Another Stem Cell Alternative Found

With all the trumped up hype and hasty rush to use embryonic stem cells for research, a new study now reveals major progress without employing the unethical attempt to derive stem cells from embryos. The temper tantrum from the left to hastily rush into funding embryonic stem cell research on the part of liberal politicians, secularists, and a sinister media, always sympathetic to promoting unethical medical practices, was all for naught.

Good things come to those who wait. A FoxNews article reported today that

"researchers in Boston announced Thursday that they have made significant progress in creating stem cells from human skin -- without using human embryos.

. . . The new approach is more efficient than earlier efforts and avoids tampering with DNA, said Derrick Rossi of Children's Hospital Boston"

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (June, 2008):

"Nature in fact provides ample resources for pursuing medical progress without raising these grave moral concerns. Stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood are now known to be much more versatile than once thought.

. . . Researchers have even developed new non-destructive methods for producing cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells—for example, by “reprogramming” adult cells. There is no moral objection to research and therapy of this kind, when it involves no harm to human beings at any stage of development and is conducted with appropriate informed consent. Catholic foundations and medical centers have been, and will continue to be, among the leading supporters of ethically responsible advances in the medical use of adult stem cells."

If only the proud left would listen to the Church, they would find themselves in a much more agreeable position in the world today. Here is the Church's position from the USCCB statement On Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

"Almost everyone agrees with the principle that individuals and governments should not attack the lives of innocent human beings. However, several arguments have been used to justify destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells. It has been argued that (1) any harm done in this case is outweighed by the potential benefits; (2) what is destroyed is not a human life, or at least not a human being with fundamental human rights; and (3) dissecting human embryos for their cells should not be seen as involving a loss of embryonic life. We would like to comment briefly on each of these arguments.

First, the false assumption that a good end can justify direct killing has been the source of much evil in our world. This utilitarian ethic has especially disastrous consequences when used to justify lethal experiments on fellow human beings in the name of progress. No commitment to a hoped-for “greater good” can erase or diminish the wrong of directly taking innocent human lives here and now . . . The same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging other human beings considered more deserving or productive. The suffering of patients and families affected by devastating illness deserves our compassion and our committed response, but not at the cost of our respect for life itself.

Second, some claim that the embryo in his or her first week of development is too small, immature, or undeveloped to be considered a “human life.” Yet the human embryo, from conception onward, is as much a living member of the human species as any of us. As a matter of biological fact, this new living organism has the full complement of human genes and is actively expressing those genes to live and develop in a way that is unique to human beings, setting the essential foundation for further development . . . Just as each of us was once an adolescent, a child, a newborn infant, and a child in the womb, each of us was once an embryo.

Others, while acknowledging the scientific fact that the embryo is a living member of the human species, claim that life at this earliest stage is too weak or undeveloped, too lacking in mental or physical abilities, to have full human worth or human rights. But to claim that our rights depend on such factors is to deny that human beings have human dignity, that we have inherent value simply by being members of the human family. If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong. As believers who recognize each human life as the gift of an infinitely loving God, we insist that every human being, however small or seemingly insignificant, matters to God—hence everyone, no matter how weak or small, is of concern to us.

Finally, some claim that scientists who kill embryos for their stem cells are not actually depriving anyone of life, because they are using “spare” or unwanted embryos who will die anyway. This argument is simply invalid. Ultimately each of us will die, but that gives no one a right to kill us. Our society does not permit lethal experiments on terminally ill patients or condemned prisoners on the pretext that they will soon die anyway. Likewise, the fact that an embryonic human being is at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents gives no individual or government a right to directly kill that human being first.

. . . It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path. We therefore urge Catholics and all people of good will to join us in reaffirming, precisely in this context of embryonic stem cell research, that “the killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act” (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae], no. 63)."

Earth Day - Celebrate Human Life

U.S. Bishops Make Final Plea to Stop Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill

From a CNA article:

In a final, urgent plea to prevent the passage of the current form of the Senate health care bill, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Saturday evening sent a letter to Congressmen asking them to vote “no.”

“For decades,” the letter says, “the United States Catholic bishops have supported universal health care. The Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity.”

" . . . First, the bishops argue that health care reform “must protect life and conscience, not threaten them." The Senate bill "extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions (for example, through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers that bypasses the Hyde amendment), and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions."

"Simply put," the letter to Representatives continues, "health care reform ought to continue to apply both parts of the Hyde amendment, no more and no less."

The bishops also argue that, despite claims to the contrary, "the status quo prohibits the federal government from funding or facilitating plans that include elective abortion. The Senate bill clearly violates this prohibition by providing subsidies to purchase such plans."

"While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their families will be required to pay a separate mandatory abortion fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law."

" . . . The bishops regret that the House leadership is “ignoring the pleas of pro-life members for essential changes in the legislation.”

“Apparently they will not even try to address the serious problems on abortion funding, conscience protection and fair treatment of immigrants."

"We are bishops, not politicians, policy experts or legislative tacticians. We are also pastors, teachers, and citizens. At this point of decision, we cannot compromise on basic moral principles. We can only urge -- and hope and pray -- that the House of Representatives will still find the will and the means to adopt health care reform that protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all.

“The legislation the House adopted, while not perfect, came closer to meeting these criteria. The Senate legislation simply does not meet them," the bishops say.

"With deep regret, but clear in our moral judgment, we are compelled to continue to urge House members to oppose the Senate bill unless these fundamental flaws are remedied. At this critical moment, we urge Representatives to take the steps necessary to ensure that health care reform respects the life and dignity of all, from conception to natural death," the letter concludes."

The Catholic Position on Health Care Reform 3/15/2010

The Democrat proposed health care reform bill has been portrayed in every which way by leading Democrats. The rhetoric has become so twisted that most Americans are unsure what it contains. This tactic of confusing and wearing down the American people into submission is deceptive. One of the issues in the debate of health care reform is the federal funding of abortions. We hear from the Democrats that it is not in the bill, but when you study the bill you find out otherwise. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued the following statement on the state of health care reform (click here) in which he says:

The American people and the Catholic bishops have been promised that, in any final bill, no federal funds would be used for abortion and that the legal status quo would be respected.

However, the bishops were left disappointed and puzzled to learn that the basis for any vote on health care will be the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve. Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.

Abstinence Only Education Proven Effective

Looks like the Pope was right yet again:

A recent study reveals that abstinence only education was more effective at delaying sex than other methods including the condom education class. Surprise, surprise wasn't Pope Benedict lambasted over the head with a media blitz over his remarks about the ineffectiveness of condom campaigns?

Population Control: Is This the Whole Point of Obama's Government Health Plan?

According to a 12/10/09 article on page 10 of the China Daily, a delegate from the Chinese communist government told the UN in Copenhagen that "Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture."

She continued to brag about communist China's ruthlessly unjust one-child per family policy by exclaiming, "as a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year".

Obama must have been rubbing his hands together in glee when he heard these words. After all, our marxist President appointed the most radically liberal environmentalist at the post of "Science Czar". John Holdren was appointed to Obama's cabinet under a sophisticated title to mask their radicalness: Director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy.

If we can remember back when Holdren was first exposed, we read the stories, but couldn't imagine what crisis would be created that would give Holdren the green light to implement his radical policies. The UN globalists have just provided Obama and John Holdren the green light they've been looking for.

If you forgot how serious our freedoms have suddenly become threatened, here are some of what John Holdren along with two other authors in the 1,000 page textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (1977) dreamed up as the answer to our search for happiness:

According to FrontPage Magazine Holdren et al. maintained:

"there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated . . . it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force."

Our Science Czar viewed life as cheap and 'manageable' with cold blooded murder to control the world's population:

"All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague."

FrontPage likened this, rightly so, to the sacrifice of humans to the environment god. The report quoted the textbook's pages 837-838 where it read:

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility".

John Holdren advocated a 'Planetary Regime' as part of a One World Government:

"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits." (p. 943)

"Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization." (p. 917)

Like Emperor Nero, who falsely blamed the great Fire of Rome on the Christian population, Obama's Czar takes his own shot at Christians, already assigning preemptive blame to Christians for any global environmental damage:

"The Christian concept of life in this world, as voiced by Saint Paul, that 'here we have no abiding city,' for example, conceivably could help explain why some people show rather little concern for the long-term future of the global environment or for the well-being of future generations" (p. 807).

The only way Obama can force population control onto America is if he gets his Government run health plan passed while citing global disaster crisis as his justification. But standing in his way are people who still believe in family values and the rights of the family.

What a perfect scenario: cite imperfections in America's health care industry to justify a complete government takeover of it to, like China, take control of the family. It's happening now in China, it can easily happen here.

Pro-Abortion Politicians 'Must' be Denied Communion

In June 2004 then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter entitled 'Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles' to U.S. Bishops who were debating the issue stating, in part:

"5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

Spanish bishops heeded this letter on November 27, 2009 when, according to a LifeSite article, the Plenary Assembly of the Spanish Episcopal Conference issued a statement saying that politicians who vote for a proposed law liberalizing abortion in Spain place themselves in an "objective state of sin and, while the situation lasts, may not be admitted to Holy Communion."

Catholicism vs. Catholic American Politicians 2009

Asking only what is expected of them, the Catholic Church is finally holding accountable those Catholics in leadership roles, to show us their faith.

America was founded on Christian principles. It was what framed our laws we see today and has continued to frame them. From the deliverance from the totalitarian King of England, to the emancipation of the slaves, to the current struggle of ensuring life for children in the womb, Christian principles have and must prevail to keep our country strong and civil. The farther we veer from these principles the weaker we become and the more we shrink from human civility.

As Pope John Paul II phrased it:

"If there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

- Pope John Paul II. Centesimus annus (May 5, 1991)

The article explains:

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Monday that his group will "work with senators of both parties" to address their concerns. But his group blasted the Senate health bill on Friday, and Doerflinger said Monday that the conference will oppose it if their concerns are not met.

James Ch. 2:10-26:

"And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.

For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if you do not commit adultery, but shall kill, you art become a transgressor of the law.

. . .What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?

So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

But some man will say: You have faith, and I have works: show me your faith without works; and I will show you, by works, my faith.

You believe that there is one God. You do well: the devils also believe and tremble.

But wilt you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? See you, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone?

. . . For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."

Kathleen Sebelius to Defend Both Abortion AND Adoption

Another walking contradiction. Sebelius, a Roman Catholic vetoed pro-life abortion legislation in Kansas in 2003, 2005, 2006, and again in 2008 including a measure that would have required informing women who are considering an abortion about both the development of their unborn child and the alternatives to abortion. Yet, today we learn that she is championing adoption policies by celebrating the 10th anniversary of National Adoption Day. Well, which is it? Veto bills that inform women of abortion alternatives yet later on celebrate adoption when it's politically expedient? Will you support life or veto legislation that attempts to protect life? Apparently she wants it both ways. Sounding similar to Pontius Pilate style governing, Roman Catholic Sebelius both defends death and life by defending abortion and adoption. And here I thought that 'human enlightenment' had propelled the 'humanistic condition' to mature beyond 1st century rulers the likes of Pontius Pilate.

Why couldn't she just champion pro-life policies instead of vetoing every pro-life bill that came across her table? After all she was first a citizen of Catholicism before she became a citizen of Kansas. Her Archbishop said he hoped his meetings with her would make her understand the need “to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion” and also the need to extend “the maximum legal protection to the unborn children of Kansas.” In her last veto, the governor of Kansas ended it by scowling at pro-lifers in her veto message saying, “For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.” Have the people of Kansas really asked that Sebelius? or do you just assume it since you won an election?

Apparently, Sebelius also has selective hearing. For years her Archbishop has likewise asked her to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion and finally become faithful to her true citizenship in heaven by enacting moral policies that defend the unborn. When Sebelius received the Sacrament of Confirmation she was elected first by God as a representative of His divine laws. Sacramental Confirmation is an indelible mark on the soul that swears an oath to God to uphold his principles, teachings, and the faith in all its forms. Sebelius, you were elected by God before the citizens of Kansas even heard of you. When you were baptized you were elected a citizen of Heaven - a country that existed long before Kansas was established. When will Roman Catholic Sebelius move beyond political self aggrandizement and live up to the sacramental vows made in Confirmation of defending the teachings of the Church? Whom do you serve, God or man?

But like Pilate, Sebelius admits to listening to the mob first before God. Like Pilate, she knows which strings will strike a chord with promoting her popularity in the political arena. She knows what to feed the angry mob to save herself. But we can be fair, Pilate probably acted out of fear of the angry pack before him, so we can assume that perhaps Sebelius is acting out of fear of the prowling pack looking to devour yet another faithful pro-life Catholic politician and continue embarrassing Roman Catholicism. She knows that the media will lap up her celebration of adoption along with any celebration of Roe v. Wade. Then she can breathe a sigh of relief, for she has deluded herself that is better to fear the world rather than God. She knows how to work the bloodthirsty pack and as long as she gives the world greater credence than she owes to God, then she's got it made in the liberal media today.

Sebelius further claims that she is 'personally opposed' but dares not force her morals on somebody else. Oh really? So if I'm a lawmaker back when the decision came to make rape illegal, which I am personally opposed to, should I have vetoed such a proposal because "I dare not impose my morals on another"? Of course not, that is, not unless I was a careerist politician and thought that I answered not to God, but to mob. Not unless I made a careful calculation of how it would look to the mob for my political advancement.

Sebelius didn't fool her Archbishop who stated “The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law". Rape was only repulsive to man's law only after and only because it was first repulsive to God's law. Slavery was legal for centuries even though divine law repudiated it. People considered slavery established precedent while they unjustly enslaved their fellowman until they were emancipated. Had slave owners and those who supported slavery listened to divine law, slavery could have ended much sooner. God's laws made it to the books only after man finally figured it out and accepted the truth in them. The same is true with abortion.

Meanwhile, for politicians to remain consistent, they cannot celebrate life on November 21, only to celebrate death on January 23.

For more on Archbishop Naumann of Kansas and the exchanges with Sebelius click here.

Archbishop Naumann:

"The Catholic Church views abortion as first and foremost a moral issue - not a religious or faith issue - because the sacredness of human life pertains to the natural law, which reveals the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of human acts through reason."

‘No Guarantee’ Amendment Prohibiting Abortion Funding Will Be Retained in Final Version of Health-Care Bill

It's in then it's out, it's back in then it's back out again. What is going on with the abortion coverage of the socialist health care bill that jacko'lantern Pelosi is peddling? Her scheming is transparent. What she is trying to do is sneak it in one area of the enormous document hoping nobody catches it. Then when somebody does, quickly withdraw it in order to "prove" to the country that the abortion watchdogs are 'making things up'. Then when the storm finally settles she puts it back in somewhere else. So the cycle continues. Just watching Pelosi's track record on this bill concerning abortion tells us there will be abortion coverage in the bill, period.

The article under this title heading explains . . . (click here). It states in part:

The amendment would prohibit federal funds from paying for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion. Stupak told CNSNews.com in a video interview posted on Oct. 23 that he had organized a group of about 40 Democrats who would vote to kill the health-care bill if Speaker Pelosi did not allow a straight up-or-down vote on his amendment when the health bill came to the House floor.

Pelosi finally consented to this request and instructed the House Rules Committee to approve a vote on Stupak’s amendment in the wee hours of Saturday morning—the same day the bill came up for a vote.

During debate on the bill on the House floor Saturday afternoon, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) said he believed the Democratic leadership had relented and allowed a vote on Stupak’s amendment only because they needed more votes to pass the bill itself. Boehner said he doubted the amendment would be included in the final version of the bill that emerges from a House-Senate conference committee.

“The only reason this amendment is allowed to be offered is in order to secure enough votes to try to move this bill through the floor today,” said Boehner. “And I have my doubts about whether this language if it passes has any chance of ever being in the final version of this bill.”

Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

This headline by article from Republican Leader John Boehner isn't just "playing" politics, it's a grim reality. Knowing Nancy Pelosi's Catholic Pro-Abortion track record, it isn't surprising. The article states:

line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account -and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

In fact the US Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirms that Pelosi is legislating such a government funded abortion program in another article. More recently, the USCCB asserts on October 8, 2009 that:

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test…. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

They recommend in a USCCB NATIONWIDE BULLETIN INSERT:

Please contact your Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments noted below. Otherwise much needed health care reform will have to be opposed. Health care reform should be about saving lives, not destroying them.

ACTION: Contact Members through e-mail, phone calls or FAX letters.

 To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go to www.usccb.org/action.

 Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.

 Full contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at www.house.gov & www.senate.gov.

MESSAGE to SENATE:

“During floor debate on the health care reform bill, please support an amendment to incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

MESSAGE to HOUSE:

“Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion funding and conscience rights in the health care reform bill. Help ensure that the Rule for the bill allows a vote on this amendment. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

WHEN: Both House and Senate are preparing for floor votes now. Act today! Thank you!

Catholic Bishops: Health Care Reform Plan Being Proposed by President Obama and Democrats in Congress Will Allow Federal Funds to Pay for Abortions

According to a FOX News Article,

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Pro-Life Activities Secretariat is encouraging all archdioceses and parishes in the U.S. to send a pre-written e-mail that urges House members to oppose any rule that will not allow debate on an amendment that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions, and to send another e-mail to senators to support the amendment.

Planned Parenthood Above the Law

In an undercover video reported here by Laura Ingraham, Planned Parenthood is caught, yet again, in another infraction of the legal system. By asking a 'client' who they thought was a 14 year old girl impregnated by a 31 year old to have anybody with her last name to sign consent papers, Planned Parenthood was attempting, in the most blatant fashion, to cover up a rape - by taking a life no less. How Planned Parenthood can face themselves in the mirror while grooming their egos saying, 'you are so good, you are providing a woman's right to choose, you are 21st century crusader, you are breaking down the barriers of hate, you are investing in our woman's future, don't even let rape stop you from your duty to kill children, you are so good - is beyond comprehension. It is unfathomable.

Planned Parenthood not only believes they are so good that they are above the law, they further think they are above God - ignoring and covering up a rape to fulfill their 'mission' of abortion, not to mention their regularly lopsided emphasis on women choosing abortion over life and lopsided emphasis on promiscuous sex over abstinence. Will the legal system hold "Planned Parenthood" - the organization that can do no wrong - accountable?

Notre Dame Graduates will Remember

In a way I feel bad for the students and parents of the Notre Dame graduating class of 2009. Their day became overshadowed by a decision that would forever change the face of the University. On the other hand, perhaps they will someday remember that this was a turning point for real authentic change to all Catholic Universities. This can be additional reason to celebrate. Perhaps something good will come of Fr. Jenkins decision. Until we see the outcome, graduates will remember this day as one of mixed signals from their University President. If Fr. Jenkins didn't want to attract attention to his school or to the remaining Catholic Universities in America then he should have thought twice about giving an honorary degree to a president that would spark a Church controversy. If major policy changes come cracking down on Catholic Universities, then there is only one person to blame (or give credit to) - the decision maker, President of Notre Dame Father Jenkins.

It would have been okay to invite the president to speak, but not to glorify him with a rare honorary degree. Why couldn't Father Jenkins compromise and say, "we'll extend the invitation to Obama to deliver the commencement address, but it would be prudent not to exalt the pro-abortion president with an honorary degree"? What could have possibly compelled the man to dig in his heels with arms crossed over his chest and say "this is my playground - Church teaching falls in line after what I think"?

Then I suppose that maybe Fr. Jenkins really does believe that Obama has the magic touch. That maybe gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, medical conscientious objection, and denial of parental notification of abortions are A-OK. That maybe his statements stating that he disagrees with Obama's positions were really just contrived, for-show declarations so he can keep his Catholic job.

This is mere speculation and Father Jenkins did say the words that he disagreed with Obama's positions on life issues. However actions speak louder than words. Father Jenkins' actions today of elevating and aggrandizing a staunch offender of the Catholic Church, by its mere symbolic act of paying a special mark of recognition to him (without citing any accomplishments or tangible reasons why he actually deserved the elevation), seem to trump any wording he may have used to downplay his decision.

This charade may have ended, but I anticipate there will be a response from the Vatican or the US Catholic Conference of Bishops that will change some major policies in all American Catholic Universities. Let's hope some good can finally come out of this debacle.

Notre Dame Scandal - The Questions We Must Ask

Who, What, Where, and Why?

Fr. Jenkins, the President of 164 year old Notre Dame, plans on exalting President Obama by making him only the 9th President to receive an honorary degree from the Catholic University at this Sunday's commencement ceremony. The questions we all need to ask about this decision are who, what, where, and why. However, the more Notre Dame speaks, the more questions are raised.

In defense of his decision Fr. Jenkins made this statement in a letter to the graduating class of 2009:

"There is much to admire and celebrate in the life and work of President Obama," wrote Fr. Jenkins. "He's a remarkable figure in American history and I look forward to welcoming him to Notre Dame . . . Ultimately, I hope that the conversations and the good will that will come from this day will contribute to closer relations between Catholics and public officials who make decision on matters of human life and human dignity."

Aren't there already Catholic public officials in place 'who make decisions on matters of human life and human dignity' like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius, etc.? Is an honorary degree to Obama meant to bring Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius, and Kerry into closer relations? Will they have a group hug when Obama returns with his prize? Will Obama tell these Catholic politicians 'go forth and become pro-life with me'? Will giving a rare honorary degree to a staunch pro-abortion president like Obama bring him around? Will Obama think, while holding his free degree in hand, 'you know I might reverse Roe v. Wade'?

After discerning Obama's staunch pro-abortion track record let's see how receptive he might be by Fr. Jenkins 'subtle' hints about the pro-life position :

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you" (Matt. 7:6)

Will the Luck of the Irish Change Obama?

Father Jenkins, President of Notre Dame University, believes in the enchanting magic of Obama. We look no further than his recent aggrandizing statements exalting the President with great bows of glowing praise. Entranced by Obama, Father Jenkins made these lofty statements on Obama's lucky "rainbow magic" without citing proof of even one accomplishment as evidence:

"inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow." (1)

"an inspiring leader who faces many challenges . . . and is addressing them with intelligence, courage and honesty" (2)

"He's a remarkable figure in American history" (3)

"Mr. Obama has been a healer" (4)

Where is the evidence that earns Obama such words of adulation? This, and Fr. Jenkins' intent to dignify Obama with the tribute of an honorary degree (making Obama only the 9th President in the university's 164 year old history to be elevated with such an honor) you'd think Fr. Jenkins believes that Obama is "changing the marshmallows into magical shapes and colors":




Fr. Jenkins stated in a letter to graduates of 2009: "The President’s visit to Notre Dame can help lead to broader engagement on issues". Not if all you're doing is enchanting pro-abortion politicians by handing out rare honorary degrees willy-nilly. And without even once publicly challenging Obama on abortion - not once! Perhaps Obama has converted Father Jenkins into believing that he too can change marshmallow orchards into magical shapes and colors. Studying Obama's 100 day track record, it's going to take more than "rainbow magic" to change Obama's view on abortion.

Hint to Fr. Jenkins: There are no leprechauns with pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Catholic Notre Dame Gives Obama Honorary Degree While Secular ASU Cites President's "Inexperience" to Deny Him Theirs

"You either belong entirely the world or entirely to God."

- St. John Marie Baptiste Vianney (Patron Saint of Parish Priests)

If only St. John Vianney spent his earthly life with us today . . . what a different world we would see.

Father Jenkins, President of Notre Dame - the most prominent Catholic University in America, is drawing a line in the sand. Except, instead of standing for Catholic principle, Fr. Jenkins is crossing over the line and stepping across to the other side. FOXNews today has reported some of the wording Obama will receive when the Catholic University exalts the most prominent liberal pro-abortion President in the country's entire history with an honorary degree. In contrast, at Arizona State University's commencement ceremony, officials there decided against giving Obama an honorary degree citing his inexperience.

The article reports that the language on the honorary degree the president will receive at Notre Dame University on Sunday will read:

"A community organizer who honed his advocacy for the poor, the marginalized and the worker in the streets of Chicago, he now organizes a larger community, bringing to the world a renewed American dedication to diplomacy and dialogue with all nations and religions committed to human rights and the global common good.

"Through his willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate, he is inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow."

The article continues to report both sides of the story:

Not so, says George Weigel, a Catholic theologian and distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center who takes particular issue with the statement that Obama engages his political opponents.

"I don't see any evidence that President Obama takes the moral arguments of those who disagree with him on the life issues seriously," Weigel told FOXNews.com. "This was most clear in his address at the time he announced the federal government's stance on embryonic destructive stem cell research."

Weigel said he opposes Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama to speak at its commencement, and he said it's "completely inappropriate" to make him the ninth U.S. president to receive an honorary degree there.

"You can't be more offended than people like myself already are," he said.

. . . Randall Terry, who runs stopobamanotredame.com in protest of the president's visit, said the degree's language betrayed the teachings of the Catholic church.

". . . Obama is not acknowledging the right to life, so it's impossible for him to promote the common good."

Even more astonishing is the poll that found 50 percent of Roman Catholics supported Notre Dame's decision to venerate Obama with an honorary degree.

Meanwhile, Arizona State University, a secular institution, has done the opposite of what Notre Dame, a national symbol of the Church in academia, is planning to do. The Associated Press and FOXNews also reported that:

Unlike Notre Dame, Arizona State University will not award President Obama an honorary degree when he delivers the commencement address

Although they are renaming a scholarship fund after Obama, they are not giving him the adulation and wreath of an honorary degree, and they explain why in an AP Report:

"he hadn't accomplished enough yet to earn an honorary degree."

Even more surprising is Obama's submission to this fact when he said:

"I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven't yet achieved enough in my life," he said.

". . . But more than that I come to embrace the notion that I haven't done enough in my life. I heartily concur," the president said. "I come to affirm that one's title, even a title like 'president of the United States,' says very little about how well one's life has been led."

So why is Notre Dame elevating Obama with such fealty? One can only wonder if Notre Dame has lost its way and can no longer stand on principle.