Simcha Fisher's Vulgarity Worsens After Shea Was Let Go from the National Catholic Register

I think it's fair to say that everyone was surprised that the Register retained Simcha.

Maybe they hoped Simcha would clean up her act. Unfortunately, it seems she's chosen the route of escalating her rhetoric to something you'd expect from a back-alley ghetto prostitute.

Fisher is the most vulgar women I have ever encountered.

That is saying a lot.

I was born in Roxbury and grew up in Boston. I did go to Catholic school, so I was a little protected from the foul-mouthed fishwives and ruffians, but we saw it all.

Apologies up front for the vulgarity but I believe the National Catholic Register has more cleaning house to do and her vulgarity should be under their noses.

She wasn't done yet:

The lady is a tramp.

And here is the worst part: she is conditioning other women to talk this way.

..and this woman who came onto Fr. Heilman's facebook page and repeated Simcha's rhetoric, almost verbatim:

Shocking.

Fr. Heilman is the priest who is running the Holy League, leading us in today's Lepanto.

Can you imagine talking like a putana in front of this holy man?

This is not the kind of leadership that has any place in Mother Angelica's apostolate. They've got to finish the job.

Fr. Groeschel's Boo Boo

Quite the dust up over an interview with Fr. Groeschel at the National Catholic Register.

There's plenty of commentary out in cyberspace on Fr. Groeschel's comments that to me, lacks truth and understanding.

Yes, sometimes a 13 year old who has been starved for love and attention will misunderstand the attention given to him from a teacher, priest, coach just about the time when their libido kicks in. They lack boundaries because they are in desperate need for affection and love. A mother/father/grandparent or guardian of a child is blessed with the job of nurturing emotions and sexuality. When that is not happening at home, when the child is left without context to understand and discipline - all kinds of things go awry. One of them is, any kind of affection can set off their libido and the relationship of a teacher, coach, priest, etc.

Crushes on teachers, coaches have been happening for centuries.

What was missing in the context of Fr. Groeschel's statements is that normal adults do not respond or do whatever it takes to tuck the situation back in, including removing oneself from direct contact with the child, if necessary.

If you note, Fr. Groeschel explains that in some situations when the priest is screwed up himself - I think he uses the example of a breakdown - the emotions and sexuality of the priest can be disordered. Consequently, rather than the things a normal adult does to put safeguards and boundaries in place, the child is taken advantage of and sexually abused.

While trying to explain this phenomenon, "seducer" was not a very good word for it.

He goes on to opine that perhaps, under the circumstances where the adult has had some kind of breakdown himself, there are some first instances of inappropriate sexual touching of a child may not always require sending the person to a penitentiary.

I'd say as a mother, if it were my child, any kind of groping or sexual touching by an adult, the police would be and should be callws. Obviously we know a person who does this is sick in the head. Could there ever be a situation where after evaluation, there is a course of treatment for a first time offender that wouldn't include jail time?

Maybe. But if the story gels and the priest gets convicted, he should be tagged and treated as a sex offender, so everyone in the community knows where he lives and what he at one time was capable of doing. It's not something normal adults do when they are stressed out. Something is missing in the hat rack.

It is not uncommon for a psychologist to have empathy for all kinds of sick people, even if and when they do something criminal, like abuse a child.

It was irresponsible for the 'interviewer' and editors at the National Catholic Register to, 1) not ask the right questions to get Fr. Groeschel to clarify, and 2) publish the thing.

It's one thing for the secular press to exploit something a Catholic says that obviously needed context and clarification. It's another thing for a Catholic newspaper to scandalize Fr. Groeschel, the faithful.

Increasingly, we are finding things published at the Register that show a lack of understanding of the Catholic religion and/or poor judgment. Don't know what it is, but there's a problem at the helm. You can't just throw articles from good journalists and writers into a Catholic newspaper. In addition to the talents of a journalist, the editing and publishing crew has to be on their game spiritually and have a deep understanding of the Catholic religion - and the faithful. They need to be seasoned and wise.

I don't know what is going on at EWTN, but they need to tighten up their newspaper.

EWTN's New Baby

The National Catholic Register

Is this not spectacular?

People who blog have a lot of different gigs.  This will not come as a surprise to long-time readers, but I fall into the category of activists who use their blog as a tool, rather than a journalist.   Like any activist, I've periodically cc'd Catholic journalists, bloggers, newspaper - a) because they should know what's going on and b) knowing the controversy is newsworthy, you hope to get the information out there so that scandals against Christ's Church, souls, children, Sacraments - so worthy of having their sanctity protected - will benefit from having the light shine on it.

I really have been a defender of the Legion, not Maciel, but the innocent order of priests who are (or want to be) faithful to Christ that were sucked into the vacuum.   For so many years faithful candidates to the priesthood were denied admission to seminaries because, after all, if you're going to be hopping into bed with your brother seminarians, the last thing you want around are people who are there to purify themselves, learn the authentic faith and be trained in the discipline of celibacy.    For the last...God only knows how long...to this day, faithful priests have to fly under the radar to keep their assignments, remain a pastor, avoid being labeled as mentally disturbed when you complain about the sex, drinking, drugs, stealing and spiritual abuse of the flock.    The Legion was a refuge from this diocesan  skullduggery and I defended, hoped and prayed for reform post-Maciel.

That all ended a few years back when I could no longer avoid the reality that the Legion was using their newspaper to give shelter and cover up the corruption of Bishops.  I don't mean to implicate any of the fine journalists all of whom I deeply respect - or even Fr. Owen as these decisions I'm sure took place far above his head.  I'm just saying that my respect for the order was scandalized when I realized that even if a Bishop literally got involved in the abortion mill business the Legion would use their newspaper to provide the Bishop a place to write FAQs that avoided the substance of allegations and covered up the trail of scandal with smoke and mirrors. 

You've got to go a long way to lose my respect.   I'm usually the last one standing in the room giving you the benefit of the doubt.  There is something seriously wrong with the Legion. 

I'm delighted the Register is going to be under EWTN.  Wow - what great news for the journalists.  What great news for all of us.

Obama "abortion reduction" vs. Prolife "abortion prohibition"

Many are asking, is his "abortion reduction" meme surrendering philosophical ground?

Tom McFeely, a writer for the National Catholic Register, says the debate over whether Obama is serious about reducing abortions by helping pregnant women with social programs "can't be answered now."

"A more conclusive judgment must await the introduction of the actual programs and an assessment of their effects. But in the meantime pro-lifers have every reason to be skeptical, given the concrete pro-abortion actions Obama has taken already since becoming president," McFeely writes at NCR.

However, McFeely points out comments from U.S. News & Report’s Dan Gilgoff, who notes that Obama's use of pro-life language about reducing abortions is perhaps an acknowledgement that the pro-life side is winning the abortion debate.

"But in articulating a goal of reducing the need for abortion, hasn't the White House already made a judgment about its undesirability?" Gilgoff writes. "Why reduce the number of women seeking abortions if there’s nothing wrong with the procedure?"

For McFeely, the point that Obama may have given up the high ground in the abortion debate is well taken.

"Obama has ceded ground to the pro-life cause simply by claiming he wants to reduce the number of abortions," McFeely says.

"It would be a mistake for pro-lifers to read too much into Obama’s concession, which has obvious parallels to Bill Clinton’s dictum that abortion should be 'safe, legal, and rare,'" he continues. "At the same time, it also would be a mistake to read too little into it."

"When even pro-abortion presidents like Clinton and Obama feel obliged to acknowledge abortion as something to be avoided, they contribute to fostering a wider appreciation among all Americans that there’s something seriously wrong with abortion," McFeely concludes.

I've always found that people who are "personally opposed" to abortion, because they know it is taking the life of a child and yet support a "woman's right" to proceed with taking the life of a child, confusing.

A lot of very good, sincere and decent peopl who would otherwise champion the rights of the oppressed and those victimized by societies and individuals, have been spoon fed the idea that a nation can take a position that we can't infringe upon something we know is killing because other people think it's a "woman's right to choose what to do with "their bodies". The "body" that ends up in the trash, actually is no more "theirs" than the ones sleeping soundly in their cribs in every nursery in America.

McFeely brings the ruse into the light.

Pro-lifers should really capitalized upon the "abortion reduction" cards being played by the Administration and hijack it to the reasons why a country that knows abortion is killing will never compromise until there is a "prohibition". We can never stop people from killing other people.

At some point, women whose consciences have been pacified into "choosing" to kill their own child will want to become pregnant. From the first moment that pregnancy test is positive, a woman knows she has a child in her womb that she is nurturing. She makes conscience decisions about doing healthy things and avoiding the unhealthy because she has a child that is relying upon her to make those choices - and she realizes what she did years ago.

We can never stop people from enslaving other people. We do, as a country, prohibit them by law.

Unless the President supports the right for North Korea to build a nuclear weapon empire and use them sparingly, the philosophy will eventually fall short on intellects above 100.

I think this is where we pick up the pieces off the ground and run. He is giving us the ammunition.

National Catholic Register: Concerns about Caritas

Concerns about Caritas

Abortion coverage reportedly will be included in the health plans to be offered by a new joint venture involving six Caritas Christi hospitals in the Archdiocese of Boston.

According to a news release today from the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, “Celticare Health Plan of Massachusetts, which describes itself as ‘a partnership between Celtic Group, a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, and Caritas Christi Health Care’ — the network of six Catholic hospitals affiliated with the Archdiocese of Boston — has revealed on its website that all three of its Commonwealth Care health plans will include abortion coverage.”

The news release also notes that Celticare’s website lists “Family Planning and Reproductive Services Providers,” including Planned Parenthood, to which it will refer plan members.

As the Register reported here, concerns have been raised since the initial announcement of the joint venture plan that Caritas Christi might become involved with the provision of abortions and other immoral procedures through its participation in the joint venture.

According to the Catholic Action League, the latest revelations constitute “final and conclusive proof that Caritas Christi will be a participant in state-subsidized abortions.”

Obama's abortion reduction "Deadly Spin"

Gail Besse has an excellent article in the National Catholic Register describing the tenets of Obama's "abortion reduction" scam.

I've been critical of Wendy Wright's involvement in Obama's "abortion reduction" malarkey but it did give her a front row seat to report on the Fata Morgana.

"The qualifiers 'unintended and need' come straight from the liberal abortion handbook," said Wright. "The language is intentionally vague. A pregnancy may be unintended but not unwelcome."

"People hear the phrase 'reduce abortion' and they think 'reduce the number' of abortions. The administration is not saying that," she explained. "Number is quantifiable, but need is subjective. You can't prove that 'need' is reduced. Someone may feel a 'need' for abortion after going to Planned Parenthood, but they won't after going to a crisis-pregnancy center."

The only speakers on the conference call were Obama appointees, Wright said. She and Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, listened in "silent only" mode.

According to a U.S. News report, White House speakers were Joshua DuBois, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; Melody Barnes, Domestic Policy Council director; and Tina Tchen, director of the new White House Council on Women and Girls.

Barnes is a former director of Planned Parenthood and former board member of Emily's List, a group that promotes pro-abortion candidates. Tchen is a former vice president of the National Organization for Women...

Administration officials de--clined repeated attempts by the Register to identify pro-life participants on the conference call or explain who would be contacted for future meetings.

I'm not a fan of sitting on boards that stonewall authentic activism in the defense of life. You don't involve yourself with 'reduce racism' efforts with the Klu Klux Klan. You don't enjoin in efforts with Nazi sympathizers to 'reduce anti-semitism'.

Let us not be silly.