In Your Face

Allegedly, the White House plans an "in your face" guest list for Pope Francis' upcoming visit to the USA.  Supposedly a transvestite, a pro-abortion nun and a pro-homosexual marriage priest will be among the guests.  Also, it is said the Vatican is not pleased.  Comments?  Confirmations?  (Sent from my iPhone, more later from me).

Confirmed!

I have found several websites which confirm this "guest list" for Pope Francis' upcoming visit to the White House this week...

The UK Daily Mail reports:

Pope Francis's first visit to the White House next week is shaping up to be a doozy, as President Obama has arranged for several opponents of traditional Catholic teaching to be among those greeting the pontiff.

Francis is known for his tolerance, having urged Catholics against condemning those with non-traditional lifestyles such as homosexuals and pro-choice advocates.

But this may test even Francis's famous papal patience.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238538/Pope-Francis-d-like-meet-pro-choice-nun-gay-bishop-transgender-woman-eclectic-guests-White-house-reception-week.html

Breitbart.com reports:

In a stunning show of political indecorum, Obama has invited a series of individuals who publicly flout Catholic teaching, including a pro-abortion religious sister, a transgender woman and the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, along with at least two Catholic gay activists.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/white-house-invites-trio-catholic-dissenters-greet-pope-francis/

The Wall Street Journal reports:

On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-disputes-white-house-guest-list-for-papal-visit-1442533549

Catholic Vote comments:

This is beyond President Obama’s typical Chicago-style politics.  This is beyond the more vile tenets of the Alinsky catechism.  Hell, this is beyond the bozo Soviet nonsense that John Paul II had to put up with.
No, what we have here is special.  We haven’t seen such a raw, naked attempt by a secular head of state to manipulate a pope in centuries. 

https://www.catholicvote.org/the-presidents-plot-to-exploit-the-pope/

I, for one, hope that Pope Francis does not take this sitting down and uses the situation as an opportunity to (tactfully) put President Obama in his place.  President Obama would not (and has not) deliberately invited guests who would be offensive to Islamic leaders who have visited, why this blatant show of disrespect to Catholics?  I would even favor Pope Francis deciding to skip the White House visit and comment to reschedule at a time and under a host who would be more respectful of the Catholic Head of State (the Vatican, afterall, is a nation-state). 

Change We Can Believe In

I posted this once before, but didn't go with the political spin on it - so I thought I'd post it again and let your mind go on with what it means - both spiritually and politically.  Of course, the saying is based on a political slogan of the 2008 Obama campaign - but think about it.  Comment if you wish....

President Obama and Morals

When we see pictures subtitled like the one in Newsweek we have to call into question the moral picture the President of the United States is putting forth on the American people.

Then, when we have the President making June 2012 "officially" the "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month," those who have Judeo-Christian morals can only be infuriated by this act of a president who claims to be a Christian!  Why take pride in immorality? 

When I first heard about this, I was a bit in unbelief.  What follows is quoted from the official press release from the White House:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

Now I, as one of those "all Americans," am offended that my president has asked ME to observe this month as a month to have "pride" in those who have and/or continue to make immoral choices in their lives.  Yes, this IS America, and if some wish to live a lifestyle which is declared by God to be an abomination, well, they are "free" to do so - but I do not have to be "proud" of them for their choice of lifestyle. 

I have worked right along side homosexuals many times - and I do not "discriminate" against them, and we've gotten along just fine.  Their lifestyle was no secret, nor has been my Catholic faith.  They know where I stand, I know where they stand.  If the subject ever came up, I would have no problem letting them know my feelings and show them the support for the way I feel.  One of the things President Obama "calls upon all Americans" to do is to fight discrimination - well, ok, we can fight that without being "proud" of those whom are clearly condemned by God in His Word.

The bottom line here, I'm offended that my president asks me to be "proud" of the actions my God has condemned. 

================================================
Official Press Release from the White House

Article in Newsmax.

Scriptures:
Genesis 19:4-7
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9

"We will not comply..."

Bishop Slattery of Tulsa's message on the heathcare mandate.

For anyone who wants to see (or hear) what the Bishops are saying, go to Fr. Z's blog for updates.

Bishop Olmsted Urges All Catholics to Oppose Rule

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix has become one of the first Roman Catholic bishops in the nation to openly defy the Obama administration over new rules forcing employers to include access to contraceptives and sterilization procedures in health-insurance coverage.
Although the Catholic Church itself is exempt from the proposed regulations, Olmsted believes the federal government's decision is an attack on religious liberty. He is encouraging church members to actively oppose it.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/27/20120127phoenix-bishop-defy-feds-birth-control.html#ixzz1kzWHic1b


Phoenix Catholic Diocese Bishop Thomas Olmsted says an Obama administration rule requiring health insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization procedures is wrong, especially as it affects Catholic-related institutions.

While the Catholic church itself is exempt from the provisions of the law, Olmsted says other organizations, such as charities and hospitals, that are Catholic in belief but not directly related to the Catholic Diocese.

He urges all Catholics to oppose the rule.

Phoenix radio station, KFYI: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695?feed=118695&article=9679458#ixzz1kzSMOiwo

Fr John on ND Scandal

I no longer reside in Tempe, but when we did we frequented Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Periodically I like to check back and see what Fr. Bonavitacola has to say. This week he posted a letter concerning President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, I found it quite interesting and am reposting it here. (And thanks again Fr. Bonavitacola for several years of meeting our pastoral needs while we were temporarily in the neighborhood).

Dear Friends,

I greatly admire the President’s chutzpah to go into a Catholic University and give a speech about how to be sensitive to the great moral issues of our day! But it really was a case mostly, if you will of preaching to the choir. (Except that the choir acted like this was the first time they heard these things.) The President frequently says one thing but does another. Not an unusual tactic for a politician. All in all the speech was mostly disingenuous and at points deceptive and here’s why:

We’ll start with Stem Cells. The President reminded, actually chided those who oppose ESCR by saying that those who support ESCR do so out of sincere motives, a desire to find cures for sick loved ones. We have never vilified those supporters or assigned nefarious motives. We understand the pain and desperation. That is why we support so strongly alternative research. But the principle holds: the instrumental use of human life no matter how noble the purpose or sincere the desire is always wrong. The ends never justify the means. Once you open the door to human life being destroyed to save another life we will not be able to limit it just to human embryos. The President also said we should support a variety of research methods. Then why when he changed the Policy did he rescind the requirement that the NIH fund alternative research as well as ESCR?

Probably the most perplexing statement was the President’s call for Conscience Clauses for healthcare workers. True, we are hyper sensitive on this issue since we deliver about 20% of the healthcare in the US. Yet he seemed to miss the fact that we already have Conscience Clauses. It was his administration that publicly stated it wants to revoke the one put in place by the last administration and is actively working to do so. Confusing.

To great applause the President stated we need to find ways to reduce the number of abortions. Well we have been doing that since 1973. We helped open Crisis Pregnancy Centers all over the country. We offer women free prenatal and obstetric care. We have places like Maggie’s Place where women can live during pregnancy and with their infants. We offer them help to stand on their own, job training, parenting skills and other social services they need. When asked if he would support Federal funding of Crisis Pregnancy Centers the President said no. Then there is all the pro-life legislation that would help reduce abortions by placing reasonable restrictions on abortion like waiting periods, informed consent, sonograms, parental notification or consent, partial birth abortion, all of which the President has not supported or voted against.

The President also mentioned we need to attack the root causes and the environment that makes abortion an option. Well that too we having been doing for a long time. We pray everyday to end the root causes of abortion. We also work to lift people out of poverty and self-destructive lifestyles. Our Campaign for Human Development helps economic development in poor communities. Then there are all the programs and social services provided by Catholic Charities. We know that, as the President mentioned, the poor turn to abortion more than any other group. We know that one of the surest ways out of poverty is education. We have fought at great cost to keep our schools open in the poorest areas in the US. Yet when we ask for help in the form of vouchers or tax credits again the President says no. He even axed the voucher program for Washington D.C. Then there is Abstinence Based Education, which he is not a fan of and doesn’t support funding for it. The President mentioned adoption: we have offered adoption services for a long time. Now our Agencies are under attack for not offering adoptions to same-sex couples. When we ask for religious exemptions from these requirements we get no help.

If the President wants to reduce the number of abortions then why was it that Sec. Clinton’s recent testimony before Congress included a statement that it is the policy of the US to encourage “reproductive rights” throughout the world? Is she now the abortion ambassador? Why is the US along with a few other nations pushing at the UN to make abortion a requirement for member states or tie it to receiving UN aid, participation in the World Bank and the IMF? Do we have to export this problem to the rest of the world?

The President also said that abortion is a moral and spiritual problem and that women do not make this decision easily. We know that. We have never sought to demonize those who have abortions. We offer programs like Project Rachel and others that offer post abortive women and men ways to find healing and peace. I know first hand how painful and devastating abortion is for women. I was glad though to hear the President say this since so many groups like the APA try to deny that abortion has any harmful effects making it akin to an appendectomy.

Wasn’t it ironic that Norma McCorvy, who as the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 was arrested at Notre Dame for being a pro-life demonstrator! The once anonymous Jane Roe who fought for the right to have an abortion is now pro-life.

The President indicated in his speech that we can find common ground. If he is serious about bringing pro-life concerns into the process then he should at least make a good faith gesture such as taking the Freedom of Choice Act off the table. By saying that he would veto FOCA if it comes to his desk he would show that he means more than words.

Love,
Fr. John

Permalink: http://www.olmctempe.com/fr_john_archives/05_24_09.html

Obama at Georgetown

What is with Catholic universities bowing to pro-abortion President Obama?

The above picture shows the stage for Georgetown University.

The next picture shows the same set with President Obama speaking...


Why was the Obama administration insistent upon the hiding of IHS, the ancient Christian symbol for Jesus Christ? And why would Georgetown compromise for the pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research president?

Kyrie eleison!

Scott<<<

Invite Pilate

What more really needs to be said?

More bishops joining in the fight, nearly 60 so far!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050105.html

Bp Olmsted on ND Scandal

Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix weighs in his opinion on the Notre Dame scandal:

President Obama To Wear Prayer to Mary

President Obama, who is a staunch supporter of abortion as a woman's right, has been invited to speak at Notre Dame University for this years commencement ceremony AND receive an honorary law doctorate. For the reception of the doctorate, he is expected to wear the traditional Notre Dame robe - which has a prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary on the chest, will he do this? http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46844 What he should do is withdraw his acceptance of the invitation which should NEVER have been offered in the first place. Notre Dame should withdraw the invitation as well. If you are interested in signing the petition asking ND to withdraw the invitation, go here: http://www.notredamescandal.com/ Sign the petition and pass the URL out to all your friends!

Notre Dame Scandal

Notre Dame has invited President Obama to be the "guest of honor" speaker at commencement!  Can you believe it?  After rejecting the ban on spending OUR tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research - a decidedly Pro-"Choice" position - this Notre Dame has invited him to speak?  It's UNTHINKABLE! 

 

Join the petition to get Notre Dame to rescind the invitation.  It is nothing short of scandalous!

 

Go here:   http://www.notredamescandal.com

Red Envelopes

Help save lives! Join the Red Envelope Project!

http://www.redenvelopeproject.org/

The goal is to send 50,000,000 (that’s 50 million) red envelopes to President Obama as a petition to raise awareness of the plight of the unborn. Check the details on the website.

Obama and Abortion

A friend of mine who goes by the name of "Nathan" in the Catholic Debate Forum wrote the following article regarding President Obama and his position on abortion. Your comments will be appreciated by Nathan and me. The following is Nathan's article:

In recent memory I've come across many contradictory beliefs from our President, Barack Obama. From my Christian perspective the most prominent among them is his belief in the right of abortion for all women. For those who believe that life begins at conception, logic dictates that any and all abortions are wrong because it would involve the killing of a human being. Even Medical textbooks define the beginning of life at conception. But President Obama isn't so sure. He states that the question of when life begins to be "above [his] pay grade."

Herein lays the crux of his argument. If this is truly what he believes and since he also states that "there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being." Then by simple extension, we see that Obama does not follow what he believes God would condone. Since he isn't sure when life begins, you would think that one would rather err on the side of caution. But he doesn't. Just like when a hunter hears rustling in the nearby bushes, should he just go ahead and shoot before determining if it is indeed a deer instead of his hunting partner? If President Obama isn't sure when life begins, if its above his pay grade, then why would he even take the chance on allowing abortion at all, not to mention making it readily available to all women and teenagers? What good is the right to choose if you are denied the right to life?

Logic also tells us that if something is growing then it's not dead. A tumor may be an extension of the human body but a fetus, or zygote or anything else in between has its own distinct DNA, therefore is not an extension of another human. It is distinct, separate although dependent on someone else just as newborns are distinct and dependent on someone else to feed and protect them. Why is it that we understand to protect the eggs of the endangered bald eagle in the same fashion as the bird itself and yet the water becomes murky when we speak of protecting the beginnings of human life?

By virtue of its distinct DNA and the fact that it is growing, an embryo is obviously alive. But what is it? What species does this embryo belong to if it is growing inside a mother's womb? Is that embryo going to grow up to be a cat? A turtle? A frog? That embryo is a human embryo. Aren't all humans supposed to have equal rights? Pro-abortion advocates want to say no but then they must turn a blind eye to their own logical inconsistencies to do so. In this way they must deny equal rights for all under the law.

Exploiting the weak and not-yet-born in the interests of the powerful and the well-to-do should not be permitted in a civilized society. And by closely studying what President Obama claims to believe, that's exactly what he stands for. What kind of man have we elected here? A man that supports laws that are inconsistent to his own views.