Speaking of the divide in social justice. St Louis media trying to gen up a controversy or Bishop Carlson’s donation of money to Archdiocese of Portland (Maine) for protection of marriage and the recent layoffs in Catholic Charities.
Recently their has been a lot of talk about Microsoft’s new 300 million dollar ad campaign created in part to respond to Apple’s successful “I’m a Mac and I’m a PC” ad campaign and to try to do some damage control on the Vista brand.
Personally I thought the two Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates ads were quite strange, though fun. Like Seinfeld not only were they about nothing, they were also nothing about Vista. After paying Seinfeld 10 million dollars that ad campaign stopped at 2 commercials (which they now say they planned all along.)
The new Microsoft commercials have a John Hodgman look-a-like saying “I’m a PC and I have been made into a stereotype” followed by all kinds of people repeating “I’m a PC.” Now Microsoft playing the victim card and directly responding to Apple’s ad doesn’t seem like a good ad campaign to me. Especially since once again they don’t talk about Vista.
As for myself I am a Mac switcher since last October after having used Windows since 2.0 and while I really prefer iMac and OSX Leopard, I am not a Vista hater. It is not as bad as its reputation and initial driver problems are mostly gone. I make my living as a Windows developer, but ironically Iknow code using Visual Studio on my iMac via VMWare Fusion.
Anyway I want Microsoft to have a good ad campaign, something they have never really had. So I started thinking how effective political attack ads are. What if Microsoft went down that route instead. So without receiving a penny from Microsoft I decided to create a commercial for them with my first YouTube video.
I made my Microsoft ad using iMovie 08 on my Mac, but that’s okay since Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” Ads were also made on a Mac by their ad agency.
Back in September Bellarmine Veritas Ministry revealed that a number of groups being funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had acted in direct opposition to Church teaching. Most of these groups were subsequently dropped by the CCHD which in most cases had been funding these groups for several years. Last week this same ministry reported that the “community organizing” group PICO was still being funded even though they provide contraception and so-called emergency contraception.” See A Shepherd’s Voice for details.
I remember when the report first came out someone working with CCHD or the USCCB had said they were unaware of the other activities of these groups they were funding. I certainly believe this to be true that they were unaware. Though it would have taken only a couple minutes of Googling to determine how problematic these groups are via their sites. No doubt they had their blinders on. In the so-called “Social Justice” arena there are many groups under this umbrella term that have missions directly contrary to the truth of the Church, though there is some overlap in the Church’s ministry towards the poor.
Unfortunately this is all part of the larger problem of the schism between social justice and pro-life causes. From the USCCB on down there are separate organizations and offices. The USCCB on their main page lists a “Life Issues” section and a “Social Justice Issues” section. Please tell me how the pro-life cause is not a integral part of social justice? Cardinal George, tear down this wall. This separation causes confusion and damage. You can not separate the fight for the unborn and others having their lives threatened from the preferential love for the poor. It is part of the preferential love for the poor that we love the poorest of the poor- those in the womb unable to defend themselves. Just as you can not call yourself pro-life and turn your back on the poor. It is love of God and neighbor that is the foundation of any acts we take in regard to social justice.
It was always a false claim that pro-lifers did not care about the child once it was born. Though judging by organizations that define themselves in the social justice arena, they usually either say nothing about abortion or they are directly part of the culture of death. So many Catholics that work under the social justice umbrella have become quite myopic about the groups they deal with and see as their partners. Go to the web site of so many religious orders in the United States and you see plenty of “social justice” links and support of the U.N. despite the intrinsic evils that their partner sites support. The USCCB via CCHD has been pretty much the same way. For anyone with any sensitivity about the culture of death the very names of the groups that CCHD supported would raise alarm bells. That they could go on supporting these groups for years and years without the least bit investigation into those they were partnered with says a lot about those working in the narrowly defined social justice area.
We should be working together towards a culture of life which see the dignity of every human person. We can neither turn our backs on the poor or the unborn and must constantly remember that whatever we do to the least of these we do for Him. Blessed Mother Teresa is the very model of the unity we should be seeing the distressing disguise of both the poorest of the poor, the elderly or infirm in need of care, or the child in the womb. She embodied the very view we must all hold to and to live out.
This schism between pro-life and social justice must end. From the USCCB on down to our hearts any false divisions must be removed. Abortion is the preeminent social justice issue of our times. But once again it is not an either/or situation and the Catholic both/and must prevail.
Blessed Mother Teresa pray for us.
Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy has described comments by Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin questioning his faith because of his stance on abortion and health care reform as “very disconcerting.”
Kennedy made his comments after Bishop Tobin indefinitely postponed a planned Thursday meeting.
He said that the bishop had not kept an agreement not to debate the issue in public in terms of his personal faith. [reference]
Yeah I a sure the good Bishop made an agreement where Rep Kennedy could make idiotic statements against the Bishops on abortion and his local Bishop would say nothing. Though that does seem to be an agreement many bishops have accepted.
But of course the Bishop did not make statements on Kennedy’s “personal faith”, but pertaining to the Catholic faith held by a billion or so. A personal faith that sees fit to attack the public faith is no faith at all.
I must admit it is nice to hear the President of Planned Parenthood complain about the Bishops. That finally the Bishops are seen by them as the kids in Scooby Doo – “Those meddling Bishops.” Plus the other voices angry at the Bishops for actually proclaiming the truth and defending the unborn.
Now I think the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is mostly political theatre since it can be done away with in reconciliation with the Senate bill or plenty of other political ploys. But still the vote was important and at every step of the way we must work to defend life, even if our efforts might be done away with at a later time. We can never stop doing what is right. Though the reaction is rather strange. Anger at the amendment of the bill that was not suppose to fund abortion in it any way. The normal two faces of politicians were once again asserting two things 1) This bill does not fund abortion 2) The Amendment goes to far in not allowing funding of abortion.
It is not surprising that the defenders of the Culture of Death are upset by any restriction on abortion in the health care plan. So of course the Democratic Party must bow to their masters and respond.
President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.
“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” Obama said. “And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”
Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, “There are strong feelings on both sides” about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, “and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”… [reference]
What? Oh wait the translation says “I oppose the Stupak-Pitts amendment because it does exactly what I said I wanted.” Yes the President that promised the Pope to reduce abortions and said “his” health care bill would not fund abortions is beholden to his masters at Planned Parenthood and NARAL to act.
Obama told… Tapper that he was confident that the final legislation will ensure that “neither side feels that it’s being betrayed.”
This is a step down for the President to go from messiah to Solomon. Sorry you can not both please God and Satan and you cannot please both sides of the abortion debate. Though there is a parallel with Solomon. Solomon said he would split the baby in two. In this debate there is one side that has no problem with splitting the baby in two or for that matter a hundred pieces. And there is a side who would protect the baby. Once again we know which side is telling the truth.
The four pregnancy centers in Montgomery County that don’t provide abortion services would be required to tell potential clients that they should go elsewhere for medical advice, under new legislation proposed by Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg.
Trachtenberg said the private centers, which promote themselves as a place to help women with unexpected pregnancies, often provide false and misleading medical information about the dangers of abortions or contraceptives in attempts to convince women not to abort their pregnancies.
Her resolution would require the centers to present potential clients with disclaimers in English and Spanish that the information given by the center isn’t intended as “medical advice or to establish a doctor patient relationship.” It would also require the centers to tell potential clients that they should consult with a health care provider before making decisions about their pregnancies.
“It’s pretty much just a consumer protection measure more than anything else,” Trachtenberg said. “We’re not saying they can’t seek clients and they can’t counsel them.”
She noted that the four centers outnumber the three full-service family planning clinics in Montgomery, which are funded partially with county dollars. [reference]
This tactic is becoming more popular because emergency pregnancy centers are cutting into aborturary profits.
Well then how about a sign like this to fulfill the law?
| Warning: This clinic does not perform abortions. We do not dismember children in the womb or attack them with chemicals. We provide actual help to pregnant women and their children. |
Plus what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. If you are required to post what you don’t do, abortion clinics should have signs like this.
| We only perform abortions. If you want assistance in having your child we will do absolutely nothing for you. If you are considering adopting your child, again we will do nothing for you. There is no money in those services, but we can make a killing on abortion. |
| This Planned Parenthood clinic is for one choice only. If you do not want to abort your child keep walking. Our paid counselors will advise you only to abort. We are the number one abortion provider for a reason. |
| This womens’ health care clinic is not really about a womens health. Aborting your child will not make you one bit healthier and might even damage your health and your capability to have children in the future. |
| Surgeon General’s Warning. If you are sensitive to euphemisms in any way this clinic is not for you. While you are here you will be pounded with euphemisms of every sort from talking about “choice” to dehumanizing the child in your womb. We have a euphemism for everything to make the truth of abortion more palatable. |
| Warning: This clinic does not perform abortions. We do not dismember children in the womb or attack them with chemicals. We provide actual help to pregnant women. |
A priest in the Diocese of Scranton has been removed as administrator of three Throop parishes after he inadvertently displayed four photos of what a diocese spokesman called “minimally attired adult males” before the 8 a.m. Mass at St. Bridget’s Church on Oct. 25.
The Rev. Edward P. Lyman was using his personal computer to project an informational DVD about the diocesan Annual Appeal fundraiser when he accidentally showed the “inappropriate personal photographs” that were stored on his computer, according to a diocesan statement read at the Throop Masses on Sunday.
Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic and did not display nudity or sexual activity. The photos were not of the Rev. Lyman, nor did he take the pictures, Mr. Genello said.
There were no pictures of minors and no evidence of illegal activity, he said.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, the interim leader of the diocese, has appointed the Rev. Jeffrey Walsh as the new administrator of St. Anthony, St. Bridget and St. John the Baptist parishes.
In a statement to the congregations on Sunday, the Rev. Walsh said his “abrupt” appointment was necessary because of the “unfortunate” disclosure of the photographs a week earlier.
“This event was greatly disturbing to those who were present at St. Bridget’s,” he said.[reference]
Well it least it wasn’t something really evil like a Powerpoint presentation.
The Diocese put this notice on their site.
Reverend Edward P. Lyman, from Administrator, Saint Bridget, Saint Anthony and Saint John the Baptist Parishes, Throop, to Leave of Absence for reasons of health, effective October 30, 2009.
Reasons of health, yes that the ticket. A prevalent reason among bishops/priests after an “unfortunate” event. I guess it is harder for them to use the excuse that they are stepping down to “spend more time with their family” like politicians.
Every once and a while I want to read a novel that is explicitly Catholic in it’s telling and plot and that it is not subtle, but hit you over the head Catholicism. A novel that puts itself in the Culture of Death and tells of the story of Catholics dealing with it. The novel Fatherless
The title of the book extends beyond the tragedy of fatherless families in our culture, but also workaholic absent fathers, priests as fathers, and to a certain extent the bishops who as a group failed to be fathers to their flock in the cultural aftermath of Vatican II. Though the novel is not a polemic, but addresses the situation as it is. It takes place somewhere in the first years of the papacy of John Paul II and mostly centers on a parish priest and some of the men and their families in this parish. The priest is well meaning, not quite a dissident, but someone willing to let pastoral concerns override the hard sayings. One of the men work at a high level in a pharmaceutical company that makes contraceptives. Another comes to work in an ad agency for a sort of HBO. The plot involves the struggle of these men an others in coming to grip with their jobs and the moral problems involved with them and the intersection of their family in materially supporting them.
What impressed me about this novel in that while there was a lot of excellent social commentary, it was not simply a homily disguised as a plot. It was also not a Catholic drama where everything works out at the end, but a plot that surprised me at times in where it took me. When theology is involved the theology was well done and pretty much nothing involved my theological spidey-sense as something not quite right. The only area that was iffy, actually had a note inserted in the book warning that the event that had just happened and the specific prayer was problematic. At over 500 some pages it is a fairly long novel, but it kept my attention throughout and I really liked the characters and was drawn into their lives.
From a story a reader sent me.
Fr. Geoffrey Farrow, former pastor of the St. Paul Newman Center at California State University at Fresno, was removed as pastor in October 2008 for defying church teaching on homosexuality and for condemning Catholic support for Proposition 8, the California Catholic Daily reports.
Not the first time I have seen this typo and it probably won’t be the last. Though you would think the Catholic News Agency would be a little more careful.
The actual story is rather odd about a suspended Catholic priest and homosexual activist who is going after the Knights of Columbus. Maybe he just doesn’t think heterosexuals should be able to wear hats with feathers.