"Our goal was 3 to 5 abortions for every girl between the ages of 13 and 18"

This new documentary, "Bloodmoney," exposes in detail how the abortion industry extremists systematically "had a plan that sold abortion, and it was called 'sex education.' [We would] break down their natural modesty, separate them from their parents and values and become the sex experts in their lives so they would turn to us. When we could give them a logos birth control pill they would get pregnant on it or on a defective condom. . . ."

Draw Your Own Conclusions

Sons of Perdition: How Certain Catholic Priests Turned the Kennedys Pro-Abortion

The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating and deeply saddening article exploring the reasons behind the Kennedy Family's staunch pro-abortion position. Believe it or not, Ted Kennedy used to be pro-life. So how did he and all the other prominent Kennedys swing so far in the opposite direction? For that matter, what about some of the other Catholic pro-abortion zealots in (or recently in) high public office, such as Nancy Pelosi, Mario Cuomo, and Tom Daschle? What happened to them?

(NB: I originally posted this blog entry on January 2, 2009. In view of Ted Kennedy's death today,
I run it again because of its pertinence to his life and legacy, such as it was.)

This article reveals that it was was an intentional, systematic, concerted effort on the part of a group of dissenting Catholic theologians (including Fr. Richard McCormick, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Joseph Fuchs, Fr. Robert Drinan, and Fr. John Courtney Murray), who spent a good deal of of time with the Kennedys in the mid 1960s employing bogus moral theology arguments to convince them they could “accept and promote abortion with a clear conscience.” Once this was accomplished, these same Judas priests undertook to literally coach the Kennedy's on what to say and how to vote in favor of abortion in their public lives.

Given the Kennedys' enormous influence over American politics, it's diabolically logical for those dissenting Catholic theologians to have targeted this renowned and respected Catholic family for “conversion.” They were in the perfect position to persuade other Catholics, and even many Protestants, that it's okay to be pro-abortion.

And this strategy worked so well that, today, it is virtually impossible to find a Catholic politician holding national public office who is pro-life. Thanks to these dissenters and those Catholics they duped, “Catholic” is synonymous with “pro-abortion” in politics.

Read here how this hideous transformation was accomplished:

Ms. [Caroline] Kennedy's commitment to abortion rights is shared by other prominent family members, including Kerry Kennedy Cuomo and Maryland's former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Some may recall the 2000 Democratic Convention when Caroline and her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, addressed the convention to reassure all those gathered that the Democratic Party would continue to provide women with the right to choose abortion -- even into the ninth month. At that convention, the party's nominee, Al Gore, formerly a pro-life advocate, pledged his opposition to parental notification and embraced partial-birth abortion. Several of those in attendance, including former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, had been pro-life at one time. But by 2000 nearly every delegate in the convention hall was on the pro-choice side -- and those who weren't simply kept quiet about it.

Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race. But this was not always the case. Despite Ms. Kennedy's description of Barack Obama, in a New York Times op-ed, as a "man like my father," there is no evidence that JFK was pro-choice like Mr. Obama. Abortion-rights issues were in the fledgling stage at the state level in New York and California in the early 1960s. They were not a national concern.

Even Ted Kennedy, who gets a 100% pro-choice rating from the abortion-rights group Naral, was at one time pro-life. In fact, in 1971, a full year after New York had legalized abortion, the Massachusetts senator was still championing the rights of the unborn. In a letter to a constituent dated Aug. 3, 1971, he wrote: "When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

But that all changed in the early '70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.

In some cases, church leaders actually started providing "cover" for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.
Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion."

But can they now? There are signs today that some of the bishops are beginning to confront the Catholic politicians who consistently vote in favor of legislation to support abortion. Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop of Denver, has been on the front lines in encouraging Catholics to live their faith without compromise in the public square. Most recently in his book "Render Unto Caesar," Archbishop Chaput has reminded Catholic politicians of their obligation to protect life.

The archbishop is not alone. The agenda at November's assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops included a public discussion of abortion and politics. The bishops' final statement focused on concern about the possible passage of the "Freedom of Choice Act," and referred to it as "an evil law that would further divide our country." The bishops referenced their 2007 document, "Faithful Citizenship," which maintains that the right to life is the foundation of every other human right. In it, they promised to "persist in the duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their [Catholic congregants'] cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences."

(continue reading)

Introducing Father Mitch Pacwa's "Reformation Project"

For more info on this groundbreaking new project exploring the historical and theological facts surrounding the Protestant rebellion against the Catholic Church, go here.

$1000 Per-Day Fine & 30 Days In Jail For Refusing the Swine Flu Vaccine?

But, but, but . . . what if I don't want the vaccine?

I find this troubling, folks. What's going on here? Pay close attention toward the end of this video where they discuss the "severe penalties" to be imposed on those who refuse to be vaccinated. (More here.)

A Disturbing Trend for Religious Freedom: It's Not Just Belmont Abbey College

Earlier this month, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that the small Belmont Abbey College, tucked away in North Carolina’s Piedmont region, is discriminating against its female employees.

How so? The Catholic institution – founded by Benedictine monks, who still serve the school from their abbey – does not offer coverage for prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan, citing religious exemption due to Catholic Church teachings.

The story was picked up here and there, mostly in Catholic sources but also getting press in the Washington Times, which quoted college president William Thierfelder saying “if it came down to it, we would close the college before we ever provided (contraceptives).”

Many people have recognized the Belmont controversy for what it really is – a battle over religious liberties. But lest you think of it as one, isolated incident, take note of this CNA story from Wisconsin – where a provision in the new state budget mandates that providers of health insurance include contraceptive services in their plans.

That mandate would include the state’s dioceses, parishes and other Catholic agencies, and it lacks a religious exemption – an action that Wisconsin’s bishops rejected as “blatant insensitivity to our moral values and legal rights.”

“Nowhere does the Constitution say that the right of conscience is protected except in matters related to human reproduction,” the bishops wrote in a joint letter to their dioceses. “Nor does it limit the scope of religious freedom to tenets that conform to a party platform or to the agenda of powerful interest groups.”

Two related events, both involving coverage for contraceptives, both putting Catholic institutions on the defense and both occurring in the weeks before Congress returns to battle out legislation for national health care reform.

It’s clear that this is an issue of religious liberty. The State of North Carolina has recognized Belmont Abbey College as a religious employer, thus granting it an exemption from a requirement to provide contraceptives coverage – a fact that the EEOC seems to be ignoring. The Wisconsin case is equally, if not more disturbing, in that no exceptions were made in the budget mandate for religious institutions that could not comply.

To that end, the Wisconsin bishops conference is arguing that the mandate violates the state constitution, which articulates a right of conscience.

Indeed, both incidents raise the issue of conscience laws. As we question whether President Obama’s push for health care reform will survive the next congressional term, it’s absolutely necessary to ask where and how conscience protection will fit in the plan. The president himself promised a “robust conscience clause” when meeting with Catholic journalists this summer; while we tend to connect the phrase with doctors who refuse to perform abortions, August is reminding us that the breadth of such a clause has to be large indeed.

If abortion is not explicitly excluded in the final health care legislation, the dilemmas faced by Wisconsin Catholics and Belmont Abbey College could very well be a prelude to what a federal mandate for abortion coverage would mean for religious institutions across the country – Catholic and non-Catholic.

[Help Belmont Abbey College protect their Catholic identity! Make a secure online donation here: http://alumni.belmontabbeycollege.edu/ChancellorFund]

-- Elizabeth Hansen, Headline Bistro editor

What's the Story, Morning Glory?

(Courtsey of New Advent)

These long, crazy-looking clouds can grow to be 600 miles long and can move at up to 35 miles per hour, causing problems for aircraft even on windless days.

Known as Morning Glory clouds, they appear every fall over Burketown, Queensland, Australia, a remote town with fewer than 200 residents. A small number of pilots and tourists travel there each year in hopes of “cloud surfing” with the mysterious phenomenon.

Similar tubular shaped clouds called roll clouds appear in various places around the globe. But nobody has yet figured out what causes the Morning Glory clouds.

(source)

Yet another reason why I, Patrick Madrid, am not a "cat person"

(Courtesy of my gal pal, the lovely and insightful Mrs. Karen Williams)

It's Time to Invoke the Spirit of Vatican II

“Ordinaries [i.e., diocesan bishops], by the encouragement and favor they show to art which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. . . .

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 124).

Now, Why Can't We Get This Guy As Speaker of the House?

True, this video has been floating around awhile — I first saw it early this year, shortly after it came out — but it's worth watching again (and again, and again).

It takes conservative British MP Daniel Hannan just over three minutes to completely flay Gordon Brown over his government's failed economic policies. The video doesn't show Brown's response, but I am quite confident that he has nowhere near enough firepower to take on Hannan in a serious exchange about this issue.

Imagine if we had a few such gutsy, intelligent, and eloquent orators like this guy serving in the U.S. House and Senate. If we had had just five Hannan-types working for us in Congress, I don't think we would have gotten into the government-issue financial mess we're now in.

Here, here!

Archbishop Charles Chaput: A Man for Our Season

Here's a snippet from my new article on InsideCatholic.com:

My first conversation with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput happened over dinner at a mom-and-pop Chinese restaurant in South Dakota in late 1990. He was the bishop of Rapid City; I was working for Catholic Answers and had been invited to conduct a weekend apologetics conference there. From that first meeting, I could tell immediately that I was in the presence of a truly excellent bishop.

"Bishop Charles," as all the Catholics I met that weekend called him with proud affection, personified "down to earth." He was not merely being polite; he clearly was interested and engaged with those around him, listening thoughtfully and offering insights, advice, and the occasional funny anecdote with an easy joviality that put people at ease, while always maintaining the dignity of his role as shepherd of the flock.

I was impressed with Bishop Charles's humility; his palpable love for Christ and the Church; his quiet, understated wisdom; and his obvious pastoral dedication to the spiritual and physical wellbeing of his flock. I've met many bishops over the years, and I knew from that very first conversation with him that I was in the presence of not just a good bishop, but a great man. . . .

(continue reading)

Watch This Mesmerizing Time-Elapse Video of New York City

This fascinating video reminds me a lot of the inner workings of the human body: blood vessels coursing, incessant cellular activity, firing nerve synapses. It is mesmerizing, in part due to the hypnotic Moby soundtrack, but I must admit that, as beautiful as the city is with its myriad pulsating rhythms, watching this video evokes in me somber emotions and memories of 9/11.

What about you?

Spanish Doctors Alarmed by Government Abortion Proposal

I will be in Spain in a few weeks and will get more up-to-date firsthand information about this developing story, but here are the basic details:

High-level officials in the Spanish government are seeking to amend that country's laws to criminalize any physician who refuses to perform abortions. Such a refusal, on any grounds — including religious convictions — would be deemed "civil disobedience" and, if such laws were enacted, would be punishable by imprisonment.

This could be an ominous precursor to a more widespread effort by other governments to criminalize pro-life resistance to abortion. If this is successful in Spain, it is likely that a legally enforceable governmental hostility towards pro-life men and women who stand against the atrocity of abortion will spread rapidly.

By Anna Arco —

Spanish doctors have leapt to the defence of freedom of conscience not to be involved in procuring abortions after a senior minister suggested that refusing to perform an abortion might constitute civil disobedience.

The General Council of Doctors Colleges (OMC) in Spain last week insisted that conscientious objection must be an option after the Spanish minister Francisco Caamaño suggested that refusing to perform an abortion would amount to a crime.

It said that under the radical new abortion legislation that is being fiercely debated in the Spanish parliament doctors might lose the reject to object to performing an abortion. Doctors urgently called for a clause protecting conscience to be included in the law.

In a statement issued on Monday they said: "Conscientious objection for medical reasons can hardly be considered civil disobedience."

Stressing that the only protections for conscience in the existing law dealt with cases relating to the media and the military, the OMC called for "the urgent need for the new abortion law to include during its time in parliament conscientious objection of medical personnel who intervene directly in them, just as it is in almost all countries which have de-penalised abortion.

"In these countries, conscientious objection has become recognised as a specific right, with clauses which prevent discrimination against those physicians who for whatever reasons of conscience refuse to participate in the abortive practices, especially if, as stands in our future law of abortion, it will pass from being a de-penalised crime in certain situations and become a 'right'; the 'right of a woman to abort'."

They said that the right to conscientious objection was "a universal criterion of the medical profession".

They said that conflicts arise when the defence of certain principles come against the rights that have been legally established. For that reason it is important, the doctors argued, "for the freedom of conscience to be legally recognised in the general medicine, not just in the context of abortion - guaranteeing the juridical safety of all including the foetus in the case of abortion".

The statement came after Spain's justice minister said on Spanish television last week that refusing to perform abortions would be punished.

Speaking in an interview last week Mr Caamaño said he did not believe there were more rights to conscientious objection than those expressly established by the constitution or by the legislator in the general courts.

He said: "Personal ideas cannot excuse us from complying the law because, if not, we would arrive in many subjects, in this and many others, to civil disobedience... where there is no law which allows it, I am with the supreme tribunal and its ruling on education for citizens. Conscientious objection does not fit."

Spain is in the throes of a fierce national debate over further liberalisation of the country's abortion laws.

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government has been at odds with the Church since its election in 2004 over issues such as easing Spain's divorce laws and pushing same-sex marriage. Its plans to make abortions easier have launched by far the most heated debate. Under the proposed legislation women could freely obtain abortions within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Girls as young as 16 could have abortions without requiring parental consent. Women could abort at up to 22 weeks in the case of congenital disorder under the new law, and continue to abort after that if the pregnancy places them in mortal danger.

The Spanish bishops roundly condemned the legislation in July, saying that it was a "serious danger for the common good". They said: "To include abortion in health policy always gravely compromises the medical profession which is distorted when it is placed at the service of death."

(source)

Catholic College Students Rise to Defend Belmont Abbey College

Students from the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, De Sales University and Catholic University of America are fighting back.

Students at Catholic universities across the nation are banding together with students at Belmont Abbey College (BAC) in a stand for religious liberty and conscience rights, after the college was warned by the Obama administration last month that its refusal to cover contraception amounted to gender discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ignited the First Amendment firestorm earlier this month when it ruled Belmont Abbey College was wrong not to include coverage for contraception in its employee health insurance plan, despite the Catholic Church's prohibition on contraception as intrinsically evil. In addition to the Church's teachings against contraception as such, it is known that hormonal contraceptives often function as abortifacients.

According to BAC president William Thierfelder, while the local EEOC initially threw out the complaint, the decision was reversed after the affair went to officials in Washington.

Students from the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, De Sales University and Catholic University of America are fighting back, saying the EEOC decision is a troubling indication of the Obama administration's ideas on "reasonable" conscience protection.

"People need to wake up," said Michael Barnett, American Life League's director of leadership development and its LiveCampus college outreach program. "Under Obama, the federal government is forcing a religious institution to commit an act that violates its core values. This is religious persecution and a clear signal of what Obamacare would bring. This is the government imposing its will against the people's will."

In a letter to the Belmont, the EEOC claimed that the school discriminated against women by not covering contraceptives: "By denying prescription contraception drugs, [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

In a letter subsequently sent to EEOC chairman Stuart Ishimaru, Judie Brown, president of American Life League, pointed out, "The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is an evil and certainly not the sort of 'treatment' one would expect to find in a health insurance plan designed for staff at a Catholic facility. Your discriminatory actions against the college are unfounded and unconstitutional."

William K. Thierfelder, Belmont's president, affirmed that rather than provide contraceptive coverage, "We would close the college."

(continue reading) Read additional info on this developing story.

As the economy worsens, be sure you're laying up treasure in heaven

“Then, they will say to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a strange or naked or sick or imprisoned and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me’” (Matt. 25:44-45).