Obama’s Justice Dept. suing Gallup Polls after results they didn’t like. Coincidence?

Via DickMorris.com

Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like

The Obama Administration’s Justice Department announced, on August 22nd, that it was joining a lawsuit by a former Gallup employee and whistleblower against the Gallup Corporation for allegedly overcharging the government on polling work. [But look at the sequence of events…]
The announcement comes on the heels of a confrontation between Gallup staffers and Obama strategist David Axelrod in which he accused the company of using out of date sampling methods which, he said, generated polling data negative to the president.  [So, the Obama campaign doesn’t like the results of a Gallup poll.  There is a confrontation. Suddenly Obama’s Justice Dept. joins a lawsuit against Gallup.  But wait!  There’s more…]
The whistleblower’s lawsuit has been kicking around since 2009, [!] but the Justice Department joined the suit only after the run-in between Axelrod and Gallup in April of this year.
In a scene right out of a typical authoritarian regime, Fox News reports that “employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod [A key component of Obama’s Chicago machine…] when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president – according to internal emails published Thursday.”
That poll that sent Axelrod ballistic showed Romney leading Obama 48-43 percent.
The Daily Caller published e mails that started when Axelrod sent a tweet to Gallup saying the tracking poll was “saddled with some methodological problems” and directing followers to a National Journal story in which a professor suggested outdated sampling.
According to the email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup,” the White House in addition asked that a Gallup staffer “come over and explain our methodology,” which was apparently perceived as a subtle threat.
Fox News reported that “a Gallup official said in an email he thought Axelrod’s pressure ‘sounds a little like a Godfather situation.’” [“Iu sàcciu unni tu stài!”]
Gallup refused to change its methodology to suit the White House.  [And now they are being sued by Obama’s Justice department.]
And the Justice Department intervention in the whistleblower suit came three months later. The whistleblower, Michael Lindley, claims that Gallup violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the federal government for its services to the U.S. Mint, the State Department and other federal agencies. The Justice Department plans to add Gallup’s work with FEMA to the list of alleged overcharges covered in the lawsuit.
Lindley charged that Gallup overestimated the number of hours of field work that the government surveys would require and that it billed the feds based on the inflated estimates.
According to the Washington Times, Lindley worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 as an Iowa field organizer based out of Council Bluffs, Iowa.
As the election progresses, this blatant effort to influence Gallup’s data and its poll numbers is an example of Chicago political thugs at their worst.

 

[wp_youtube]IRoh62wRgkc[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Religious Liberty, Slubberdegullions, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , ,
25 Comments

A noted theologian changes his mind about “pro multis” meaning “for all”

From Sandro Magister’s site Chiesa:

Vatican Diary / The conversion of bishop-theologian Bruno Forte
He was a determined supporter of “for all” in the words of the consecration. But the pope’s letter to the German bishops has changed his mind. Now he too wants “for many” to be said. Behind the scenes of the turnaround

VATICAN CITY, September 10, 2012 – The dispute over the translation of “pro multis” in the formula of Eucharistic consecration has been expanded, in Italy, with an interesting new contribution.

In the Sunday, August 26 edition of the leading Italian newspaper, “Corriere della Sera” a highly prominent figure took the field in this argument, the archbishop of Chieti and Vasto Bruno Forte, a former member of the international theological commission who was consecrated as a bishop by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

> Quell’Ultima Cena con le sedie vuote

In the article, in the wake of the letter addressed last April 14 by Benedict XVI to the German bishops, Forte took a clear position in favor of the translation “per molti,” to replace the “per tutti” that entered into use after the Council in Italy and in many other countries.

“Theologically,” Forte writes, “the translation ‘per molti’ seems to me more respectful of everyone’s freedom, and in no way excludes the offering of salvation to all made by Jesus on the cross.”  [I like the “freedom” argument.]

“For this reason,” he adds in concluding the article, “I prefer the translation ‘per molti,’ and I maintain that if explained well it can be of help and encouragement to many.”

Forte also criticizes the translation that is found in the French missal, “pour la moltitude,” recently praised by two Italian scholars, Francesco Pieri and Silvio Barbaglia.

Forte dismisses the version that they propose, “per una moltitudine,” as one of those “intermediate solutions” that “while admirable” are “inevitably compromisory.” [It would be good to know his reasons.]

*

Forte’s joining the fray is significant, and in some ways surprising.

It is significant because he is one of the best-known Italian bishops, including at the international level, and enjoys a substantial following among his brother bishops, who in fact appointed him as their representative at the worldwide synod on the new evangelization that will be held in Rome in October. Of the four selections he is the only one without the scarlet, the other three being all cardinals: Angelo Bagnasco, Giuseppe Betori, and Angelo Scola.

It is surprising because Forte has always been considered a theologian of the progressive camp, [Indeed.] the camp that most opposes, and not only in Italy, the passage from “for all” to “for many.”

At the memorable ecclesial conference in Loreto in 1985, which marked the ascent in the leadership of the Italian Church of then-auxiliary bishop of Reggio Emilia Camillo Ruini, Forte was fighting for the other and the winning side, together with the president of the episcopal conference at the time, Anastasio Ballestrero, and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. And it was he who gave the introductory theological presentation.

This is why he has not rarely ended up in the crosshairs of his more conservative theologian colleagues.

For example, in a 2004 article Fr. Nicola Bux, [HURRAY!] an adviser – both then and now – to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, singled out Forte as one of the “promulgators” of a “weak and derivative theology” concerning the resurrection of Jesus, reduced “to an ‘etiological legend,’ or an artifice in support of the worship that the Judeo-Christians were conducting on the site of Jesus’ burial.”

But Forte’s taking the field is even more surprising because it marks in him a change of judgment with respect to the past.

During the general assembly of the CEI in November of 2010, when the Italian bishops reiterated with a landslide vote their support of the preservation of the version “per tutti,” Forte was among the few who took part in the discussion on the topic in the assembly. And he spoke out in support of the majority.

On that occasion, the Neapolitan theologian – an uncle of the prosecutor John Henry Woodcock, very well known for his judicial investigations with a significant media component, the latest of them against former IOR president Ettore Gotti Tedeschi – indeed affirmed that “the alternative ‘per molti/per tutti’ contains a theologically founded nuance,” but – he added – this is a nuance “too subtle to be explained to the people,” and so expressed the opinion of “maintaining the translation currently in use.”  [Sound familiar?  “It’s tooo haaard!”]

In that assembly, the bishops voted overwhelmingly in favor of of the maintenance of “per tutti” with 171 votes out of 187 voters (apart from one blank ballot, only 11 expressed themselves in favor of “per molti,” and 4 for the version “per le moltitudini”). And this in spite of the circular letter with which in October of 2006 the Vatican congregation for divine worship had given the worldwide episcopates the authoritative indication, at the mandate of the newly elected Benedict XVI, of translating with “for many” the “pro multis” of the Latin “editio typica” of the Roman missal.

*

Currently, the text of the new translation of the Italian missal is under inspection by the congregation for divine worship, which must give the necessary “recognitio.” And in the light of the pope’s letter to the German bishops of last April, it is easy to predict that the dicastery will not compromise over the change from “per tutti” to “per molti.” [Good.]

The match could still remain open as far as other sensitive points of translation are concerned. Like the changes proposed by the bishops, with overwhelming votes in support of departing from the original Latin for the “pax hominibus bonae voluntatis” of the Gloria or for the “ne nos inducas in temptationem” of the Our Father, or, with a contrary criterion, the request not to touch the current Italian version of the “Domine non sum dignus,” conspicuously – and arbitrarily – different from the original Latin (“Signore, io non sono degno di partecipare alla tua mensa” instead of “Signore, io non sono degno che tu entri sotto il mio tetto” of the Latin missal, taken word for word from Matthew 8:7).

In this context is situated Forte’s turnaround in favor of “per molti.” A turnaround that the more malicious interpret as his hopping onto the bandwagon of the victor, in a battle that for him is already lost, in view of possible future promotions.

Forte was considered to be in the running for the patriarchate of Venice, and for that position had a public “endorsement” from the former center-left mayor of the city, the philosopher Massimo Cacciari.

Now the grand maneuvers have already begun for two Italian sees of cardinalate tradition – Bologna and Palermo – the pastors of which, Carlo Caffarra and Paolo Romeo respectively, will turn 75 in 2013. But this is another story.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
16 Comments

Archbp. of Kirkuk, Iraq: Let’s Talk to Benedict XVI Frankly, Openly

From ZENIT:

Iraq Prelate: Let’s Talk to Benedict XVI Frankly, Openly

Kirkuk Archbishop Hoping Church Leaders Will Tell Pope in Lebanon of Grave Situation for Christians

ROME, SEPT. 7, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Kirkuk, Iraq, is hoping Benedict XVI’s trip to Lebanon next week will motivate bishops of the Middle East to speak openly with the Pontiff about the danger of Christianity fading away from the region. Archbishop Louis Sako told the charity Aid to the Church in Need Christian leaders should “go beyond the formalities” to spell out their concerns for the survival of the faith when they see the Pope during his Sept. 14-16 trip.

Archbishop Sako underlined the extent of the Christian exodus from the Middle East, saying that it showed no sign of stopping and indeed had spread from Iraq to other countries, notably Syria.He also said that, despite considerable political discussion, extremism and sectarianism are growing and that in response Christians are leaving the region that had been home to their families for thousands of years.

The rise of political Islam is a matter of worry,” the archbishop said. “We Christians are a minority and there is no prospect of us gaining equal citizenship in the concrete reality of day-to-day life and there is no vision of a better future.

“Everyone is speaking of democracy and freedom but the reality on the ground is different.”The sectarianism is gaining ground and the majority are not taking care of minority groups. I think there are real fears of more Christians leaving.”He described the difficulty of encouraging faithful in his Diocese of Kirkuk to stay, saying many if not most have left.”From my diocese there are few families left. I cannot stop them [leaving] and speaking truthfully I have no magic solutions.

I am doing my best to keep them, defend them and encourage them. That has limited the problem but it is sad to see them leaving for good. As a pastor, I feel bad.”Archbishop Sako reiterated that Christians feel like second-class citizens in a state based on Islam. He also acknowledged that some Christians get discouraged by a lack of strong Church leadership.

“Our hierarchy has become tired and it is sad to say we are sometimes divided,” he admitted.”It is necessary today to develop a Christian Arab theology able to announce the word of God to Arab Christians – and those who are not Christians – and help them to discover God’s love and paternal presence, enhancing dialogue and strengthening co-existence,” he reflected. “This theology does not mean isolation from the theology of the Universal Church but rather one which interacts with events and hence assists the Eastern Church with its mission.”

 

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , ,
35 Comments

A Prayer For Vocations

Please use the sharing buttons!  Thanks!

Here is a prayer that perhaps parish priests will pick up and use at all Sunday and Holy Day Masses, perhaps immediately after the Gospel:

LEADER: Please kneel for our prayer for vocations.

ALL: O God, we earnestly beseech Thee to bless this (arch)diocese with many priests, brothers and sisters, who will gladly spend their entire lives to serve Thy Church and to make Thee known and loved.

LEADER: Bless our families. Bless our children.

ALL: Choose from our homes those who are needed for Thy work.
Amen.

LEADER: Mary, Queen of the Clergy.

ALL: Pray for us. Pray for our priests and religious. Obtain for us many more.

This prayer – which if memory serves was penned by the late Archbishop Brady of St. Paul and Minneapolis – was said by the congregation at my home parish, St. Agnes in St. Paul, for decades at every Sunday Mass. Hearing and saying the prayer every Sunday played a role in my own vocation. During the time of the late pastor Msgr. Schuler, a First Mass was celebrated at that parish every year for over 30 years.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, The future and our choices, Year of Faith | Tagged , , , , ,
5 Comments

“From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much.”

Joseph Card. Ratzinger wrote this many years ago:

From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. It will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. It will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices it built in its palmy days. As the number of its adherents diminishes, so will it lose many of its social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of its individual members. Undoubtedly it will discover new forms of ministry, and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession. In many smaller congregations or in self-contained social groups, pastoral care will normally be provided in this fashion. Alongside this, the full-time ministry of the priesthood will be indispensable as formerly.

The Church will be a more spiritualized Church, not presuming upon a political mantle, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost it much valuable energy. It will make it poor and cause it to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. (…). But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. (…) It may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that it was until recently; but it will enjoy a fresh blossoming, and be seen as humanity’s home where they will find life and hope beyond death.

From Glaube un Zukunft (1970) Faith and the Future (1971/2006)

We need a Marshall Plan for the Church.

Biretta tip to a reader who posted the excerpt in a comment.

Posted in Benedict XVI, Brick by Brick, Linking Back, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged
14 Comments

National catholic Reporter’s misleading piece about Bp. Morlino, Rep. Ryan.

Are we surprised when the National catholic Reporter (aka Fishwrap) posts a a misleading, prejudicial report about a sound and strong Catholic bishop?

Here is Fishwrap’s piece:

Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., (Rep. Paul Ryan’s home diocese) gives some political science lessons in the local newspaper:

“If people begin to look to government for everything, that’s how we get toward a state-imposed socialism, which is never acceptable from a Catholic point of view because it’s contrary to reason, which says that human labor should yield its fruits, and that those who labor own the fruits,” Morlino said.

Those with an abundance are obligated to share with those who lack basics, Morlino said, but the best way to do that is at the level closest to the people in need, a Catholic principle called subsidiarity.

“It’s just common sense,” Morlino said. “In other words, if I can help you directly, why should we bring it to the mayor or the government or the president of the United States, if I can just help you?”

Earlier, writing in his diocesan newspaper, Morlino called socialism “intrinsically evil.”

Does the Fishwrap’s piece sound to you like a defense of socialism?

Fishwrap’s piece is misleading.  Fishwrap, in their summary of Bp. Morlino’s remarks in the Madison newspaper, left out this key statement,

“Charitable giving respects individual freedoms and reduces bureaucratic costs, Morlino said. However, charity can’t do it all, and government has a responsibility to those who are poor, especially in times of profound need, such as a natural disaster, he said.”

Fishwrap would have you think that Bp. Morlino is against any role for government in helping the poor.

I think Fishwrap was irritated by Bp. Morlino’s statement, again in the Madison paper, about an ever-expanding government:

“If people begin to look to government for everything, that’s how we get toward a state-imposed socialism, which is never acceptable from a Catholic point of view because it’s contrary to reason, which says that human labor should yield its fruits, and that those who labor own the fruits,” Morlino said.

And…

But in general, governments “should not be in the business of distribution of wealth,” Morlino said.

I think Fishwrap‘s problem with Morlino, today anyway, is that Morlino isn’t a socialist.

Irritate the Fishwrapers …

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, Magisterium of Nuns, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , ,
15 Comments

QUAERITUR: Surprised by a Communion Service with a lay leader

From a reader:

Whilst on holiday in Bournemouth, UK I called into one of the RC churches to say a few prayers. It seemed as though Mass was about to begin but, to my great shock, a lay woman went up onto the Sanctuary and said that, since the priests were away, they would celebrate the Liturgy of the Word and also receive the Eucharist as the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in the tabernacle. To my increasing shock she led the congregation in all of the opening parts of the Mass including the penitential rite and, when the time came, read the Gospel herself from the pulpit. She did not say the eucharistic prayer but led everyone in the Our Father using the words from the Mass whilst standing at the altar, arms raised in the same fashion as the priest.
I did not participate but knelt at a separate altar of Our Lady somewhat flabbergasted. At this point I had to leave anyway but have been quite thrown by this, so I ask; is this allowed in a Catholic Church?

It is permitted for lay people, in the right circumstances, to have a Communion service in the absence of a priest or a deacon.  They cannot just decide to do it on their own and they cannot make it up as they go.  There are conditions, an order of prayer, etc.

However, at this point I must confess my ignorance of what is included in that order of prayer.  I have never been involved in one of these, of course.  Why would I be?  And I have been anywhere where these services were necessary.  I haven’t delved into what is done.  I imagine that the first part is going to be rather like Mass, with a penitential rite and readings of scripture.  I simply don’t know if the leader must later stand at the altar or pray with arms in the “orans” position in the manner of a priest.

Readers here will be able to chime in and clear this up.

And before they do, I hope everyone reading this will stop and say a prayer for an increase in vocations to the priesthood.

If there are many Communion services with lay leaders going on, something is deeply wrong and the whole local Church must mobilize and foster vocations.

It isn’t rocket science.

Fostering worthy worship, traditional worship, with male-only service at the altar, is a first and necessary step.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
37 Comments

QUAERITUR: Priest DIES between consecrations in the EF

From a reader:

I was just thinking today after reflecting on the fact that many priests aren’t taught Latin, nor can many of them even pronounce it properly and simply not know what they are saying.

That being said, with the shortage of priests who are trained to celebrate the EF Mass (some of whom are very old, and not of the greatest health), combined with the shortage of priests who don’t know Latin, if it came down to an emergency situation where the priest passed out dead after the the bread was consecrated, but not the wine, and the only priest reasonably available to celebrate it doesn’t know a lick of Latin or how to even pronounce it, may he finish the Mass using the English translation found in the new Missal?

Yes, a priest, if present, should finish what was started.  Even he has to say the words of consecration in English, he should finish what was started.

But in any normal situation, the older form of Mass should not have English integrated in where it is not permitted.

This isn’t a far fetched question.

I have been at a Mass when a priest died. He came down from the pulpit and died on the spot.

If a priest can die then, a priest can die between the consecrations.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 |
13 Comments

QUAERITUR: Priest denied me Communion in the hand

From a reader:

I tend not to be  legalistic but when visiting that church the priest pressed my hand quite rudely and hissed “We do not take it in the hand here”. I wonder if I should send him a note. God bless you.

Brief, but I think we get the idea.

I strongly doubt that the priest hissed.  What is this, Harry Potter?

However, the choice of the word “hissed” underscores how sensitive people are to liturgical moments.  Communion is… should be… a vulnerable moment.

I loathe Communion in the hand.  On the first full day of my pontificate as Pius the Tenth the Second, or maybe Clement XV, or perhaps John XXIII… I will abolish it by means of a Bull, which I shall also read from the central loggia of St. John Lateran… with full social media coverage and live internet streaming.

Priests should not deny people Holy Communion in the hand if they are in a place where the bishop has given permission for Communion in the hand.

It can happen that, in the course of distribution, the altar boy may be holding the paten in such a way that the priest doesn’t see the hands, the surprised tongue pops out, BAM, on we go.  That happened to me at least once this morning, but it was pretty clear that this was just a mechanical thing, and not Father-denied-Communion, etc.

However, from the better readings of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae it seems that during celebrations of Holy Mass with the Extraordinary Form, communicants are not to receive in the hand, even where it is permitted.  That said, I think that even in EF celebrations, priests should be very careful not to bruise the sensibilities of newcomers, who, by the time of Communion, probably think they are on another planet.

They are right.  They are on another planet is some sense.

But let’s be careful and gentle with them.

And may we also review how PROPERLY to receive in the hand?

We do NOT receive one-handed.
We do NOT use pintcher fingers.
We do NOT cup hands next to each other.
We do NOT lick the Host up.
We do NOT swap the Host back and forth.
We do NOT rattle Jesus around in the hand before popping Him.

In the meantime… dear readers…

… please please please just STOP receiving Communion in the hand.

Please?  You are making me sad.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Universae Ecclesiae |
58 Comments

QUAERIT… well… Cri de Coeur: Convent closing for lack of vocations

From a reader:

I need to thank you for encouraging us all to attend the EF of the mass. Although there is no EF mass within a few hours drive of where I live (so sad, I know) I have been traveling this week and was able to attend my first Latin mass. It was beautiful, if not a bit confusing.
Thank you so much for encouraging us all for attending this beautiful mass, which I am sure I would not have attended if it wasn’t for your encouragement. I fully intend to attend the EF from now on whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Now, for my sad question. During my travels I was able to visit my two remaining grandparents. I was informed that the local Benedictine Convent is closing.
The convent has been in decline from a failure in new vocations and it is not a surprise that severe action is being taken. However, in the description I received, I was told that the sisters were released from their vows and advised to go home to family (although this did come from an elderly woman, so the facts may be a bit muddled). Is this truly what happens when convents and monasteries close? It seems so sad, especially since most of these nuns took vows when they were young and are now beyond retirement age. It makes me feel hurt and angry, even though I haven’t lived in that town in years, but a commitment to God should mean something more that what is being done here. I suppose I don’t have a question, just a heartache. Any words of wisdom you can supply would be greatly appreciated. If nothing else, please pray for these sisters that they have dignity in this most difficult transition.

Sad.

I’m tired, and I bet you have good consoling words.

Posted in Cri de Coeur, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
39 Comments