandate's flagrant violation of religious freedom.

Well-played, Mr. Gingrich.

Priest warns Planned Parenthood and Obama: "You better knock us out now..."

Father John Hollowell rallies the Church Militant.

An absolutely awesome and inspiring call to battle!

Cartoons: Obama versus the Church

AND



AND

An update from Cardinal Dolan

Cardinal Dolan's latest update on the HHS Mandate (my highlights in RED):

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue: religious freedom. Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?

I wanted to let you, the great people of the archdiocese, know how we’re doing in this fight. Thank you for your extraordinary unity, support, and encouragement. Throughout all the archdiocese, our people – both as patriotic citizens and committed Catholics — have been very effective in letting government know that we are not at peace at all with this attempt to curtail the freedom of religion and sanctity of conviction we cherish as both Catholics and Americans.

This has not been a fight of our choosing. We’d rather not be in it. We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church. And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government. The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad. We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.

Nor is this a “Catholic” fight alone. As a nurse from Harrison emailed me, “Cardinal, I’m not so much mad about all this as a Catholic, but as an American.” It was a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee, who observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.”

And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.

When the President announced on January 20^th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest. The worry that we bishops had expressed — that such government control was contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars and leaders of every creed. Even newspaper editorials supported us!

On February 10^th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to pay the bill, not the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable outreach. He considered this “concession” adequate.

Did this help? We bishops wondered if it would, and announced at first that, while withholding final judgment, we would certainly give it close scrutiny.

Well, we have — and we’re still as worried as ever. For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry through the suffocating mandates.

Two, since a big part of our ministries are “self-insured,” how is this going to help us? We’ll still have to pay! And what about individual believers being coerced to pay?

Three, there was still no resolution about the handcuffs placed upon renowned Catholic charitable agencies, both national and international, and their exclusion from contracts just because they will not refer victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the hungry of the world, for abortions, sterilization, or contraception.

So, we have given it careful study. Our conclusion: we’re still very worried. There seem far more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity.

Now what to do?

Well, for one, we’ll keep up advocacy and education on the issue. We continue to tap into your concern as citizens and count on your support. Regrettably, the unity of the Catholic community has been tempered a bit by those who think the President has listened to us and now we can quit worrying. You’re sure free to take their advice. But I hope you’ll listen to your pastors who are still very concerned.

Two, we’ll continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that require us to violate our moral convictions — or at least a wider latitude to the exemptions so that churches can be free — and of the rigidly narrow definition of church, minister, and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children, and healing the sick who are not Catholic.

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Sorry to go on at such length. You can see how passionately I feel about this. But, from what I sense, you do too. You all have been such an inspiration, and I owe it to you to keep you posted. We need you more than ever! We can’t give up hoping, praying, trying, and working hard. SOURCE

All Hands On Deck Endorses Rick Santorum for President

It is my pleasure to announce that the All Hands On Deck blog is formally endorsing Rick Santorum’s candidacy for President of the United States.

After much thought and analysis including an examination of the candidate’s positions, experience, and relevant background information, plus their performance in debates and primary voting to date, the this blog believes that Mr. Santorum is the best candidate to defeat President Obama in the general election and is the best candidate to govern this nation for the next four years:

First, Mr. Santorum is a passionate defender of the Judeo-Christian values that undergird American society, and he is as strong a pro-life advocate as one will find. Mr. Santorum more than any other candidate understands that the crisis that we are struggling through in this nation is as much a moral crisis as an economic one. He is a tremendous advocate of family values and has spoken repeatedly about how the contemporary breakdown of marriage and the family threatens the health and future of our nation. He understands that healthy, stable families are the building blocks of a prosperous society.

With religious belief and practice under assault by the current administration and the culture at large, Mr Santorum is an ideal candidate to give voice to the concerns of believers across the country. He is a devout Christian, a Roman Catholic, whose faith permeates his very being.

Second, Mr. Santorum can speak to the economic concerns of everyday people in a way the other candidates cannot. He comes from a blue-collar background and consistently addresses the plight of the working class. Many working-class people are facing unprecedented struggles and have been alienated by the current President’s elitism and disrespect for traditional American values. Many of them traditionally vote Democrat. This latter group of voters (once known as “Reagan Democrats”) is there for the taking, if the Republicans run the right candidate. This blog believes that Mr. Santorum is the ideal candidate to win over these voters.

Third, Mr. Santorum is a much more sincere and consistent candidate than his opponents. He knows what his beliefs are, he sticks with them, and he fights for them. What you see is what you get. No one needs to worry that he will suddenly become someone else when he becomes President.

Fourth, while Mr. Santorum does not have executive experience, he did play a significant role in the Republican Senate leadership and was successful in working across the aisle to push through bi-partisan initiatives, while remaining true to his core values. That experience and those skills will serve him well in the White House.

Fifth, the biggest threat to liberty in this country is Obamacare. Mr. Santorum has opposed Obamacare and the idea of an individual madate from the start. He will be able to challenge the President on this issue in a way that Mr. Romney, the author of Romneycare, will not.

Finally, contrary to elite opinion, Mr. Santorum is the most electable candidate. Current polls show him running better against President Obama than Mitt Romney in a number of critical swing states.

Accordingly, the All Hands On Deck blog is proud to endorse Rick Santorum for President!

Cardinal George: If the health care mandate stands, two years from now, Catholic hospitals, schools, and social agencies will be gone

Sobering words from Francis Cardinal George:

...Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society. The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

In the public discussion thus far, efforts have been made to isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful by focusing attention exclusively on “reproductive” issues. But the acrimony could as easily focus next year or the year after on assisted suicide or any other moral issue that can be used to distract attention from the attack on religious liberty. Many will recognize in these moves a tactic now familiar in our public life: those who cannot be co-opted are isolated and then destroyed. The arguments used are both practical and theoretical.

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

Theoretically, it is argued that there are Catholic voices that disagree with the teaching of the church and therefore with the bishops. There have always been those whose personal faith is not adequate to the faith of the church. Perhaps this is the time for everyone to re-read the Acts of the Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles; they collectively receive the authority to teach and govern that Christ bestowed upon the apostles. Bishops don’t claim to speak for every baptized Catholic. Bishops speak, rather, for the Catholic and apostolic faith. Those who hold that faith gather with them; others go their own way. They are and should be free to do so, but they deceive themselves and others in calling their organizations Catholic.

Since 1915, the Catholic bishops of the United States have taught that basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society. Two years ago, we asked that whatever instruments were crafted to care for all, the Hyde and Weldon and Church amendments restricting funding for abortion and respecting institutional conscience continue to be incorporated into law. They were excluded. As well, the present health care reform act doesn’t cover entire sections of the U.S. population. It is not universal.

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir. On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank...

Movie review: "There Be Dragons"

I finally had a chance to watch the movie "There Be Dragons" on DVD yesterday.

The movie, set in Spain during the troubled period of the Spanish Civil War, tells the story of St. Josemaria Escriva and the founding of Opus Dei and examines how Spanish society was torn apart by the conflict.

Although the movie received mixed reviews from the critics, I really enjoyed the film, which I found to be well-crafted, emotionally moving, and thought-provoking.

The Trailer:

The Benefits of Natural Family Planning

The Family Life Office of the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina has a web page which provides a nice overview of the benefits of Natural Family Planning:

Fertility Appreciation is the foundation of Natural Family Planning. It is the ability of a couple to understand and respect their fertility.

Many couples find that the love and respect each holds for the other grows as their understanding and appreciation of their fertility grow.

They accept fertility as a normal and healthy process, a precious gift from God to be loved, respected, understood and wisely used.

Advantages of NFP:

1) It is medically safe.

2) It is highly reliable.

3) It is morally acceptable.

4) It is easy to learn.

5) It is inexpensive.

6) It is highly versatile - it can be used at any stage of a woman's reproductive life.

7) It precisely identifies the true days of fertility and infertility.

8) It is a valuable aid for couples who are having difficulty in achieving pregnancy.

Shared Responsibility: Unlike contraceptives, this method is equally the responsibility of both the husband and wife. Couples learn to understand their combined fertility.

A True Method of Family Planning: The method can be used both to achieve and to avoid pregnancy, making it a true method of family planning. It has the added benefit of being a record of the woman's reproductive health.

Enhances One's Sexuality: The couple learns that true sexuality is spiritual, physical, intellectual, creative and emotional in its dimensions. The use of Natural Family Planning assists the couple in developing balance in their sexual life together.

Loving Cooperation: The method helps build a more loving cooperation in the important matters of sexuality and family planning. It builds a stronger partnership between husband and wife, as well as increased communication, intimacy and respect.

Effectiveness: The effectiveness of NFP is over 99% in avoiding pregnancy when the instructions are properly taught by a qualified teacher and then correctly applied. The method is also highly effective to achieve pregnancy when couples identify and use the days of fertility. In addition, it is an essential aid in the evaluation and treatment of those couples who are experiencing infertility.

Natural Family Planning Resources:

-- Key Church documents on human sexuality, marriage, and family life:

• Familiaris consortio: The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World
  Pope John Paul II, 1980
• Humanae vitae: On the Regulation of Births
  Pope Paul VI, 1968
• Casti connubii: On Christian Marriage
  Pope Pius XI, 1930

-- Links to other helpful resources:

The Couple-to-Couple-League is an excellent organization that provides NFP resources, classes, and educational materials. They have affiliated local teaching couples throughout the country.

Contraception, Why Not by Dr. Janet Smith is the most persuasive presentation of the Church's teaching on artificial contraception I have come across. The first time I heard it, it really blew away any reservations or misunderstandings I had about the issue. Contraception, Why Not? is available here in CD, DVD, and MP-3 formats. I highly recommend it.

One More Soul is another excellent organization that has a variety of resources related to natural planning including and invaluable on-line directory of NFP only physicians.

A list of NFP benefits that speaks to a modern, secular audience can be found HERE.

My blog post, Why the Catholic Church Opposes Contraception, be found HERE.

An excellent (and short) explanation of the Church's teaching on contraception can be found HERE.

A President's Day Message from the Knights of Columbus

Religious freedom - In the words of our Presidents:

Notable quote: The Second Vatican Council on the Pope's Authority

From the Vatican II document Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, Lumen Gentium:

...But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff...

Kilkelly: A song that captures the painful family separation at the heart of Irish immigration

This is my favorite song of all time, and the most emotionally-moving. The song is based on the real life-letters of an Irish father to his emigrant son in America.

As the son of Irish immigrants, this song really hits home with me. I have long understood the sadness and longing of the emigrant who has left home for a faraway land. But, it was not until I became a parent myself that I began to comprehend the loss and sorrow of the parents left behind (my grandparents, for example).

This song captures those feelings better than anything else I have come across.The song always brings tears to my eyes and makes me want to reach out and hold my kids tight.

Act of Valor - Trailer

This movie looks really intriguing.

The actors are real-life, active duty Navy SEALs.



The Act of Valor website can be found HERE.

The movie opens on February 24th.

Fr. Leo Patalinghug of "Grace Before Meals" weighs in on the health care mandate

Well done!



Father Leo's website, Grace Before Meals, can be found HERE.

"Contraception and Catholicism: What the Church really teaches"

As the healthcare mandate controversy rages on, I was pleasantly surprised to come across this short, but insightful, explanation of the Church's teaching on the issue of contraception.

Personally, I think the Church's teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family is incredibly beautiful, dignified, and uplifting.

Whether one agrees or disagrees, this short essay provides a succinct and powerful explanation of the teaching, while leaving the open-minded reader with a lot of food for thought.

From National Review Online:

Catholic teaching on contraception is at the heart of the controversy over the Health and Human Services mandate. Catholic hospitals and universities are unwilling to purchase insurance plans that provide contraceptive coverage. To critics, this unwillingness borders on the irrational; accordingly, they see little value in protecting the freedom of Catholic hospitals and universities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Catholic teaching about contraception is, however, not irrational; nor is it founded, as some have claimed, on irrelevant distinctions such as that between what is natural and what is “artificial.” Rather, two lines of argument are to be found throughout the tradition of Catholic, and more generally, Christian, thought on this issue that together show the teaching to be plausible and, in the view of many, true.

The first argument against contraception turns on the way in which the conjugal act unites the married couple organically as one flesh, so as to realize at the physical level of their existence their marital commitment to become one — to make a complete and mutual gift of each to each. Together, spouses are able to perform a biological act that they would be incapable of performing alone: an act of a reproductive kind. As is well known, this act will often not come to its natural biological fulfillment, the conception of a new human being.

Yet when the act does come to fruition, that fruition is itself — or rather, him- or herself — the further realization of the couple’s commitment, the commitment that was initially realized in the conjugal act. For a couple to prevent their act from achieving its fullest realization is thus also for them to choose to block the fullest possible realization of their commitment at the bodily level — and this is precisely at odds with the commitment itself. It is for this reason that Pope John Paul II frequently characterized the use of contraception as a kind of dishonesty: The making of the commitment to a complete sharing of lives says one thing; the deliberate blocking of that commitment from its fullest realization takes back what was initially communicated.

The way in which the act of intercourse can be prevented from realizing the marital commitment is clearest in the use of barrier methods such as the condom, which rather obviously prevent the one-flesh union from even being possible. But hormonal contraceptives, while not preventing physically an act of a reproductive type, nevertheless, when used with a contraceptive intention, involve a willed refusal to allow the biological function, in virtue of which couples become physically one, to come fully to its fruition; thus, their use involves a refusal to countenance the fullness of physical union possible to the couple on that occasion.

Pope Paul VI captured the sense of this set of claims in a well-known discussion in Humanae Vitae, in which he asserted that there is an “inseparable connection . . . between the unitive and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” To deliberately seek to remove the procreative significance of the marital act does not, in fact, leave a unitive act that has no procreative significance; it removes as well the unitive significance of the act.

Defenders of traditional sexual ethics such as Elizabeth Anscombe have argued that the embrace of contraception is a turning point for sexual ethics more generally. If it is permissible to seek less than the fullness of the real union possible on some occasion in one’s sex acts, then why stop with contracepted sex? Why not seek the less-than-full union available in sex outside of marriage, or in some non-marital form of sexual activity? No good answer seems forthcoming.

In consequence, contraception is understood by the Church both as a violation of the marital commitment — as preventing its fullest available realization — and as a gateway choice to other abuses against the good of marriage.

Contraception’s gateway character is in fact twofold, for in addition to this important strand of argument against contraception rooted in its anti-marital nature, there is also an argument rooted in its anti-life nature: To contracept is to choose to prevent a possible child from coming into existence (a choice that is not made, incidentally, when the couple abstains from the marital act — which is what happens in Catholic family planning). But human life, like marriage, is a great good; and to choose directly against that good seems wrong, and structurally similar to the wrong of homicide, and, specifically, the wrong of abortion. They are not the same wrongs, for there is no actual child in the case of contraception, as there is in abortion; but a culture shaped by collective willing of the non-existence of many possible children should be expected to extend that denial to the right to life of unborn human beings as well.

This dynamic is seen in the HHS mandate, which includes in its list of covered pharmaceuticals drugs such as Ella and Plan B, which are plausibly thought to work on occasion by preventing implantation of an embryo, i.e., by abortion. This willingness to lump in abortifacient drugs with contraceptives is a sign, but only one of many, of the Church’s wisdom in its teaching on contraception.

— Christopher Tollefsen is a visiting fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University.

I believe the Church has been absolutely right in its opposition to contraception.

For those who wish to learn more about why the Church is correct on this issue, another excellent commentary and further resource links can be found HERE.

"Obama chief of staff: No more compromise, contraceptive rule is done deal"

The President has drawn a line in the sand.

In essence, he is saying that religious believers can take their concerns and shove them.

From Fox News:

Despite renewed statements of concern by Catholic leaders, the Obama administration is done negotiating and will finalize its plan requiring insurance companies to provide free contraception to women working and studying at religious institutions, President Obama's chief of staff said Sunday.

Jacob Lew told "Fox News Sunday" that the compromise offered last week to address objections by the Catholic Church is clear and consistent with the president's "very deep belief that a woman has a right to all forms of preventive health care, including contraception."

"We have set out our policy," Lew said. "We are going to finalize it in the final rules, but I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties, and we think that's the right approach."

On Friday, Obama revised his decision to require all employers to provide contraceptive care after Catholic organizations balked that it is an intrusion on the Church's religious liberty to require it to provide birth control. The president changed the mandate to shift the burden to insurance companies to provide free access to birth control and other forms of contraception.

"No institution, nonprofit institution, that has religious principles that would be violated has to pay for or directly offer these services, but women have access to the kinds of care they're entitled to. We think that's the right approach," Lew said Sunday.

"This is a solution so that they are not providing it, so they're not offering it, they're not paying for it. So women have the choice on their own," Lew added. I think a lot of good work was done and hopefully this will now set the issue to rest."

But Catholic leaders, while first reserving judgment, remain dissatisfied. Late Friday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement declaring the new policy of "grave moral concern" and urged Congress to overturn the regulation.

"Today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religions institutions and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions," the bishops said in a lengthy statement.

The bishops noted that the change appears to make no consideration for religious insurers or self-insuring religious employers -- or for religious for-profit employers and secular nonprofit employers.

"In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services," the bishops said.

The conference also reiterated its original objection made to the Department of Health and Human Services last year when it began developing the rule.

"All the other mandated 'preventive services' prevent disease," the bishops wrote, "and pregnancy is not a disease."

But Lew said the policy holds true to the "core principles of our country," which call for respecting religious liberty. He noted that the revision had earned support from liberal Catholics and lay groups.

"The solution that we reached is consistent with those core principles. That's why it got the support of a range of groups from the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities to Planned Parenthood," Lew said.

He added that the law isn't just about preventing babies.

"There are many health conditions in women that are affected by whether or not contraceptive health is available," he said.

In defending the mandate, which Lew said the president was authorized to implement under the Affordable Care Act passed by Democrats in Congress in 2009, the chief of staff also argued that shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies doesn't hurt the bottom line.

"If you were looking at an actuarial projection of the cost of a plan, it costs more to provide a plan without than it does with. This is one of those very rare cases where it actually does not cost the insurance company money to do it," he said.

With the administration fast-tracking the policy -- it had planned to roll out the requirement for employer-provided coverage for contraceptive health care over 13 months, but decided to speed up implementation, Lew said, "because clearly it wasn't helpful to have it lingering out there." -- it may be left to lawmakers -- or a new administration -- to reverse it.

"This is outrageous," said Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on NBC's "Meet the Press. "The bottom line is that you have the federal government now saying we're going to give you a right and then say, by the way, we're going to tell you how to exercise that right."

"If we end up having to try to overcome the president's opposition by legislation, of course, I'd be happy to support it and intend to support it," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"It would be difficult as long as the president is rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else's religion is. I assume he would veto it. But yeah, we'll be voting on that in the senate. And you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible," he added.

In a statement issued separately from the conference, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, said the uproar over the mandate has made clear that Americans believe in upholding the principle of religious liberty.

"Regardless of whether or not they agree with Church teaching on a particular issue, people believe strongly that the government should not force the Church and its institutions to do things it considers morally wrong. Hopefully, the ultimate resolution of this issue will reflect this longstanding American principle. No matter the outcome, we must continue to be vigilant against the encroachment of government on the free exercise of religion," he said.

Obama versus Religious Liberty

From Jack Higgins of the Chicago Sun Times: