Obama to Revoke Bush Abortion Rule Protecting Conscience Rights

By Tim Waggoner
WASHINGTON, February 27th, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

President Barack Obama is poised to rescind a policy that protects the conscience rights of American health care workers.

The controversial rule was put into place as one of the last acts of the Bush administration and came into effect on January 20 of this year, the same day as President Obama's inauguration. The rule was universally condemned by the pro-abortion lobby who argued that allowing physicians to opt out of controversial services or procedures would endanger women's health.

The policy protects health care workers from being forced to perform and provide controversial services that conflict with their personal, moral and religious beliefs. Without the policy, doctors, nurses and others could be forced to participate in abortions or to dispense the abortifacient morning after pill, even if to do so would violate their core beliefs.

The proposal to rescind the Bush rule was quietly put forward by the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department today.

An anonymous official from the HHS announced the measure this morning, saying, "We've been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written it could make it harder for women to get the care they need."

The decision was welcomed by pro-abortion leaders.

Nancy Keenan of the pro-abortion group NARAL said, "We have a long way to go before we fully undo Bush's anti-choice legacy, but President Obama's action today is a giant step forward."

"Today's action by the Obama administration demonstrates that this president is not going to stand by and let women's health be placed in jeopardy," said Cecile Richards, head of the Planned Parenthood Federation.

Proponents of the rule, however, say its removal will violate the legitimate reservations of millions of American health workers and have condemned Obama for beginning his presidency by pursuing a radically anti-life agenda.

Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (HLI), today lambasted President Obama for his decision to reverse the Bush administration policy.

"Any pretense of 'moderation' on life issues was long ago dispensed with," said Fr. Euteneuer. "With the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, the appointment of dozens of radical anti-life cabinet members and staff, the enormous increase in funding for contraception and irresponsible sex advocacy, and now these grave insults to human life and dignity … one shudders to think what could be next."

"It's as if the president and Congress are trying to outdo each other for the dishonor of who can forward the most extreme anti-life agenda," said Father Euteneuer.

"Like everyone who believes in human dignity, I am tired of these cowards in Congress trying to sneak these destructive, anti-life measures into bills that are supposed to be helping our country emerge from this recession," said Fr. Euteneuer. "And I'm tired of President Obama's 'Choice for me, but not for thee' hypocrisy. His audacity is not of hope, but of the destruction of freedom and human life."

The Living Flame of Heavenly Fire

The concept of Heavenly Fire is often discussed as though it is something to be feared when actually, it is something that needs to be embraced by the soul. It is actually the life breath of the soul that makes it stronger and more fervent in preparation for eternal life with Our Lord in Heaven.

Do not be afraid of this fire when it presents itself. Step into it and become part of it. When you do, you will feel the overwhelming calm of God's perfect love for you and you will then be able to spread that love to everyone you contact.


The "living flame of love," of which St. John [of the Cross] speaks, is above all a purifying fire. The mystical nights described by this great Doctor of the Church on the basis of his own experience corresponds, in a certain sense, to Purgatory. God makes man pass through such an interior purgatory of his sensual and spiritual nature in order to bring him into union with Himself. Here we do not find ourselves before a mere tribunal. We present ourselves before the power of love itself. Before all else, it is Love that judges. God, who is Love, judges through love. It is love that demands purification, before man can be made ready for that union with God which is his ultimate vocation and destiny. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 186-187

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven… sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. —Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1030, 1472

Beloved, do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening to you. But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly. (1 Peter 4:12-13)

Archbishop Chaput Speaks on Abortion, Obama, and Catholic Responsibility

By Steve Jalsevac
TORONTO, Ontario, February, 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

On a bitter cold February 23rd night at St. Basils Church on the campus St. Michael's College, the University of Toronto, Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput delivered to a near capacity audience what was likely the most forthright and challenging talk on Catholic political responsibility ever given in Canada by a bishop.

The Archbishop had been invited to address the themes from his book, "Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life." He presented some background and thoughts on the book and then discussed the US election and the meaning of true hope.

Chaput began by noting the powerful negative effect of today's culture on the public's ability to think clearly about political implications and responsibilities. He stated, "American consumer culture is a very powerful narcotic. Moral reasoning can be hard, and TV is a great painkiller. This has political implications. Real freedom demands an ability to think, and a great deal of modern life…seems deliberately designed to discourage that."

The Denver prelate emphasized the importance of forming "a strong and genuinely Catholic conscience" and following that conscience when voting.

However, Catholics with such consciences are often intimidated for doing so. Chaput explained that was one of the reasons he wrote his book: "Frankly, I just got tired of hearing outsiders and insiders tell Catholics to keep quiet about our religious and moral views in the big public debates that involve all of us as a society. That's a kind of bullying. I don't think Catholics should accept it."

Catholic participation in politics concerns our obligation to "the pursuit of justice and the common good in the public square" and "is part of the history of salvation", the Denver bishop proclaimed. He indicated that few are exempt since "Tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil."

He expanded, "we have a duty to be politically engaged. Why? Because politics is the exercise of power, and the use of power always has moral content and human consequences." Chaput challenged, "if we claim to be 'Catholic,' we need to prove it by our behaviour. And serving other people by working for justice, charity and truth in our nation's political life is one of the very important ways we do that."

As for those who separate their faith from their political actions, the author of "Render Unto Caesar" called it a denial of Christ. "That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus."

The archbishop revealed that he was previously a long time Democrat who worked on political campaigns, including that of Jimmy Carter, but he no longer belongs to any political party. He warned, "The sooner Catholics feel at home in any political party, the sooner that party takes them for granted and then ignores their concerns." Many Christians have complained of this in recent decades.

Driving the point home forcefully Chaput added, "Party loyalty for the sake of habit, or family tradition, or ethnic or class interest is a form of tribalism. It's a lethal kind of moral laziness. Issues matter. Character matters. Acting on principle matters. But party loyalty for the sake of party loyalty is a dead end."

Pro-life, pro-family leaders have often been dismayed by their Christian leaders' lack of courage on the issues that matter. Chaput addressed this, again with his unusual frankness for a bishop: "modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice."

Some of the Archbishops harshest words, yet still delivered in his calm, friendly speaking manner, were for those Catholics who supported the election of President Obama.

"A spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused prolifers of being too cozy with Republicans."

Chaput explained, "all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil."

He continued that Catholics must witness to their faith and moral convictions, "without excuses or apologies" and that "in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs" as so many have referred to Obama.

Barack Obama was elected "to fix an economic crisis", Chaput stated, and not "to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion." He warned, however that this "could easily happen" and "will happen" - "but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it."

The archbishop's frank admission of the Church's culpability for the current situation was likely something few in the audience had ever heard from a Catholic bishop. Chaput confessed, "The Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years. And now we're harvesting the results -- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives."

On abortion, Archbishop Chaput, was as direct and blunt as any pro-life leader could dream to finally hear from a Catholic bishop. He insisted that for Catholics, abortion should be a litmus test. "One of the defining things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their respect for human life; and specifically their rejection of abortion and infanticide. We can't be Catholic and be evasive or indulgent about the killing of unborn life. We can't claim to be "Catholic" and "pro-choice" at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads - to a dead unborn child."

Addressing the recent increase in pro-life spokesmen stating that efforts to change laws are futile and we should instead attempt to lessen the numbers of abortions, Chaput stated, "We can't talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible."

Chaput challenged the hypocrisy of Catholics calling themselves Catholic and then voting like pagans, He stated, "if we don't really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we're something we're not."

Although it was admitted that Catholics need to "do a much better job of helping women who face problem pregnancies", Chaput added the crucial perspective that, "we don't "help" anyone by allowing or funding an intimate, lethal act of violence. We can't build a just society with the blood of unborn children."

On the issue of hope, proclaimed incessantly by the Obama campaign, the archbishop taught that real hope "has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers" and "for a Christian -- hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is "no, we can't," instead of "yes, we can."

"The word "hope" on a campaign poster may give us a little thrill of righteousness," said the Denver Archbishop, "but the world will still be a wreck when the drug wears off. We can only attain hope through truth. And what that means is this: From the moment Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," the most important political statement anyone can make is "Jesus Christ is Lord."

During the question and answer session following the lecture, a question was asked about the sometimes unmet responsibility of bishops to prevent pro-abortion speakers from addressing Catholic college functions.

Archbishop Chaput stated that bishops "welcome the input of the laity" and added, "If they disagree with us (bishops) it's really important that we hear that. We need your support, but we also need to hear your concerns if you think we make decisions that are contrary to the good of the Church." That was a surpringly refreshing response to some listeners who have experienced very different results from contacting their bishops on such matters.

In response to a question on the serious problems with the Catholicity of Catholic schools, Chaput emphasized the importance of "working on the principals and the people who manage the schools" as the best way to improve the Catholicity of the teachers.

On the abortion issue again, the archbishop said he was "astonished at the number of Catholics in my diocese who are pro-choice and who come to Mass every day." He repeated, "I am astonished."

In response to a question on ecumenical relations, he stated that Catholics now "have very little in common with the mainline protestant churches because we separate on the issues of life and marriage and embryonic stem cell research". Chaput noted that the Church has recently developed a deeper relationship with Evaneglicals "because we share a passion for the foundational issue of life and for the in some ways equally foundational issue of the meaning of marriage.

In response to a question about the possible excommunication of pro-choice Catholics, the archbishop was emphatic that he saw it as being completely ineffective and counterproductive. He stated it would be "percived as random use of his POWER to hurt people rather than to deal with issues of the truth." The archbishop further derided that use of a bishop's authority and concluded, " I don't think it works and that is why I don't do it. I don't think there are bishops who think it does work. We just don't go about that business these days."

Fasting and Abstinence During Lent

A lot of people are under the misunderstanding of the true meanings and differences between Fasting and Abstinence. Rather than doing without food (as some people are not medically-capable of doing) Fasting can also take the form of doing something you would otherwise avoid doing. It can be as simple as saying something complimentary to that certain person who annoys you or going out of your way to visit somebody who is lonely and brightening their day at the expense of a little of your time.

This article was ripped from the St. Benedict.org website and is here for your discernment in this season of Lent.

Lent is designated on the Ecclesiastical Calendar as a time of fasting and abstinence. What that means is that each day of Lent is a time when the faithful should practice abstaining from certain types of food, while also reducing the amount eaten.

Fasting and abstinence, as terms, originally meant the same thing. “Fasting” derives from a German word, while “abstinence” comes from Latin, and both originally meant to avoid eating certain foods while also eating less of them. Over the centuries, however, the terms began to assume separate meanings, and today, in the Western tradition, they mean two different things. “Fasting” means to reduce the amount of food eaten, while “abstinence” means to avoid eating certain types of food, such as meat, chicken or their by-products.

In the Western Orthodox tradition, Lent is a time to fast AND abstain. The Church tells us to fast each day of Lent except Sunday, and this means that we attempt to reduce the amount of food consumed at each meal or eliminate certain meals altogether. For example, a day labeled “fast” means that we eat one normal meal [without seconds], and one half meal, while eliminating the third meal altogether. A day designated “strict fast” is one in which no food is taken until after dark; at that time, a small meal may be consumed if it is necessary [Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are “strict fast” days].

Abstinence, on the other hand is only observed on Wednesdays and Fridays, and on these days, we not only reduce the amount of food eaten, but avoid certain types of food. This means that we limit our eating to fruits and salads on these days.

Clearly these are man-made rules governing the notion of fasting, and if they are man made, then they not the same as Divine rules. However, we have discovered some interesting facts over the twenty centuries in which we have practiced fasting and abstinence.

One point is that though the rules may be man made, the reasons for disobeying or ignoring them are usually the product of our sins. For example, we may not fast because we are slothful or lazy, or we put too many other things before this Christ-ordained discipline. We also may refuse to follow the rules of fasting because of the sin of pride, in that we don’t want anyone else telling us what to do or how to do it. Hence, we ought to fast simply to resist sin in us.

Another point that we have discovered is this: when left to our own devices, that is, left to figure out for ourselves how and when we should fast, most of us will end up doing nothing and fasting will be nothing more than a vague term in our spiritual vocabularies. That is why the Church lays out the rules of fasting; it gives us guidelines by which we MAY govern our spiritual lives in the discipline of fasting, and these guidelines are tried and true through 2000 years of spiritual experience. At least if we are following the Church’s discipline, we ARE doing it.

Lastly, fasting and abstinence are just plain good for us. We Americans don’t need to eat nearly as much food as we do, and the disciplines of fasting and abstinence force us to control our eating habits on a daily basis. That learned self-control can be nothing for us but good. The early Christian Fathers tell us that eating is the “door” to all the other passions; if we will learn to control our eating, we soon conquer the other desires as well. Fasting and abstinence provide the means for learning that control.

All Christians should try the disciplines of fasting and abstinence and Lent is a good time to begin. If you haven’t tried it before, attempt to add these two disciplines to your spiritual exercises this year and continue them until Easter. Try to willingly [plan your Lenten meals] reduce the amount of food eaten each day, abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays [and if you fail one day, start again the next], and see if it doesn’t make a difference in the way you control all of your urges, both spiritual and fleshly. Then you will have discovered both the treasures of Lent, and the joys and benefits of fasting.

How To Go To Confession

With tomorrow being Ash Wednesday, it is time for good Catholics to reconcile before heading into the Lenten Season. In case it has been a while, or you may feel nervous about going to confession, here is how it is done:

We often hear from priests who lead retreats or hear the confessions at this special place where Our Lady graced us with Her presence that "the quality of the confessions is so high when these people are here." Many times these priests will ask if it is just the nature of the people who are visiting or if it is due to some other influence upon these people during their visit that makes them immerse themselves more fervently into the sacrament of reconciliation. It is interesting that the priests would even consider the notion, but they are feeling "it" too. Perhaps it is a bit of both, but it sure seems like the gravity of the spiritual environment plays a very prominent role in placing people in the proper reflective spirit.

By Church law, Catholics are required to make a confession at least once a year. Others who are more inclined to the spiritual life, make confession much more frequently just as they might attend Mass more times throughout the week.

The quality of our confessions
Though many go to confession many times a year what is important is not so much the quantity of our confessions but the quality of our confessions. By this, it means that we are called to make good confessions.

A bad confession is done without the necessary preparation and without a contrite, humble, and penitent heart.

A good confession is done with the necessary examination of conscience and the qualities of heart and soul that are important to receive the grace of the sacrament.

Examination of conscience
Before going to confession, it is important to examine our souls. Most people usually hold their recent life experiences up against the ten commandments and the seven deadly sins: pride, lust, avarice, gluttony, anger, sloth, and envy. If any bells go off, they report them as necessary.

There is, however, another way of examining our conscience which focuses more on the status of the relationships in our lives. This takes a greater amount of introspection and individual discernment than just holding your own moral scorecard up to the answer sheet of the ten commandments and the seven deadly sins. It takes quiet time in the right setting. A place where Our Lady has prepared the environment especially for us to grow closer to Her Son.

When examining one's conscience this way, one should examine one's relationship with:
1) God
2) others
3) nature
4) our self

If we use these four parameters to examine how we fall short of Christ's teaching, then it will help us see where we have sinned.

Just as your doctor tries to create the proper setting and environment for your exam by having you abstain from food or medications before your procedures, so it is with putting yourself in the right setting and environment for a quality confession while on retreat at one of these pilgrimage spots.

You must be with God, with others, with nature, and alone with your self.

As you make your confession with the priest, this is what you will say:
"Bless me Father for I have sinned. My last confession was last ________.
Since my last confession I __(tell him what you have discerned)___... "

Keep it natural and conversational, but with all the qualities of heart and soul necessary to make it a good confession - humility, honesty, seeking mercy, penitent, sorrow for one's sins, etc...
a.. As you finish with your confession, wait for the priest to give some spiritual advice and encouragement and then bow your head for his absolution.
b.. Make sure you remember the penance the priest gives and perform it right after the confession lest you forget what the penance was. Many times we are so relieved of our tensions that we forget what we were told to do.
c.. After confession you should make the Act of Contrition.

This is the Act of Contrition:
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended You and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because I have offended You, my God, Who are all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen.

Our Lady of America Request to be Enthroned in National Shrine

The Blessed Virgin Mary wishes to be honored in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at Washington D.C. as Our Lady of America. Our Lady says that if this is done, the United States of America would turn back toward morality and the shrine would become a place of "wonders."

"I am Our Lady of America, The Immaculate Virgin" said The Blessed Virgin. "I desire that my children honor me, especially by the purity of their lives."

"Tell the bishops of the United States, my loyal sons, of my desires and how I wish them to be carried out," The Blessed Virgin Mary told Sister Mary Ephrem, who saw Her with a white veil reaching almost to Her waist and a mantle and robe of pure white with no decoration. An oblong brooch or clasp held the ends of the mantle together at the top. It was all gold, as was the high and brilliant crown she wore. Her hair and eyes seemed medium brown. Her feet were bare, but not always visible, sometimes covered by the moving clouds on which she stood. Often she smiled and revealed a heart encircled by roses that sent forth flames of fire.

This special devotion to Our Lady under this specific title of Our Lady of America, was first approved by Archbishop Paul Leibold and has since been reconfirmed as being Canonically-approved by Archbishop Raymond Burke. We are awaiting the USCCB's approval for enthronement in the National Shrine as Our Lady requests.

The Time Has Come For Us to Take Action and Make a Change

This personal testimonial was first published here 2 years ago. It is being re-run today because the urgency for this movement is hitting a critical stage and recent visitors(priests included)have reported similar events. So many people are coming to Rome City, even in the dead of winter, saying they felt Our Lady told them to come NOW! As true believers, we cannot afford to wait any longer. You don't have to be a visionary with special gifts to understand the signs around you. Our Lady is making it very clear. Now is the time for action!

Our Lady of America is calling Her children...ALL of Her children...to Rome City during this moment of CHANGE. Not the kind of change cheered for by our President, but a change to purity in our lives as a reflection of our love and commitment to Her Son Jesus.

Please join us in this effort by making your own pilgrimage to pray in the Our Lady Mother of Mercy Chapel or sending your prayers and donations to help us preserve this holy place for Our Lady's work. Millions of souls are at stake in this world. Our Lady needs your help NOW! We must safeguard this special site as we keep our eye on the US Bishops enthroning Our Lady of America in the National Basilica in Washington, DC




During the first Pilgrimage at Sylvan Springs in Rome City, IN, held on July 14, 2006, and at the same chapel where Our Lady appeared for the first time to Sister Mary Ephrem as Our Lady of America, I had a personal vision and inner locution from Our Lady of America during the praying of a group rosary of 15 decades and also the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

I was sitting on the side of the chapel where what is thought to have been the Blessed Mother's alter originally, and now has standing there a life size statue of the Lady of Lourdes. It is thought to be in the same approximate location of where Sister Mary Ephrem first saw Our Lady of America appear to her.

I have for many years said the rosary and use the rosary as a way to guide me into contemplative prayer when praying it alone. It is not unusual for me to go into contemplative prayer very quickly while saying the rosary if I DO NOT concentrate specifically on the Mysteries and intentions during my prayer time. I have always found when this happens it is the will of God or Our Lady for me to be in silence as the prayers are being said somehow or other in my head and heart. It is hard to explain, unless one goes into contemplative prayer on a regular basis, of what this is like. It is almost like multi-tasking---you are consciously praying and yet you are in deep silence and nothingness with the all Powerful God, -- somewhat like St. John of the Cross explains while being in infused contemplation. I am praying the complete rosary while in deep prayer to our Lord and also simultaneously being very open to ONE with Our Lord in silence. Always the peace that is felt after this happens is the greatest gift from God and I am able to go about my day very peacefully no matter what the day brings after this prayer time. I always, after this happens, feel very at ONE with everything and everyone in the entire universe---including people, animals, insects, plant life, etc. I feel so at ONE with all and I know I am ONE with all that I know for that short time I am totally ONE with GOD! Other times in contemplative prayer I am praying with God and doing healings- spiritual and physical for people who have asked for my prayers for their difficulties. And than there are other times God actually calls me to come and pray as a contemplative and infuses the silence and ONENESS into me without even using the rosary. But it always happens to me in a quite, or prayerful, peaceful place that I am unknowingly led to whether in a church or at home having quiet time or outside with nature.

There is a reason I feel I must explain this to you so you know though I have been in a contemplative state many times, and have had so many wonderful experiences during and after those times of Oneness and visions and inner locutions and messages, and also successful healings for people from intercession with the saints and Our Lady; that on that evening of July 14Th, 2006, I have never had anything like that happen to me in the way it did at the chapel at Sylvan Springs.

Usually while saying the rosary or prayer in a group I do not go into infused or deep contemplative prayer as I mentioned above. I remain part of the group prayer. That evening I prayed with the group starting with the Joyful Mysteries and going on to the Sorrowful Mysteries and by the time we came to the middle or so of the second Sorrowful Mystery I no longer was physically active or mentally active with the group. I have no explanation of what really happened, because it felt as if I was being called into infused contemplative prayer but it was Definitely Different! I could hear the group mumbling in the background but not make out the words, and I could feel my self gazing up at the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes and felt myself move my lips while continuing to pray the rosary, without I believe audible sound, at my pace as if I were completely alone, but knew I wasn't. I had no real thought of what I would call it at the time of when it was happening to me but I knew it was different than anything I had ever experienced with visions, healings, and the total of oneness with the (absence of even being) as one feels in contemplative prayer.

I cannot tell you for sure how long I was in this state. I do know it had to be awhile because as I mentioned I left the group internally around the second Sorrowful Mystery and did not come back into the group until the 2nd or 3rd. decade of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. So I am guessing 15 to 20 minutes more or less, I really don't know. I was aware of continuing to pray the rosary over and over, but cannot remember if I was saying it in order or not. I just remember moving my lips to the Hail Mary, Our Father, and Glory Be. I never stopped praying even as the vision appeared. (But when the vision appeared I was completely alone with no one around that I was aware of. I don't know how long that was unfortunately in our time, but it seemed very short to me.) If I had to guess I would say the vision appeared soon after this leaving the group internally happened to me.


The vision was of Our Lady of America and she was slightly behind the life size real statue of Our Lady of Lourdes. She was to the statues left, but to my right as I gazed up at her, and I could see them both, with peripheral vision, I would guess, as I saw our Lady of Lourdes statue as I was seeing Our Lady of America's vision. And I do not doubt the only real vision was of Our Lady of America. The statue just appeared in my vision sight at the same time. I feel strongly---- because of that there is a connection between the two Blessed Mother's in someway but I have not yet been privy to it. (Maybe that is something someone else will pick up on.)


What made this vision more unusual was that I saw her crown with all the 7 points and even mentally counted them along with the colored jewels. The crown was so clear I could see every detail of the grain of what appeared to be metal, but I cannot be sure of the material. I saw the crown sitting on her head with what looked like a somewhat white veil off to both sides of the crown at a 45 degree angle and perhaps some hair, than her face. What is very unusual here is I did not see any detail in her face. I just saw the shape of her face and what appeared to be perhaps a veil and some hair and on down to what looked to be her neck and than the rest of the vision of the body was hazy and misty and seemed to diminish down from there to a mistiness. She was life size. The vision stayed exactly that way the whole time I gazed at her and prayed the rosary, and I have no idea how long she was there, but she never changed in appearance and I always had a peripheral view of the statue of Our lady of Lourdes next to her but more out in front; as I said Our Lady of America was a bit further back and to the side of the statue. (At least that is how her crowned appeared to be in comparison to the statue. She was one dimension and the color of the crown was a brilliant deep gold and the jewels were of blue, green, red, and yellow and her face and what appeared to be a veil and perhaps some of her hair appeared a very misty light gold in color, almost more as a reflection from the crown. The reason I feel I may have seen part of a veil is all around the deep brilliant gold of the crown and the misty gold color of her face and perhaps hair was some whiteness to each side of the face. Not pure white, but definitely a different than a light misty gold as her face. (I APOLOGIZE IF I AM REPEATING BUT I AM ACTUALLY SEEING IT IN MY MIND'S EYE AS I WRITE IT. (I don't think I will ever forget it!!! )


At some point I heard her say to me very, very clearly in a very pleading voice "Get me There."! I knew she was speaking directly to me, and I felt so helpless from the tone of the voice and words I heard. If I could add a word that was not said just to let you know how desperate the voice sounded I would add the word "Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaase Get Me There"!! I answered almost immediately, I believe, "How?"-- (also in a very desperate voice and feeling, as I remember moving my lips and what I was feeling as I said it whether audible or not.) -- I also said it a couple of more times in my mind to her---"How?", "How?" Unfortunately I never received an answer. But I could feel her concern and knew immediately she was speaking of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. I just knew it, I never thought to ask where?. Perhaps that is because it is where we all know she wants and needs to be; but if it were some place else I KNOW she would have told me. She was giving me a message and she would have wanted it to be clear even if short. Her plea was imminent to do it quickly, and she herself seemed to have her own concern of not getting there in time. (Actually for me, this was the first time I felt she might not make it in time. I have always felt the time was short but we would get her there in enough time.) That night I was not as sure!! It was very unsettling for me because of the request and the helplessness I felt. I felt as a child who was disappointing her mother!

Sometime very soon after that I was back with the group as I heard them saying the Divine Mercy Chaplet which I had not said with Our Lady during the vision. I then realized I had lost quite a bit of time and was very aware of everything around me, including a man snapping pictures and leaning to the side of me about a foot away from my face. I was later told he had been there for quite some time. He wanted to know what I was holding in my left hand as I was looking at the statue. I told him it It was the 1st. class relic of St. Padre' Pio and I just said that to him simply. I was a bit irritated that he was right on top of me and asking me questions during the chaplet.

After all of the praying and healing was over this girl came up to me and started to ask me questions as to what type of experience I had. I was quite surprised that she would have asked since she should have been praying and not paying attention to me. No one else but she and the photographer seemed to notice. To most people it was as if I was not there. At this time I had said nothing to anyone. She asked many questions regarding the relic I was letting people pray with and finally I asked her who she was. She than told me who she was and said she knew I had had some type of experience during the rosary because the man taking pictures of me for a long period told her he came to me because of the look on my face and that I had not blinked my eyes for at least 10 minutes if not longer and appeared to be in a daze. That is when I realized I first realized I had not been blinking and the only thing I had ever read about people not blinking and being so deeply almost hypnotic is during an experience of Ecstasy!. I am not saying that is what it was, but it was different than anything I have ever experienced in all my prayers and visions and it was as real as anything that has ever happened to me in my life! I know no one can go that long without blinking their eyes without severe eye damage unless they are in some sort of hypnotic state, if what he was telling me was the truth. I honestly cannot tell you if I were blinking my eyes, because for me it was as if my body was not even there though I know it was. This was definitely not an out of body experience!!!.

I will not draw conclusions as to what happened to me, as I am not one to want to bring attention to myself under these circumstances. I feel what happened to me was meant to happen, period! I feel what happened to me can happen to anyone if they are open to things like that at a particular time and are willing to go with the flow of what the Holy Spirit is probably very involved in and not use their free will to stop what is to happen. I do not feel as if I was to keep this information to myself, but I do feel it was only to be shared, at this time, until it is right, with a few people who might be able to help Our Lady in her plight to be brought with dignity and love into the Shrine!

What happens from here will be in the hands of Our Lady, God and the people who are open to the spirituality that is so desperately needed in our world, and can hopefully do something with this. If it includes me fine, if not that is fine too!! We all have a part in this life and are meant to do what we are meant to do. I just allowed the Holy Spirit to work through me that night as many of us do and should continue to do, and be able to perhaps share and get Our Lady a bit closer to Sister Mildred's goal and Our Lady's wish!

God Bless Us All and help us to Love All People, All life, and to become One with the Whole Universe which will make us One with God!!!

T.W., South Bend, IN

Archbishop Chaput Says Pelosi Should not Receive Communion

By Kathleen Gilbert
DENVER, Colorado, February 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)


Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver expressed his support in an interview with Fox News for Pope Benedict XVI's message last week to pro-abortion "Catholic" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in which the Pope enjoined the Speaker to protect human life from conception.

"Every Catholic, whether you're famous or anonymous ... has a responsibility to be faithful to what our Church believes about human life, and we believe human life is sacred and precious from the moment of conception," said Chaput during the interview. Chaput also said he was happy that the Pope "took the occasion to remind her of something very important."

Asked to expand on Church teaching on abortion, Chaput said "there's no doubt" that the Church has always taught the sacredness of life from the moment of conception, and that "abortion is always wrong in all circumstances."

In an appearance on Meet the Press last August, Speaker Pelosi had attempted to justify abortion in light of her Catholic faith by citing St. Augustine's discussion of when the soul enters the living human fetus. She concluded that "the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition" on when human life begins.

"It's not a fairly black-and-white issue, it's a clearly black-and-white issue," said Chaput. "The Church without doubt believes that human life begins at conception."

Cavuto then pressed the archbishop: "Would you grant her [Pelosi] Communion in your church?"

Chaput responded, "I would like to talk to her if she were coming to a church in the Archdiocese of Denver. I would say to her what I would say to anyone: again, if you don't accept what the Church teaches, you shouldn't present yourself for Communion, because Communion means you're in agreement with what the Church teaches.

"As I said to you earlier, that applies to all of us, and I would expect her to abide by where the Church stands on these important matters."

Chaput rejected the notion that Pelosi's duty as a Catholic to protect life, even within a heavily pro-abortion culture, put her in a "box." "I don't think it's a 'box' to defend the truth and to stand up for what you know to be right, even if others in the community disagree with you," said Chaput, who added that Catholic politicians, as good Americans and good Catholics, have a duty to uphold "basic human rights."

"This is a human rights issue from the point of view of the Church, and not a theological or religious perspective," said Chaput. "Our religious perspective supports that, but that's not the source of our belief about the sacredness of human life."

The archbishop mentioned that he was "very disturbed" by the repeal of the Mexico City Policy, which had barred federal aid to overseas abortion providers, and rejected the notion that such a policy was essentially partisan. "I think that abortion should not be a partisan issue, it's a human rights issue, and it would be nice if people from both parties would take the right position," he said.

Archbishop Chaput is one of the most outspoken advocates for the unborn among U.S. bishops, and is the author of the book Render Unto Caesar, which examines the role of Catholics in political life.

Florida House of Reps Calls For Criminal Charges Against Abortionists

The Florida House of Representatives has issued a letter to State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle calling for criminal charges to be filed against all involved in the death of a viable baby that was born alive at a Hialeah abortion clinic in 2007.

The baby, Shanice Denise Osbourne, was delivered by unlicensed abortion worker Belkis Gonzalez, who cut the baby's umbilical cord with a pair of office scissors, then, while she was moving and struggling to breathe, shoved her into a plastic bag and tossed her in the trash. Gonzalez later stashed the baby's body on the abortion clinic roof to hide it from authorities.

Abortionist Pierre Renelique did not show up for the scheduled abortion and arrived only after the baby had been delivered and killed. Last week, the Florida Medical Board revoked his medical license based on his negligence in this case. A civil suit was filed against those responsible for Shanice's death earlier this month.

The letter, dated February 17, 2009 and signed by at least 40 members of the Florida House of Representatives, says to Rundle, "The undersigned Members of the Florida Legislature from both sides of the debate on this issue strongly urge you to take appropriate action against the individuals involved in these morally reprehensible acts."

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman commented on the recent development in the case, saying, "We know every detail of how this living baby was killed and we know who did the killing. There's nothing left to investigate. It's time to bring those responsible for his heinous crime to justice."

The Obama adnministration nor Nancy Pelosi, both pro-abortion, have issued any comments in this clinic's defense.

Petition to ban Communion From Pelosi and Other Pro-Choice Politicians

In the lead-up to Speaker Pelosi's meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, a nationwide petition project was launched requesting the Catholic Bishops of the United States to withhold Communion from her and other prominent Catholics in public life that obstinately persist in their dissent from Catholic teaching on serious moral issues.

This nationwide Withholding Communion petition was launched by Pewsitter.com, a Catholic News Portal. The goal of the petition drive is to gather a least 1 million petitions for presentation to the U.S. Bishops and the Vatican.

The basis for withholding communion is Canon 915, which stipulates that those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." Archbishop Burke, the head of the Church's highest court, reiterated his view on this subject in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews dated January 30, 2009, in which he stated, "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

Most Catholics don't know that in addition to Canon 915, Canon law also compels Catholics to take action. Canon 212 S3, states that the Catholic faithful have "the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church."

According to a Pewsitter.com release, "While the Catholic faithful understand and support the behind-the-scenes dialogue and diplomacy that goes on with prominent Catholics, by the Bishops, to reconcile them with the Church, when such dissent continues for years and in some cases decades … then it becomes necessary for a Bishop to take a formal public stand to prevent further scandal.

"Unfortunately," continues the Pewsitter release, "what has happened is that prominent, dissenting Catholics, in public life have continued to receive communion with impunity-and this has led to the false impression that the Church condones or at least tolerates such dissenting opinions on serious moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research to name a few.

"Not only do these prominent Catholics disregard the Church's teachings, but in many cases they actively and publicly promote policies and legislation that undermines, opposes and contradicts the Church's teachings. Examples of such Catholics include Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi, Vice President - Joseph Biden, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator John Kerry, to name a few."

To sign the petition, go to:

http://www.pewsitter.com/petition

North Dakota Has Life Right!!

By Kathleen Gilbert
BISMARCK, North Dakota, February 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The rights of unborn children gained a victory in North Dakota on Tuesday, as the state House of Representatives voted to recognize the personhood of all human beings, from conception.

"For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens," reads part of The Personhood of Children Act (House Resolution 1572).

Led by American Life League Associate group North Dakota Life League, North Dakota's Personhood Movement celebrated the passage of the bill, introduced by State Rep. Dan Ruby, in a 51-41 vote. A grassroots personhood campaign had spurred the outcome, with thousands of calls asking legislators to support the bill in its unaltered form.

"We are very excited about the personhood movement in North Dakota - which has the chance to become the first state to protect the rights of all its citizens from their biological beginning," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League.

"North Dakotans have gotten used to cold temperatures like -44 degrees, but they haven't gotten used to child-killing," said Cal Zastrow, a North Dakotan who took part in the grassroots personhood campaign along with his family. "We applaud and support their efforts to protect every baby by love and by law."

Fifteen other states are currently pursuing personhood legislation.

The Senate vote is expected in the next two to three weeks. North Dakota will become the first state in the Union with personhood legislation if the measure passes the Senate.

On Monday the state House of Representatives also approved an informed consent law requiring any woman seeking an abortion to be informed that the procedure kills a "whole, separate, unique, living human being." HR 1445 passed in a 61-31 vote.

"The North Dakota House did the right thing by strengthening the informed consent law," stated Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. "The state's last abortion mill will not, of course, be happy. Their business depends upon covering the truth, not conveying it."

Mexican State of Colima Amends Constitution to Protect Right to Life from Conception, 19-0

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
COLIMA, MEXICO, February 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

In an overwhelming 19-0 vote, legislators in the state of Colima, Mexico, decided Tuesday to amend the state's constitution to protect the right to life "from the moment of conception."

Article one of the state's constitution now reads: "Life is a right inherent in every human being. The State will protect and guarantee this right from the moment of conception. The family constitutes the fundamental base of society. The State will encourage its organization and development. For the same reason, the home, and particularly the children, will be the object of special protection on the part of the authorities. Every measure or disposition for protecting the family will be considered to relate to public order..."

The vote was held in response to an attempt by a socialist legislator from the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) (like Obama and Pelosi?) to legalize abortion on demand, following similar legislation passed in Mexico City in 2007. The legislature instead rejected the bill in a 17-1 vote last month, and has now acted to secure the rights of the unborn in the state from further assault.

The ultraliberal Proceso magazine openly attributed the victory to the influence of the Catholic Bishop of Colima (the capital of the state), Jose Luis Amezcua. The bishop organized a "march for life" in response to the legalization bill last month, and said that "the Congress needs to take to heart the approval of the constitutional reform to introduce into the document the idea that life begins from conception..."

However, the sponsors of the amendment denied that religion was the motivation behind the bill. "Medically it is established that the protection of the right to life should be awarded from the moment of the conception, and not as a dogma, but because medical science affirms that when the first chromosomic division occurs, immediately after ovular fertilization, the resulting genotype confers individuality on the new person," wrote the congressional committee that approved the measure.

Sponsors of the amendment included the Colima Governor Silverio Cavazos Ceballos (of the Institutional Revolutionary Party), a representative of the pro-Catholic National Action Party, and an independent legislator. The sponsor of the original bill to legalize abortion on demand, Adolfo Nunez Gonzales, abstained in the final vote.

Similar amendments have been passed recently in the states of Baja California, Sonora, and Morelos. However, the constitutionality of the Baja California amendment is now being contested in the nation's Supreme Court. If the Court rules negatively in the case, all similar amendments could be negated as well, making it impossible to defend the right to life at the state level.

Pope Rebukes Pelosi, Tells Her Catholic Legislators Obligated to Protect Life

By Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
VATICAN CITY, February 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Vatican insiders stressed to LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who describes herself as a "faithful Catholic," despite her abortion advocacy, should be taken as a firm rebuke.

LifeSiteNews.com also learned that concerns about Pelosi were presented to Vatican officials a day prior to the meeting.

Such encounters with the Pope are treasured by politicians for the photo opportunity they provide. Pelosi, however, was not afforded that customary photo by the Vatican. The AP reports that the Vatican said it was not issuing a photo of the meeting -- as it usually does when the pope meets world leaders -- saying the encounter was private.

For her part, Pelosi issued a press release on the 15-minute meeting with the Pope. "It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today," she said. "In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel."

The release from the Vatican, however, made no mention of the comments that Pelosi stressed in her release.

Pelosi's positive spin on the meeting is not being swallowed even by left-leaning Papal watchers. Vatican correspondent John Allen, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter, noted that "routine Vatican declarations after diplomatic meetings also generally sum up the range of issues discussed rather than concentrating on a particular point. In that sense, the statement can only be read as a rejection of Pelosi's statements last summer, and, in general, of her argument that it's acceptable for Catholics in public life to take a pro-choice position."

Allen also noted that "by issuing an unusual public statement after the session with Pelosi -- which insisted that all Catholics, including legislators, are obliged to work for the defense of human life from conception to natural death -- the pope also made clear there will no let-up in the pressure on pro-choice Catholic politicians to change their ways."

Many pro-life organizations from the US and Canada expressed their serious concerns to the Holy See that Mrs. Pelosi was going to be received by the Holy Father. Some of these organizations sent to different Vatican authorities comprehensive memoranda in which they showed in a detailed and precise way the anti-life statements and the pro-death voting record of Mrs. Pelosi.

Catholic sources in Rome, who asked to remain anonymous, said they were "very much encouraged by this statement," saying that it shows that the "Holy Father is ready to stand up with courage to politicians that claim they are Catholics but their voting record denies those hypocritical assertions."

Pelosi Looks For Photo Op With Pope But Gets Stiff Rebuke Instead

Pelosi Gets Taken To School by Pontiff
By John-Henry Westen
VATICAN CITY, February 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vatican insiders inform LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who fancies herself a faithful Catholic despite her abortion advocacy can be taken as a rebuke.
The text of the note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

12 Year Old tells It Like It Is and Leaves pro-Choice Teacher "Speechless in Toronto"

12-year-old "Lia" of Toronto has become a star at her school and on Youtube with her five-minute pro-life speech, crafted for a school competition. Despite discouragement and outright opposition, Lia's presentation was so well done that she reportedly won the contest she was told she would be disqualified from, due to the "
controversial" message of her speech.
Click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4

"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were gonna live or die?" begins the charismatic seventh-grader in a practice recording of the speech posted on Youtube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?
"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die. That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."
Lia, speaking easily and with sunny enthusiasm, fires off answers to several common objections in the brief speech.
"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?
"We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?
"Think about the child's rights, that were never given to it. No matter what rights the mother has, it doesn't mean we can deny the rights of the fetus," she said. "We must remember that with our rights and our choices come responsibilities, and we can't take someone else's rights away to avoid our responsibilities."
Lia's mother says that the topic was of her own choosing, and that she was determined not to back down, even after teachers told her it was "too mature" and "too controversial."
"She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition," Lia's mother wrote in the email to the Moral Outcry blog. "Initially, I tried helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about."
The mother told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the girl's homeroom teacher was supportive of Lia's speech even though she was pro-choice. "After helping Lia do the speech she said, 'It really got me thinking,'" the mom noted.

At the schoolwide competition, the mom said one pro-choice teacher on the judge's panel "didn't even want to hear" the speech, and stepped down from the panel before Lia began. After the speech, which Lia's family said was well-received by both students and teachers, the judges initially told Lia she had indeed been disqualified. But controversy among the judges eventually led to a reversal, and Lia's family learned the next day that the panel agreed the girl deserved to win the competition.

"There was a big stink about it, and we volunteered to step down .... but her teacher said 'No, she won fair and square, so she'll keep going on," said her mom. Lia is expected to present her speech at a regional competition tomorrow night, representing her school.

When asked what inspired Lia to pursue the topic so adamantly, her mother said it was "a little mystery."

While the family espouses pro-life Christian values, "it's not like we're out every weekend picketing," she said. "It was just something really deep in her heart, and she just felt really passionate about it." She added: "I kind of snicker when I see people on the Youtube video [comment box] saying 'Oh, her mother forced her to do this' - I'm like, 'No, I'm on the other end, trying to make her pick another topic!'

"But she was just really passionate about it, and she has her research on it," said the mother. "I really believe it's just something that God put in her heart.

The Time Has Come...to Excommunicate Nancy Pelosi. Biden next?

By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C, February 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

Reports have surfaced that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-avowed "Catholic" adamant abortion supporter, intends to head a delegation to Euope that will meet with Pope Benedict XVI.
Today the Drudge Report headlined a report by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) on Houston's KSEV radio that Pelosi hopes to pass the federal economic stimulus bill in time for her join the group, which reportedly leaves Friday evening.
According to Il Tempo, Pelosi will arrive in Rome Sunday afternoon, her first visit to the city since becoming Speaker of the House. It has not been determined when Ms. Pelosi plans to meet the Pope.
Speaker Pelosi has drawn severe criticism from Catholic leaders for her misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine in light of her extreme pro-abortion position.
In a Meet the Press appearance last August, Pelosi justified her support for abortion despite professing Catholicism by saying that "the doctors of the Church haven't been able to make that definition" on whether life begins at conception.
"The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose," she continued. "This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and - to - that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god."
In September Pelosi's bishop, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco, invited her to discuss witih him the abortion issue. Pelosi stated she would "welcome the opportunity," but there is no report of Pelosi having yet scheduled a meeting with the archbishop.
Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews.com that HLI will be briefing the Vatican "so they are aware of her dismal record on life issues.
"It is our hope that the Holy Father will not grant the floundering Speaker of the House what she surely wants and expects, a quick and valuable photo-op, but will rather give her a stern lecture on contraception and abortion and let her know that her eternal salvation is in danger," said Fr. Euteneuer.
"Further, this would be the perfect opportunity to formally excommunicate the Speaker, as she has done everything a public official possibly can to declare her lack of communion with the Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church on every conceivable issue."

Obama's Scheme To Steal a Pro-Life Vote in Senate Fails

by Steven ErteltLifeNews.com Editor

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Commerce Secretary post. The move is good news for pro-life advocates who worried about losing another pro-life vote in the Senate when every vote is needed to stop President Barack Obama's pro-abortion agenda.
Some pro-life advocates accused Obama of playing politics with the Gregg nomination because he knew it would remove a strong pro-life vote from the Senate.
Gregg said he would only accept the nomination if he could have an assurance that a Republican would be appointed by pro-abortion Democratic Gov. John Lynch to keep his seat with the GOP.
Lynch picked Republican Bonnie Newman to replace Gregg upon his confirmation, but Newman takes a pro-abortion position and would have cost the pro-life side another vote on key provisions.
Gregg said on Thursday that he couldn't continue on with the confirmation process for the Cabinet post because he disagrees too strongly with Obama's economic plans.
"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg said about quitting the nomination process.
"Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives," he said.
As a result of his decision, ""I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate," Gregg said.
To illustrate the importance of Gregg's vote, the Senate voted last month in an attempt to reverse the decision Obama made to rescind the Mexico City Policy. Obama issued an executive order to restore taxpayer funding to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.
The Senate defeated the amendment to bring back the pro-life policy on a 60-37 vote, with Gregg voting in the pro-life minority. With Newman in place, abortion advocates would have been closer to a 2-1 advantage.

Obama Leads Black Politicians to Ignore Rate of Black Abortions in USA...OVER 1450 Black Babies Put To Death Each Day in USA

Commentary by Pastor Stephen E. Broden, Senior Pastor, Fair Park Bible Fellowship
DALLAS, TX, February 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

I was struck by the noticeable absence of black elected officials at the January 22nd March for Life in Washington DC. Not one leader from the black congressional caucus was present. This was especially curious to me in light of the fact that the rate of pre-natal murder among black babies is higher than any other group in America.
Statistics about the numbers of abortions in the black community are now commonly reported on in major media throughout the nation. We have all heard and read of staggering numbers of pre-natal murders performed by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists; these numbers are appalling and frightening to all decent minded men and women in our community.
Over 1,450 black babies are murdered in their mother's womb daily, and three out of every four black pregnancies end in what might be termed a "womb-lynching." These facts are frightening and indicate that black women and their babies are the target of the 1.8 billion dollar abortion industry in America. These statistics demonstrate that there is a holocaust of epic proportions happening in our community. Why haven't our black elected officials responded to this malady? Black Americans elect politicians/legislators to protect their interest. Our interest includes a wide range of social, political, educational, and health related needs. However, our children should be first on the list of those who most need our protection and certainly the protection of our political leaders. The practice of pre-natal murder is without question having a deleterious impact on the very existence of our community. It has been reported by population demographers that 2 to 2.5 children per household are required in order for a population to replace itself. The number of children being born in black households across America is less than 1 child per family. The black community is not replacing itself and no doubt pre-natal murder is a major contributing factor. The silence of the Black Congressional Caucus is unthinkable when the community they serve is at the door of extinction. Pre-natal murder is the 900-pound gorilla in the community. Its impact is far more devastating than AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, and drug abuse. Needless to say the combination of all of these pathologies will wipe us off the face of the American map if we don't do something about them now, starting with pre-natal murder. So, the absence of black elected officials at this extraordinary event, which was designed to bring national attention to a practice that is murdering countless numbers of babies annually, is more than just a curiosity, it's a down right rotten dirty shame! The community is starting to take notice of those who tacitly watch the destruction of our babies and our women. You who deliberately withhold power and influence to stop the insanity of pre-natal murder will be held accountable come Election Day!

Black Students for Life to Obama: “What About Equality for All?”

Commentary by Lawson Lipford-Cruz, President, Black Students for Life
WASHINGTON, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

This is Black History Month and the air is just beginning to settle on the fact that the United States of America finally has a black President.
The inauguration of the first African-American president fell in conjunction with Martin Luther King Day, and because of this, we were able to reflect upon the journey, the struggles and our achievements as Americans and most importantly as human beings.
It is truly difficult to fathom what must have been going through the minds of those from the Civil Rights era. They faced brutality and death and for a time it must have seemed that there was no light at the end of the tunnel in the quest for equality. Black people simply wanted to be known and treated as equals after being relegated to second class citizen status for literally hundreds of years.
Although I am a child of the eighties and nineties, and therefore removed from the horrific lynchings and battle to defeat Jim Crow laws, I still feel a sense of catharsis.
As a child, I remember when someone who looked like me was not even allowed to be the main character in a Hollywood movie (without being a stereotype). I remember white kids in the playground telling me that it was wrong for me to "like" a girl unless she was black, which would have posed a problem since there were very few black kids at the private Christian school I attended.
Sadly, I recall an ignorant peewee football coach called me a nigger during practice. I was only 11 years old!
The point is, we have all experienced racism and it is true that the election and swearing in of a black president seems to drop a hammer on those things that we have struggled against. I must reiterate, however, that it is cathartic in that sense, because there are still some big problems here. How do we not see history repeating itself?
Babies are the new second class citizens. We are still being lynched, but instead of being hung in a tree, we are lynched in the womb. How is it that a helpless baby can be brutally killed, then tossed aside so easily and without consequence?
I wish President Obama the best of luck, and I think he is an intelligent man with basically good intentions for our country, but what good are those intentions if he refuses to see value in all Americans? I still don't understand how he can call a baby a punishment. I don't see how he can live with himself, believing that a harmless baby who survives abortion should be ruthlessly killed anyway.
How is it that black people who lived through the long struggle for equality and experienced racism and violent hate crimes can now not want to fight this fight against the slaughter of the innocent? I strongly feel that status, size and the abilities of a human being are not proportional to the degree in which they are deemed important.
My hope is that President Barack Obama and all of our political leaders will fight for all human beings. I hope and pray that the underdog - in this case, small children - will someday soon have a chance at life.
I didn't cast my vote for our new president, I couldn't. Many of my friends didn't understand why - many were very angry with me. But I had to stand firm. I told them: I'm pro-life and I cannot be "cool" with a president who does not stand for the things that I stand for no matter what. Abortion is wrong - dead wrong!

Visitor's Photos

Taken on July 14, 2001

"Bring Me My Children. Bring Me All of My Children!"

Taken after Friday Night Rosary

Taken in The Spot Where Our Lady of America

first appeared

Diamond-shaped image dropped down from sun and was visible to naked eye.

Atop Holy Family Hill

Bishop Martino Warns "Pro-Life" Sen. Casey to Rescind Abortion Vote or Else be Complicit in "Hideous Evil"

SCRANTON, Pennsylvania, Februrary 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)

In a letter to Sen. Robert P. Casey, the bishop of Scranton Pennsylvania, Joseph F. Martino, strongly condemned the Pennsylvania Democrat's vote against an amendment reinstating the Mexico City Policy in spite of the senator's claim to be "pro-life."
“Your vote against the Mexico City Policy will mean the deaths of thousands of unborn children," wrote Bishop Martino. "This is an offense against life and a denial of our Catholic teaching on the dignity of every human being. This action is worthy of condemnation by all moral men and women.”
The Martinez Amendment to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy that disallowed U.S. taxpayer funding of international abortion-promoting organizations before President Obama struck it down Jan 23. The amendment was defeated in a vote of 60-37.
In his letter, Bishop Martino condemned Sen. Casey’s vote against the Martinez amendment which would have prevented “over 450 million dollars of American foreign aid ... [from going] to organizations that are militant in promoting abortion as a method of population control, particularly in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds.”
The bishop also urged Sen. Casey, a Catholic who has touted a strong pro-life identity, to rescind the vote. “Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy,” said the bishop.
A release issued by Sen. Casey’s office the day after the vote said that “Restrictions on the federal funding of abortions are in place both domestically and overseas." The release cited the Helms amendment, which disallows foreign aid from paying for abortions directly.
Bishop Martino’s letter pointed out that the Helms Amendment does not restrict recipients from using their own money to provide abortions, and does not deny money to organizations that lobby to dismantle the legal protections for unborn children in foreign governments, as the Mexico City Policy had done.
The bishop commented on the irony of the Senate having voted down the amendment the same day it signed legislation granting greater access to health insurance for children. "What hypocrisy offers health insurance to children in one part of the world when children in another part will be deprived, by the stroke of the same pen, of their first breath?" wrote Martino.
"I recognize and respect the burdens that you bear as a United States Senator; however, I remind you that your responsibilities as a Catholic bound by the faith of the Church exceed even those of your office."

Just How "Catholic" is the Catholic News Service?

By Ronald J. Rychlak, University of Mississippi School of Law

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill proposed in the 110th U.S. Congress, declared that “it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.” If passed and signed into law, it would overturn virtually every legal restriction on abortion, including limits on partial-birth abortion and parental notification. While on the campaign trial, President Obama said: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” In fact, he was one of 19 senators who co-sponsored the legislation.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has strongly opposed the Freedom of Choice Act. In a statement entitled The Freedom of Choice Act: Most Radical Abortion Legislation in U.S. History, the USCCB’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities argued that FOCA would go “far beyond even Roe.” Among other things, “FOCA will bar laws protecting a right of conscientious objection to abortion.” In other words, Catholic hospitals could be forced to perform abortions.
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance, said at the November bishops’ meeting that passage of FOCA “could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely…. I do not think I’m being alarmist in considering such drastic steps.”
Imagine, then, my surprise to open our diocesan newspaper only to read in a Catholic News Service story written by CNS reporter Nancy Frazier O’Brien: “no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act…. [T]he Freedom of Choice Act died with the 110th Congress and, a week after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, has not been reintroduced.”
O’Brien referenced the Catholic Health Association’s president, Sister Carol Keehan, in order to explain that FOCA “poses no threat to Catholic hospitals or to the conscience rights of those who work there.” She went on to quote Bishop Robert N. Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., a member of the CHA’s board of trustees, saying: “there is no plan to shut down any hospital if [FOCA] passes.… There’s no sense of ominous danger threatening health care institutions.” O’Brien blamed concerns and “confusion over FOCA” on “misleading e-mails,” “false Internet rumors,” “blogs and Web sites,” and “anti-FOCA groups” on Facebook.
A close and very generous reading of the quotes in O’Brien’s article leaves some room for interpretation about what the people were saying. Sister Keehan seemed to be suggesting that Catholic hospitals could oppose the law in a passive way without compromising their ideals, the way people fought for civil rights in the 1960s. The same might arguably be said of Bishop Lynch, especially since quotations might be taken in different contexts. O’Brien, however, left herself no such wiggle room.
This piece is clearly intended to soften up Catholic opposition to FOCA and to the Obama administration. O’Brien tries to assure readers that FOCA poses no threat to Catholic sensibilities; there is no danger. She actually argues that the new administration has had a whole week, and it has not yet reintroduced the legislation. In fact, she explains, FOCA is dead.
The USCCB does not see things that way. It is currently conducting a postcard campaign to “Fight FOCA.” The related USCCB web page explains that “many pro-life laws and policies are subject to attack and reversal. The new Congress includes the largest number of pro-abortion members since 1993.” The bishops go on to explain that “63 pro-abortion groups have publicly submitted a comprehensive 55-page blueprint for their agenda to the incoming Administration. Passing FOCA is a priority….”
The author of a piece like O’Brien’s, of course, is primarily responsible for its content, but there are others. Those who were quoted in the article, if taken out of context, need to clarify their positions. The Catholic News Service decided to publish and distribute the article despite the clear position of the USCCB. Frankly, the article is so out of line with everything we know, even those diocesan newspapers that ran it should have known better.
Our bishops have taken a strong leadership position on FOCA. Other Catholic leaders and entities should follow their example. Unfortunately, the CNS article by Nancy Frazier O’Brien seeks to undercut them.

Vatican Official: Bishops Have no Choice But to Refuse Communion to Pro-Abort Politicians

By Hilary White
ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.
He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."
"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."
Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.
Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.
In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.
Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.
"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."
"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."
In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.
"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."
Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."
"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"
Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."
"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."
When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.
"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."

Charlie Frost Announces The End of The World in 2012

To show just how preposterous some of these rumblings of the "doom and gloomers" has gotten, just click here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foZP3ytogCU

Ignorance is bliss. Faith in Jesus and Our Heavenly Father is the answer.

We'll have more to say about this point at a later date.

Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"

By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Actor Gary Graham knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the Hollywood elite.

Yet a blog column posted last Tuesday by the seasoned actor, known most recently for his roles as Ambassador Soval in the TV series "Star Trek: Enterprise" and Capt. Ingles on "J.A.G.", took an unflinching look at truths almost entirely ignored by those in the Hollywood establishment.

"I’m going to say what millions know in the front of their brains, and many, many more millions know in the depths of their hearts … but won’t allow themselves to think it, much less feel it," wrote Graham. "And believe me, I know I’ll be hated for saying it, I’ll be hated by people who don’t know me, have never worked with me, have never golfed with me, had a drink with me.
"I’m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."

Graham described the irresponsibility of his youth that made abortion the convenient option for a drug-fueled, “free-love” lifestyle. He confessed to having paid for multiple abortions for girlfriends, observing that abortion “sure took the pressure off of me, a guy, interested in sex who had been raised in the era of, ‘Hey, you get a girl pregnant, you marry her!’” But then, he says, a "spiritual awakening" brought him to a "tearful epiphany of what it meant for a man to be with a woman, what sex was really designed for by our Creator and … what abortion is.

"I truly wish that I had had this conviction way back when…when I was only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day," wrote Graham. "But I didn’t want to know, I didn’t want to think about it. It was inconvenient to think about it."

He noted that the widespread acceptance of abortion "says volumes of how our entire culture has been coarsened," and "How life itself has been cheapened.”

"We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it’s tacitly encouraged ... But if you should get pregnant and it’s just not a ‘convenient’ time for you, don’t worry, there are Family Planning Services. ... That inconvenient fetus can be surgically ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash like so much garbage.

"Problem solved, and the mother can resume her egocentric lifestyle. But the scars on that woman’s soul will never quite heal. I’m a man, but I’ve got them on mine."

Responding to those who call for abortion to be "legal but rare," Graham asked, "Why rare?
"What’s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare occurrence? I’ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don’t tell us that a mole removal should be rare. So what’s with this ‘rare’ business? Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion … is plain wrong?

"Try this exercise: Every time you hear someone use the phrase '…a woman’s right to choose…' mentally complete the phrase with the following words – '…to kill her baby.' That’s what the argument’s about. A woman’s right to kill her baby."