A Tale of Two Presidents – the Drama Continues

Background

The Obama administration recently attempted to establish free sterilization, contraception and abortifacients as a “right” which transcends First Amendment rights of freedom of religion.  This attempt was challenged by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Background described at A Tale of Two Presidents; President Obama vs. President of the USCCB, Archbishop Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan.
Obama’s move was particularly shocking, since he had previously and vehemently promised non-inclusion of abortion in ObamaCare.  Obama’s present inclusion of abortifacient drugs in ObamaCare, and his insistence on forcing Catholics to pay for them, makes it appear that Obama has no problem with falsification/outright lying.

Baracchio and Timothy Cricket. In the popular children's tale of Pinocchio, Pinocchio fell in with a bad crowd of pleasure-seeking boys. This resulted in their turning into donkeys who would be enslaved by a coachman. Pinocchio's conscience, represented by Jiminy Cricket (played here by Archbishop Timothy Dolan) saves Pinocchio from his bad judgement, and the tale ends happily.

.

Obama’s Latest Move

Now President Obama, without consultation with the US Bishops, has unilaterally announced a “solution” to the conflict between religious and sexual “rights.”

.

Obama: Americans – Including Catholics – Will Still Be Forced to Buy Coverage for Sterilization, Contraception, Abortifacients – CNS News, 2-10-12
Video of Obama’s 6 minute  Statement on Contraceptive Health Care Rule – C-Span – 2-10-12
Obama’s Act of Tyranny – CNS News, 2-10-12

.

.

Bishops Respond

The Catholic Bishops have pronounced Obama’s “solution” unacceptable.

Catholic Bishops: Obama’s Solution ‘Is Unacceptable’ CNS News, 2-11-12
Entire Cathlolic Bishops Statement – USCCB 2-10-12

Obama’s proposal

Obama’s “solution” involves side-stepping direct payment for these population-control procedures by Churches, while still requiring Church organizations to provide these services indirectly, and still requiring Catholics and other Christians with religious objections to the procedueres to pay for the procedures indirectly.  Essentially, all insurance companies in the U.S. would be required to cover the population-control procedures, and thus all Americans would be required to pay for the procedures, regardless of religious objection, through the insurance policies that citizens must purchase as required by ObamaCare. Escape from payment for morning-after pills and for sterilization of minorities would not be possible without civil disobedience under the currently proposed Obama administration rules.

Will Americans Go For This?

America’s values are still quite conservative; 80% of Americans are religious, 70% are Christian, 2/3 oppose federal funding of abortion and 2/3 favor abstinence before marriage. Obama’s attempts to establish these free sexual services thus represents quite a governmental imposition of unwanted values.  The government has essentially declared that all citizens have the right to unlimited promiscuous activity with a guaranteed freedom from consequences, paid for by the government (by all of us).

What the Contraception Mandate (actually Population Control Mandate) Would Mean

The majority will be forced to pay for the injudicious sexual behavior of a minority, without limits.
This does not differ significantly from government encouragement of unlimited gluttony, with guaranteed free liposuction for all.
Or government encouragement of theft, with guaranteed freedom from prosecution for thieves.

The Obama administration has promoted payment for reckless human sexuality to a status of higher importance than providing aspirin to heart patients or insulin to diabetics.  Heart patients and diabetics do not get free medication and free surgery without co-pay.
Pregnancy, a normal human condition which is essential to the propagation of the human race, has been promoted to disease status, a disease that trumps all other human diseases, for which free medication and free surgery are not provided.

The Obama administration’s obvious prioritization of population control over freedom of religion, over majority opinion, over political expediency, and over fiscal responsibility, was discussed in detail in Abortion – A Much Bigger Deal Than You Think. The motivation for such extreme population control measures cannot be explained by overpopulation concerns; these do not exist in the United States.   If anything, we are short of workers and of taxpayers at the present time.  Population control is usually a mark of political tyranny, and has already progressed in the United States to a level that few have noticed and few would find credible.  Abortion is by far, the leading cause of death in the United States today, and the black population of America is suffering from it way more than the rest of us. Abortion – A Much Bigger Deal Than You Think

The Future

Obama is pushing an agenda that makes no sense to anyone who is grounded in reality.
The development of this drama will affect the future prosperity of the United States radically.

Let us hope, fast, and pray that Barachhio listens to Timothy Cricket and our story has a happy ending.  Would hate to turn into enslaved donkies, all of us!

Related Coverage:

TV Network Started by Cloistered Nun Sues Sebelius – CNS News, 2-9-11

A Tale of Two Presidents: Timothy & Barak

and

What’s Sneaking in Under the Radar?

and

Boy, Did Bart Stupak Get Duped!

The media has been brimming with reports on the conflict between President Barak Obama and the President of the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops), Archbishop Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan.   The issue involves recent ObamaCare regulations that threaten first amendment rights of Catholics, and of numerous other religious groups.

• The main players are imposing.
• Coverage is sensational.
• The issues are important:

Freedom of religion

Redefinition of rights and of essentials

The players are imposing

President Obama’s administration announced in August 2011 that the now-mandatory ObamaCare would contain regulations requiring the provision of free birth-control/abortifacient drug services by all employers.

The President of the USCCB, Archbishop Dolan, objected in September 2011, calling the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious freedom” and urging that it be rescinded.  Catholic institutions could not be forced to provide morning-after pills and contraceptives to their employees.  This would constitute a violation of conscience.  For the first time in history, the USCCB formed an Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, to respond to six specific attacks on religious freedom in the United States since June 2011. 

Darn Tootin'

On October 4^th, 2011, President Obama, ignoring the objections of the Catholic Bishops, bragged at a DNC fundraiser about the inclusion of contraception in ObamaCare regulations, quipping “Darn tooting!,”  a slang expression for “damn right,” derived from a 1928 Laurel & Hardy silent comedy short, You’re Darn Tootin’.

The President of the USCCB Dolan met with President Obama in November 2011, explaining to Obama the Catholic Church’s objections to the regulation.

On January 20, 2012, it became clear that the Obama administration was not planning to satisfy the Catholic Bishops’ concerns.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the regulations would go forward.  Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations would have to comply by August 1, 2013.  The appeal by Catholic Bishops for a religious exemption was denied.

The USCCB made the next move: mobilizing Catholics to pressure their elected representatives to restore 1^st amendment rights to Catholics.  An appeal went out February 5^th, 2012 to all Catholics in the United States, to fast, to pray and to approach their legislators opposing this violation of religious freedom.  Catholic parishes in the U.S. heard letters from their Bishop on February 5^th.

The USCCB website summarized the concerns of the Bishops of the United States and suggested courses of action for interested citizens (including non-Catholics)  .  The site has been swamped with response, often requiring more than one attempt to access the site.

Locally, Madison’s Cathedral Parish’s Rector Monsignor Holmes explained the background for the religious freedom violation.  Cllick here for mp3 of Msgr. Holmes’ talk.

Bishop Morlino of Madison appealed to Catholics to act in protection of our religious freedoms – click here for Bishop Morlino’s letter to all Diocese of Madison Catholics. continue reading…

The Grinch Who Mocked Christmas

.

WFA Nativity Scene at Wisconsin State Capitol

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has done it again: in response to a table-top nativity scene being displayed in Wisconsin’s Capitol building rotunda by Wisconsin Family Action (WFA), FFRF has erected their own primitive contraption, featuring a pink-clad girl baby “Jesus,” a Botticelli Venus “blessed mother” declaring “it’s a girl,” and cardboard cut-outs of various historical atheists with speech bubbles proclaiming the folly of religion.  They failed to realize the irony represented by this silly display – a dimensionless cartoon that makes a statement about their philosophy as well.  There is not much substance in a  philosophy that rests primarily on (aggressive) negation of the beliefs of others.

FFRF's mockery of the Nativity - interesting how FFRF invokes one of the 10 Commandments to protect their silly display!

We all know Dr. Seuss’ story How the Grinch Stole Christmas… much like the Grinch, FFRF atheists think that just because they cannot participate in the joy of Christmas, they should try to destroy it for all of us too.

But the power of the newborn King far surpasses the laughable efforts of a few spiteful atheists.

Maybe someday they’ll puzzle ’till their puzzlers are sore, and find out that Christmas, in fact, means a little bit more.

In the meantime, I take the greatest of pleasure in wishing you all a very happy, warm, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

WFA's Nativity plaque, Wisconsin State Capitol Rotunda

.

.

.

.

As is often the case, a Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ) article sent me on an interesting thought trajectory last week.

In a New Years Day 2011 article, WSJ author Chris Rickert wrote, “I approached a handful of more-or-less randomly chosen (Madison) people who aren’t exactly celebrities (but aren’t exactly unknown either) about coming up with resolutions for Madison.”

The Greek word "atheoi" αθεοι ("those who are without god") as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12, on early 3rd-century Papyrus"

When thus approached, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) atheist Annie Laurie Gaylor suggested the following resolution for Madison: “just say no to the (St. Paul’s Catholic Student) Center‘s unreasonable demand for a tax-free, 14-story dormitory and religious addition.”  Apparently this Madison atheist’s primary concern for 2011 seemed to be preventing the replacement of UW Madison’s Catholic student headquarters. (!)

Questions immediately came to mind:

St. Paul's from 1909

• Why would opposition to the Catholic Student center be so high on an atheist organization’s priority list?   (The replacement will be funded by private donations, and replaces an existing Catholic Student center, which has been in existence at that location since 1909.)
• Why is MY Catholic religion being singled out by the atheists?  (The atheist’s objections did not include other campus religious groups or buildings, or their tax-exempt status.)
• Isn’t the atheist being inconsistent? Isn’t atheism a religion as well?  Aren’t atheists simply opposing OTHER people’s religions in preference to their own? Why would they particularly single out Catholicism?

Searching the UW Madison student organization website, atheists came up as the second listing under RELIGIOUS student organizations– Atheists, Humanists & Agnostics @ UW-Madison. So atheism is listed as a religion at UW, along with Catholic student groups, Muslim student groups, and others.

If the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is so opposed to religion, what are they specifically opposed to?

According to dictionary.com, religion is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

• Is FFRF opposed to exploring the cause, nature and purpose of the universe?
• Does FFRF deny the right of others to believe in a superhuman agency (as 80% of Madison and 80% of America does)?
• Is FFRF opposed to a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs?
• Are atheists not contradicting themselves, since they also adhere to a system of beliefs and are listed under UW Madison religious organizations?

My curiosity piqued, I visited the Freedom From Religion Foundation(FFRF) website  “about” page, where I found the statement:

“The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.”

Abraham Lincoln

Hmmm….according to FFRF, so much for considering contributions to Western civilization by Jesus Christ, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Johann Sebastian Bach, Michelangelo, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, G.K. Chesterton, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Clarence Thomas, Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa………?

The FFRF “about” page goes on to claim ownership of prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, abolition of capital punishment, the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, and more, for people who are “free of” religion.

Johnny Cash

A brief historical tour of these topics does not support FFRF’s claims—no one group had a monopoly on reform in these areas, and numerous religious people were involved, including famous names like Abraham Lincoln and Johnny Cash.

.

A visit to Wikipedia’s entry on FFRF indicates that FFRF maintained a sign in the Wisconsin State Capitol during the Christmas season, which reads:

FFRF sign at Wisconsin Capitol

.

“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds.”

-A disturbingly intolerant statement about many religions, particularly for a city like Madison, which prides itself on its University, its intellectualism and its tolerance!

Consider a simple substitution in the last sentence of the sign:                                    “Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” instead of  “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds.”

How would FFRF tolerate the exhibition of that in the State Capitol on a gold sign for children to view?

The first line of the FFRF verse is also inconsistent with FFRF’s supposed mission; Winter Solstice, capitalized, refers to pagan celebrations, which are religious.  Is FFRF promoting pagan holidays, while opposing Christian ones like Christmas?  Hardly sounds like freedom from religion.

The FFRF Christmas season sign is an inconsistent curiosity at best, and surely would not be appreciated by 80% of Madison, who are Christian, when they bring their children to see the Christmas tree at the Capitol each year!

How many atheists are there, anyway? Wikipedia claims 2.5% of the world’s population, 2% of the U.S. population.

And of these, how many are so militant that they cannot tolerate a Christmas tree or a “Merry Christmas” wish?  The couple of atheists/agnostics I know have no problem with Christmas, and they participate in Christmas celebrations and Christmas giving with enthusiasm.  They are quite tolerant of the Christian majority in America, and enjoy the spirit of the occasion.  So what percentage of Americans does the FFRF really represent?  It is certainly lower than the total of all atheists, 2%.  The FFRF website lists their North American membership of 15,500, which is 0.003 of 1% of the population, or one in 33 thousand people.

City-data.com demographics list Madison as 53% Catholic, 22% Evangelical Lutheran, and only 10% of the population outside of Christian denominations.

So as we delve further into the facts, we discover that in the City of Madison, which is 53% Catholic and 80% Christian, and in the State of Wisconsin, which is 29% Catholic and 80% Christian, the insignificant number of militant atheists want to prevent Catholic students from replacing their Catholic student center at their own cost when membership swells.

Catholic students in front of St. Paul's

Perhaps it is the tax-deductible status of the Catholic Student Center that offends FFRF?  The Catholic student center is located between its brethren structures, Calvary Lutheran Student Center, and Pres House, the Presbyterian Student Center.  All three are religious institutions and all three are tax-exempt.  The FFRF is also tax exempt, and the UW Madison atheist student organization (listed under Religious Student Organizations) is tax exempt. So tax exemption cannot be the problem.

Does FFRF think that UW or the City of Madison will be paying for the new structure?

FFRF’s Annie Julie Gaylor stated:“(St. Paul’s Catholic Student) Center’s unreasonable demand for a tax-free, 14-story dormitory and religious addition.” — but St. Paul’s Catholic Center is not demanding anything from anybody.  They already own the location since 1909, and the new building will be paid for by private donations.

So the Catholic Center is not unique in its tax-free status. The Catholic students are not demanding anything from anybody.  Perhaps it is the expansion that FFRF is opposed to?

St. Paul's today

.

The expanded taller structure reflects the increase in Catholic students participating in the Catholic Center, and this is not surprising in a town which is 53% Catholic and a State which is 29% Catholic.  29 to 53% of the UW campus would represent about 11,000 to 21,000 students.  Does the FFRF, representing between 0.003% and  2% of the population (this would correspond to between 1 and 800 students), wish to deny the 80% Christian majority access to religious organizations and dormitories to support the student population’s interests and priorities?

.
In a world in which litigation has much power to intimidate, small groups such as the FFRF have made some headway toward abolishing the rights of self-expression guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The FFRF, with their $5 million fund balance, their half-million dollar yearly income, and 15,000 (North American) membership, is a small organization at best.  Yet FFRF has made some inroads towards stifling the freedom OF religion guaranteed to us in the United States– primarily by filing lawsuits against public expressions of religion.

FFRF should be reminded that the preposition used by the founding fathers in the Bill of Rights is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. They should be reminded that they are the guests among a majority of religious people in this country, who exhibit more much tolerance towards FFRF than is reciprocated.  And in preparation for the next time our freedom OF religion is threatened by frivolous FFRF lawsuits, we should start a Freedom OF Religion Fund to pay for the defense of the Bill of Rights against militant atheists like FFRF.  We 80% Christians and 90% religious people in this country, as well as the 8-10% tolerant atheists/agnostics/unsure believers, would prevail against the aggressive and intolerant attitudes of groups like the FFRF if we woke up, got organized and took action.

FFRF should take a lesson in tolerance from Bishop Morlino, another one of the people consulted by WSJ for this article’s New Year’s resolutions for Madison.  Bishop Morlino did not suggest stifling FFRF’s plans, challenging their tax-exempt status, or interfering with FFRF in any way.  Bishop Morlino suggested some daily quiet personal introspection for everyone in Madison– which Annie Laurie Gaylor would be wise to consider.

The headline “Pope decries Christianophobia in Europe” really caught my eye!

Pope Benedict XVI

This Reuters report sure has a catchy title, and we should be pleased with the attention that intolerance and discrimination against Christians is getting.  I am particularly heartened, since one of my most active blog categories is “Don’t Diss My Church.”

Living in liberal Madison, WI, and reading the United States liberal media, one cannot help but notice the intolerance and discrimination suffered by Christians, who have even been intimidated into the fear of wishing someone “Merry Christmas” on a national holiday which even the government observes.

However, let’s be careful of what words we attribute to the Holy Father—he is a bit too diplomatic to use sensationalism, and he did not actually say “Christianophobia.”

Vatican Emblem

On Dec 16, 2010, Pope Benedict published a really elegant treatise on Religious Freedom – “MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE (1st January 2011).”  In the message written to world leaders, the Holy Father discusses the essential role of religious freedom in establishing peace, and mentions the intolerance and discrimination suffered by Christians, particularly in Europe.  The Reuters article, other than putting the word “Christianophobia” into Pope Benedict’s mouth, encapsulates many of the Holy Father’s points well and is worth reading. The Pope’s message is particularly worth reading.

The term “Christianophobia” is worthy of some discussion in itself.  Aside from appearing in the Reuters report, “Christianophobia” is also discussed by the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, and is analyzed in the Observatory’s 5 year report on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, which states:

“Christianophobia or Christophobia are common terms that describe the phenomenon of intolerance and discrimination against Christians. The term consists of the words „Christian“ or „Christ“ and „phobos“ (φόβος) which means “irrational fear”. The term means therefore an irrational animosity towards Christ, Christians, or Christianity as a whole. As Christianity is familiar to Europeans, and antagonism against Christians is not due primarily to an „irrational fear of the unknown“, we have chosen to use the phrase Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians when speaking about this phenomenon.”

Semantics aside, it’s great to see Pope Benedict’s message reported by the media, and secretly I really enjoyed the sensational spin Reuters put on the message – Pope Benedict’s diplomatic and humble manner does not always get him the attention his brilliant writing deserves!

It is even possible that Reuter’s use of the word “Christianophobia” is not as sensational as it first appears.  Given the dwindling familiarity and dwindling level of knowledge of Christianity prevalent in Europe and in many United States locations today, the Observatory 5 Year Report’s definition of Christophobia as an antagonism stemming from a lack of familiarity or of knowledge, might after all be the correct description for the animosity commonly seen towards religion today.

“Not a hundred people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”

-Bishop Fulton J Sheen

What a maelstrom of media discussion one confused AP reporter provoked this week!

Media stories have claimed– among other things– that “Pontiff blesses condom use ”-Boston Herald.  Most of the commotion stems from one Associated Press story repeated by numerous news sources.  A bad choice was made by the Associated Press reporter regarding what to highlight from a 256-page book interviewing the Pope.  The results were pretty striking and misleading.

The Pope did NOT say that condom use is approved by the Catholic Church.

The original AP article seriously misrepresented the Pope’s position on condoms, and most copies of that original article have been pulled off the web – a cached copy is available online .

There would have been no story, no need for clarification, and no media Catholic-bashing fest if the AP reporter had reported the Pope’s statements accurately and had done some minimal homework in order to represent the Pope’s statements correctly.

Read what the Pope said in the book for yourself: Light of the World

Read a responsible, Catholic, in-context discussion of the actual meaning of the condom statement: Catholic World Report

The list of topics the AP reporter passed over and discounted (256 pages) in favor of one out-of-context condom reference include:

• What caused the clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church?
• Was there a “cover up”?
• Have you considered resigning?
• Does affirming the goodness of the human body mean a plea for “better sex”?
• Can there be a genuine dialogue with Islam?
• Should the Church rethink Catholic teaching on priestly celibacy, women priests, contraception, and same-sex relationships?
• Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics?
• Is there a schism in the Catholic Church?
• Should there be a Third Vatican Council?
• Is there any hope for Christian unity?
• Is Christianity the only truth?
• Can the Pope really speak for Jesus Christ?                             Light of the World
• How can the Pope claim to be “infallible”?
• Is there a “dictatorship of relativism” today?

Yet one more example of media misrepresentation of the Catholic Church.

So many common false urban myths about Catholicism seem to surface in online discussions every time Catholicism is discussed, and this week is no exception:

1. The suggestion that the Catholic Church is synonymous with pedophilia is completely false—in fact, the Catholic Church is the LEAST offender in this area —  .

2. Most people misunderstand the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. They presume wrongly that the Church’s opposition to promiscuity implies the hate of homosexuals. The Catholic Church opposes promiscuity in any situation, heterosexual or homosexual – promiscuity results in STD’s, as well as emotional and psychological damage to individuals, to the family, and to society . Homosexual promiscuity is equally as damaging as is heterosexual promiscuity.

3. Additional Catholic-bashing references to false urban myths include obtuse incorrect references to the Inquisition, claims that the Catholic Church is losing membership, and insulting references to liturgical vestments.

• “ the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.” – Catholic Answers.
• Catholic Church membership is actually INCREASING, at a rate slightly higher than the rate of population increase –Wikipedia.
• References to Catholic vestments can be compared with the British Monarchy — and with our modern customary wedding garb . Is God worthy of fewer honors than human monarchs, or our own wedding ceremonies?

Anti-Catholicism is the last politically correct prejudice still unquestioned in America.

For fear of lawsuits and reprisals, Madisonians have stopped challenging most groups on exercising their freedom of choice – they do not challenge racial groups, non-Catholic religious groups, or ethnic groups for their choices and lifestyles.

Why do you expect Catholics to defend their choices and beliefs? We do not attack you demanding you to defend why you like to go to the Overture Center, the Chazen Museum, the Capitol Building, or to Taste of Madison.

Some of the criticisms of the Catholic Church in Wisconsin State Journal discussion are preposterous.

• Madison’s Capitol building is very grand and imposing, as are numerous affluent banks around the Capitol Square and the Overture Center. Yet some suggest that Catholic Churches in Madison are too extravagant. Catholic Churches are very humble by comparison. Apparently you respect government, money and entertainment sufficiently to tolerate imposing accommodations for these activities, but you want to require people who hold God in high esteem to grovel in humble surroundings.
• There is a similar double standard in the criticism of statues in Catholic Churches. The display of photos in one’s living room, of paintings in the Chazen Museum, and of portraits and statues in government buildings seems to be acceptable in Madison, yet when the Catholic Church honors the memory of important people with paintings and statues, suddenly you decide that this constitutes idolatry.
• Finally, the portrayal of the Catholic Church as an institution laden with money is completely false. The Diocese does not receive one penny from Rome, nor is Rome wealthy (except for the value of her “Capitol building,” which requires maintenance, just as Madison’s does). Those who sue the Catholic Church are suing the Madison citizens in the pews today. When Diocesan coffers are depleted by lawsuits, the same critics attack the Church for insufficient charitable service to Madison (which still exceeds the charitable service provided by the City of Madison).

This double standard constitutes bigotry and generates false and vile urban myths about Catholicism.

“Not a hundred people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”

-Bishop Fulton J Sheen

Two disturbing events this week, involving intolerant and uncivilized attacks on Bishop Morlino of Madison by liberal activists:

• Activists shouting down Bishop Morlino during the “Our Father” at a rally defending marriage

• Front page article attacking Bishop Morlino in a Madison local paper, the Isthmus

Further information:

NOM (National Organization for Marriage) Rally:

National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) Brian S. Brown describes the intolerant reception and harrassment they have experienced from gay activists on the NOM summer tour of twenty-three cities –includes baiting a 5 yr old child (asking her if she is being raised by her mother to be a bigot), harrassing a nursing mother, and storming the stage and screaming into NOM microphones.

Bishop Morlino’s speech — –Bishop is drowned out and shouted down by gay activists while reminding marriage supporters never to gay-bash, and while leading marriage supporters in the “Our Father.” This video includes police stopping activists from approaching the speaking Bishop. Another video shows a portion of the Bishop’s speech, with gay activists shouting.

Julaine Appling’s speech (Wisconsin Family Action President), harrassed by gay activists.

Senator Grothman’s speech — also harrassed, points out that no other group shouts down and drowns out other people’s rallies– asks whether the gay activists are afraid that people will hear what the marriage supporters have to say?

EWTN article, “Same-sex marriage backers boo Bishop Morlino’s prayers at Madison rally.”

Isthmus newspaper’s front page attack on Bishop Morlino:

Isthmus attacks Bishop Morlino, and local Catholics defend him in online discussion …a paid atheist participates and loses the debate.

Te Deum Laudamus analyzes the Isthmus article.

Eponymous Flower writes “Liberals hate Bishop Morlino of Red Madison, WI.”

Eucharistic Adoration for Priests mentions the Isthmus attack and Quotes Bishop Morlino’s endorsemnent Rosary for the Bishop , of prayer for Bishops.

Gay blogger discusses whether Gay intimidation of marriage supporters would have been more effective if they had used silent intimidation in place of booing and shouting.

Sign up to support Bishop Morlino with a monthly rosary.

Sign up to add your name to Bishop Morlino supporters online.

.

Here goes TIME Magazine again, dissing my Church………

June 7, 2010 TIME Magazine cover:

Why would the June 7, 2010 TIME Magazine cover lie so blatantly about Pope Benedict?

• Pope Benedict HAS apologized about the scandals ( what a saint! — he is innocent of all the charges that were thrown at him starting during Holy Week).
• The terrible problem of sexual abuse of children is rampant in all sectors of our society, but the Catholic Church has the lowest incidence of offense of all groups. Children are (and have always been) safer in the hands of the Catholic Church than they are at government schools or in their own homes.

• Finally, Pope Benedict has been at the forefront of developing procedures for the safety of children, which now make the Catholic Church a model for all other institutions on how to deal with child abuse prevention.

So WHY is TIME Magazine (and the NYTimes, as well as other extreme liberal media) attacking the Pope so blatantly, with old charges which have already been disproved?

They do this because the Church is the single largest, most centralized and most powerful voice threatening to undermining their extreme liberal agenda in the world today. The Church does this by proclaiming the truth courageously, and by standing up for the innocent and downtrodden. Most recently, the courageous actions of the US Bishops in opposing abortion in health care have irritated the extreme left.

Since the extreme left has no valid ammunition, they attack the Church with lies. And so the persecution of the Church continues…. ironically, the last round started up during Holy Week, with attacks peaking on Good Friday. Why TIME Magazine is trying to resurrect these now outdated issues on their June 7 cover is a good question.

More information:

Setting the Record Straight-Zenit

George Wiegel

Syte Reitz, April 28 ’10

Revealing Statistics – National Catholic Register

12 Things You Should Know About the U.S. Scandals – NCR

“Not a hundred people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”

-Bishop Fulton J Sheen – found in the Ultimate! Catholic Trivia 1001 Fun and Fascinating Facts by Scott Frush – Marshall Rand Publishing

-quoted by Cynthia (Cindy) Brewer, Editor, The Catholic Lighthouse, Diocese of Victoria, TX