“Just another guy with a blog.  No big whoop.”

May 29, 2009

Rev. Cutié takes his toys and goes home (with a warning to the future Mrs. Cutie)

Brian Saint-Paul offers quick, pithy insight into the circus down in Miami.

May 28, 2009

Two of My New DVDs Now Available

May 27, 2009

You Might Be a Redneck if . . . You Own One of These

The White Man's Burden: A Look Back at a Catholic/Protestant Debate

James White loves to argue. He’s a Fundamentalist [Calvinist] who runs an anti-Catholic ministry, so you’d expect him to be no stranger to controversy, but his appetite for in-your-face confrontation goes way beyond typical anti-Catholic zealotry.

Alpha & Omega Ministries, the organization White runs, has carved a modest niche for itself in the Fundamentalist countercult marketplace, producing tracts and tapes attacking Oneness Pentecostals,
Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and, of course, Catholics. He and his followers pride themselves on their adversarial methods of witnessing to “cultists.”

At least once yearly, White and his friends descend on Salt Lake City during the Mormon Church’s biannual
General Conference. Armed with anti-Mormon tracts, they station themselves at each entrance to
Temple Square and hand out literature telling Mormons why they are going to hell. But leafleting is one of
the tamer methods White employs in preaching his gospel. . . . (continue reading)

May 26, 2009

You Call This "Maturity"?

I respond here to a letter-to-the-editor from a Catholic priest which appeared in the Daily Pilot. The letter's headline is: "Mature Catholics Welcome Obama," referring to the recent controversy over the University of Notre Dame's decision to confer an honorary doctorate on the President of the United States, who just happens to be an implacable foe of the Catholic Church's teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil.

The obvious implication of the headline [most likely chosen by the Pilot editors] is that Catholics who did not approve of this stunt are "immature." That would include, of course, the 70+ U.S. bishops and 350,000+ other Catholics who publicly denounced the Notre Dame debacle. According to the Pilot and, presumably, the priest who wrote the following letter, they are the immature ones, and those who laud Notre Dame's actions are the ones exhibiting "maturity."

The author of the letter to the editor is a Monsignor Wilbur Davis, a priest in Southern California. His original letter is in black, my comments are in red.

I write in reference to the three viewpoints expressed in the Daily Pilot column regarding the visit of President Barack Obama to the University of Notre Dame [“In Theory: Fightin’ Obama’s grad speech,” May 8]. 

The diverse positions expressed in the Daily Pilot by local Jewish, Protestant and Catholic religious leaders regarding the visit of Obama to the University of Notre Dame as a speaker and honoree reveal the complexity of this question and the legitimacy of varied viewpoints. [Notice his invocation of the "complexity" of this issue. Prescinding from the  anterior question of whether it is morally permissible to kill an unborn child through abortion — not a complex question at all — apparently, Monsignor Davis feels it is a "complex" question as to whether it is appropriate for a Catholic university to confer an honorary doctorate on a politician who is leading the fight against the Catholic Church's foundational moral teaching that abortion is always and everywhere murder.]

This variance is found not only between diverse faith communities but also within the community of Roman Catholics [True, but this variance among Catholics on abortion is a scandal, not something worthy of approval].

As a Catholic priest, I can tell you that our clergy engage in passionate debates about this without reaching a consensus. And this is fine. [No, Monsignor, this is not fine. How is it that Catholic priests can have "passionate debates" about whether Catholic universities should sell their birthright for a mess of pottage by publicly heaping honors on pro-abortion politicians? For there to be a debate on this issue, at least one of the priests must argue that what happened at Notre Dame is a good thing. I have no doubt that in the coterie of which Monsignor Davis speaks some priests do argue that point, but that is not fine. It is a sign of bad formation, or a willful dissent from clear and unequivocal Catholic teaching, or both.

Do Roman Catholics agree with the president on everything? No. Have we ever agreed with any president on everything? No. [Here we see the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi, commonly called "a red herring." It is entirely irrelevant whether any given Catholic agrees with any given president on everything. The relevant issues are 1) whether Catholics can agree with this president on the issue of abortion and, 2) whether Notre Dame should have conferred honors on someone who promotes abortion as vociferously as this president does. ]

But the fact is that Obama would not have been elected president without the Catholic vote. [Yes, this is a fact, but it's a sad fact,  a tragedy and a scandal — not something for a Catholic priest to take satisfaction in.]

American Catholics, in large, judged him to be one who stands with most — though not all — of the major issues of social concern that are integral to Catholic social teaching. [Not exactly. It's true that most American Catholics who voted in the last election voted for the candidate who actively fights against the Catholic teaching on life issues, but in doing so, those Catholics exhibited poor, immature judgment. They made an egregious error by voting for candidate Obama.]

Yet some critical life issues do place us in a tension with him and much of his party. [Tension? I guess you could call it "tension." And if the "critical life issue" were, say, slavery or racism or the belief that it should be legal to kill Hispanics, I wonder if Monsignor would refer to this as "tension."  

I believe it is an honor for a Catholic university to receive the president of the United States.
[Ordinarily, it would be an honor. But given the specific circumstances  of this president's visit, it is in reality a serious dishonor for Notre Dame.]

Through the years our presidents have spoken at the University of Notre Dame, even though Catholics would have disagreements with each of them over certain significant matters. This is in no way surprising. A Catholic university that is mature in its identity can well accommodate disagreements in the pursuit of deeper understanding. [Would Monsignor Davis "accommodate disagreement" with a president who believed that slavery should be legal (many presidents with that very conviction have held office before, don't forget), and would he be in favor of that president speaking at a Catholic university's commencement address and being awarded an honorary doctorate? I doubt it. Would Monsignor see a Catholic university honoring a president who believed in legalized slavery to be a "mature" decision?  

In disputed questions it is incumbent upon us Catholics to argue our positions in the public forum in language that is intelligible and appealing to those who hold other positions.
[This is exactly what the Catholic Church has been doing for decades now. And to confer honors on an politician who promotes pro-abortion extremism, as this president does, is the opposite of speaking intelligibly and appealingly. What  Notre Dame's president, Father Jenkins, did was to obfuscate the issue and distort to the point of negating, at least in the minds of many confused onlookers, the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder.

This is the rich complexity of America. [No, this is the fractious, foolhardy hubris of a deeply misguided university president.]

To exclude those who hold positions different from ours divides the American fabric and ultimately broadens the gulfs that sadly continue to divide our national and faith communities. [What's truly sad is how Catholics, especially Catholic priests, can be a party to such nonsense. It is they who foment division in the name of "accommodating" disagreement.   

— Wilbur Davis is a monsignor at Our Lady Queen of Angels Church in Newport Beach.

May 24, 2009

St. John Vianney: Do You Have Religion In Your Heart?

Alas, my dear brethren, what have we become even since our conversion? Instead of going always forward and increasing in holiness, what laziness and what indifference we display! God cannot endure this perpetual inconstancy with which we pass from virtue to vice and from vice to virtue. Tell me, my children, is not this the very pattern of the way you live? Are your poor lives anything other than a succession of good deeds and bad deeds? Is it not true that you go to Confession and the very next day you fall again — or perhaps the very same day?. . .

How can this be, unless the religion you have is unreal, a religion of habit, a religion of long-standing custom, and not a religion rooted in the heart? Carry on, my friend; you are only a waverer! Carry on, my poor man; in everything you do, you are just a hypocrite and nothing else! God has not the first place in your heart; that is reserved for the world and the devil. How many people there are, my dear children, who seem to love God in real earnest for a little while and then abandon Him! What do you find, then, so hard and so unpleasant in the service of God that it has repelled you so strangely and caused you to change over to the side of the world? Yet at the time when God showed you the state of your soul, you actually wept for it and realized how much you had been mistaken in your lives. If you have persevered so little, the reason for this misfortune is that the devil must have been greatly grieved to have lost you because he has done so much to get you back. He hopes now to keep you altogether. How many apostates there are, indeed, who have renounced their religion and who are Christians in name only!

But, you will say to me, how can we know that we have religion in our hearts, this religion which is consistent?

My dear brethren, this is how: listen well and you will understand if you have religion as God wants you to have it in order to lead you to Heaven. If a person has true virtue, nothing whatever can change him; he is like a rock in the midst of a tempestuous sea. If anyone scorns you, or calumniates you, if someone mocks at you or calls you a hypocrite or a sanctimonious fraud, none of this will have the least effect upon your peace of soul. You will love him just as much as you loved him when he was saying good things about you. You will not fail to do him a good turn and to help him, even if he speaks badly of your assistance. You will say your prayers, go to Confession, to Holy Communion, you will go to Mass, all according to your general custom.

To help you to understand this better, I will give you an example. It is related that in a certain parish there was a young man who was a model of virtue. He went to Mass almost every day and to Holy Communion often. It happened that another was jealous of the esteem in which this young man was held, and one day, when they were both in the company of a neighbor, who possessed a lovely gold snuffbox, the jealous one took it from its owner's pocket and placed it, unobserved, in the pocket of the young man. After he had done this, without pretending anything, he asked to see the snuffbox.

The owner expected to find it in his pocket and was astonished when he discovered that it was missing. No one was allowed to leave the room until everyone had been searched, and the snuffbox was found, of course, on the young man who was a model of goodness. Naturally, everyone immediately called him a thief and attacked his religious professions, denouncing him as a hypocrite and a sanctimonious fraud. He could not defend himself, since the box had been found in his pocket. He said nothing. He suffered it all as something which had come from the hand of God. When he was walking along the street, when he was coming from the church, or from Mass or Holy Communion, everyone who saw him jeered at him and called him a hypocrite, a fraud, a thief. This went on for quite a long time, but in spite of it, he continued with all of his religious exercises, his Confessions, his Communions, and all of his prayers, just as if everyone were treating him with the utmost respect.

After some years, the man who had been the cause of it all fell ill. To those who were with him he confessed that he had been the origin of all the evil things which had been said about this young man, who was a saint, and that through jealousy of him, so that he might destroy his good name, he himself had put the snuffbox in the young man's pocket. . . . (continue reading)

May 23, 2009

How Google Chrome Is Not Like Other Browsers

The Notre Dame commencement is history, but the Catholic identity battle continues

Colleen Carroll Campbell does a superb job of outlining some key implications of the recent Notre Dame scandal and what we should be watching for in its aftermath:

The brouhaha over President Barack Obama's appearance at the University of 
Notre Dame culminated Sunday with apparent defeat for pro-life Catholics. The 
university's hotly contested plan to bestow an honorary degree on Obama, a 
staunch supporter of legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research, went 
off without a hitch. 

The president entered the university's Joyce Center arena to robust applause 
and enjoyed several standing ovations in the course of the commencement 
ceremony. Reporters contrasted Obama's well-received plea for transcending 
differences on abortion and embryonic research with the demonstrations of a few 
anti-Obama hecklers in the arena and several hundred vocal protesters on the 
edge of campus. Scant press was given to the much larger, more decorous 
gathering of Notre Dame students and faculty and other Catholics who filled the 
campus' main quad that day for an open-air pro-life Mass and peaceful protest 
rally, or to the coalition of pro-life students who gathered the evening before 
for an all-night campus prayer vigil. 

The dominant story line that emerged from South Bend on Sunday was that of a 
short-lived struggle that came to a swift, tidy resolution. A moderate 
president and enlightened university administrators took on a small band of 
anti-abortion extremists. And the forces of progress prevailed. 

Comforting as that story line may be to Notre Dame administrators and the 
Catholics who supported their decision to honor Obama, it ignores the true 
novelty of this controversy, which has been in national headlines for months.

That novelty has nothing to do with Notre Dame's willingness to fete a 
politician who publicly opposes fundamental moral teachings of the Catholic 
Church. That's par for the course at a university that long ago opted to put 
secular prestige before fidelity to Catholic doctrine, and for the many other 
Catholic universities that have followed suit.

Nor was there anything original about Obama's answer to America's abortion 
debate — let's agree to disagree — and the fact that it was applauded by a 
crowd of Catholics more wedded to the post-modern doctrine of moral relativism 
than to Catholic teaching about the sanctity of unborn human life. Cafeteria 
Catholicism is old news in America. So is the idea that endless dialogue 
constitutes a morally sufficient response to the systematic denial of basic 
human rights to an entire class of human beings. Slaveholders and segregation 
supporters spent centuries making the same claim. 

What was unusual about the Notre Dame controversy was that it sparked 
. . . (continue reading)

May 22, 2009

Mark Shea Perfectly Describes the Kind of Protestant Spam I Also Receive

Behold the Spam of God!

Almost every other day it seems, I will (like thousands of other Catholics) open my email and get something like this specimen (culled from my “delete” file):

Dear Mark, just came from your Website and have some questions. It sounds like you were a “Protestant” before becoming a Catholic? I don’t know which church you were in but I have to question whether you were ever taught the Word of God there? If you had been in a church which taught the truth concerning Baptism according to the Word of GOD and not the “traditions of men” you would have learned that not only does baptism NOT save nor “grant justification” but it is ONLY for those who ARE BORN-AGAIN by the SPIRIT of GOD by placing their faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST! It is to be symbolic of the new birth ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED by GOD as Romans 6 clearly teaches! PLEASE READ the Gospel of John and pray asking GOD to show you HIS TRUTH - HE LOVES THE WORLD and DESIRES TO SAVE the LOST - which we all are apart from the New Birth which IS FREELY offered to ALL ! Please read and be saved! I will be praying for you in JESUS Name. Carolyn

You have to wonder what is going through the minds of people who write such stuff. What do they think they are accomplishing?

One is terribly tempted to reply:

The Word of God? What’s that? Never heard of such a thing. Is that, like, the Bible? We used to read something called a “Bible”, I think, at our old Church. But that was an awfully long time ago.

Boy, thanks for setting me straight. I have never ever ever heard before that Jesus Christ loves me and desires to save the lost with his free gift of grace! I always thought that I had to perform magical rituals to make God love me. But now that you have so thoughtfully set me straight, I see clearly that when that big black book we used to read in my old church-that-never-taught-me-the-Bible says “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21) what it means is “Baptism does not save you.”

And thanks also for explaining that when Romans 6 says, “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” and “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” this absolutely has nothing whatever to do with Baptism. I really appreciate you setting me straight on that as well.

And finally, thanks for making me see that all that stuff in John 3 about being born again of water and the Spirit really means water and the Spirit are complete opposites.

Golly. It is so good to finally —after all these years—have somebody who really teaches the Word of God clue me in. Who would have thought that all those years of studying…. what’s that big black book called again? Ah! Yes! “The Bible”.

Anyway, who would have thought that all those years of studying the Bible could have left me so totally ignorant of what Scripture really means? Thanks ever so for enlightening me.

Do these people who write Evangelical converts to the Catholic faith honestly believe that they are the first people in the universe to ever suggest reading the Bible? If not, then what are they thinking?

I wonder this even more when I get Godspam from people who assure me they are “writing in Christian love” and then proceed to send me a farrago of raving nonsense and/or documentable lies about what the Church teaches. When you write them back and refer them to biblical and catechetical sources which show a) the fact that Catholic teaching comports with biblical teaching and b) their lies about Catholic teaching (”Mary worship!” “The Pope is sinless!” “The Mass re-sacrifices Jesus!”) are bunk, they write you back with that gooey smile of condescending “Christian love” and inform you (and I quote) “I am not interested in discussing truth issues with Catholic apologists.”

The sheer hermetically-sealed Pride is both astonishing and (as is the doom of Pride) hilariously funny. And the pride is very widespread in the ranks of anti-Catholic types who write in “Christian love”. I discovered this when I posted “Carolyn’s” note. One Catholic reader commented with his tongue firmly planted in cheek:

When I converted to Catholicism, it was the statue worship that appealed to me the most, but banner worship has its appeal as well. Historians have been able to show that pagans also worshipped primitive banners so either one has authentic Catholic-pagan connections.

I also liked that I didn’t have to read the Bible any more and that I would have to earn my way to Heaven. Besides that, I really appreciated the fact that I could check my brain at the door and blindly follow the leaders.

A really cool part of Catholicism is that now I can commit all of my favorite sins and then go to Confession right before I go out and do them again!! Actually, while I was Protestant, I guess I did that too, but without the Confession part. But sitting in that little room just feels so holy, especially with the statues nearby.

The cannibalism aspect, I have to admit, grosses me out a little, but I comfort myself by knowing that it is a false doctrine anyway and so it is only really bread. . . . (continue reading)

Why Mormons Don't Like the Cross

Ever since I began engaging in apologetics with Mormons, back in the 1980s, their skittishness about and rejection of the cross, as a symbol of Christ and His atoning sacrifice, has always seemed odd to me.  After all, St. Paul himself proclaimed to scoffers, "
We preach Christ crucified" and "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2).

The rationale I've heard from many Mormons for their aversion to the cross as a Christian symbol has included rejoinders such as, "We don't use them because that's a Catholic thing," and, "Why would I want to see a reminder of the thing that killed Jesus? That's morbid!" The fomer president of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinkley, had this to say: For us [Mormons], the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

One Mormon missionary who, along with several LDS confreres, attended one of my parish seminars on Mormonism some years ago, told me in all earnestness, "We don't use crosses because Jesus died on a cross. If your brother were murdered with a knife, you wouldn't hang a little knife on chain around your neck, would you?" I told him that this was precisely the point. "What happened on the cross is, in itself, the reason we Catholics display the cross," I said. "The most important event in history took place on the wood of the cross at Golgotha, upon which Christ suffered and died for our salvation."

I could see from the look on his face that that Mormon missionary didn't accept my reasoning.

In a future post on this blog, I'll supply a précis of the Catholic reasons for venerating the cross, whether it be a crucifix (i.e., with the corpus of the Lord affixed) or an empty cross. But for the moment, I think the primary reason, at least from the explanations given by Mormons I've discussed this subject with over the years, is that the cross of Christ is inextricably identified in their minds with the Catholic Church. Until recently, the Mormon Church has been up front in its opinion that the Catholic Church is nothing other than the "counterfeit" church which, Mormons say, arose out of the maelstrom of syncretism, corruption, and heresy which occurred when Christ allegedly withdrew the "keys of authority" from the Church He had established, thus  (c.f., Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979 ed.], 42-46, 172-174, 712, James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1968], 130 ff.; and Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987], 282-288).

In any case, in light of the above, here's an interesting blog piece about Mormons and the cross and why they eschew it. 

Terrorist Threat: "Guaranteed to kill
330,000 Americans within a single hour!"

May 20, 2009

Lord, I thank You for Your many blessings, especially that the 80s are over

New poll shows most Americans have high regard for Pope Benedict XVI

Well, what do you know. This Catholic survey's findings run directly contrary to what the secular mainstream media would have you believe. MSMS has of late been unrelenting in its negative coverage of Pope Benedict XVI, which in itself is nothing surprising,  since the Pope is unrelenting in his proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world — a message that the world simply does not want to hear. No matter. The pope will continue speaking the Truth, and the MSM will continue doing what it can to obscure, spin, ridicule, and obfuscate his message. And in the meantime, at least if this poll is an accurrate indicator, most Americans still have an openeness to the Pope — at least for now.

Americans overall and American Catholics in particular hold Pope Benedict XVI in high regard, according to a Marist College poll conducted in partnership with the Knights of Columbus.

Sixty percent of Americans reported they have either a favorable or very favorable impression of the pontiff while 76 percent of Catholics hold the same view, the telephone poll of 2,078 people found.

At the same time, 20 percent of Americans and 11 percent of Catholics told interviewers they have an unfavorable or very unfavorable view of Pope Benedict.
 (continue reading)

Pat's Top Ten Things That Sound Sinful But Really Aren't

In hopes that this will help alleviate any anxiety of conscience, be assured that, under normal circumstances, you will likely never have to go to confession for having been involved with any of these activities . . .

10. Perambulation

9. Thespianism

8. Tax withholding

7. Homogenization

6. Depilation

5. Getting high on life

4. Infarctions (alone or with others)

3. Eating dead chickens

2. Artificial breath control

1. Failing to renew your subscription to
Envoy Magazine (actually, this one's borderline)

May 19, 2009

Watching Last Night's Season Finale of "24" Made This Even Funnier

(With thanks to
Mark Shea for finding this jewel.)

The Naked Truth About Anti-Theft Deterrents

Big News In the World of Darwinian Evolution

The media is hailing the recent discovery of a Lemur monkey fossil that some scientists are saying is a transitional form (i.e., an animal that was "in between" one species and another during what Darwin claimed is the evolution of species) that "proves" Darwinian evolution to be true. We'll see.

If nothing else, someone should get the popcorn and maybe grab some earplugs, too, because I think this news is going to provoke a whole new level of raucous debate on evolution.

Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirmsCharles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. . . . (continue reading)

Mormonism Goes Airborne

Most likely, this new radio initiative has been planned by the Mormon Church for a long time — they are known to be meticulous planners, after all — but the announcement from LDS Church headquarters in Salt Lake City about its imminent launch of a 24/7 religious radio station comes at an interesting time.

Just last week, the rapidly expanding Immaculate Heart Radio Network of Catholic stations (22 and counting) announced that it has just closed the sale of a new 50,000-watt AM radio station that will blanket all of Utah with 24/7 Catholic programming. It is scheduled to commence broadcasting by mid-summer.

Logistically, the most significant difference between the Mormon and Catholic stations would seem to be, at least for now, that the former can be heard only via the Internet and on select High-Definition radio stations, while the latter, Immaculate Heart Radio, will be booming out across Mormon Country 365 days a year on a powerful AM signal that anyone can hear via radio practically anywhere in the state, plus it will also be streamed on the Internet and made available in podcast form.

The Mormons send us their missionaries on bikes. We send them Father Corapi, Bishop Fulton Sheen, and Catholic Answers on their radios. Sounds like a good arrangement to me.

SALT LAKE CITY 18 May 2009 Mormon Channel, a new radio service of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, launches 18 May and can be accessed via the Internet or HD radio affiliates. The newly created 24-hour, 7-days a-week format is available live online at http://radio.lds.org, but content may also be downloaded.

Broadcasts originate at Temple Square in Salt Lake City and feature a vast and varied array of programming, according to Chris Twitty, director of digital media for the Church.

“We have the responsibility to extend the messages of the Church in yet another way with the new station,” Twitty added. “We have access to all the resources of the Church in creating program content. Though it seems a daunting task to fill the airtime, we have a wealth of information that will be of interest to listeners — much of it new and never before heard or seen.”

Personal interviews with Church leaders are included in a program titled Conversations . In the initial episode, Deseret Book head, Sheri Dew, interviews Elder David A. Bednar and his wife, Susan.

Other program content includes informational packages about the ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ and the doctrines, history and news of the Church. Several planned segments focus directly on young children and teenagers.

A unique program, Into All the World , spotlights the lives of Church members in many parts of the world. “The first interview, for example, invited the stake president in Rome, Italy, to profile the members of his stake and to document their responses to the announcement that a temple will be constructed in their city,”

Additional content includes Music and the Spoken Word, the weekly radio broadcast featuring the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, as well as other choir concerts and events. Further input comes from Brigham Young University, LDS Business College, the University of Utah institute of religion, the Deseret News and Bonneville Productions.

“We’re deeply pleased,” said Bob Johnson, Bonneville International executive vice president and Salt Lake market manager, “to offer Bonneville’s broadcasting resources and industry reputation to further extend the reach and impact of Mormon Channel, a high-quality, values-oriented new product. Through our 29 radio stations in eight major markets coast to coast, we look forward to utilizing the unequalled qualities and capabilities inherent in HD radio technology to share the unique Mormon Channel content with our ever-expanding listening audiences." (Source)