Lisa Graas

The Vatican is conducting a review of women’s religious orders in America, called an “Apostolic Visitation“, in order to “strengthen, enhance and support the growth” of women’s religious institutes here. Speaking at a conference on Wednesday, Cardinal Franc Rode’, prefect of the Vatican office conducting the inquiry, shared some insight regarding what has been learned so far and how it relates to the current vocations crisis:

“The crisis experienced by certain religious communities, especially in Western Europe and North America, reflects the more profound crisis of European and American society. All this has dried up the sources that for centuries have nourished consecrated and missionary life in the church.

“The secularized culture has penetrated into the minds and hearts of some consecrated persons and some communities, where it is seen as an opening to modernity and a way of approaching the contemporary world.”

It seems this inquiry is giving credence to what many in the Church have been saying for a very long time. When the core teachings of the Faith are not preserved and promoted, vocations dry up.

Read more at Catholic Exchange.

Today I shared some analysis of Sarah Palin in terms of life issues via email exchange with a pro-life group. I submit it below for readers.

With respect to the voice she brings to all those who are affected in life issues, the power of Sarah Palin is in the fact that she is a pro-life mom and career woman. Though she has never sought to make these things the core part of her public message, her status as both a political giant and a pro-life mom are unquestionably the reason that the ‘news’ most generated in our pro-abortion culture continues to center around stories that seek to cast some sort of doubt on her motherhood. Palin, just by virtue of who she is and who she can become in our society, has the power to utterly destroy the argument that women must kill their babies if they are to have any hope of greatness. Merely by being a life-affirming, successful woman, Palin exposes the lie that abortion liberates women. Even further, she has embraced a child who has a disability which prompts roughly 90% of other women in the same circumstances to reject the child. Either consciously or unconsciously, pro-abortion forces who now dominate America’s public discourse, in contrast to America’s true underlying culture, seek to destroy Sarah Palin because of her clear and shining example that their ideology is, in fact, oppressive to the dignity of both women and children. If the notion survives, whether through Sarah Palin herself, or perhaps in years to come in the achievements of a young lady now inspired by her, that a life-affirming woman can achieve great things, the pro-abortion argument will lie in ashes in the pages of history.

~~ Lisa Graas (a.k.a. Mommy)

If you are experiencing a crisis pregnancy, please contact Priests for Life, Alternatives to Abortion. Oh, and this is for you, too.

Elizabeth Lev, writing at Politics Daily, rightly calls out Nancy Pelosi for her failure to speak the truth regarding what the Catholic Church teaches on abortion. You may recall that Lev is the daughter of Mary Ann Glendon, a heroine of mine for refusing Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal in light of that institution’s invitation and honor of President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in America’s history.

Pelosi has consistently misrepresented the teaching of the Church on abortion and other issues. Lev refrains from calling for Pelosi to be excommunicated, but many do call for that, so I think it’s best that I explain for non-Catholic readers what excommunication is, what it is not, and why Lev is correct in not calling for it.

First, excommunication is not “membership removal”. The Catholic Church doesn’t have the power to remove membership from one of her members. Baptism makes one a member of the Church, and baptism can never be erased by anyone, not even the Church. That’s not to say that every member will go to heaven, though. As St. Peter said, there are those of whom it can be said: a dog will return to his vomit. Some will make the choice to reject Life in God, but membership removal, per se, is not within the authority of the Church.

Excommunication is a penalty. It is the barring of the individual from receiving Holy Communion. In fact, it is the most serious penalty the Church can impose on an individual, so it is never done lightly.

It’s important to note that excommunication is only done as a means of bringing that person back to the Faith. It’s sort of a “wake-up call”. If a person’s bishop believes excommunication might serve to bring that person back to the Faith, he might go through with the penalty. If excommunication would serve to drive that person farther away, then it’s not an appropriate penalty and would, in fact, be detrimental to its own intended purpose. Excommunication, then, really is a question that is best resolved between the individual and his bishop. Presumably, Lev understands this and it’s the reason she did not call for Pelosi to be excommunicated.

We can speculate on whether or not excommunication would be a wake-up call for Nancy Pelosi — after all, she is a very public person who is very publicly misrepresenting core teachings of the Catholic Faith and will gain in power and wealth for doing so — but she has had private conversations with her bishop on this and it really is up to him to decide if it’s an appropriate penalty for her individual soul. It’s not for us to make that determination despite the public nature of the issue.

Excommunication should never be used as public advertisement to show the people-at-large how serious the Church is about issues. It’s only to be used on a case-by-case basis as a “wake-up call” for the individual. Lev is right, then, to refrain from calling for Pelosi to be excommunicated.

Having said that, it’s the responsibility of faithful Catholics in public life to strongly speak out against Pelosi’s public pronouncements that are contrary to our Faith. Lev is acting with dutiful courage in not shying away from pointing out in a very public way the very public errors of this powerful woman.

I’m glad that the sometimes forgotten principle of “invincible ignorance” appears in the article. “Invincible ignorance” is not a term we hear much anymore, sadly, so it’s comforting to hear it used, particularly in an article about Nancy Pelosi. Unfortunately, probably due to space constraints, Lev didn’t elaborate on what “invincible ignorance” means.

As Jimmy Akin explains, “invincible ignorance” refers to ignorance that is so deep, one can’t possibly come to an understanding of the truth on a matter. Lev correctly states that this could only be the case if Pelosi has been subject to “severe doctrinal deprivation (as distinct from mere opportunism or a malicious desire to harm the church to which she claims to ‘ardently’ belong).” In short, the question is whether or not Pelosi has sincerely attempted to find out what the truth is and been turned back by an inability to comprehend it, or is she consciously engaging in dissent against what she knows the truth to be?

One point that Lev could have made in her article, but didn’t, is the fact that the stakes are higher for Pelosi and her bishop than they are for the average person. Faithful Catholics well understand the pronouncement of Christ in Luke 12:48 — “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required.”

It’s common to hear a Catholic quote Luke 12:48 as John F. Kennedy stated it: “For of those to whom much is given, much is required” or shortened to “To whom much is given, much is required.” In this spirit, we Catholics have been known to say, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops” because so much is required of our bishops. Much has been given to Nancy Pelosi and to her bishop. Much will be required. They both need our prayers.

Do read Elizabeth Lev’s article on Nancy Pelosi. Though missing some important background information, it’s on target.

Tags: Abortion, Apologetics, Catholicism, Excommunication, Nancy Pelosi

I post this video from time to time………because it’s my favorite. As we enter a new year, I thought it might be a good time for the ‘Why Am I Catholic’ video. Also, this morning I resurrected my old sacra*MENTAL* blog which speaks of mental illness from my own Catholic perspective. If you know a Catholic with mental illness, please pass it along to them. Thanks.

Tags: Catholicism, mental illness, sacram*MENTAL*

A pro-lifer asked me tonight about Ron and Rand Paul’s abortion position. I’ve already elaborated on this at length on this blog. I want to share with you my response to the questioner. I have a theory about why Ron and Rand Paul are actually supporting their incompentent ‘Sanctity of Life Act’. I wonder if my fellow pro-lifers out there might agree or offer additional insight regarding the Pauls’ reasoning for this legislation.

My email to a concerned pro-lifer is as follows:

Rand Paul supports his father’s so-called ‘pro-life’ legislation which says the unborn are “persons” but that the states can allow abortion ANYWAY. Judie Brown of American Life League says it is aptly called “pro-abortion” and not merely even pro-”choice”, because it defines the unborn as “persons” and lets the states allow abortion anyway. It only had two sponsors in the Congress when he introduced it, yet he claims to be more pro-life than National Right to Life, who has never supported him in any way because of his radical ideas about how to “end” abortion. The reason his “pro-life” bill is incompetent is because he doesn’t recognize the 14th amendment to the Constitution to be valid. See, under the 14th amendment, if someone is defined as a “person”, it means states are BOUND to protect their right to life. Since he doesn’t view the 14th amendment as valid, he ignores the fact that his bill’s defining the unborn as “persons” automatically gives them protection.

My personal belief is that Ron Paul is using the unborn as a tool, hoping to get pro-life groups to support him, to get his bill passed, JUST SO that he can bring about a Court challenge and thereby challenge the entire validity of the 14th amendment. That’s just my personal theory about what his reasoning is for the bill. It’s either that, or he is incompetent. His primary position is that abortion is a “states’ rights” issue. He doesn’t understand (or doesn’t care) that Roe V. Wade “Constitutionalized” the so-called “right to abortion”, therefore the only way to end it is to have a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution or to have a reversal of Roe from the Supreme Court bench whereby the justices say the unborn child is a “person” which would automatically give the child 14th amendment protection against state legalization of abortion. He’s either using the unborn as political tools, or he is incompetent.

Readers may have noticed that I’ve linked a few times to a blog called “Too Kooky for Kentucky” which attempts to expose the fringe views of Ron Paul and his son Rand who is running in the GOP primary for our Senate seat. I have found this blog to be mostly on target in its analysis of the Pauls’ views on matters that are not the views of mainstream Kentuckians and it’s been helpful to me as a resource.

It’s been said that the blog is run by a Trey Grayson supporter, or even the Grayson campaign itself. Paul supporters take issue with my linking to it and consider this to be some kind of proof of support for Grayson. Let me be very clear regarding my opposition to Trey Grayson’s candidacy. I share Ron Paul supporters’ serious, passionate and well-placed concerns about Trey Grayson in regard to his being the McConnell machine candidate.

Chris Cillizza has reported clearly on Grayson’s attachment to McConnell.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is making his candidate preferences known in two Republican primaries — hosting a fundraiser in New York City on Dec. 7 to benefit former New Hampshire attorney general Kelly Ayotte and Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, according to a copy of the invite obtained by the Fix. Ayotte will face at least two candidates in the GOP primary — businessmen Ovide Lamontagne and Bill Binnie — while Grayson is being challenged by Rand Paul, the son of Texas Rep. Ron Paul. The National Republican Senatorial Committee made news last week when it made clear it would not involve itself financially in contested primaries. But, McConnell’s involvement for Grayson and Ayotte make clear where the “smart money” is in these primary fights.

I’m no Grayson supporter!

Having said that, it is of even more concern to me that the incompetent Rand Paul is being held up as a credible candidate by nationally known conservative organizations like Concerned Women for America and Erick Erickson of Red State……even though Red State had previously noted (rightly so) that a Rand Paul win in the primary would be good for the Democrats here. You’ll have to see that quote at Too Kooky for Kentucky since access has since been removed from Red State. In endorsing Rand Paul, groups like Red State and Concerned Women for America have thereby become FAR too kooky for this Kentuckian.

No one could argue with a straight face that Rand Paul is not part of a machine himself. “Grassroots” supporters of the Ron Paul network from across the nation are undermining the grassroots of Kentucky by throwing their “money bomb” into the Commonwealth which has the impact of greatly diminishing the chances of the only competent, non-establishment conservative candidate for Senate here — Bill Johnson.

Make no mistake, there is a three-way race here in Kentucky. Two candidates — Rand Paul and Trey Grayson — are machine candidates and the other – Bill Johnson — is the only one whose policy positions are truly representative of the views of Reagan conservative Kentuckians. As a diehard supporter of Sarah Palin — one who has worked tirelessly for her online since September of 2008, I can bring myself to support no other candidate in this race and, truth be told, I have been appealing to her PAC for an endorsement of Bill Johnson. My endorsement of Johnson is not based on money, machines, polls or kooky ideas. It is based on three things only: Reagan conservatism, competence and integrity — qualities that neither Grayson nor Paul possess in enough quantity to gain the privilege of my giving them the time of day.

Although I am opposed to both Grayson and Paul, I have been going after Rand Paul almost exclusively on this blog. My reasoning for this is because I do not consider Grayson to even be on the radar of true patriots here in Kentucky. Just as no person can say with a straight face that Paul is not a machine candidate, neither could anyone say with a straight face that Grayson has the support of grassroots conservatives, particulary the tea party movement, in Kentucky. I believe in the power of the conservative grassroots to get the word out about Grayson and believe his poll numbers will decline considerably as time goes on. Getting the word out about Paul’s extreme positions has become “Job One” for Johnson supporters because we understand the dangers his positions pose as well as the unlikelihood that true Constitution-minded Kentuckians will support Grayson.

Rand Paul IS “too kooky for Kentucky”. As noted in Bill Johnson’s latest press release, Paul’s positions on some critical issues are extreme and do not reflect the views of most Kentuckians. Johnson is going to be criticized for calling Paul’s views “extreme”, but in my research on Rand Paul’s positions, I’ve found his characterization to be right on target.

The issues that personally concern me the most have to do with our Constitution. It has been utterly mind-boggling to me to see some of the arguments Rand Paul supporters have been giving me in response to my criticism of his support for his father’s abortion legislation. It’s my responsibility to report these things as honestly as possible, so I took it upon myself to look further into their claims that the 14th amendment does not protect the unborn. What I have found has been shocking to me.

In my investigations online to determine the Paul camp’s agenda on this issue, I have learned that it is not due primarily to animosity toward the unborn that Rand Paul supports his father’s bill, though I would argue that such animosity may play a role. It is, in fact, the Paul movement’s animosity toward the 14th Amendment itself that has resulted in Paul’s incompetent legislation.

Observe, for example, these comments by Ron Paul supporters found at Liberty Forest / Ron Paul Forums, in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment:

“[T]he 14th Amendment was never legally ratified.”

“I’d like to see it scrapped. It is the basis of all adhesion contracts tying ‘US citizens’ to the state.”

“This 1862 5 dollar bill has a statement on its face that refers to the ‘United States’ as plural. All the post-14th Amendment references I can find are singular. What did the 14th Amendment change that is reflected in such language. I believe it may be something profoundly nefarious.”

Some try to undermine the 14th amendment by saying it “legalized slavery“. When a cynic wants to disprove the validity of something, he will go to virtually any rhetorical length to do so. Thankfully, not all libertarians buy into this sort of nonsense. Libertarian Terrence Watson lays out “The Case Against Ron Paul” in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment.

In arguments that may sound pro-life because they are critical of Roe, Paul has implied that the Fourteenth Amendment may be deemed “the imaginary Constitution“. This disdain for the Fourteenth Amendment may explain how Rand Paul and his father can call themselves adamantly pro-life while supporting legislation that denies the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections to the unborn.

Animosity toward the Fourteenth Amendment in the Paul camp is not the only problem I’ve found, though. Paul supporters also rather commonly support secession. Paul expressed his support for secession in an interview with Mike Church and lamented the fact that the Founding Fathers didn’t specifically allow room for secession. He also lamented the fact that Texans don’t have the political power to secede.

That would have been worthwhile. But I think secession probably isn’t going to happen. I think the talk is very positive. But I think it’s going to be close to nullification, that we won’t be seceding. But if governments – let’s say Gary North is right, and they can’t put it back together, and Social Security doesn’t work at all, people are just going to take it upon themselves to totally ignore the federal government. So we might be more loosely knit a nation. And maybe these conditions will force us to bring our troops home. So it can’t be all bad. But I don’t anticipate that all of a sudden we in Texas will secede from the Union and get away with it [laughing].

Further, Paul supporters (and Paul himself, in that interview) support something called an Article V Convention. Watch “Beware Article V” for more on how utterly irresponsible this is and the dangers to our liberty if Article V is invoked in the absence of massive public support for its specific intentions coupled with Congressional sentiment being on the side of the people simultaneously. How likely is that? While the prospect of the Article V Convention may seem appealing to many who value the power of the people, it would actually put unprecedented power into the hands of the Congress. Watch the video linked for an explanation. Perhaps this is why an Article V Convention has never once been invoked in America.

Rand Paul supporters claim their candidate is the only real defender of the Constitution in this race but these views are based on very fringe ideas regarding our Constitutional protections. In their love for states’ rights, they toss out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the federal government’s assurance against states’ violation of due process as enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment and by being willing to throw all power into the hands of Congress in the name of the perceived power they deem they would hold if state legislatures invoked Article V. It’s not enough to merely love the freedoms we have. One also must be responsible in exercising them. The Paul camp fails miserably on the question of competence to defend the Constitution.

We must stop BOTH the McConnell machine AND the Ron Paul machine here in Kentucky! I implore my fellow Kentuckians to Join Bill Johnson’s Special Forces to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Listen to Bill Johnson’s speech in Elizabethtown, November 17.

Don’t delay. Kentucky needs Bill Johnson!

Tags: Abortion, Bill Johnson, Constitution, Legislation, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Trey Grayson

Congressman Ron Paul, father of Rand Paul, will be coming to Louisville on January 30 in support of his son’s candidacy in the Senate race. The Bill Johnson campaign issued the following news release.

ELKTON — Former Navy officer and businessman Bill Johnson, GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, welcomed the visit of former Libertarian Party presidential nominee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas to Kentucky.

“Ron Paul has a national following of libertarians and as he comes to Kentucky, I appreciate the distinction he helps illustrate between the GOP candidates running for U.S. Senate,” Johnson said. Paul’s son, Rand Paul, told the Wall Street Journal (November 12) earlier this year he only has some minor disagreements with his father’s fringe positions, specifically mentioning the congressman’s position on earmarks.

Johnson said his positions have strongly contrasted with those of the Pauls. “I have a major disagreement with the Pauls’ unconstitutional ‘pro-choice for states’ position, disregard for civil rights, rejection of a federal marriage amendment, support for state legalization of narcotics, and weak military positions. Sure, earmarks are bad as well, but the massive debt is of greater concern,” he said.

Like his father, Rand Paul supports extreme libertarian positions. “Clearly, the current Democrat-controlled Congress and White House are bent on expanding federal government, with destructive power grabs on our economy and lives,” Johnson said. “Equally destructive is the libertarian extreme Rand Paul represents.”

Ron Paul voted against a resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those who agree with Ron Paul want to leave life-and-death decisions to the States. Even the author of Roe v.Wade, Supreme Court Justice Blackmun, said if the unborn are persons, they are constitutionally protected. Judge Blackmun denied the unborn personhood; the Pauls accept personhood — yet still deny the unborn rights.

This is not what Kentucky Reagan conservatives are seeking in their next U.S. Senator. “Our position is that a limited federal government has a legitimate duty, as stated in the Constitution, to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” Johnson said.

Bill Johnson is a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky. Johnson is a Gulf War veteran, businessman and concerned citizen fighting against the nonsense coming out of Washington. He stands for limited government, low taxes, strong military, gun ownership, marriage between one man and one woman, and believes life begins at conception. Johnson is committed to returning our great nation to the conservative values of Ronald Reagan.

###

Strangely, Joe Arnold of WHAS 11 is reporting that Bill Johnson “legitimizes” Rand Paul’s campaign. I’m unsure how calling out extreme policies “legitimizes” Rand Paul. Arnold also says that Johnson’s pointing to these extreme policies helps Trey Grayson. I think he may be correct about that in the short run, but it is doubtful that Grayson, the McConnell machine candidate, can continue to hold his lead in today’s political climate and considering the growth in Johnson’s campaign.

Kentucky supporters of Jim Bunning will find a natural home in the Bill Johnson campaign and he would be soaring toward victory as I write if only the playing field were level. Joe Arnold’s report, which counts Johnson out so early in the race, is an example of one of the many problems that decent and honorable, main street conservative candidates — who merely want to serve the people — face today in politics.

You can help us turn the tide. Join Bill Johnson’s Special Forces

Tags: Bill Johnson, Election 2010, Kentucky Politics, Rand Paul, Ron Paul

From the LA Times:

A year after the Supreme Court upheld a Mexico City law allowing abortion in the first trimester, 17 states have amended their constitutions to protect the unborn.

Pro-life citizens in Mexico are not taking this decision lying down. Good for them. Let’s pray for these defenders of life! Read the whole story here.

Hat-tip, New Advent

Tags: Abortion, Catholicism

Kentuckians who want to change political party affiliation to vote in the May 18 primary election must change on or before December 31. If you can’t make it to your local county clerk’s office, printable voter registration cards are available online at the Kentucky Board of Elections website. Cards must be postmarked Dec 31 or earlier.

Tags: Election 2010, Kentucky Politics

I’m going to keep hammering away at this because I don’t want a Democrat to be my Senator. James L, a Democrat at Swing State Project, offered an analysis of the recent PPP poll, which I consider to be flawed (partly because of reasons mentioned by Joe Arnold), wherein he notes the same vulnerability for Rand Paul that I’ve been talking about. Take heed as he itches for a Rand Paul victory in the primary.

Next, speaking only for myself, I’m not optimistic about this race if Grayson can squeak through the primary. Now, perhaps the national environment will improve enough to give a guy like Conway an easier shot in such a race, but I’m not going to hold my breath. However, if Paul can ride a wave of his own freaknut base and forge an alliance with the teabag crowd in the GOP primary, I like the general election a lot better. As we’ve mentioned many times in the past, Paul represents a weirder strain of conservatism, one that isn’t exactly a perfect fit for a mainstream Kentucky electorate. It’s possible that a candidate cut from his cloth could get swept into office if the national trends are that bad, but his libertarian views will be vulnerable against a competently-run Democratic campaign in a general election. It should be a very fun race to watch.

As I’ve mentioned previously, Rand Paul is understanding the above analysis to be true and has responded with notable flip-flops. While libertarianism won’t fly here, Reagan conservatism WILL. Conservatives who are tired of the establishment need to be getting behind Bill Johnson NOW. Otherwise, you’re going to end up with a Democrat in this seat. Join Bill’s Special Forces.

Johnson is gaining ground and is leading among women against both Paul and Grayson despite low name recognition, minimal press coverage and very little money compared to those guys.

Bill Johnson for Senate

Tags: Bill Johnson, Election 2010, Kentucky Politics, poll, Rand Paul