…who went through the Catholic school system and are culturally catholic but actually don’t know and don’t believe the tenants of the church who do the most to help people justify and ignore sins.

What he doesn’t know or more likely won’t acknowledge is that unlike people in a parish who might privately not agree with one or more tenants of the church, Pat Kennedy has publicly proclaimed his opposition to church teaching on a subject of intrinsic evil. For it is written:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea”.    Mark 9:42

Yet O’Donnell proclaims the Bishop who actually bothers to do what he SHOULD do for the sake of both Kennedy’s Soul and his own (since as a Bishop it would be a dereliction of duty to not address it.) he is marked as a “political hack” on both TV and radio.

Now if you want to argue that there is a political aspect to what the Bishop says fine, to call him a hack and say he is misrepresenting Catholic belief, only a person who doesn’t actually believe can say that with a straight face. I suspect he will continue to make these proclamations and keep his regular spot on Morning Joe and MSNBC while Bishop Tobin continues to do what he thinks is right for the soul.

Eventually the day will come when they both find out who is right and who is burnt. I presume O’Donnell doesn’t worry about and/or believe this is an issue. That is his privilege for the rest of his days.

After that he’s on his own.

You know lets do a quick three prayers for O’Donnell, an Our Father, a Hail Mary and a Glory Be. He may be a pain in the neck but you know what, his soul is just as worth saving as mine and I’d like to see both of us arguing politics some day when we are both done here. Maybe he can send an e-mail to Almightly Answers.

…because if you don’t you get egg on your face.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

The Left is rightly having a field day with it.

Ironically I’ll wager that any person who wanted an abortion at the RNC likely didn’t know it was there. This is why you always read the stuff you get. I’m sure this will be changed as conservative reaction is rightly negative, but there is a very interesting post at Macsmind:

First, I sell insurance for Cigna. It’s not true. There is NO opt out if you don’t want “elective abortion coverage”, the plan is what it is and contains what it contains. It’s a “universal coverage”. The issue is whether or not you would use it.

We know that only liberals do.

Secondly those anonymous employees – who could be fired for even discussing the specifics of any plan, and I will find out who they are, don’t know what they are talking about.

Most insurance plans have some type of “elective abortion” coverage when the mother’s life is in danger, except for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida – which covers NO abortions for any reason. By the way it’s the plan most Democrats carry in South Florida.

One could not expect the RNC to offer no insurance at all, and having such insurance isn’t any indication of disqualification of position on abortion. I’m against breast implants but my plans pays for one.

Now that’s a question of fact, is there a rider you can get to exclude this coverage or not? He actually works for the company selling insurance so I presume he would know. That needs to be discovered. I’ll have to keep an eye on his blog.

If I’m Michael Steele I say that this demonstrates what happens if you don’t “read the bill”. Joe Scarborough just said he is dying to interview Steele, when asked if I was Steele I’d say the following:

“Well Joe that’s right and there is egg on our face for not reading the policy. It’s a great example of what happens when you don’t read a legal document carefully. Imagine how many times that is going to repeated if a health care bill passes that nobody has actually read? How many Americans are going to expect one thing but not find another because their elective representatives didn’t decide to read a 1000 plus page bill that they passed.”

Lemonade baby, Lemonade!

…is running scared from his Bishop decided not to meet with him today:

Kennedy said he was “not going to dignify with an answer” Tobin’s assertions that he could not be a good Catholic and support abortion rights, adding that he found it “very disconcerting” that Tobin won’t agree to keep discussions of his faith private, the Providence Journal reported Wednesday.

The Bishop however is not at a loss for words:

What makes Kennedy think he’s Catholic? “Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?”

Being Catholic involves much more, he said, including acceptance of essential church teachings on matters of faith and morals, belonging to a parish community, weekly attendance at Mass and regular reception of the sacraments.

And support for abortion rights is not in the same category of those who struggle with sins of anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty and then fail, the bishop declared.

“Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category — it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will, a conscious decision that you’ve reaffirmed on many occasions.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to ‘an imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church….

“I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God.

“But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late to repair your relationship with the church, redeem your public image and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’ especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children.”

The full letter is here.

Kennedy might not recognize it but he is much luckier than Ted. He has a bishop who is willing to call him out publicly in an attempt to save his soul. The Bishop knows that he will be be pilloried nationally because of it, yet the soul of this man was a prize worth fighting for. Tobin his a profile in courage. It looks like we can’t say the same about Kennedy.

If Kennedy wants to profess himself as a Catholic Pol then he needs to get himself right with the church. If he doesn’t want to I’m sure the media will celebrate him as they did Ted and he will be respected by them for the rest of his life…

…after that he’s on his own.

A: Why calling on them to act Catholic of course.

Glenn Reynolds notes this is foolish but it is not unexpected. The blogger escaped from Communist Cuba:

Ave Maria is my second “ prom­ised land.” When my family and I freed ourselves from the grip of the Communists in Cuba and arrived in the promised land of the United States, we left behind years of per­secution, political imprisonment, executions, and hunger. But most of all we left behind the inhuman practice of silencing dissent— si­lencing our ability to speak the truth of the injustices we suffered. Free speech, and the ability to express dissent is what separates civilized societies from uncivilized ones. It is what my father was im­prisoned for — and many mem­bers of my family gave up their lives for, as devout Roman Catho­lics.

Her Full Critique is in four parts the other three are here.

Read them. They might shock you, but after my experience with Anna Maria College it didn’t shock me. (I’ve talked to quite a few students there and I’ve yet to meet one who doesn’t have the impression that I did although there is at least one promising sign.)

So the banning of her as a reporter is no shock:

America’s oldest Catholic newspaper, The Wanderer, assigned me to cover Ave Maria. Of the articles I have written for The Wanderer, only four have been about Ave Maria University. Yet, the University, of which Nick Healy is the President, banned me from Tom Golisano’s press conference on November 5th, and from the entire campus– allegedly for being disruptive at a public meeting held by the town’s Stewardship Committee. Stewardship Committee meetings have nothing to do with Ave Maria University.

The hubris and lack of credibility in that excuse of President Healy is evident.

Ave Maria University’s heavy handedness in not only banning me from the press conference, but also from the entire campus with County Sheriff deputies, shows how frightened they are of conservative and pro-life Catholics learning who “Tom” Golisano is—a man who ran for governor three times on a pro-choice platform and gave $1 million last year for Barack Obama’s coronation in Denver.

For our friends in the Cafeteria two quick quotes:

Let’s begin with Luke 9:26

Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

And finish with 2 Timothy 2:12

if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.

The Lure of the world is a dangerous thing lets pray Ave Maria decides to resist it.

As anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows one thing that drives me crazy are “Cafeteria Catholics” people who proclaim Catholicism but then act directly against it’s precepts. I’ve pointed out the voluntary nature of Catholicism and people’s ability find another denomination if they don’t care for it.

I’ve also said in the past that liberalism has two Sacraments the First is Abortion and the Second is Gay Marriage.

Well the acolytes of liberalism have finally reached a line they would not cross. Some principled liberals have noted for a while that this administration really has no principles.

But now the great sacraments of modern liberalism have been defiled so action must be taken:

Item:

Gay “Boycott” of the DNC:

The bloggers have published a comprehensive list of reasons and say the money should “pause” to the organization until promises are kept: “We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.”

Jane Hamshier is on board:

“LGBT Americans, our families, and our friends kept our promise at the ballot box, we now expect President Obama to keep his in the White House,” they wrote. In addition to Hamsher, cosponsors include the liberal blog Daily Kos, writer and editor Dan Savage and radio host Michelangelo Signorile.

The boycott will be lifted, Aravosis and Sudbay write, when legislation is signed enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama pledged action on all these issues but has not pressed them since entering office.

Huffpo talkes about it too:

I think the freeze in fundraising is a great idea. I also think the problem with the gay rights agenda in Congress has more to do with the political system than the particularly spineless nature of most Democratic representatives.

Oh it’s a freeze a Pause, what is it 90 days same as cash?

And then there is abortion and it looks like some members of the house are making a line in the sand:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.

Now we know — at least 41 House Dems are writing directly to Pelosi, telling her that they will not vote for anything “that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

Yes we know 41 house dems are so unequivocal about their opposition that they are unwilling to release their names publicly.

These people consider pro-life and pro-marriage democrats “Cafeteria Democrats” unworthy of the true faith.

What these people don’t realize is the democratic party unlike the Catholic church and modern liberalism is not a religion. It has positions but not sacraments. But apparently some don’t see it that way.

As a republican I am encouraged, I guess they didn’t learn as much as I thought.

I still say we should consider 4 parties, Two conservative (fiscal & social) and two liberal (fiscal & social) it would be interesting to see what the composition of a congress of these parties would be.

Apparently he figured it out after the vote:

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” Obama said. “And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, “There are strong feelings on both sides” about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, “and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame who was just extended there could not be reached for comment, but you can contact him here.

I asked the question yesterday Have the Democrats learned to count?. Apparently the news from George Miller and Nancy Pelsoi is yes:

Miller told DeLauro that there were “more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice” and that abortion-rights advocates had better acknowledge that reality.

In the end, Pelosi’s strategy paid off in a big win for her and President Barack Obama. After Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) amendment banning abortion funding was approved with 64 Democratic votes, Pelosi was able to push through the health care reform package on a virtually straight-line party vote, 220-215.

Even more significant is the very next paragraph:

Pelosi wasn’t the only one getting pressure on the amendment. As rumors spread that Republicans might vote “present” in order to scuttle the entire bill, even Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak amendment, sources said.

One the democratic party once again become a place where a foe of Abortion can live comfortably within that party the Republicans are in trouble. If the party also becomes friendly on other Religious issues then all bets are off.

As a Catholic I’m am thrilled, as a Republican I am very worried, but in the end the Catholic Hat is more important. Politics is polities but good and evil is good and evil.

Morning Joe is talking about Anh Cho talking about his district and stressing it over and over again.

Not a word about his position on Abortion or the fact that without the Stupak amendment he wouldn’t support it.

I suspect the game plan is to stress the district and keep Cho off the air for fear that he will bring up the Abortion business.

Interesting to note that Vanden huevel of the nation declined to say if she would support the bill in its current form if it comes to a final vote. Maybe we should ask her about the Berlin wall business?

Update: I second Quin Hillyer:

Ronald Reagan understood that sometimes local issues prevail. He played the game brilliantly. Remember that to pass one of his big initiatives — either the Reagan-Kemp-Roth tax cut or the major Gramm-Latta spending cuts, I can’t remember which — it was Reagan’s willingness to horse-trade that led Democratic then-Rep. John Breaux of Louisiana to boast about some protection he got for the sugar cane industry. Asked if his vote had been for sale, Breaux cracked: “No, of course it isn’t for sale, but it is for rent!”

What Cao did was nowhere near as cynical as that; but conservatives loved it when Breaux did it, because it brought him to Reagan’s side on a key vote.

But again, ALL ALONG, for months, Cao had said his line in the sand was abortion financing, and openly said he would likely vote for a bill that blocked such financing. In short, he did the honorable thing by saying where he stood and sticking with it. No, of course I don’t like his vote. But give the man a break: He’s an honorable, incredibly hard-working, inspirational young representative who is doing his darnedest to do a good job in a district ordinarily incredibly hostile to conservatives and Republicans of all stripes.

Cho and Dede are night and day. By all means lets fight and kill the bill if we can but I’ll take any victory on Abortion that I can get. Cho is one of the reasons we have that victory.

A: Both involved changes in Obamacare that proponents of the bill insisted didn’t exist in the first place.

You might remember back when Sarah Palin brought up death panels in the bill she was (and still is) attacked for it, yet the bill in the Senate had the relevant language pulled from it to remove the death panels that didn’t exist.

Now comes the Stupak Amendment and Palin has this to say:

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

And she doesn’t stop there:

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.

Reality tends to trump things.

In case my conservative friends still haven’t gotten it let me say one more time. I dislike this healthcare bill and believe it should be defeated.

But lets look at something interesting:

One month ago it looked like Dede the angrysmug would be elected to congress. She would be the one republican vote for this bill. She would be lionized by the media and held up as an example of moderation and bi-partisianship. She would be interviewed on every MSM outlet and held up as an example saying that Republicans need to moderate on Abortion and Gay Marriage. For a year this would be shoved down our throats.

But by the efforts of Doug Hoffman, Sarah Palin and conservatives all over the country. Dede was dropped like a bad habit and may even lose her position in the NY Republican delegation.

Although Hoffman was not elected he was just about the only republican/conservative who wasn’t on Tuesday. The democrat who defeated him Bill Owens managed to compromise himself with the voters who elected him in under 24 hours (Hoffman 2010). The president was desperate for a victory and more importantly needed one NOW! As time passed the 2010 election would be coming closer and the vote would be more painful and costly for blue dog democrats.

Now comes Joseph Cao the man who replaced William (Refrigerator) Jefferson. His district is about as democratic as you can get and he squeaked through with 49% to win. The bill is very popular there but Cao wasn’t buying and I wrote about this in August:

You know that in a district where there hasn’t been a republican congressman since 1890 and is 64% black it might be politically necessary for a newly elected republican to support the president on some key issues. Even if Abortion is paid for in it..

But Don Surber reports that when congressman Anh Cao says he is a Catholic, unlike say a John Kerry or a Nancy Pelosi he means it:

Cho bluntly stated that he would rather lose his seat than to vote for a healthcare bill that supports abortion.

Obama needed a win and wanted at least one republican so places like Think Progress could have headlines like this:

House Passes Historic, Bipartisan Health Reform Legislation

So comes the Stupak amendment and the vote for it. ONE QUARTER of the democratic caucus votes for the pro-life amendment, Pro-Abortion democrats hold their nose and vote for the final bill anyway.

Now the media has a dilemma: There is a Republican who voted for the bill. He is the first Vietnamese congressman, he has a great story and now he has been the vote for healthcare, one would expect that he would be lionized all over the place…

…however he is a DEVOUT Catholic and only was willing to vote for the bill because the Abortion provision was included and has made it clear that re-election campaign if the Abortion language goes so will he.

What is the MSM to do? Can they lionize an anti-abortion republican? Can they praise him on the talk shows? Will Obey, Maddow, the today show, the view and all the others dare to push him and praise a believing catholic who practices what he preaches?

If they don’t then they lose their bi-partisan meme if they do then they lionize faith. I think they will ignore him, I think in the end the media is so far left that even supporting Obama and this bill is not enough for them to go against their sacrament.

God works in mysterious ways, but I don’t see this as very mysterious. Bills come and go, parties rise and fall but Sin is Sin and God is constant.

I still hope the bill will fail but I’m going to enjoy watching the media squirm over the next two days over Cao.