by Brian Burch on July 13th, 2010
The controversy over the firing of University of Illions Professor Kenneth Howell has received some attention here, so I thought it worth noting that the Chicago Sun Times lead editorial today called on the University to reinstate him.
The editorial summed up the issue nicely:
In essence, Howell was axed for teaching — and agreeing with — modern Catholic doctrine in a class that was supposed to be about modern Catholic doctrine.
Read the rest here
by Thomas Peters on March 2nd, 2010
After the election of Scott Brown in Massachussetts – a “moderate” Republican who supports Roe v. Wade – several liberal writers (notably David Gibson) attempted to claim that pro-lifers had “sold their soul” by supporting such a candidate.
Today in the Daily Caller, I try to respond to this claim:
Did the pro-life movement, and Catholics in particular, sell their souls to help Brown win, and fight for the better outcome?
The most common charge against the pro-life movement these days, especially when that movement is involved in politics and elections, is that it is actually a front of the Republican Party (never mind the fact that the pro-choice movement lumps the vast majority of its money and resources behind the Democratic party candidates). This pro-Republicanism is how liberals explain the pro-life movement’s support of both John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, and their incongruous support of Scott Brown (a pro-choicer) in the 2010 Massachusetts senate race: they’re both Republicans.
But the common thread between these two decisions is far more disarmingly simple: Brown and McCain, while not perfect from the perspective of the pro-life movement, were better pro-life choices than their respective alternatives.
… Thus the awkward contradiction between how Catholic and other pro-life voters behaved in 2008 and 2010 is not between those who, supporting both McCain and Brown, consistently voted for the candidate who would, one could reasonable conclude, do more for the cause of the unborn, but between Catholic and other pro-life Democrats who continually justify voting for the candidate that, according to all the publicly-available evidence, will actually do less for the cause of the unborn (voting for Obama and Coakley).
You can read the full article here.
update – links fixed!
Photo: Megboudreau
by Justin Aquila on February 15th, 2010
I am currently taking a course in American Catholicism as part of my Masters program at the University of St. Thomas-Houston. The course has been one of my favorites thus far. There are many interesting lessons to be learned from studying Catholicism in America and I hope more Catholic colleges integrate courses in American Catholicism into their curriculum ( I say this selfishly since I would love to be able to teach in this area once I get my doctorate).
I wanted to share some of the things I have learned, particularly the more ironic facts about the American Catholic experience. So here is Irony #1:
Did you know that opposition to prayer and bible reading/recitation in public schools started with the Catholics? While that might seem odd now Catholics back then the public schools were largely run by Protestants. Catholic families and clergy were not exactly thrilled that their children were being forced to read from the Protestant King James Bible (remember these were the days when the Protestants were intensely anti-Catholic).
In the 1840’s, the Bishop of New York, John “Dagger John” Hughes, tried to get government funds for the Catholic schools in his diocese. His argument was essentially the same as the “voucher” argument today, namely those who send their kids to Catholic school effectively pay twice, once through tuition and once via taxes. Hughes, and other Catholics, were starting Catholic schools so that Catholic children would not be subject to Protestant teaching in the public schools. The effort to get “vouchers” ended in failure in New York. The compromise reached by the Church and the government was that prayer was forbidden in public schools.
The prayer in school debate took on other forms in different parts of the country. Up in Boston, in 1859, ten-year old Thomas Whall defiantly refused to recite the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments (i.e the King James translation) at the Eliot School and was severely beaten by the school’s assistant principal. In what became known as the Eliot School Rebellion, 300 Catholic boys were eventually discharged for joining in Whall’s defiant refusal to recite the Protestant Ten Commandments.
Almost 150 years later the debates over school prayer and vouchers have not really been resolved and who knows if they ever will.
For more American Catholic history, I highly recommend George Marlin’s book, The American Catholic Voter.
by Joshua Mercer on February 8th, 2010
What is with some people? They hate religion so much that they lash out at Mother Teresa? Not a winning strategy there.
In case you didn’t hear it, a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation is calling on people to boycott the Mother Teresa stamp. The Postal Service plans on issuing the stamp on August 26, 2010 — on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Mother Teresa. These folks are asking people to write to the USPS telling them to pull the stamp.
TAKE ACTION: Sign our letter to the Postmaster General at www.stampoutbigotry.com. Tell the USPS to Stamp Out Bigotry and Issue the Mother Teresa Stamp.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation claims there’s a “dark side” to the life of Mother Teresa. You can read the news story to see these outlandish claims. There’s really no sense in re-broadcasting them here.
I mean, you lose an argument when you start attacking Mother Teresa. You simply can’t convince me there was a holier person on the planet when Teresa walked the earth. And she wasn’t afraid to condemn the rich West for worshipping money and aborting their children.
Well, I suppose that’s why some folks didn’t like her.
by Jay Anderson on February 8th, 2010
Writing at National Catholic Register, Patrick Archbold explains “why contraception is the key to understanding much anti-Catholicism”:
… So why would an adviser to President Obama’s on faith-based issues stand by such an offensive and unscientific remark? Why accuse the Pope, and by extension the entire Church—an organization that unarguably helps more people than any other—of hurting people in the name of Jesus?
The Washington Post article acknowledges the real reason behind the anti-papal backlash saying, “The condom has become a symbol of freedom and—along with contraception—female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes.”
Believe it or not, this is really about abortion. Knox and others recognize, wittingly or unwittingly, that the foundation of modern sexual liberation relies upon denying or removing any of the consequences of that sinful behavior, even to the point of killing. They also know that the contraceptive mentality underpins the entire culture of death. The contraceptive and utilitarian view of life and of procreation is the “mitochondrial Eve” from which all the horrors of the culture of death are descended. Abortion, ESCR, and euthanasia all call contraception “mother.”
That is why any acknowledgment, no matter how trivial, obvious, or scientific, that calls into question the magic consequence-erasing power of contraception must be attacked with all vigor…
[More]
by Joshua Mercer on January 14th, 2010
Catholics Need Not Apply.
That’s apparently what Martha Coakley believes. She’s the Democrat running for the Senate seat in Massachusetts. The election is next Tuesday.
The Red Mass Group picks up an interview of Martha Coakley on Broadside with Jim Braude.
Coakley believes that all hospitals, including Catholic ones, should be forced to dispense abortifacient pills. She rejects all religious liberty or the idea that anyone could be a conscientious objector.
Here’s the transcript:
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
Coakley wants less Catholics in healthcare. If you object to killing children with pills, then Coakley thinks you should quit your job. Unbelievable.
[The Red Mass Group also linked to the audio. Listen to the remarks at 9:34 into the audio.]
by Thomas Peters on January 11th, 2010
by Joshua Mercer on January 11th, 2010
President Obama is going to re-nominate Dawn Johnson to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson is a fanatical supporter of abortion who has compared motherhood to slavery.
A radical organization called “Abortion Rights Mobilization” tried to sue the Catholic Church claiming that the Church must start paying income taxes to the federal government because the Church voiced support for unborn children. It was Dawn Johnson that wrote their legal briefs.
Visit our parent organization, Fidelis, to read a dossier on Dawn Johnson’s radicalism.
Tweet this
Email
RSS
