Sebellius: Reduce costs by reducing births

Sebellius: Reduce costs by reducing birthsDid you know that Pres. Obama’s closest science adviser, John Holdren, was a colleague of Paul Erlich, the chicken-little of resource scarcity due to over-population?   If we don’t force the number of births down, we’ll run out of resources and die.  Babies are, in this deluded school of thought, the enemy.

Enter catholic Kathleen Sebelius, Sec. of the HHS, who under the directions of her master in the Oval Office, testified before a House panel that “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.”

The Obama Adminstration is trying to reduce the number of live births, not just pregnancies.

Check out the CNS article on what ensued.

(This video is no longer available.)

According to CNS:

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Murphy again sought clarification.

“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

When the government gets to redefine these so-called “reproductive services” as a basic “right”, then they will after that tell you how you must use them.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

You know what?  The longer old people live the more we have to spend to take care of them, especially with the decreasing number of young workers available to fund the entitlements.  It is my right to have contraception and abortifacients.  But instead we are spending money on old people.  Fewer old people means that my rights are vindicated.  Why can’t people see that we need fewer old people?

Catholics are also standing between me and my rights….

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , ,
32 Comments

Bp. Lori responds for USCCB to America Magazine’s cave in on Pres. Obama’s HHS attack

Jesuit-controlled America Magazine recently caved in to the Obama Administration in the matter of Pres. Obama’s attack on the 1st Amendment and on the Catholic Church.  In their role as a pipe for the Magisterium of Nuns, the magazine undercut the American bishops and chose to advance the Promotion of the American Patriotic Catholic Association.

My emphases:

Bishop Lori Responds to ‘America’ Editorial

Friday, March 02, 2012 12:41:48 PM
Author: Tim Reidy

Bishop William E. Lori, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committeee on Religious Liberty, has sent a response to America‘s editorial “Policy, Not Liberty.” The letter will also appear in an upcoming edition of the print edition:

The March 5th America editorial takes the United States Bishops to task for entering too deeply into the finer points of health care policy as they ponder what the slightly revised Obama Administration mandate might mean for the Catholic Church in the United States. These details, we are told, do not impinge on religious liberty. We are also told that our recent forthright language borders on incivility.

What details are we talking about? For one thing, a government mandate to insure, one way or another, for an abortifacient drug called Ella. Here the “details” would seem to be fertilized ova, small defenseless human beings, who will likely suffer abortion within the purview of a church-run health insurance program.

What other details are at issue?  Some may think that the government’s forcing the Church to provide insurance coverage for direct surgical sterilizations such as tubal ligations is a matter of policy. Such force, though, feels an awful lot like an infringement on religious liberty.

Still another detail is ordinary contraception. Never mind that the dire societal ills which Pope Paul predicted would ensue with the widespread practice of artificial contraception have more than come true. The government makes the rules and the rules are the rules. So, the bishops should regard providing (and paying for) contraception as, well, a policy detail.  After all, it’s not like the federal government is asking bishops to deny the divinity of Christ. It’s just a detail in a moral theology—life and love, or something such as that. And why worry about other ways the government may soon require the Church to violate its teachings as a matter of policy?

More details come to mind. Many if not most church entities are self-insured. Thus, Catholic social service agencies, schools, and hospitals could end up paying for abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraception. If the editorial is to be believed, bishops should regard it not as a matter of religious liberty but merely policy that, as providers they teach one thing but as employers they are made to teach something else. In other words, we are forced to be a countersign to Church teaching and to give people plenty of reason not to follow it. The detail in question here is called “scandal”.

Then there is the detail of religious insurers and companies that are not owned by the Church but which exist solely to serve the Church’s mission. The new “accommodation” leaves them out in the cold. And if I really wanted to get into the weeds I’d mention the conscience rights of individual employers.

Have I forgotten any other details we bishops shouldn’t be attending to? Well, I guess we’re policy wonks for wondering if the government has a compelling interest in forcing the Church to insure for proscribed services when contraception is covered in 90% of healthcare plans, is free in Title X programs, and is available from Walmart (generic) for about $10 a month. Pardon me also for wondering whether the most basic of freedoms, religious liberty, isn’t being compromised, not by a right to health care, but by a claim to “services” which regard pregnancy and fertility as diseases.

And didn’t President Obama promise adequate conscience protection in the reform of healthcare? But maybe it’s inappropriate for pastors of souls to ask why the entirely adequate accommodation of religious rights in healthcare matters that has existed in federal law since 1973 is now being changed.

Oh, and as Detective Colombo used to say: “Just one more thing.” It’s the comment in the editorial about when we bishops are at our best. [NB!] Evidently, it’s when we speak generalities softly and go along to get along, even though for the first time in history the federal government is forcing church entities to provide for things that contradict church teaching. Maybe Moses wasn’t at his best when he confronted Pharaoh. Maybe the Good Shepherd was a bit off his game when he confronted the rulers of his day.

But those are just details.

Most Reverend William E. Lori

Bishop of Bridgeport

Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty

WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Lori.

WDTPRS raspberries to Amerika.

Bp. Lori responds for USCCB to America Magazine's cave in on Pres. Obama's HHS attack

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Fr. Z KUDOS, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , ,
14 Comments

ACTION ITEM! POLL ALERT! Should priest be removed because he denied lesbian Communion?

You know by now about the dust up in the Archdiocese of Washington DC, where a priest denied Holy Communion to a woman who had in private announced to him in an unrepentant way that she was a practicing lesbian. The context was the funeral of the lesbian’s mother. This occurred against the backdrop of the unnatural “marriage” legislation going into force in Maryland. The lesbian, now making loud protestations of high dudgeon at having been denied Communion, is calling for the removal of the priest from parish ministry.

It think it is not unlikely that the priest was “set up” for this.  But that’s another kettle of fish.

I have several posts about this issue and about can. 915 on this blog. Start HERE.

Leaving aside the questions about the proper application of can. 915 in this case, the MSM seems to have it out – in their shallow way of being bloodthirsty – for this priest.

There is a POLL on the site of the NY Daily News which could use your attention.

I suggest that you vote.  Here is a screenshot.  Click the image or HERE to go to the page where the poll is.

ACTION ITEM! POLL ALERT! Should priest be removed because he denied lesbian Communion?

Note the inept way the question is phrased, with its flawed grammar. And there is that “removed from the archdiocese“? This was obviously posted by someone who hasn’t a clue about what she is talking about.

Whether the priest in question made the right choice according to Canon Law, in that place and at that moment aside, his removal from his pastoral mandate is NOT WARRANTED for that instance of denial of Holy Communion to that person.  Based on this event alone, his removal would be far out of proportion to what he did, even if he didn’t get the law right this time.

Here are the results at the time of this writing, 2 March 1825 GMT:

ACTION ITEM! POLL ALERT! Should priest be removed because he denied lesbian Communion?

Of course we know that it is unimaginable that the Archbishop of Washington DC should pay attention to a poll in the NY Daily News.  Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea that when people see a poll like this, they don’t automatically get the idea that the priest is the bad guy… which is the image the MSM delights in advancing as often as possible.

UPDATE 3 March 16:21 GMT:

ACTION ITEM! POLL ALERT! Should priest be removed because he denied lesbian Communion?

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Mail from priests, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, POLLS | Tagged , , ,
53 Comments

Reminder

1st Friday.

Abstinence.

Stations of the Cross.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
9 Comments

A priest with something to say to Planned Parenthood

A priest with something to say:

[wp_youtube]ptzi4ZrkiJE#![/wp_youtube]

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , ,
38 Comments

FILM REVIEW: The War of the Vendée

FILM REVIEW: The War of the Vendée“They have killed our temporal king. Now they want to kill heavenly king. Who is worth fighting for, and even dying for, if not Him?”

That is a line from the soon-to-be released film by Navis Pictures called The War of the Vendée.  US HERE – UK HERE

I received a review DVD today and watched it this evening.

Given the professional beginning, with the good score, I was soon scratching my head at age inappropriate actors. They were far too young and, as young actors, they performed, well…. like young actors. I started to wonder how I could write positively about this film. My suspicion that I was missing something of critical importance drove me to the Navis Pictures website, which has as its goal the creation of a new genre of film: Children’s Cinema.

The some 250 young actors in this film are all under 21.  This is, therefore, a direct contradiction to the old adage about never working with kids.

I don’t know how it escaped me, but I didn’t know about this aspect of the film before I stuck the DVD into the machine!

Navis, which means ship in Latin, like the Barque of Peter, wants to inspire young people to get into the film industry and other performing arts at a young age, presumably to begin to transform the industry from within. The director, Jim Morlino – yes, like the bishop but not too closely related he tells me – explains his project in a 3 minute video HERE.  Great idea!

Once you give yourself over the fundamental point of this project, this genre, you look past the rough spots, and enjoy the production immensely.

I suspect this film will be inspiring to children, both because the story is historically important but also because it is by young people for young people.

The music score was very good. The composer, Kevin Kaska, was top notch (which is one of the reasons why I was puzzled at the beginning by the age of the actors). Kaska orchestrated the music for the Batman movie The Dark Knight, and the The Passion of the Christ.  The War of the Vendée is Kaska’s second film as a composer.

If I ever get that three-hour a day call-in talk radio show, I will probably ask Navis for permission to use a clip from for my bumper music.

Of liturgical interest are portrayals of Holy Mass. I was outraged… outraged, I say, to see a maniple on the right arm of the young actor priest! Can you imagine?   If people are going to make movies about the old days, why don’t they talk to someone who knows what’s what?  And the Latin… mon Dieu!  (I’m kidding, of course.)  Later in the movie, for Mass before a battle, they get the maniple right… er left…

[UPDATE: I had a note from Jim Morlino of Navis Pictures who wrote: “RE the maniple – scene was originally shot with the correct placement of the maniple (I and many in the film are TLM folk) Due to an error on my part in maintaining “screen direction” for the Mass scene, I had to digitally “flop” the shot, and so, the Maniple appears to be on his right arm…when in fact it was correctly placed on his left arm the entire time. I knew that was going to raise some hackles, but there was nothing I could do about it.”  No hackles from Fr. Z, Jim.  I was yankin’ yer chain.]

FILM REVIEW: The War of the VendéeThe age of the actors sometimes made it difficult to know who was intended to be an adult and who was a child.  The fact that these were kids, meant that they weren’t using real guns.  They had to add effects, but they did a pretty good job.  And there is a battle scene that turned out pretty well, along with a “follow the bullet” moment and the death of a good guy.

I loved the bad guy official of the Republic with the braces on his teeth.

Another point is the prominent positive role of the female characters.  This is perhaps best captured in the line: “Men of the Vendée, either pick up your weapons now, or we will wield them for you!”

In the balance, the filmmaker and composer and these kids told a good story and they told it well.  There were moments of humor, but serious things are presented throughout about Catholic identity, faithfulness, the role of men and of women in life, honor, and the virtue of religion.

It is timely that this film comes out even as governments are today attacking freedom of religion and the Catholic Church.  I could well imagine a parish screening with a discussion period before and after, especially talking about contemporary attacks on the Church and our  future choices.

We may need inspiration from the men and women of the Vendée again, and very soon.

Here is the trailer:

Play video

The disk has French and Spanish subtitles, director and cast commentary tracks, widescreen options and is regionless.

They are giving a 50% discount to customers in France!

And do they need it!  This film comes at a time when we need that New Evangelization of which Pope Benedict has spoken.

It is good to see Catholic films being produced by and for young people. The War of the Vendée could introduce children (and their parents) to this important moment in our Catholic history. If there is sometimes a family playhouse feeling to the film, it also teaches about a dark time in our larger Catholic family history about which every Catholic should know. Thus, The War of the Vendée will clue a wider (and younger) audience into that period in France’s bloody history, just as There Be Dragons did to a certain extent about the Spanish Civil War, or Of Gods and Men did about the monks who were martyred in Algeria.

There is a moment in the movie which echos Navis’ “Children’s Cinema” purpose of the film.

A little boy playing a little boy, Remy, is not permitted to attend a meeting of adults (played by boys… it can get confusing). When Remy pouts, his sister (I think) remonstrates with him saying”

“Remy, don’t be so anxious to be older. Can’t you stay young just a little while longer?
“Being young’s no fun. Who wants to be a child?
“I know someone who wants everyone to be like a child. Someone who knows your name and who loves you so much He became a child Himself.”
[She gives little Remy a patch that the men wear. He says:]
“Now I’ll look just like papa when he was my age!”

The film, with its high production values, does indeed look like a grown up film.

I imagine that these kids had a blast making this movie. You and your children will enjoy watching it.  They will probably want to be more Catholic.

Will we be as ready and the men and women of the Vendée?

They were willing to fight and even die for the honor of their Heavenly King and Holy Mother Church.

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, REVIEWS, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , ,
29 Comments

The “Lesbian Denied Communion” issue: some posts and updates

I initially posted on the story HERE.  Lot’s of comments, including excellent canonical points from Dr. Peters.

As a follow up I posted HERE about can. 915 and the denial of Holy Communion to sinners.

As an update, there is an op-ed in the Washington Post from an official of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. here.

The lefty-leaning MSNBC covers the story HERE.  There is a video.  They interview the woman by phone.  The video will raise your blood pressure for sure.

I have now seen the letter of apology from the Archdiocese to the woman who was denied Communion HERE.

The "Lesbian Denied Communion" issue: some posts and updates

Also, Deacon Kandra has a good summary post on his blog HERE.  Among the other things Rev. Mr. Kandra posted, he has this, with my emphases:

A reader from Maryland writes about the never-ending communion controversy there:

I just wanted to let you know that there is a lot more to this story than has been published. I was in a meeting with Fr Marcel [The priest in question] and heard the whole story. The woman in question brought her lesbian partner into the vesting sacristy just before the funeral Mass and made sure to introduce her partner to Fr Marcel, introducing her as her ‘lover’. He told her then that she should not present herself for Communion. I have been to many Masses said by Father Marcel and he is a good and holy priest. He speaks very softly when giving out Holy Communion, almost whispering “Corpus Christi” — and did not publicly denounce her but rather said in a whisper that he could not give her Holy Communion. He did feel sick at the end of Mass and made sure to have a replacement priest accompany the body and family to the cemetery.

Father Marcel has a very active role in the very public and weekly vigils at Carhart’s late term abortion clinic in Germantown. He has been a staunch and vociferous defender of life. It is my belief that this is a calculated attempt to discredit him.  (Remember – same sex marriage will be signed into law this week in Maryland.) ‘Catholics for Equality’ and other gay groups are feeling pretty strong right now.  Fr Marcel is their enemy because he speaks the truth and does not back down…

I am telling you all this because Fr Marcel cannot speak for himself right now. And because he at the very least deserves the benefit of the doubt from you and Ed Peters and others who do not know all the facts. Please use this information to bring some balance to the discussion. And please pray for our bishops who must defend their priests from these attacks!

[Kandra continues:] As I noted here, Barbara Johnson is telling a different version to the press of how the priest found out about her.

Did you get that last part?  I think it is important.

It is so sad to watch the public lynching of the priest.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , ,
96 Comments

A pesky problem with the older, traditional form of Holy Mass

I spotted this great quote at the blog of the Mulier Fortis, who frequently posts about her vermin killing cats (that’s vermin-killing cats… cats which kill vermin…).

“Of course, just when you get a decent MC trained up, he leaves. We’re losing about three soon… That’s the trouble with the Old Mass… it keeps causing vocations…!”

Go spike her stats and tell her Fr. Zed sent you.

Posted in HONORED GUESTS, Lighter fare | Tagged
14 Comments

My thanks to tweeps!

My thanks to tweeps!I am very grateful to my tweeps who consistently re-tweet my tweets and blog posts on Twitter.

I started a new link category on my side-bar and have added the Twitter names of people helping me out.

My thanks to tweeps!

Hint: Do as they have done, and I will add your Twitter name to the roll.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
Comments Off on My thanks to tweeps!

Canonist Ed Peters on can. 915 and the denial of Holy Communion to sinners

If a priest has sure and reliable knowledge that a person ought not receive Communion, is he not obliged to deny it?  Tough call.

The great Canonical Defender, Dr. Ed Peters, might not have an open combox on his fine blog In The Light Of The Law, but he does have this interesting post about the denial of Holy Communion according to can. 915, vis a vis the story I posted the other day about the priest in the D.C. area who denied Communion to a woman at her mother’s funeral because he had been reliably informed that she was an active and unrepented lesbian.

With my emphases, take it away Dr. Peters:

A thought exercise occasioned by the lesbian/Communion controversy
March 1, 2012
Perhaps this thought exercise might help folks to think through the lesbian/Communion controversy better. Imagine we’re looking at the line of those approaching for holy Communion one Sunday morning at Mass.

I see ten men approaching. One of them is dressed in Neo-Nazi gear. Quick, which one (in my view) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned him away?

I see ten people approaching. It’s Gay Pride Week and two of them are wearing Rainbow Sashes. Quick, which two (in my view) are ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned them away?

I see ten people approaching. One of them is Nancy Pelosi. Quick, which one (in my view) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned her away (even if they disagreed with my decision)?

Okay, now, I see ten women approaching. One of them is a lesbian. Quick, which one (according to some) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? And how would anyone there know why I turned her away?

See the problem? Everyone knows what Neo-Nazis, and Rainbow Sashers, and Nancy Pelosi look like, but what does a lesbian look like?

Canon 915 (unlike Canon 916!) is about public consequences for public behavior. But “public” must be taken here as understood by canon law, and not necessarily as assumed from casual parlance.

Some evil conduct is so open, protracted, and well-known in the community (whether locally or nationally) that consequences at Communion time should (in a well-ordered body ecclesiastic) come as no surprise to the faith community. But other conduct, even though it is gravely wrong (one element of Canon 915) is not so open, protracted, or well-known (another element of Canon 915) so as to allow the community in question to understand what is happening to the individual in question.

If Nancy Pelosi is turned away from Communion, no one is going to wonder whether it is because she is, say, carrying on a torrid affair against her husband; if Rainbow Sashers are turned away from Communion, no one is going to suspect that, I dunno, they’ve embezzled money from their employers; and if a Neo-Nazi is turned away from Communion, no one is really going to wonder why. But if a some normal-looking woman in line for holy Communion is tuned away from the Sacrament, even politely, how are people supposed to know why? Did she kill maybe someone? Is she a porno queen or a prostitute? Maybe she runs that abortion clinic. Is she cheating on her husband or taking bribes at work? What?

Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion , that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated.

Now, sure, over time, and under certain circumstances, any of the behaviors described above can become so well-known in the community that those involved in such activities should be denied holy Communion, provided the other elements of c. 915—like, say, “obstinacy”— are also satisfied.

A few years ago, Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.

And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different.

At this point I have a question.

First, since the case that provoked this was not a Sunday Mass, but rather a funeral, and since funerals are generally attended by a much more closely knit group of people, and since it is likely that many of the “community” in that church for that funeral probably (that’s an assumption, I know) knew about this woman’s proclivities, could that adequate for considering denial?  Most of the people at that particular funeral would have understood why the priest denied the woman communion.  Iffy, I know.

Canonist Ed Peters on can. 915 and the denial of Holy Communion to sinners

UPDATE 2055 GMT:

The Washington Post has an essay about this issue written by an official of the Archdiocese of Washington DC, Fr.. William Byrne is Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of Washington and pastor of St. Peter Church on Capitol Hill.  This is about, of course, the denial of Communion to Ms. Johnson by a priest of that diocese.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Linking Back, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
40 Comments