Sunday, January 31, 2010

Moving the Pro-life Movement to the Right

With 30 Congressional seats open and the entire House, and Brown out saying he opposes the Republican position of overturning Roe v. Wade, we've got to nudge our pro-life community to the right.

The problem is, electing a proabort to bring about a perceived good is the same theological thesis Catholics used to get behind Obama.

Brown supports national heatlhcare and voted in Massachusetts for a program that publicly funds abortions and laws that force Catholics to give out emergency contraception.
Brown's opposition to Obamacare only relates to the current version and has nothing to do with moral evil - he in fact said it might be good for other states but it would be too costly for Massachusetts because we already have our own socialized medicine here.

The pro-life movement is at the fork in the road. For many of us, it is time to wish pro-lifers lobbying for Brown our best wishes and adopt a "just say no" policy when the GOP comes a knocking with more proaborts.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_go_co/us_brown_abortion

Brown tells ABC's "This Week" that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/brown-advocates-a-big-tent-gop.html?hpid=topnews

Fresh off an election victory in Massachusetts, Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown advocated a big tent outlook for the GOP when asked whether his party should move in a more moderate direction.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0131/Scott-Brown-on-healthcare-reform-whole-plan-should-be-scrapped

Brown’s election could also have an effect on the Republican Party itself: His platform supports abortion rights and Massachusetts’ right to legalize gay marriage here. In a party that has seen talk of “purity tests,” Brown’s election shows the benefits of a “big tent” strategy that includes a greater variety of opinions.

“I've always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner,” he said.

Brown was clear, however, what the bedrock of his political philosophy would be. “Make no mistake, I am a fiscal conservative,” he said. “And when it comes to issues affecting people's pockets, and pocketbooks, and wallets, I'll be with the Republicans if they are in fact pushing those initiatives.”


http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2010/01/28/scott_brown_intereviewed_on_lenos_show/


Forget health care. Forget cap and trade legislation. Scott Brown revealed tonight that he would pose nude for a magazine again, some 28 years after he bared nearly everything in the pages of Cosmpolitan Magazine.


http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO133913/


BOSTON, Mass. -- Cosmopolitan magazine would like Senator-Elector Scott Brown to once again grace its pages in a centerfold.

In 1982, Brown posed as the magazine’s first male centerfold after winning a contest.

The magazine would like him back.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Even a Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day

Obama rushed out after the State of the Union to persuade the Republicans to work with him, saying both sides are demonizing the other.

Twenty-four hours after the long and boring speech implying those who oppose his radical socialist agenda, including SCOTUS, are nefarious boogeymen, good faith is a hard sell.

We'd all love to make nice but not at the expense of putting the genocide of infants on the back burner to coalesce around common ground.

Like calling a truce between the NAACP and the Klu Klux Klan, some things are simply so egregious, distracting us with any other common ground efforts is going to be met with a resounding "no".

Show us the white flag.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama's Special Interest Loophole Amnesia

Obama's Concerned about Special Interest Loopholes in SCOTUS Decision in Citizens United case is he?


Didn't I see the unions leaving the White House with a Presidential exemption from healthcare Cadillac tax?

Aren't unions special interest groups?

Those of us who'll be paying union workers share of their cadillac insurance on top of our own and the 50 million people who can't afford insurance think so.

How about all the other special legislative favors made in back rooms to pass the fledling Obamacare?


How about this Chicago developer who made a 44 thousand dollr contribution to Obama and was awarded the deal even though his offer was 1.7 million less than another bidder?


Didn't the Obama administration this month also award a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids?

Aren't big Democratic campaign contributors special interest groups?


The pharmaceutical companies making trillions off of Obama's fake pandemic hysteria?

Dare we mention the czars he's put in place to subvert appointee approval and agenda oversight by the United States Government?

Nothing "skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables" there.

When there's a choice between our men and women in the armed forces and terrorists, The Taliban at Guantanamo and the CIA asking them questions, the police and people breaking into houses, the change-we-can-believe-in crack pipes have lost their charm.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Barry Soroto's Shameless Pot Shot at the Supreme Court


Watch CBS News Videos Online

I think the days of making an enemy out of the police, soldiers and the Supreme Court have passed.

Barack is looking to bench judges who'll legislate from the bench is he?

So much for separation of powers.

Tyranny never had it so good.

Mixed reaction even at MSNBC.

It's hard to pick out a moment that wasn't pathetic.

Drivel, drivel, drivel and no substance.

They've just got to move Pelosi. Her teeth and eyeballs were coming at me like a 3 D movie. How does she do that?

And, the Chris Matthews moment:

You know, I was trying to think about who he was tonight, and it's interesting: He is post-racial by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country and passed so much history in just a year or two.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Scott Brown Says He'd Pose Again Naked.

In the Scott Brown round up from yesterday, we learn Brown offered to endorse Menino, his wife Gail Huff entertained topless in the music video "the girl with the curious hand" and he may do another nude centerfold spread as a great way to show the GOP isn't old and out of touch.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Brown say they have had a good relationship for years, and Brown even offered to endorse the mayor in his recent re-election.

I'm glad we didn't have to suffer this "pro-life" indignity but I'm curious to know where MCFL will go from here, aren't you?

Who is the lesser of two evils in the Baker/Patrick race?

Brace yourself. We may soon be hearing "pro-life Patrick".


Super-hot Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he's out to prove he's not your average stuffy old GOP politician.

Brown is tailor-made for television and magazines - he's good-looking, charismatic, and he even posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine back in the day. In fact, the 50-year-old Brown told reporters that he may do another nude shoot. A website quoted him as saying, “I think this would be a great way to show the people that the Republican party isn’t just old, and out of touch. Heck, Republicans can even be sexy."

The new "pro-life" movement.

Of course it isn't new to grassroots prolifers in Boston. MCFL has been endorsing pro-choice politicians for at least a decade. A long list of stealth prolife politicians whose votes went to empower promiscuity, Planned Parenthood and the proaborts.

Wake up Pro-lifers, before you find yourselves swimming in the culture MCFL empowered in Massachusetts.

And, if you speak up, you'll find yourselves under the bus. Possibly with your Cardinal Archbishop calling you a person doing a disservice to Christ's Church.

Pants on the ground, pants on the ground. Looking like a fool witcha pants on the ground.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Scott Brown says he's open to Obamacare


http://blog.masscitizensforlife.org/2010/01/pac-says-electing-brown-will-defeat.html


Our PAC has been supporting Scott Brown because he will be a pro-life vote in the Senate. Scott Brown will also vote against the health care bill.

Here's what Brown had to say one day after election:



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/22/its_all_scott_brown_on_capitol_hill/?page=2


Brown was asked several times about the health care legislation, which he ran against in his campaign.
“The bill that was being pushed in Washington was not good for Massachusetts,’’ Brown said. “It may have been good for other states but we already had everything. Am I open? Certainly, I’m open to looking at every single bill on its merits and making a decision based on that. My first interest is looking at whether it’s good for my state.’’


Obamacare was good for other states, just not Massachusetts because we already "had everything" -(including publicly funded abortions)






I've also taken the liberty of collecting a few thoughts from around the internet.


http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1227960&format=comments#CommentsArea


June Newman of Braintree was one of the few allowed into the low-pitched “Assembly for Life” in the Great Hall with a sign, and exuberantly clutched a crinkled “Scott Brown (for) U.S. Senate” poster.
“He always voted pro-life,” Newman gushed of the Wrentham Republican, “and I believe he will continue to vote for life.”




“Brown, though pro-choice, has always sponsored our legislation. He checks in with us,” said Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a key pro-life group with a political action committee that funded a series of statewide mailing, media advertising, and telephone campaigns for Brown. For Fox, it was an uphill battle until the Senate vote to pass the health-care bill — then Massachusetts voters gave Brown another look.
“People in Massachusetts are pretty liberal on Catholic issues like immigration, but everybody is scared that health-care reform means rationing. Once they could see that Brown was the 41st vote and that Massachusetts could save the rest of the county, his candidacy took off,” recalled Fox. “Though I’d love to say it’s because he’s pro-life, for most voters, health care was the issue.”


“The National Right to Life Committee asked me, ‘Why didn’t you call us?’ But I knew they would have questioned supporting him last fall,” Fox recalled.




[Brown voted in favor of forcing Catholic Hospitals to hand out abortifacients, he voted to expand the buffer zone, he voted for Romneycare which publicly funds abortions.

I'm confused. Were these MCFL sponsored legislation?]




http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/news/x1689190524/Brown-I-dont-owe-anybody-anything



While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.

"Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.

Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."



As Ruse noted, almost as an aside, Scott Brown (who is Protestant) is also a firm supporter of Roe, which Brown has said is "the law of the land, and I don't plan on overturning it."


At the Catholic blog Vox Nova, Henry Karlson generated a heated discussion when he wrote that pro-life supporters of Brown could now be considered "fake pro-lifers."
"It is one thing to suggest people can make prudential decisions, it is another for groups founded on the issue of life to give direct support to candidates whose policies are completely contrary to the pro-life cause. Any advocacy group which supports a candidate directly in contradiction to their advocacy has been compromised. What happened? When and how did many of the pro-life movement become compromised? Can those pro-life groups which, as a group, promoted and supported Brown be taken seriously again?"
Added another Vox Nova poster, "I'm not saying pro-lifers had no good reasons to support Brown over Coakley, but their victory today could undermine their cause down the road."




Two-fer

Scott Brown (R, MA) is pro-abortion and pro-torture. Why wouldn't Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorse him?

Too catty?

Scott Brown (R, MA) is pro-choice and pro-enhanced interrogation techniques. Why wouldn't Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorse him?

Better?

I'm not among those who insist an advocacy group ought to endorse only those candidates who endorse the group's whole platform. I get that the least bad choice is better than the greatest bad choice. I get that, in a place like Massachusetts, the least bad choice is likely to be pretty bad, and anything even approximating an electoral victory for a right-to-life group is likely to be pretty rare.

What I don't get is why you'd be giddy over the least bad choice's electoral victory. MCFL is daydreaming about the dreamy signs they'll bring to the March for Life tomorrow. Tomorrow, as in the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which MCFL's dreamy new senator endorses.

During the last presidential campaign, Zippy argued that political endorsements corrupted pro-life groups; he particularly had in mind how embryonic stem cell research disappeared from the list of life issues when a pro-life group endorsed John McCain. The same thing happened with MCFL in its endorsement of Scott Brown. What are the odds?

It's worse in the latter case, of course, since MCFL couldn't even bring itself to list "legal abortion" as a life issue.

Nor did it mention "constitutional amendment," even though just last month MCFL president Anne Fox wrote that being pro-life "implies support for a constitutional amendment" as a reason for not endorsing Jack E. Robinson -- who calls himself "personally pro-life" and agrees "that the law should protect the right to life of each human being from conception to natural death" -- in the Republican primary...

And prolifers let them. Indeed, with the election of Scott Brown, we now see the spectacle summed up on Tom's combox:
I do appreciate the irony of taking a detour after the right-to-life march to demand a pro-choice senator be seated.

o it's come to this: the election of a porn star who supports Roe v. Wade *and* torture is gushed over as a "prolife victory" by multiple prolife talking heads while the GOP talking heads are already floating trial balloons about making the pretty-face Giuliani-lite candidate into President. Meanwhile, the Big Thinkers of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism at NRO are commending Massachusetts voters for not being held "hostage to extremists who would rather lose than support a pro-choice candidate" and concluding that the takeaway message from Brown's victory is "Waterboarding wins". Translation: Elect pro-aborts--as long as they're also pro-torture. What could be more prolife than that?


http://vox-nova.com/2010/01/20/congratulations-brown/

“Brown, on the other hand, despite not being opposed to abortion, has the endorsement of pro-life groups in the Bay State,” As Kathryn Jean Lopez said.

Again, how can this be? If the groups were about life, how can they endorse someone who is not pro-life and show that they have lost their essence as a group for life?
This is not to say individuals and people cannot do so for prudential reasons. The issue is how one is to accept an advocacy group which endorses someone whose position is contrary to their own. There has been all kinds of talk about groups with the name Catholic in it as not being Catholic.
I think many groups with the claim of being Pro-Life must now being fake pro-lifers. Again, we are talking about the group and their advocacy. This is not about private individuals making decisions based upon how they reason out their ideals in a given election. This is about how groups reason out decisions to act contrary to their advocacy policies.


http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/22/pro-lifers-revel-in-the-election-of-brown-on-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/

"No public servant in office who can't tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public should not be in office," said Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests For Life.

http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-would-never-support-scott-brown.html

The local pro-life group has endorsed Brown as a "pro-life" vote. Which simply illustrates that the pro-life movement is so corrupted at this point it's hard to understand what many groups actually stand for.


http://blog.masscitizensforlife.org/2010/01/congratulations-now-lets-finish-job.html

Each and every one of you can be so proud! You got with Scott before anyone else and never took your eye off the prize! I heard Pat Buchanan say today what we have been saying all along, that we have literally saved this country.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Abortion Contracts is the New Bingo of the Catholic Church

In what should be quite familiar to the Boston prolifers, Manchester prolifers are battling for the soul of Catholic healthcare.

According to Kathleen Souza of New Hampshire Right to Life, "Dartmouth is involved in abortions throughout the state, heavily involved in fertility research, em­bryonic stem-cell research, selective-reduction abortion — almost everything the Church is against." The diocese is in danger of surrendering the independence of its 330-bed hospital, she said, in a convoluted agreement that integrates it with Dartmouth-Hitchcock.

But John McCormack, the bishop of Manchester, counters that, although he gave preliminary approval to the affiliation in July so the review process could start, he won't sign off on the deal if it violates Catholic ethics. "I am committed to preserve Catholic Medical Center to be a true Catholic healthcare institution, one that fulfills all the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic hospitals," he said in a statement posted at www.AHealthierTomorrow.org, a website promoting the plan.


The un-doing of Catholic conscience protections, which Cardinal O'Malley began in Boston, is quietly spreading.

Like Cardinal O'Malley, Bishop McCormack claims he won't sign off on the abortion contracts he is executing if they violate Catholic ethics.

It's a little frightening he wouldn't know it's paradoxical.

Following the strategy Cardinal O'Malley used to "sign off", McCormack has brought in Catholic "ethical experts" to show him how to flow the cash into diocesan bank accounts to bring about "a healthier tomorrow" for diocesan coffers.

When a handful of Catholics exposed Cardinal O'Malley's original deal, which had the diocese taking an up-front ownership role in the arrangement, the National Catholic Bioethics Center (Cardinal financed) was called to the scene of the crime to give Catholics the impression there is an ethical way to carry out the abortion contracts while getting the money into the diocesan bank accounts as originally planned.

The immoral contract went forward with Caritas playing the exact role it had always intended to play where the rubber hits the road but there was paper shuffle with ownership structure. The money is changing hands. The Catholics lost their conscience protections. The children are losing their lives.

The counsel of the National Catholic Bioethics Center was never released.

While Cardinal O'Malley has thus far been able to keep the arrangement close to the vest, the New Oxford review article gives us a hint of how the ethics of omission (the cessation of teaching women about natural law and moral principle, i.e., telling the woman abortion is the killing of her child and supplying her with alternatives) and commission (forcing Catholic healthcare workers to paint abortion in a positive light and send the woman forward) intentionally hides how they financially benefit in the subterfuge :

Catholic Medical Center (CMC) would receive more Medicaid and Medicare revenue from an affiliation with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, a teaching hospital in Lebanon, according to Andre Martel, a former state senator and leader of the ad-hoc "Save CMC" movement. Martel testified at one of three public hearings last fall that CMC is thriving — with a $99 million surplus — so it could easily continue independently, without a secular partner.

The money from the abortions will be diverted to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center while the Catholic Medical Center will receive more Medicaid and Medicare revenue.

They go out of their way to bury it clearly indicates they know the arrangement doesn't pass the sniff test.

It's akin to partnering with Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun and saying the money lining the Bishop's wallet came from the concierge services and so the arrangement is ethically sound.

The Manchester pro-life group has been quite aggressive:

Led by Souza and Hagan, both former state legislators, the 25,000-member New Hampshire Right to Life has filed a "Memo of Opposition" with the New Hampshire attorney general and submitted more than 500 pages of documentation contending that the merger violates both Catholic ethics and charitable public-trust laws.


Here's some confirmation that the "ethics" of a "healthy tomorrow" is also about ownership interests in the business of surrendering the unborn to be executed, Catholic conscience protections and moral health services to patients is about ownership structure:

The medical boards of both CMC and Dartmouth-Hitchcock must sign off on a final affiliation agreement. Federal and state anti-trust approval is also needed. Ultimately, Bishop McCormack and the New Hampshire attorney general's office have final say over the plan, which could still be amended.

The reorganizational structure is intricate enough that in November the state hired a law firm, to be paid for by CMC and Dartmouth-Hitchcock, to unfold its complexities. Souza likened it to "Russian nesting dolls" in that when one layer opens, another is revealed. For example, one section of the agreement, posted online, stipulates that most decisions are "expected" to originate locally by CMC and its Dartmouth-Hitchcock Manchester affiliate. But another section calls for Dartmouth-Hitch cock to become the new "sole member" of CMC's parent company, which means that the diocese basically relinquishes the hospital's independence.


As was done in Boston, the paper trails of the ethics reviews has also been kept secretive:

Diocesan spokesman Kevin Donovan responded to that charge in a December 10 e-mail. "The opinions from Catholic ethicists are advisory and not definitive," he said, and were meant to remain confidential. Also, the final agreement may change before it reaches the bishop, so previous analyses would be outdated. "When the bishop reaches his determination, he will clearly indicate the reasons for his decision," Donovan said.
This excellent article, written by Gail Besse, gives some insight into the advice the Cardinal received from NCCB:

To avoid problems in Catholic-secular hospital mergers, parties would be wise to specify in writing the actual terms of ethical practice required, suggested Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

His advice was followed in Rhode Island, where the Diocese of Providence under Bishop Thomas Tobin recently merged St. Joseph Health Services with the secular Roger Williams Medical Center. On October 29 the Rhode Island attorney general approved the new holding company, CharterCare Health Partners.

"You can't assume the pieces will come together, so we discussed everything," said Msgr. Paul Theroux, vice-chairman of St. Joseph's board. "We wrote in reserved powers for the bishop in terms of preserving Catholic identity. We were upfront with Roger Williams, and they were willing to make some concessions. They agreed never to perform abortions, euthanasia, or embryonic cell destruction. It's written into the bylaws of CharterCare. They agreed they would not accept funding for embryonic stem-cell research. If others joined in the future, they'd also be bound by these restrictions."


If this was their advice to Cardinal O'Malley, he rejected it. CommonwealthCare commits all of these moral evils.

Numerous people have asked the Cardinal to release the report of the NCBC. He has refused.

Instead, the Cardinal thanked the NCCB in the public square, tactically giving the appearance the NCBC blessed his arrangement. Since the arrangement is ethically unsound, the Cardinal chose to do significant harm to the injury of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

I hope New Hampshire Catholics are not treated to a similar indignity.


In Manchester, Bishop McCormack's next move will be a monumental one — one that could have national and historic implications. For all who care about the increasingly tenuous future of Catholic health care, it is a situation that bears watching — and praying about.


Amen.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Hey - Keith Olbermann, Sit down and shut up

Would you like some milk and sugar in that tea?

Memorial Service for Fr. Thomson



MEMORIAL SERVICE:

A Memorial Service in memory of our beloved Pastor, Father Gary Thomson, will be held on Sunday, January 24th at 3PM here at Saint Martha Church. A Potluck Supper will be held in the Parish Hall immediately following the service. If you are able to bring a dish please call Michelle at the Parish Office, 508-699-8543 so we will be able to get a general idea of the menu. Thank you.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

For Every Catholic Who Works in The Emergency Room in the United States of America

Martha Coakley, hit the road.

Obama's Waterloo

Ted's seat has been swiped by a Republican, in Massachusetts.

Do the Democrats hear the people yet?

Coakley throws Obama and the Dems under the bus

The backstabbing has now commenced.

The Coakley campaign is bridling at finger-pointing from the White House and Washington Democrats, and an outside adviser to the campaign has provided to POLITICO a memo aimed at rebutting the charge that Coakley failed and making the case that national Democrats failed her.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid and skunks have a lot in common - when people see them coming, they run the other way.

The Boston Globe apparently posted election results complete with a map, with Martha Coakley winning the race.


More delusion at the White House where Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today actually said the first election of a Republican in Massachusetts since 1972, in Ted Kennedy's seat no less, is a causal effect of anger aimed at the failed policies of the Bush Administration and the GOP.

Insulting the peoples' intelligence?

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, Pelosi was busy plotting how to get healthcare passed - possibly getting the 217 democrats in the house passing the Senate version.

Gee, it doesn't seem they've gotten the message.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Words of Wisdom about the Pro-life Community in Boston

Apparently somebody played a dirty trick and made anti-Brown phone calls calling themselves MCFL.


From Lady in the Pew


Albeit a tough situation, I'm not at all sure that MCFL is in a position to whine all that much. The charge—and I'm assuming it's true although I'm not at all sure I should presume anything MCFL says is true, but let's say it is—is deplorable, of course. But then MCFL isn't all that lily-white either, when it comes to the truth-telling department. What goes around, etc., etc.

I hope Scott Brown defeats Coakley. If he does—or if he doesn't—the real work begins. That is, restoring what is left of the pro-life movement in Massachusetts.

White House Predicting Coakley Loss, Obama's Tin Ear Speech in Boston

Ed Henry reports for CNN that White House advisers have quietly started to predict a loss for Martha Coakley despite putting on a happy game face for public consumption.

While Scott Brown drew at least 3,000 for his big rally this afternoon, Obama struggled to fill his venue:

But Obama and a parade of Democrats who appeared on stage before a crowd a local fire official put at 1,100 at Northeastern University’s modest gymnasium spent much of their time trying to explain to the audience, and to themselves, how they had lost their grip on the public “anger” – a word that has replaced “hope” as the emotion Democrats seek to channel.

He couldn’t fill a hall for Deval Patrick in October, either. If Coakley was looking for a game-changer, she’s going to be disappointed.

Interesting observation the buzzword has gone from the politics of hope to the politics of anger but Obama's speech here in Boston seems as through the Dems still think the people want him to finish what they've started:

“Where we don’t want to go now is backwards,” Obama told a crowd of 1,500 Coakley supporters at a Northeastern University gymnasium. “We’ve got so much work left to do. … I can’t do it alone. I need leaders like Martha by my side so we can kick it into high gear, so we can finish what we’ve started.” …

Is it possible they're completely oblivious the people vehemently oppose the job killing, country bankrupting, abortion and euthanasia, soft on terrorists agenda Obama's trying to kick into high gear?

From what I've read, the hinging of nationally-controlled healthcare rationing agenda wasn't mentioned, so they certainly know that's a dog.

I thought these these canary in the coalmine observations were astute:

At the rally in Boston for Coakley yesterday, President Obama said a few things worth paying attention to:

1) Feigned Nonchalance:

The president said of Brown: "I don't know him, he may be a perfectly nice guy. I don't know his record, but I don't know whether he's been fighting for you up until now."

But he also revealed some fairly intimate knowledge of Brown and the race: "He voted with the Republicans 96 percent of the time," the president said of Brown's time in the Massachusetts legislature. "Ninety-six percent of the time." He took on one of Brown's best lines during the campaign, when he pushed back on a debate question about sitting in "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and said it's "the people's seat."...

And he went after one of Brown's signature shticks, his old pickup truck, used to convey Everyman appeal. "You've got to look under the hood," President Obama said. "Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck."...

Clearly President Obama -- as he should -- is well aware of Brown's record....


But in Boston -- a fairly hospitable "one end of the country" -- the president did not directly mention the health care reform legislation, opposition to which Brown has made one of the signatures of his campaign. He talked about Coakley being on the side of the people, and Brown on the side of the insurance industry, but there was no direct reference to Brown being the key vote against passage of the health care reform bill...

This was an obvious sign that the White House knows just how unpopular the legislation currently is, regardless of what the president told House Democrats last week....


This is also a fun article.

In a potentially telling moment, Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy -- Ted Kennedy's son -- forgot Coakley's name while speaking to reporters after the Obama rally Sunday. According to an account in The National Journal, he referred to Coakley as "Marcia" every time.

"Pray without ceasing." 1 Thessalonians 5:17

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Obama's Visit to Boston to Stump for Coakley

It's hard to believe, but the Democrats are definitely NOT getting why a Republican is in the lead for the seat held by Ted Kennedy for over 40 years.

This afternoon, Obama recycled all the voodoo politics of "the change you can believe in" and flew it up the flagpole at Northeastern University.

Among the things he said:

“I’ve come to talk about one thing. I’ve come to talk about Tuesday. On Tuesday you have the unique and special responsibility to fill the Senate seat you sent Ted Kennedy to fill for nearly 47 years, I am here to tell you the person for that job is your Attorney General Martha Coakley...


What Martha’s opponent is preaching we’ve already tried and it didn’t work,” Obama said. “Understand what’s at stake here Massachusetts. It’s whether we’re going backward or forward. If you were fired up in the last election I need you more fired up in this election”
Four words:

Ted's seat, Martha's losing.

Obama, played an interesting card to distance the seat from Ted Kennedy, :

There’s been a lot said in this race about how it’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it’s the people’s seat. Let me tell you the first person who would agree with that is Ted Kennedy....
How peculiar. If it's the people's seat, what's Paul Kirk doing down there in Washington?

It's a particularly hard sell since Vicky stood beside Obama with a message from Ted's grave:


"As Teddy would say, Jan. 19 is the date, Massachusetts is the state, and Martha Coakley is our candidate," Kennedy told the crowd.

Come on.

If it isn't Teddy's seat, what's Vicky doing in the eleventh hour glued to Coakley's side?

Later Saturday, Coakley campaigned in Boston and points north, appearing with Sen. Kennedy’s widow, Vicki.

“Martha Coakley is about that march for progress. Make no mistake about it, we are in a fight for the march for progress,” said Vicki Kennedy.

People have seen a year of 'the march'.

It's a march towards withholding medical care from and euthanizing the elderly, sick and suffering to give health care to people to people who are perfectly able to get a job that has insurance - like the rest of us.

It's a march towards demoralizing police the military.

It's a march towards releasing and coddling terrorists.

It's a march towards such complete incompetence, the people having to struggle with terrorists as they sit beside them on the planes as they take our lip gloss away.

It's a march towards bankrupting the United States.

It's a march towards Joe Stalin.

The people have marched away from it and the sad thing is, they don't even know it.

Another priest drops dead hours after an Archdiocesan visit

Parishioners in Plainville are holding a meeting Wednesday to discuss the events surrounding the death of their beloved pastor.

The Rev. J. Garret Thomson, a jovial, down-to-earth priest, seemed in great spirits Jan. 3 when he said Sunday Mass at St. Martha’s Church here.

“It was a wonderful Mass,’’ said Michael Lewicki, who served as lector that morning. “I was glad to be a part of it.’’

The next day, with no notice to the parish, Thomson was placed on administrative leave by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston because of sexual-assault allegations. Thomson was found dead two days later on the bedroom floor of his home in Jaffrey, N.H.

The New Hampshire medical examiner’s office ruled that Thomson, 55, died Jan. 6 of natural causes and that high blood pressure and diabetes contributed to his death.

I've had to refrain from posting something about this to build up some stamina, stomach, temperance and charity.

These events would not be so egregious if the Cardinal and his henchmen were carrying out actions by making decisions about which allegations are credible and what does not rise to the level of credible allegations.

In other words, before you take a ride over to remove a priest with a pre-existing condition of high blood pressure and balancing his heart rate and endocrine systems with insulin, one ought to be making decisions about the validity of the allegation and act accordingly.

As I have said before and I will say again - the archdiocese at one time was dismissing and adjudicating allegations in favor of protecting the handful of pedophiles in their employ. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way and they are removing innocent priests without due process or their rights under canonical process.

Our priests are upset, frightened and frustrated. Isn't it time we stepped up to the plate?

Look at the way they handled this case:

The circumstances have added outrage to tragedy for others, who said the archdiocese kept them in the dark about the reasons for Thomson’s leave.

“There’s some real anger out there right now,’’ said Jim Denson, a parishioner and member of the local Knights of Columbus. “Oh, boy, some folks are really smoking over it.’’

The archdiocese, nine days after Thomson’s death, has not formally informed the parish why its only priest was placed on leave. Parishioners did not hear of the leave until last weekend, when Bishop John Dooher included the news in remarks from the pulpit while offering condolences about Thomson’s death.

I believe the individual stepped forward to suddenly remember she is a victim of priestly sexual impropriety 15 years ago.


Dunderdale and Kelly Lynch, an archdiocesan spokeswoman, said yesterday that Thomson had been accused of the sexual abuse of a minor. The alleged abuse occurred about 15 years ago, the church officials said. They declined to say when the charge had surfaced.
What's wrong with this sentence:

The alleged abuse occurred...?




Let's mosey on over to the dictionary, shall we?

oc⋅cur


To be found to exist;
to be met with or found;

When you say something occurred, you then say it took place and is libelous.

What's happening to our priests is, all anyone has to do is tell any cockamamie story and the diocese makes the judgment the events "occurred".

They then remove the pastor.

It's civilly and canonically illicit, not to mention uncharitable and unjust.

“The thing that has some parishioners upset is the correlation between the leave and the death,’’ said Raymond La Rocca, grand knight of the Knights of Columbus here. “It was a very sudden leave, he left the premises very suddenly, and his death was very sudden. That raises a lot of questions.’
As it should.

During interviews with police, Sweeney told authorities about the sexual-assault allegation and said that “there is a civil thing going on in that a victim is looking for money so that he can get counseling,’’ Sergeant Scott Stevens wrote in his report.

Dunderdale would not comment on that. With Thomson’s death, he said, the church’s investigation into the sexual-abuse allegation has been closed.
What do they mean the matter is closed?

Does he mean there was never any substance to the claim?

There certainly are no criminal charges.

Just so everyone is clear about Massachusetts law, the statute of limitations to criminally charge a sexual assault is 15 years from the assault or if the victim was a minor, 15 years from the date of the 16 birthday.

This alleged victim waited until the clock ran out and surfaced just in time to limit the process to the kangaroo courts of the press, the archdiocese and civil attorneys.

I'm very seriously considering putting up the other sides of the stories on some of these false allegations. When priests are falsely accused, the complaintant is not a victim of allegations of sexual abuse, the priest is the victim. There is no reason to protect the identities, stories and how the archdiocese contributed to the destruction of a vocation and a human being.

Somebody should be balancing the very limited "facts" Bishops Accountability is putting up on their website which are libelous. There is definite closeting of information from the Archdiocese to aid and abet the libel.

The question is, why?

The diocese may have the ability to tell the priest victims of false allegations to refrain from giving out the details of their innocence while they let Bishops Accountability and the press incriminate them publicly - but they have no such power over me.

Along with the unborn they're sending from Caritas to be executed with abortionists they've subcontracted to infuse cash into their coffers, they're conduct is contributing to the deaths of priests.

How much longer should we all turn a deaf ear before we start getting out the "facts" of other side?

Okay, who gave my home phone number to the GOP?

Are not the number of phone calls from the Brown people a wee bit excessive?

I'm getting calls several times a day for a cast of characters where the IT technology actually starts the phone call by saying "Hi Carol..."

I keep smelling the Romneybots.

Martha Coakley's Dubious Claim that Catholics other prolifers)want to "turning away" rape victims



















Martha Coakley's latest anti-Catholic dubious claim that Catholics seeking religious exemptions to give a woman an abortifacient if they are pregnant desire to "turn away rape victims" may find her defending her claim in a court of law.

The mail piece — sent over by the Brown campaign — shows pictures of women who are supposed to have been raped, one of them in a wheelchair bent over with her head in her hands. It says: “1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.”


What kind of a dangerous scoundrel would make a claim that Catholics oppose and therefore deny to treat victims of rape?



Proving, he didn't lack the spinal fortitude to get behind litigation for the unjust law to release Catholics from the injustices, and in fact, ultimately voted in FAVOR of forcing Catholics to hand out emergency contraception, Brown held a press conference threatening a civil suit against Coakley for the libelous claims in the flier.


Brown wasn't willing to go to court for Catholics when he knew or should have known that Catholics are not "turning away" rape victims, we're treating the physical and emotional injuries to victims of rape and "IF" the woman has ovulated and requests emergency contraception, which is against our religion to provide, we're permitted in these circumstances to compassionately provide transportation to the hospital a few miles away who completes the treatment of the victim without being forced to recuse and violate our ethics and religious law.

As Coakley’s own Web site says, after Brown’s amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms to provide rape victims with emergency contraceptives, and the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests.


So he knew it was unconstitutional but voted for it.

NOW, he rushes the drama into the campaign and the media to make a zealous pitch about the actual reasons behind his original opposition to the legislation because it is suddenly affecting his own backside.

You see these two candidates?

Unless we "do something" at the level of the processes where we make decisions about "who" to support, the GOP is going to use Scott Brown as a model for the future.

Given the zealous marketing by MCFL of Scott Brown that his support for Roe v. Wade makes him the latest definition of "a pro-life voter", national momentum will cause the unborn to be handed over to more Roe v. Wade supporters - only this time, by the pro-life community.

After this election, we've got to pull it together and change the course.

Coakley, Menino and the Obamas have all found Jesus again.


At a morning prayer service in Dorchester for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, Mayor Menino told the congregation that if the Democrats lose in Massachusetts, it's a vote for people who want Obama to fail.

And, look how many of us there are, that's the kick in the pants.

Martha Coakley, who was with him, praised Obama for trying to "bring America to a brighter future".

Do you suppose either of them mentioned the devastation caused by the earthquake?

How positively shameless to go into a grieving Haitian community where relatives and friends are still among the missing, the news reports showing people are without food and water and turn it into a political stump for Coakley and Obama.

I have an idea: Maybe the Cardinal ought to open up the Cathedral and have her explain to us her thoughts on how Catholics have the freedoms provided in the Constitution of the United States, but in her world view, we're going to be told where we can't work.

I think she'd fill the Cathedral, wouldn't you?


"You (Catholics) can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room."

The whole idea behind the First Amendment of the Constitution, protecting religious freedom, is to foster tolerance in the public square and most especially in the workplace.

Constitutional Amendments actually apply to the workplace.

This is where Equal Opportunity Employment gets it's authority from the laws of the United States.

America is a country unified and respectful of each others religious convictions in the area of employment. When one person cannot carry out orders to euthanize a patient because of religious convictions, another person is supposed to step up to the plate because we are legally protected from being ordered to do things in the workplace that are against our religious convictions.

Of course, the problem is, once somebody refuses to kill or euthanize a patient, the next person realizes they're killing them. Then some people's consciences starts to bother them. Other people who believe the constitution gives license for anybody who wishes to kill another human being who would make, or is making your life more of a burden, jump into the donnybrook.


The Obamas who reportedly didn't attend Church services for Christmas or Easter last year -and come to think of it I don't think he's been reported to attend Church since his election - lo and behold, they're finally heading to Church too. He's going to talk about how to help the people Haiti.


Isn't this nice?

They've all found Jesus again.

What are the odds Obama too will mention something about the election?

What happened the separation of Church and State?

Wouldn't this be campaigning inside of Churches?

I'm sure Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good will get right on this.

Maybe we should complain to the Attorney General?

Oh, wait a minute - she's the party of the first part, isn't she.

Boy, wouldn't it take their thunder away if Brown were outside waiting for them and asked Coakley to expound upon her statement?

Presumably, you'd have to then draw the conclusion that Catholics ought not to be physicians, nurses, pharmacists - right?

I know these aren't Catholics, but Church-going people are generally pro-life across the board and they certainly would be appalled Coakley sees the government as having the right to dictate places where the constitutional freedom of religion doesn't apply?

The irony of these three politicians who have been fighting the right to life their entire political careers now using a gathering where relatives and friends are without food and water in a country where everything has been leveled in a catastrophic event, does not go unnoticed.

Jesus, deliver us from this slavery.

Friday, January 15, 2010

If you have a twitter account....

Please vote for Steve Ertelt:


http://shortyawards.com/StevenErtelt

Real trouble for the Democrats

I keep repeating the dangers of saying Scott Brown is a "prolife vote" or a person we're sending to Washington to "stop" Obamacare because not only is it delusional, ill-advised and dangerous to the lives of the unborn and the efficacy of real pro-life lobbying - it is creating a monster the GOP will use as a model for the future.

Brown run may be model for the future.

GOP strategist Ed Rollins said that if Brown even comes close to defeating Democrat Martha Coakley, who just weeks ago was seen as a shoo-in, Brown’s campaign “could be viewed as a model’’ for GOP contenders nationwide, and strategists would scrutinize “what did he say, and how was he saying it.’’
The GOP is also paying attention to what the large and effective prolife lobby said and did and they'll incorporate that some were willing to call a proabort a "pro-life vote".

Given there could be 30 seats up for grabs, the ramifications, i.e., the GOP sending 30 more proaborts for prolifers to stump for, in terms of a body count for the unborn, the math isn't lucid enough for me to say voting for proabort Brown is the 'the lesser of two evils'.

I'd much rather hold onto the definition of what a real "pro-life vote" is, and hold the feet of the GOP to the fire for the 30 seats.

Yet, I take great pleasure in the possibility of seeing "Ted Kennedy's seat" being swiped by the Republicans.

Even with the beautiful, gracious, articulate Victoria Kennedy stumping to preserve the monarchy, the momentum for a Republican sitting in the liberal lion's seat actually went


It's real trouble for the Democrats the seat Ted Kennedy's formerly held in Massachusetts is so threatened.

And if the Democrats lose, they'll be in store for a rough 2010 at the hands of an energized GOP, which would use Brown's win as a model for congressional races nationwide.


With all the democrats registered in Massachusetts, and the seat thought to be perpetually reserved for appointments made by the Kennedy family, a republican is in the lead.

What's really surprising is the dems have decided to bring Obama up to stump for Coakley.

The dems know the momentum they had a year ago has dramatically shifted in the country. Why would they think bringing Obama into the political fistocuffs seems strangely naive.

Sorta like bringing Dick Cheney up to help Brown?

How quickly Obama responded to Coakley's 911 is something else.

When our commanders in the armed forces asked Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, Obama hemmed and hawed for three months about sending in back up. Obama was asked Thursday to come to the trenches and bail Martha out and he's coming to Massachusetts on Sunday. Where are this guy's priorities?



This article, quotes an unnamed political strategist for the Dems:

"I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Today's Readings

One rock right between the eyes: Prayer. Adoration. Eucharistic Processions. Solid defenses to and for the oppressed. Speaking the truth when convenient and inconvenient.


The Philistines gathered for an attack on Israel.
Israel went out to engage them in battle and camped at Ebenezer,
while the Philistines camped at Aphek.
The Philistines then drew up in battle formation against Israel.
After a fierce struggle Israel was defeated by the Philistines,
who slew about four thousand men on the battlefield.
When the troops retired to the camp, the elders of Israel said,
“Why has the LORD permitted us to be defeated today
by the Philistines?
Let us fetch the ark of the Lord from Shiloh
that it may go into battle among us
and save us from the grasp of our enemies.”

So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there
the ark of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
The two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were with the ark of God.
When the ark of the LORD arrived in the camp,
all Israel shouted so loudly that the earth resounded.
The Philistines, hearing the noise of shouting, asked,
“What can this loud shouting in the camp of the Hebrews mean?”
On learning that the ark of the LORD had come into the camp,
the Philistines were frightened.
They said, “Gods have come to their camp.”
They said also, “Woe to us! This has never happened before. Woe to us!
Who can deliver us from the power of these mighty gods?
These are the gods that struck the Egyptians
with various plagues and with pestilence.
Take courage and be manly, Philistines;
otherwise you will become slaves to the Hebrews,
as they were your slaves.
So fight manfully!”
The Philistines fought and Israel was defeated;
every man fled to his own tent.
It was a disastrous defeat,
in which Israel lost thirty thousand foot soldiers.
The ark of God was captured,
and Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were among the dead.

Responsorial Psalm
44:10-11, 14-15, 24-25
R. (27b) Redeem us, Lord, because of your mercy.
Yet now you have cast us off and put us in disgrace,
and you go not forth with our armies.
You have let us be driven back by our foes;
those who hated us plundered us at will.
R. Redeem us, Lord, because of your mercy.
You made us the reproach of our neighbors,
the mockery and the scorn of those around us.
You made us a byword among the nations,
a laughingstock among the peoples.
R. Redeem us, Lord, because of your mercy.
Why do you hide your face,
forgetting our woe and our oppression?
For our souls are bowed down to the dust,
our bodies are pressed to the earth.
R. Redeem us, Lord, because of your mercy.

Gospel
Mk 1:40-45
A leper came to him and kneeling down begged him and said,
“If you wish, you can make me clean.”
Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand,
touched the leper, and said to him,
“I do will it. Be made clean.”
The leprosy left him immediately, and he was made clean.
Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once.
Then he said to him, “See that you tell no one anything,
but go, show yourself to the priest
and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed;
that will be proof for them.”
The man went away and began to publicize the whole matter.
He spread the report abroad
so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly.
He remained outside in deserted places,

and people kept coming to him from everywhere.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Archdiocese Evicts Six Priests from Regina Cleri

Many questions remain unanswered concerning the recent evictions of six priests from Regina Cleri by the Archdiocese of Boston, headed by Cardinal O'Malley.

Each of the evicted priests, whom I believe to be Fr. Paul Bolduc, Fr. Paul Tivnan, Fr. Jack Carroll, Fr. Raymond Plourde, Fr. Harold Johnson and Fr. Dick Johnson, had an allegation of sexual misconduct placed against them that had been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated, unfounded, without merit, the allegation was too old to be investigated (one accusations was over 50 years old) or they were exonerated and Canonically cleared. Most had been residing at Regina Cleri for 10 to 12 years.

Two of the priests, Fr. Paul Bolduc and Fr. Harold Johnson were gravely ill and dying at the time the Archdiocese told them they were being removed.

Priests in the diocese, parishioners and employees of Regina Cleri are shaken by the accounts of actions taken by the Archdiocese. Sources familiar with Fr. Bolduc's treatment tell me that shortly after Fr. Bolduc was apprised of his eviction, he had some kind of ministroke. He was rushed to Mass General Hospital and was subsequently placed on life support.

Informed sources are circulating reports to Boston diocesan clergy saying at some point shortly thereafter, the decision was made by the diocese to stop paying for Fr. Bolduc's life support. When the family was informed, Fr. Bolduc's sister (who lives in Florida) made arrangements to come up to Boston to manage the situation and asked that the life support not be removed until she arrived. Her request was denied and Fr. Bolduc died shortly before she arrived from Florida.

Several priests I spoke to asked whether Fr. Bolduc's circumstances rise to the level of euthanasia. Every one I spoke with certainly believes it rises to the level of cruelty.

Fr. Bolduc's Obituary: :


BOLDUC, Rev. Paul J. Dec. 29, formerly of Milton and Malden beloved brother of Lois M. Rooney and her husband Donald of Hampton, NH, Arthur J. Bolduc and his wife Nancy of Acton, ME. Uncle of Paul Rooney of Natick, Peter Rooney of Rowley, Patrick Rooney of Salisbury, Debra Gallagher of Methuen, Joseph Bolduc of Stoneham, and David Bolduc of Limerick, Maine. Fr. Bolduc was ordained in 1960 and served in St. Patrick Parish, Roxbury for 5 yrs, Immaculate Conception in Malden, for twelve years, St. Elizabeths Church in Milton for 10 years and served as Chaplain at Milton Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Childrens Hospital, Dana Farber Hospital, Joslin Diabetes Clinic and Brigham and Woman's Hospital, while he resided in St. Thomas Parish in Jamaica Plain and later in St. Anne in Readville. Visiting hours Sunday 2-6 in the Chapman, Cole & Gleason Funeral Home, 5 Canton Ave, Milton. Funeral Mass in St. Elizabeth's Church, Milton on Monday at 11:00 o'clock. Interment Mt. Calvaire Cemetery, Somersworth, NH. Father Paul Bolduc served God since he was ordained in 1960. Fr. Bolduc's family has taken on the responsibility of informing the public of his innocence in the matter of one accusation against him in 2001. After two years of investigation by the Archdiocese Review Board he was declared innocent of all charges and was returned to his public ministry without restriction. The Decree was dated July 22, 2003 and was signed by the Most Reverend Richard G. Lennon, D.D. Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Boston. The one allegation that was made against him could not be substantiated. At the time, Father Bolduc was prevented from proclaiming his innocence to the public or his peers. Father Bolduc's reputation was shattered and his life was changed forever. He forged on, always mindful of his mission in life. Due to this ordeal his health suffered greatly and continued to decline as time went on. Father Bolduc's family wishes to thank all his friends for standing by him and for all the support they gave him in his time of need. He was a dedicated holy man who had a true calling to the priesthood and who gave of himself completely and unconditionally. His family would also like to thank the nurses and staff at Regina Cleary residence, Boston for the excellent care they gave him. Chapman, Cole & Gleason Milton 617 696 6612


Another upset Boston priest told me that Fr. Tivnan and Fr. Plourde were packed up and taken to a facility in Canada (believed to be Southtown) to be warehoused. Upon their arrival, the facility told the diocese, the priests were "too old" to be admitted to the facility. On the way home, they were told there was no room at the inn at Regina Cleri.

Fr. Tivnan and Fr. Plourde are actually among the missing. Nobody seems to be able to obtain information on their whereabouts. One priest I spoke with said Boston clergy consider Cardinal O'Malley's administration to be so hostile/retalitory/punative - they're simply too scared to ask questions.

In the course of interviewing for the Regina Cleri story, several priests told me disconcerting things they've been too concerned about self-preservation to question or create a dust up.

It's also being reported to me that the diocese had suggested sending the men to a lockdown facility where convicted pedophiles and convicted sexually violent men are warehoused. Given these men thrived at Regina Cleri for over a decade, what exactly was the impetus for packing up 70 to almost 90 year old unsubstantiated accused/exonerated/falsely-accused priests and evicting them at this point in time? Some of them as they lay dying?


A May 2009 article in the Boston Globe gives somewhat of a heads-up regarding the anticipated bankruptcy of the clergy fund.

The Archdiocese of Boston, facing a clergy pension system that will run out of money in 2011 without a financial rescue, is now taking its first concrete steps to limit benefits and raise revenue to shore up the fund.

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley has mailed to all priests a legalistic 17-page "decree of promulgation" that is raising concerns among some sick priests because it says that they will receive only 60 percent of their stipend, in addition to their healthcare coverage, if they are on health leave.

The policy affects only the 40 priests who are currently "unassigned" because they are sick, disabled, or on a leave of absence, but it signals the archdiocese's willingness to make difficult and unpopular decisions as it attempts to address its most serious financial challenge.

Two priests on health leave expressed concerns about the policy in separate interviews last week, but neither would allow his name to be used, citing fears that the archdiocese would limit their benefits.

"The archdiocese sees priests with health issues as a burden," said one of the priests. "It's clear they don't want us."

At the time of this blog entry, archdiocesan spokesperson Teri Donilon had not responded to my questions. I do have other people to field and will update any further details I obtain.

It's no secret I believe Cardinal O'Malley's administration is dishonest. I hate to say it, but over the course of the past few days, I've come to the realization I'm actually underestimating the situation.

I know I don't have to ask for prayers from my audience but I can't think of another way to close out the disheartening and demoralizing news.

***01.12.2009 ADDENDUM

Two developments today.

1. The Vicar General of the diocese, Richard Erickson was scheduled to attend a meeting at Regina Cleri with residents/staff who are in an uproar. As soon as I get news on how the meeting went, I'll post it.

2. An article in the Globe today reveals that "Bishop Accountability" wants Cardinal O'Malley and his wizards to publish information about the subset of priests who have an allegation of sexual abuse that proved to be unfounded, without merit or they were exonerated after an investigation and canonically restored - etc.

First of all, let me say up front, I don't have any bones to pick with Bishop Accountability about their conviction that the Bishops operating this diocese are dishonest and dishonorable. The kangaroo initiatives they've set up to protect children are about as safe for children as the Caritas shuttle vans leaving Caritas Hospitals with pregnant women heading for abortion clinics.

The problem with Bishops Accountability is that it consistently misrepresents factual information in far too many cases of an accusation to have any discernment or credibility. It's run by two people (Ann Barret Doyle and Terry McKiernan) making use of the situation to overthrow the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to re-write the cathechism and Bible, of the people, by the people and for the people. They started out with Voice of the Faithful but even the VOTFers couldn't stand them.

More importantly, the situation at Regina Cleri is a perfect example of their deranged sense of totalitarian power. If you're ever accused of something criminal at work and neither the police nor your employer could find any credible evidence of it, these two dillies think they have they have authority to have you dragged out of a nursing home at 90 years old to have you incarcerated at a private facility.

These are not the kind of people you give the names and wherabouts of your employees.

In any event, it appears they asked Scott Brown and Martha Coakley to bully the Cardinal.

Last week, during a radio debate on WTKK, Martha Coakley and Scott Brown said they would call on Cardinal Sean O’Malley to release the names of all priests in the Archdiocese of Boston who were credibly accused of sexual abuse.

A week later, the candidates have yet to send a letter or make a phone call to the cardinal.

"Credible" turns out to be a key word. Martha Coakley herself found less than a handful of "credible" allegations. Furthermore, with the Fells Acre Daycare allegations, she's got problems of her own discerning credible allegations from hysteria. It's also alleged she deliberately fumbled an allegation in this case, as a political favor.

Once upon a time, Bishops and diocescan employees would cover up abuse. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way. They don't separate credible allegations from allegations without substance and merit.

They simply couldn't care less about anybody or anything concerned.

The last thing laity ought to be doing, is permitting Bishop Accountability and the dishonest and corrupt at the Boston Chancery to hand names and addresses to deranged vigilantes or unlawfully incarcerate men outside of the legal process.

This is a step up in the persecution of the Catholic Church.

So I spoke to the Rev. John Connolly, one of O’Malley’s aides, and he said the cardinal is committed to the principle of releasing the names. Although there are some remaining questions about due process, he said, the goal is to release them sometime this year.
Yeah, gentlemen, among other things, I'd say you've got some problems with due process.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

USCCB: Healthcare Bill Proabort on Funding and Conscience

Sister Mary Ann Walsh has been the spokesperson for the USCCB for a good part of the last decade.

I've chided her performance as less than stellar over the years but her trajectory seems to have changed. The last year especially.

I'm rather astounded at this:

Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says the language of the bill makes her "sick."

"Catholic bishops have urged the government to reform our ailing health care system for decades. To do this, the House and Senate have now passed bills with this aim, bills that must be reconciled into one final bill," Walsh writes.

"But the present state of affairs is enough to make you sick. The gamesmanship in Congress relates more to politics than health and has created serious problems," she continues.

She says that, "despite bishops' desire for health care reform, the proposed bills could turn the bishops from allies into opponents. So far, health care reform, it is not."

The first major problem Walsh notes is that the health care bill pays for abortions.

The bishops have argued for an "abortion neutral" bill, so that no one can use health care reform to put money into elective abortions, but Walsh says that's not what Congress has produced so far.

"The bishops appreciate the Hyde Amendment on abortion funding, which precludes using federal dollars for elective abortions or health plans that cover such abortions; they want similar language in health care reform legislation. Hyde, which passed first in 1976, tries to ensure what is becoming more and more understood in America, that no one should be forced to pay for another person's abortion and that the government should not be in the abortion-funding business," Walsh writes in the Post.

Emily's List President Frantically Raising Money for Coakley

Still, seeing Coakley and Planned Parenthood types have to struggle in the People's Republik of Massachusetts sure is an indicator the Dems are in deep doodoo.



LifeNews.com

In a scathing new email to its members, outgoing Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm is hoping to raise $500,000 for pro-abortion Massachusetts special Senate election candidate Martha Coakley. Malcolm notes the changing polls showing good news for her Republican challenger Scott Brown and the ability of the race to shape the debate over the pro-abortion health care bill.

"Martha Coakley is being inundated with GOP and far right-wing attacks -- and it's working. Polls are tightening in the Massachusetts Senate race, thanks to blatant lies about Martha's record and a GOP giddy at the prospect of taking over Senator Edward M. Kennedy's seat. Health care -- and the opportunity to elect the state's first woman senator -- is on the line," she said. "We must act now. With the election just 10 days away, we don't have a moment to waste," Malcolm continues.

"Republicans are pulling out all the stops -- lies and distortions, massive independent expenditures, fundraising advantages -- and counting on a very low turnout in the January 19 special election to take this seat. Like sharks circling, GOP interest groups are quickly going on television to attack Martha.The Club for Growth and Chamber of Commerce are contacting stations to place their ads."

Closing out the attack-filled email, Malcolm says, "The GOP sees an opportunity to break Democrats' 60-seat majority -- a prospect that would be disastrous for the issues we care about -- and they will stop at nothing to win."

I'm not going to voting booth but neither am I going to be crying to see this crowd miserable and empty on the 19th.


Harry Reid is in hot water

Reid finds black people offensive to the eye and ears.

Michael Steele doesn't think Reid's apology is enough

A new book about the 2008 campaign quotes Mr. Reid as predicting that Mr. Obama could become the country’s first black president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” On Saturday, the senator issued a public statement apologizing for the remark. He also expressed his regret for the comment in a phone call to Mr. Obama, who accepted his apology. But Mr. Steele, who is black, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that an apology was not enough and “there has to be a consequence” for “anachronistic language that harkens backs to the 1950’s and 1960’s.” Asked by the moderator, David Gregory, whether that consequence should be Mr. Reid’s resignation as majority leader, Mr. Steele said, “I believe it is.....

“There’s a big double standard here,” Mr. Steele said. “When Democrats get caught saying racist things, you know an apology is enough.” He recalled that Trent Lott had stepped down as Republic majority leader in 2002 after making a racially tinged remark. Had a similar statement been made by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, Democrats would be calling for his head, he said. Mr. Steele made many of the same statements on “Fox News Sunday.”
They're not flying a confederate flag but there's lots of racism behind the policies of the Democratic party.

Replacing personal ambition with keeping people down and dependent upon the government for existence ought to be a big white flag. I mean red flag.

Are you starting the Valentine's Decorating?






I've always been grateful we have Valentine's Day to transition us from the Birth of Christ into Lent.