Doctors Tell Mom to Abort “Brain Dead” Baby, Mom Sues After Delivering Healthy Child

By Steven Ertelt 

(LifeNews.com) A mother in England is filing suit against a hospital where doctors told her she should have an abortion of her supposedly “brain dead” unborn baby. Sarah Hagan is now suing City Hospitals Sunderland after giving birth to a healthy child.

Hagan says that, after a 24-week ultrasound scan of her unborn baby, doctors told her that her son Aaron was “brain dead,” had just one eye and no chance of survival.

The mother of two says physicians adviser her to take an abortion drug, even though the mifepristone abortion pill is only authorized to be used to destroy the life of an unborn baby much earlier in pregnancy.

When the abortion drug didn’t work, another doctor informed Hagan her baby needed to be delivered immediately and she gave birth to Aaron, who was born at 1lb 7oz with both eyes  and healthy other than the fact that he was born prematurely — which has left him with chronic lung problems he wouldn’t have had otherwise. Now Aaron is 15 months old and Hagan is taking legal action.

Link:

• Doctors Tell Mom to Abort “Brain Dead” Baby, Mom Sues After Delivering Healthy Child

Justice Antonin Scalia Wears Saint Thomas More's Hat to Inauguration

From Fr. Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS:

Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond School of Law writes:

The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.

Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.

Link:

• Closely related to the biretta…

Chocolate Consumption Lowers Men's Stroke Risk

By MyHealthNewsDaily Staff | LiveScience.com 

Eating chocolate may lower men's chance of stroke, according to a new study from Sweden.

Researchers surveyed about 37,000 men and asked how much chocolate they ate on a regular basis. Those whose weekly consumption was the highest — at about a third of a cup —  were 17 percent less likely to have a stroke than the men who didn't regularly eat chocolate.

Chocolate has been shown to improve cardiovascular health when consumed in moderation, and the beneficial component of the sweet treat is likely compounds called flavonoids, the researchers said.

"Flavonoids appear to be protective against cardiovascular disease through antioxidant, anti-clotting and anti-inflammatory properties, said study author Susanna Larsson, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. "It's also possible that flavonoids in chocolate may decrease blood concentrations of bad cholesterol, and reduce blood pressure," she said.

The researchers surveyed men between ages 49 and 75, about their dietary habits, and studied hospital records to see how many of the men experienced a stroke over the next 10 years. They found 1,995 cases.

In a separate analysis, the researchers surveyed 4,260 men who had experienced a stroke, and found again that those who ate the most chocolate had a lower risk of stroke than their non-chocolate-eating 

counterparts — this time by 19 percent.

Additionally, eating an additional quarter cup of chocolate weekly was linked with a 14 percent lower risk of stroke.

The researchers noted that while most studies that have shown the benefits of chocolate emphasized eating dark chocolate, the men were likely consuming milk chocolate, not dark. Milk chocolate contains less cocoa powder than dark chocolate.

"About 90 percent of the chocolate intake in Sweden, including what was consumed during our study, is milk chocolate," Larsson said.

The study was published today (Aug. 29) in Neurology.

Link:

• Chocolate Consumption Lowers Men's Stroke Risk

Mitt Romney To Travel Back In Time To Kill Liberal Versions Of Himself

Cardinal Burke: Yes, it’s a sin to comply with the Obamacare mandate

AP Photo

By Tina Korbe

(Hot Air) In the clearest statement of what’s at stake for Catholic employers when it comes to the Obamacare contraception mandate, a leading Catholic cardinal recently said that it is, in fact, a sin for employers to comply with the mandate.

Cardinal Raymond Burke told EWTN’s Thomas McKenna that Catholic employers would not only be guilty of material cooperation with sin, but also formal cooperation because they would knowingly and deliberately be providing employees with contraception:

Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin … the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

Responding to the comments, [former executive director of HLI America Jenn] Giroux says, “This comment by a high ranking Cardinal is the clearest explanation to date on the issue of an employer’s culpability when providing contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drug options in the insurance plans for employees.”

It’s easy to see that this statement might come as a surprise even to the most faithful of Catholics, who are taught that an individual must freely consent to sin to bear full responsibility for it. Under the mandate, do employers really have the freedom not to consent? Cardinal Burke is telling them that, yes, they do. They have the freedom, for example, to get out of whatever business it is they’re running. They have the freedom to not have employees. They have the freedom to ignore the mandate and suffer the legal consequences. Burke’s comments are a hard call to faithfulness to all those Catholic employers who have been outraged by the mandate but might have been tempted to justify their ultimate compliance with it with that perennial of excuses: “I had no choice.” The seriousness of Burke’s words are also a warning to the Obama administration: He is saying that Catholic employers should go out of business before they comply with the mandate. Just as opponents have said from the very beginning, the mandate does, in fact, endanger the very existence of Catholic hospitals, schools and other charitable organizations. The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.

• Catholic Cardinal: Yes, it’s a sin to comply with the Obamacare mandate
• Catholic Cardinal: A Sin to Cooperate With Obama Mandate

Related:

• Moving Beyond
• Exile to Malta for Cardinal Burke
• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’

CBS reporter to Jay Carney: Obama ‘made a mistake and you can’t admit it’

(The Washington Free Beacon) CBS News reporter Bill Plante challenged White House press secretary Jay Carney on President Obama’s statement Monday that for the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act would be an “extraordinary, unprecedented step,” during a Thursday press briefing.

BILL PLANTE: What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment because he talked about the court not being in a position to overturn an of Congress—

JAY CARNEY: Bill—

PLANTE: You’re standing up there twisting yourself in knots, because he made a mistake and you can’t admit it.

CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging that—you’re sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleagues—

PLANTE: No, I’m just being—I’m just noting that you’re twisting yourself in knots.

CARNEY: The president spoke in answer to a question, relatively briefly, and in the context of this case, made the statement that there is no judicial precedent—that there is long judicial precedent which would argue that the court should not overturn this law. I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the commerce clause. He did not refer to the whole context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks—notably the person sitting in that chair and others—missed that. And, uh, and, uh—no, no, look. There’s a lot of—it’s kind of ridiculous to believe that the president wasn’t talking about the context of the case, but I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, when asked again Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely. Yes, Scott. God, you guys. It’s your job to come up with clichés—game on, and things like that. But I’m not going to engage in that.

CBS reporter to Carney: President ‘made a mistake and you can’t admit it’

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

(Fox News) A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care case.

The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.

A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."

"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday...

Read More

Link:

• Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

Related:

• ARPAIO TO DOJ: “I WILL NOT SURRENDER MY OFFICE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT”

Sketchy Romney: Everything Changes

"You hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."

-Key Romney Advisor Eric Fehrnstrom, discussing Romney's conservative positions. CNN, 3/21/12

http://www.sketchyromney.com/

Atheists Step Up 'It's Time to Quit the Catholic Church' Campaign

FFRF Plans to Run Full Page Ad to Fight Catholics' 'War Against Contraception'

By Alex Murashko , Christian Post Reporter

(The Christian Post) An atheist activist group is fighting the Catholic Church's "war against contraception" by stepping up its campaign that suggests believers should end their faithfulness to their religion.

The Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation plans to run a full-page ad in The New York Times that states, "It's Time to Quit the Catholic Church." FFRF is conducting a fundraiser to pay for the $52,000 ad and has collected $45,000 so far, according to a chart on the group's website.

The FFRF campaign began last month in light of opposition from the Catholic Church to the Obama administration's decision that seeks to guarantee employees of church and ministry-affiliated institutions reproductive health coverage, including contraception, abortifacients and sterilization.

"Dear 'Liberal' Catholic," an open letter written by the group's co-president, Annie Laurie Gaylor, begins. "It's time to quit the Roman Catholic Church. It's your moment of truth. Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs? Whose side are you on, anyway?"

Gaylor called the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops' opposition to mandatory free contraception to employees of religious organizations a "ruthless campaign endangering the right to contraception."

"If you're part of the Catholic Church, you're part of the problem," she continued. "Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club? Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly and publicly announced a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, and to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? When it comes to reproductive freedom, the Roman Catholic Church is Public Enemy Number One."

Last Thursday, the Senate rejected by a 51-48 vote a bill that would have permitted religious employers to refuse to cover medical services that violated their moral and religious convictions.

A Catholic political action group is targeting the 13 Democratic senators who supported the contraception mandate and is making plans to defeat those who are up for reelection in November.

"Faithful Catholics should take the opportunity to thank those Senators supporting our religious liberties," said Matt Smith, president of the Catholic Advocate, a group that encourages Catholics to be active in the political process. "It is our duty as laity to hold those who did not support our values accountable and vote our conscience when the time comes."

Evangelical columnist Chuck Colson recently argued that the way the issue of free contraception through health care has played out among its supporters is deceitful and "downright shameful."

"They say this is all about protecting women's access to contraception. This is, folks, the biggest red herring I've seen in politics. It's garbage, and they know it," Colson said. "Shame on them. Nobody is saying they shouldn't have access to contraceptives. Any woman can go to virtually any drug store and purchase them. Even drugs that induce abortion. As I told you last week, these things are even available in vending machines now!"

The scathing letter against Catholics by Gaylor included a paragraph that reads: "You're better than your church. So why? Why continue to attend Mass? Tithe? Why dutifully sacrifice to send your children to parochial schools so they can be brainwashed into the next generation of myrmidons (and, potentially, become the next Church victims)?"

Gaylor continued, "It is disgraceful that U.S. health care reform is being held hostage to the Catholic Church's bizarre opposition to medically prescribed contraception. No politician should jeopardize electability for failure to genuflect before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

However, Colson wrote that the national debate is not really about contraception.

"Folks, women's access to contraception is not the issue here. They have it. In spades. What's really going on is that the Obama Administration wants women to have access to FREE contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. It's an ideological imperative for them. And such niceties as the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom just don't matter in comparison," Colson stated.

"Make no mistake: What we are witnessing is indeed the leading edge of tyranny," Colson concluded.

• Link

TRENDING: Romney stumbles over question about GOP contraception push

Columbus, Ohio (CNN) - Mitt Romney's campaign scrambled to clean up another unforced error by their candidate Wednesday after he came out against a controversial amendment pushed by Senate Republicans that would allow employers to opt out of health care coverage they disagree with on moral grounds...

In the sit down interview with Ohio's ONN, Romney was asked whether he supported the Blunt measure.
"The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception," asked the reporter, Jim Heath. "Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we'll talk about personhood in a second; but he's for that, have you taken a position?"

Romney responded: "I'm not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I'm not going there."

Read More

Link:

• TRENDING: Romney stumbles over question about GOP contraception push

Related:

• Mitt Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
• Fact-Check: Did Romney Lie About Cardinal and Contraception During Wednesday Debate?
• Fact-Check Followup: Regulations Prove Romney Wrong, Show Consequences of Emergency Contraception Decisio

Bishop Morlino: ‘divide and conquer’ strategy is beginning of persecution

(Catholic Culture) In an interview with Vatican Radio, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison said that a “divide and conquer” strategy is being used against the Church in the public debate over religious liberty and conscience rights--a strategy that he fears marks the beginning of a “sophisticated persecution.”

“Everybody sees that their freedom of conscience is at stake,” he said. “It just depends who is up to be curtailed at any given moment for whatever reason. If they can do it to Catholics, they can do it to anybody.”

“There seems to be an approach that seeks to divide the Church, even more than she is already divided, along liberal and conservative lines. We should not be this way,” he added. “All the liberal/conservative bit is an import from the political sphere, which really does us nothing but damage.”
Bishop Morlino continued:

To take advantage of the fact that this has already happened in our culture, this division, and then to start to pit the bishops – as if they were merely one group within the Church – [against] what other groups might think, is clearly a straightforward attempt to divide and to deepen division in the Church, and to weaken the Church – the old saying, divide and conquer.

After discussing his fears that the strategy marked the beginnings of a nonviolent but sophisticated persecution, he said that organizations that call themselves Catholic must “really be Catholic” and spoke about his efforts to ensure the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions within his diocese.

Stating that there is “too much liturgical diversity“ among parishes, Bishop Morlino said that “commonality in liturgy,” assisted by the new translation of the Roman Missal, is the foundation of a robust public witness.

• Link

EWTN Sues HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius To Stop Contraception Mandate

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit February 9 in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the contraception mandate as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the mandate is unconstitutional. EWTN is the first Catholic organization to file suit since the final HHS rules were published by the Obama administration on January 20, 2012.

"We had no other option but to take this to the courts," says EWTN President and CEO Michael P. Warsaw. "Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice: either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable."

The lawsuit was filed on EWTN's behalf by Mark Rienzi, Kyle Duncan, and Erik Kniffin from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

"We are taking this action to defend not only ourselves but also to protect other institutions – Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and secular – from having this mandate imposed upon them," Warsaw continued. "The government is forcing EWTN, first, to inform its employees about how to get contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs, a concept known as forced speech. To make the matter worse, the government then will force EWTN to use its donors' funds to pay for these same morally objectionable procedures or to pay for the huge fines it will levy against us if we fail to provide health care insurance. There is no question that this mandate violates our First Amendment rights. This is a moment when EWTN, as a Catholic organization, has to step up and say that enough is enough. Our hope is that our lawsuit does just that."

The Becket Fund previously filed similar lawsuits on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a small Catholic liberal arts college in Belmont, N.C., and Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational Christian liberal arts university near Denver, which demonstrates that this is not just a Catholic issue. Both suits were filed prior to the HHS rules being finalized in January.

"When the government recently mandated that all private group health plans cover certain abortion drugs (namely, Plan B and ella), as well as related education and counseling, [our clients] knew that they could not obey both the government's mandate and their own religious convictions," said Rienzi, who focuses his practice at the Becket Fund on violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, free speech, and the free exercise of religion. "The mandate has been sharply criticized from across the political spectrum, and from religious leaders of a variety of faiths."

Duncan, a former Louisiana Solicitor General and General Counsel of the Becket Fund, said that without a change in the rules, EWTN could be forced to pay more than $600,000 for the "privilege" of not underwriting these services.

"This mandate is particularly hard on Catholics because Catholic organizations, such as hospitals, schools, social service agencies, media outlets and others, serve people regardless of their religious beliefs," Warsaw said. "We serve others not because they are Catholic, but because we are Catholic. "

EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 30th year, is available in over 200 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com, electronic and print news services, and publishing arm, EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

Link:

• EWTN Sues U.S. Government To Stop Contraception Mandate

Related:

• Father John Zuhlsdorf and Canon Lawyer: Deny Communion to Pelosi
  
• Mitt Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
• White House: Women ‘Deserve’ to Have Catholic Church Buy Them Sterilizations, Contraceptives and Abortifacients
• Pelosi on contraception insurance mandate: I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this

Pelosi on contraception insurance mandate: I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this

By Tina Korbe

(Hot Air) When the administration announced earlier this month that it would stick to its decision to require religiously-affiliated employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraception, the national Catholic reaction was, to put it mildly, less than supportive. All across the country, Catholic bishops wrote and read letters to their flocks that read, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

Today, a CNSNews.com reporter asked Nancy Pelosi whether she would stand with her fellow Catholics and oppose the law or whether she would stand with the administration and support it. The former Speaker of the House responded with this doozy:

“First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

Ack. She must have misunderstood the question. The point of the question was that she can’t have it both ways. This exercise is getting old. When will Pelosi just admit that she doesn’t think the pope and bishops have any more moral authority than she does — and that, on matters of “women’s health,” they have even less? Oh, wait. She has. She has said that she thinks her personal experience of motherhood qualifies her to be her own authority on the abortion issue and she has long lamented the collective Catholic conscience on contraception. Of what, exactly, does her Catholicism consist? At least Joe Biden reportedly fought against the administration’s decision in private negotiations.

Yes, Ms. Pelosi, the administration was so courageous to use this decision to curry favor with voters Obama needs. In fact, isn’t that the definition of courage? To make safe your own hide before you worry about anybody else’s? That sort of example always stirred my heroic impulses, I assure you.
Please, people, pay attention to congressional elections. If you think Pelosi is unbearable now, just imagine her as Speaker of the House again.

• Link

Newt Gingrich Super PAC: Meet the Men Who Gave us ObamaCare

From Allah Pundit via Free Republic:

"Philip Klein calls it the best anti-RomneyCare ad of the cycle. I agree. And thanks to the largesse of Newt’s billionaire buddy Sheldon Adelson, this one’s going on the air in Florida with a $6 million ad buy — so huge that WaPo political blogger Aaron Blake calls it “game-changing.” In fact, despite Newt’s post-South Carolina windfall of campaign cash, it sounds like his Super PAC will be doing the heavy organizational lifting from now on..."

Attorneys General in 11 States Poised to Challenge Healthcare Bill

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / March 22, 2010 

Attorneys general from at least 11 states say they will challenge the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill passed by the House of Representatives Sunday night.

The threatened action suggests the controversial measure is about to move from the legislative realm into what could become a protracted and messy fight in the courts. The attorneys general say they will sue once President Obama signs the bill into law. They are pledging to take their battle all the way to the US Supreme Court.

“The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution,” said South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster. “A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government,” he said in a statement.

• Attorneys general in 11 states poised to challenge healthcare bill
•  The Chicago Way

Early "returns" good for Republicans

Posted by Paul at 1:33 PM

(Powerline) The House Republican Conference Press Office has collected some reviews of the health care summit, from sources that are hardly in the Republican camp. These reviews find that the Republicans did quite well.

CNN's David Gergen:

The folks in the White House just must be kicking themselves right now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened

CNN's Gloria Borger:

The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.

They took on the substance of a very complex issue. ... But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.

They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.

The Hill's A.B. Stoddard:

I think we need to start out by acknowledging Republicans brought their 'A Team.' They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.

One of the problems for President Obama may have been that he had to take on all comers without much real help from his fellow Democrats. Obama is quite good at this sort of exchange, and seems to have shown it again today. But the Republicans kept throwing fresh and usually reasonably bright and/or attractive faces at him. The Democrats had to let Reid and Pelosi [UPDATE: and Joe Biden) speak, and neither is fresh, attractive, or especially bright.

It also didn't help Obama that the Republicans have a good case on the merits.

• Link

Jack Cafferty (CNN) On President Obama's Failed Openness Pledge: 'Just Another Lie ..'

Jack is a liberal leaning commentator on CNN.

More: C-SPAN CEO: White House Has Allowed Only ‘One Hour’ of Health Care Coverage

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Rhode Island Bishop Thomas J. Tobin

11/24/09

Bishop Tobin responds to Kennedy

(WPRI.com)

On February 21, 2007, I wrote to Congressman Kennedy stating: "In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so." My request came in light of the new statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that said, "If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definite teachings on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain." (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, December, 2006)

In the same letter I wrote to Congressman Kennedy, "I am writing to you personally and confidentially as a pastor addressing a member of his flock . . . At the present time I have no need or intention to make this a public issue." I also indicated, "I am available to discuss this matter with you in person at any mutually convenient time and place. I would welcome the opportunity to do so."

On February 28, 2007, the Congressman responded to me, "I have the utmost respect for the work you do on behalf of the Catholic community in Rhode Island. . . I understand your pastoral advice was confidential in nature and given with the best intentions for my personal spiritual welfare."

I am disappointed that the Congressman would make public my pastoral and confidential request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being.

I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy's spiritual life in public. At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry....

More

Rep. Patrick Kennedy declines to respond to bishop on abortion issue

By Karen Lee Ziner

Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE — U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy said he was “not going to dignify with an answer” Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin’s public comments that Kennedy could not be a good Catholic and still support abortion rights. Kennedy called those comments “unfortunate,” and said, “I’m not going to engage [in] this anymore...”

Kennedy said he also finds it “very disconcerting” that Bishop Tobin will not agree to keep private the discussion of Kennedy’s faith, and that is why his scheduled meeting with the bishop Thursday has been postponed.

In his letter, Bishop Tobin said he was not sure whether Kennedy fulfills “the basic requirements of being a Catholic,” and said that Catholicism involves much more than being baptized into the faith, family ties or cultural heritage. He called Kennedy’s “rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion … a deliberate and obstinate act of the will: a conscious decision that you’ve reaffirmed on many occasions,” and a position that is “unacceptable to the Church, and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.”

Bishop Tobin requested that Kennedy “enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance,” and offered to help Kennedy as he “travels the road of faith.”

Kennedy said yesterday that he has a pastor, and “I have my sacraments through that pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion and all the rest.” He said he preferred to keep his pastor’s name private...

Michael Guilfoyle, spokesman for the diocese, said the meeting was postponed “by mutual agreement,” but noted, “The bishop’s schedule is still free on Thursday if the congressman would like to have that personal and pastoral meeting. The contents between any personal conversation between the bishop and the congressman could certainly remain private. However, the congressman has made this a very public debate, and the bishop is responding to his public comments...”

More

h/t to New Advent