homework: what type of student would I be if I didn't do my homework

I admit that I am very lazy when it comes to homework, I was as a high school student, college student and as a graduate student.  The less work I have to do the better.

Last week Bishop Serratelli was our guest lecturer and he's back at it this week. I love my bishop dearly and will defend him pretty much all the time as I don't like people complaining about who he happens to send us as pastor or vicar, but his homilies can be boring.  Bishop is a Scripture scholar and a pretty good one at that too so you would expect his homilies to be good, which they normally are, he just delivers them far differently than he teaches.  I had the priviledge of having then Father Serratelli for a class while I was an undergraduate at Seton Hall.  I was looking to be a senior so I took a class at the graduate level to get my credits. So I knew what we were in for when Bishop came to teach and I have to say I will miss him after these two classes.  Our regular professor, who is brilliant and full of knowledge, just seems scattered.  Bishop came in with a plan, stuck to it and we covered everything he wanted to cover.  There is a difference in how Bishop interacts outside of his homilies, he's completely different.  Bishop Serratelli, the teacher, is the man I see preach at the Chrism Mass and who at the end of Confirmation and regular Sunday Masses, but this person seems to disappear when he preaches.  Any way at the end of class last week the comment, "What type of teacher would I be if I didn't assign homework: read 1 Kings 22:13-28 and tie it into tonight's class." That last part might be my paraphrasing of it, but that is our assignment. To read the following passage and tie it into what we spoke about in class.  

Meanwhile, the messenger who had gone to call Micaiah said to him, “Look now, the prophets are unanimously predicting good for the king. Let your word be the same as any of theirs; speak a good word." Micaiah said, “As the LORD lives, I shall speak whatever the LORD tells me.” When he came to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to fight at Ramoth-gilead, or shall we refrain?” He said, “Attack and conquer! The LORD will give it into the power of the king.” But the king answered him, “How many times must I adjure you to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?”So Micaiah said: “I see all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd, And the LORD saying, These have no master! Let each of them go back home in peace.” The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you, he does not prophesy good about me, but only evil?” Micaiah continued: “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD seated on his throne, with the whole host of heaven standing to his right and to his left. The LORD asked: Who will deceive Ahab, so that he will go up and fall on Ramoth-gilead And one said this, another that, until this spirit came forth and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will deceive him.’ The LORD asked: How? He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The LORD replied: You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this. So now, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; the LORD himself has decreed evil against you.” Thereupon Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, came up and struck Micaiah on the cheek, saying, “Has the spirit of the LORD, then, left me to speak with you?” Micaiah said, “You shall find out on the day you go into an inner room to hide.” The king of Israel then said, “Seize Micaiah and take him back to Amon, prefect of the city, and to Joash, the king’s son, and say, ‘This is the king’s order: Put this man in prison and feed him scanty rations of bread and water until I come back in safety.’” But Micaiah said, “If you return in safety, the LORD has not spoken through me.” (He also said, “Hear, O peoples, all of you.”)

The lines that stuck out to me are the ones that I bolded.  Our class is on Biblical Call Narratives and let me tell you there are a lot of callings in the Bible.  We've studied mainly old testament calls and of course both Scripture scholars, Bishop Serratelli and Dr. Glazov, have talked about the calls of the prophets.  I guess it's a good thing when both men give you the same basic overview of a call narrative.  In all the calls we have discussed we talk about the divine confrontation, the introductory word, the commission, the objection, the reassurance, and a sign and how these will appear in most call narratives.  This passage doesn't seem to be a call narrative so how does this tie into what we talked about.  

Well we've covered a lot of stuff in our classes but one of my notes from Bishop's class seems to stick out, the prophet will speak how God wants him to speak" Which agrees with the first statement I bolded, where Micaiah is saying I will speak how the Lord wants me to speak.   Micaiah speaks of how Israel is scattered on the mountains like a sheep without a shepherd; this makes me think of the Gospels when it's said "I will strike the shepherd and sheep will disperse" (What I'm Catholic I know the story, the line, just not which Gospel and the exact number of the verse) Maybe it's because it's Lent and the Passion Gospels tend to stick out more, but that's what I thought of.  It shows that the New Testament and Old Testament do work with each other.  The last line that I bolded is the one about seeing God seated on the His throne.  This image we did talk about with the call of Isaiah and how he sees God upon a throne.  It's an image of Heaven, which we get to see at every Mass, well not actually see, but to be close to at every Mass.  

Not sure how much I am supposed to read into the passage but these are the three lines that stuck out to me.

Lent 2013

I was initially going to blog about the tale of two popes and that will come later but for now I'm going down the "oh it's Lent, let me blog about it" road.

Every one seems to ask me "What did you give up for Lent?" or "What are you giving up for Lent?" I usually answer with a I don't know yet, because I don't normally give something up. I did give up candy and sweets as a child, and I often gave up something like soda during college. It worked I don't drink as much soda or eat at much candy as I have, but when it boils down to it, I go right back to that which I gave up on Easter Sunday. As in years past I looked to add something this year. I will once again try to say liturgy of the hours every day, I did try this as a New Year's resolution as well and it worked well, until I got lazy and stopped for a week and then Lent came so I added it back in. This year's Lenten promise to myself and to God is to get back to Adoration of sorts. Not in the formal way, which I would love, but in the informal way of just walking into a Catholic Church and sitting there with the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle. As my bishop, Bishop Serratelli, says, "just walk in and spend five minutes with the Blessed Sacrament." 

Recently I spent 3 wonderful days on retreat with the parish youth group teens and told them that this is what I plan on doing for Lent, walking into the church and spending time with the Blessed Sacrament.  Easier said than done, but I've decided that I will just show up early for Mass, or Fr. Ray's presentations and spend time with Jesus that way.  Then again going to daily Mass is also something I add in each year.  Yes I take the easy way out and go on my days off, but I'll make more of an effort to actually get to St. Paul Inside the Walls for daily Mass on the days that I have something down there.  

I also plan on the eating better thing, but I've been doing that for a few weeks now; mainly actually watching what I eat and how much I eat.  I do plan on starting Couch to 5k again and I'm usually pretty good at it when Lent is involved.  I feel as if there is something else pushing me to do it as well. Granted the idea of adding extra point to eat (I'm doing Weight Watchers) is almost enough to get me running again.  

I've also decided to re-read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis and to read The Gargoyle Code by Fr. Dwight Longnecker.  I've wanted to read Father's book and found the digital version of it, so it is now on the iPad and I read a "letter" a day as it's set for Lent.  I'm enjoying both books and watching both men make fun of the Devil and his evil spirits.  It also opens my eyes to how Evil works in the world and makes me more aware of what I an doing and what might be influencing me. 

So I guess for Lent I am giving up being lazy and adding more in spiritually.  I'm often reminded of Fr. Bill telling us while at Seton Hall about his nephew who would ask "Uncle Billy, did you give up yet?" instead of what did you give up, granted this nephew is probably now in college or out of it. Not an Ash Wednesday goes by where I don't think of this comment.  As Fr. Bill said, "no I haven't given up yet."  I'm also reminded of something else Fr. Bill said to me years later.  "Mar, we're not perfect, do something extra for Holy Week, just make an extra effort to do it."  

We're not perfect and I don't expect my Lent to be perfect nor should I.  I know I will probably fall and fail at what I plan as now that I look at it I've opted for a lot of things to do.  I didn't give up anything but I am adding in more to better me as a Christian and most especially a Catholic. 

Confirmation and part of why I heart my Bishop

Confirmation was about a month ago at the parish and yes as I do with most of the blogs, I type the highlights of what I want to talk about and then step away from the computer.

I've known my bishop for awhile.  I still remember my first encounter with Fr. Serratelli on that March for Life Bus in January of 1998.  I remember when he became Msgr. Serratelli and I certainly remember taking a summer session week long course with him my junior year so I could have enough credits to be a senior and get the hell out of Seton Hall.  Yes, I was insane enough as an undergraduate to take a graduate level course with a man who knows Scripture like the back of his hand.   Wonderfully for me, I was naive enough to not realize what I was really doing and when it came down to it, then Msgr. Serratelli was very nice, and kind and maybe it was because I was an undergraduate but I enjoyed that class and was not one bit scared of the oral exam he gave as a final.  I remember sitting in the Seminary dinning room and hearing him say "It's like Daniel entering the lion's den. Imagine we're over in Campus Ministry having a conversation."  Thus began my personal interaction with the man who is currently my bishop.

I take great joy in saying I know the Bishop of Paterson and I take even more joy in knowing that he knows my name and hasn't forgotten it like he usually blames his miter for.  Fr. Geno's comments at his Mass of Thanksgiving about our Bishop, well it's a sort of lack of comments, because FG didn't say much, but his reaction while mentioning Bishop Serratelli showed his love and passion for the man he calls "boss" (for a few more weeks) and the man I call "Pappa Arty, I mean Bishop" This action reminded me of how much I love my bishop and how much it pains me to hear people talk disparagingly about him.  I know Bishop moves the priests around a lot and that my parish seems to get the brunt of it, but that doesn't mean he doesn't like us.  I'm tired of people complaining that this one doesn't do this and this one doesn't do that.  Own up to your actions and thoughts, get to know the person, attempt to get to know the person before you just say he doesn't like us so I don't like him.

I know my personal connection makes it for a lack of better terms, personal, when someone attacks Bishop.  I know it's that time of year and we're bound to have yet another change in staff at the parish, but we just have to deal with it.  Maybe Bishop only wants the guys to have a year or two at a bitchy parish and then move them on, I mean really nothing can be worse than a place that complains about everything.

Oh well before I get totally off topic the original intent of the blog was about the homily Bishop Serratelli gave at Confirmation.  I only remember portions of it, but Bishop does not preach for long but he gets his point across.  Bishop started his homily out with the legend of Quo Vadis, where Peter while leaving Rome meets Jesus and asks "Lord, where are you going?" to which Jesus replies, "To Rome to be crucified again." Of course Peter gains his confidence and returns to Rome to where he faces his eventual martyrdom.  This story always reminds me of Seton Hall and my Latin class, so Bishop had hooked me in.  The basis of his homily is that we should always be living our lives as a follower of Jesus, meaning that the sacrament doesn't end at the ceremony but that it continues on.  The comment live your life as a follower of Jesus struck me as yes Bishop was preaching to teens who face far more issues than I did at their age, but it's true for all of us.  It reminds me of the question "Is there enough evidence to convict me of being Christian, or in my case Catholic?"

That is what stayed with me from Bishop's homily. It's not in his preaching, though it is good, that Bishop excels, but at his questions and answers session. In the question and answer session you get to see Bishop's passion for teaching come out, you get to see the personable side of him come out.  It always leads to the vocations speech, but hey he's the bishop, he's got to talk about vocations. This time it wasn't the vocation to priesthood or religious life that he spend his time on, but the vocation of marriage. Bishop spoke about how one is called to marriage in the same way that one is called to religious life and how each vocation comes with it's ups and downs.  He spoke of how no vocation is easy, but that there is joy in the vocation.  I remember thinking this is what he was talking about at the Chrism Mass of how if the priests are on fire and are full of joy that the lay people will follow suite.  I sat there as he said the vocation will not be easy, you'll have to do things you don't like, give things up, but there will be joy.

Joy seems to be a buzz word right now.  Fr. Geno mentioned it, Bishop has mentioned it and our Holy Father speaks of how there is a poverty of joy in the world.  As I type this I keep looking down and seeing the memorial card for Fr. Jim Sheehan, who passed away last August after a battle with cancer.  The picture on the card shows the joy in which Fr. Jim served the Archdiocese of Newark.  Looking back on all the priests I have meet in my life, the ones that I have come to know and love have much joy in what they do and in life.  Bishop Serratelli may not always enjoy his job, but he is a joyful person, same goes for the pastor of the parish.

I can't help but think that some day soon I'll be doing work for and in the Church.  I know it won't be easy but it is joyful work.

May God continue to bless and watch over my wonderful Bishop, priests and of course the Holy Father.

I heart my Pastor

I realize that I jumped from we're getting new priests to my pastor's homily from Ash Wednesday.

Fr. Ray is my favorite pastor, mainly for his I don't give a damn attitude.  I know he cares he just seems able to let the annoyances roll of his back the way water rolls off a duck's back.  I love that he says Mass and does liturgy correctly as in from the Roman Missal and doesn't care what others think about that.

Let me start from the beginning as that is a good place to start. When Fr. Ray first came I was torn because the man has a very thick exterior and I couldn't actually tell if he liked me or not and I couldn't tell if I liked him or not. I was leaning towards liking him, but I wasn't a hundred percent sure. I try to always look for the bright side and aspects of the new guys who come to the parish. I was constantly fighting the majority of the parish in liking the poor man and I still am. I finally got the chance to sit and talk with him on our youth ministry  retreat.

I was starting to see myself join the ranks of those it liking him, but I understand the man is busy running a parish, working as the archivist for the diocese and also as a professor at the seminary at Seton Hall.  So as someone who has had a church job and also multiple jobs at once, I know it is not easy to focus on one job all the time, so I was desperately looking for that one on one time and got it in the form of the Sacrament of Confession at our retreat.  I had finally seen the personal side of the pastor and loved it.

I was tasked with promoting my pastor when he first came to the parish by a priest in the diocese whom I love dearly.  So I took on that task and continue to do so today.  I will defend my pastor and his "lack of being at everything the parish does" because I know deep down he actually likes what he does and that he likes me. 


This was the first year I was able to partake in the Triduum fully at the parish and it was amazing.  Everything was done out of the Roman Missal and it was the first time in quite a while that I enjoyed being at the parish for said events.  At the Triduum and after our Lenten Tuesday night Catechism meetings I realized that all it took to get to know the pastor was to go to the events he was running.  He much like our dear Bishop is a teacher and full of knowledge, a knowledge that I one day would love to have.  I'm on the parish Liturgy Committee and I took those minutes I had in the "confessional" to finally get my say out about how annoyed I was with some of the things the committee was saying and how I felt about the state of the Confirmation program and about evangelization at the parish.  I laid it all out including the story of how I came to be on the Liturgy Committee and how I was the only one who would sit next to the pastor, and oddly at the next meeting Fr. Ray sat next to me and I know he wanted to sit next to me at the last meeting too, but the Committee is much like Church, your seat doesn't change and no one moves from their said spot.  So when Fr. George left and Fr. Martin came in Fr. Martin sat in the corner which is now Fr. Ray's spot whether he wants it or not.  


I'm tired of hearing people bitch and moan about the pastor, I keep wanted to say have you asked him to come over, he's not a mind reader.  He can't know what you're thinking of that you want him at everything.  We can't expect him to be at everything, it's just not possible. 


I know where I stand as at the end of Easter Vigil I make a point of saying hello and Happy Easter to the priests and deacons. I had talked to both vicars, and seen my top two deacons so I decided I should go say hi to the pastor as I probably won't see him tomorrow. I walked out and as he was talking to two of the Sisters who teach in the school, he turns and says, "Happy Easter Mary" and leaned in for the classic greeting/kiss.  It had taken 9 months but he finally used my name and despite all my joking of "oh no he actually knows my name" it was great.  The conversation then followed about the light that was on me as lector during the Vigil, it was a touch blinding as no other lights were on.  


The next day, other wise known as Easter Sunday meant that I was lector and EM at our gym Mass.  I got there early and no one, other than the choir, was in the gym which was weird but I went with it.  I was going over the prayers of the faithful as there was no deacon at the Mass and I would have to read them.  I apparently forgot how to read and just skimmed them as I didn't notice that one was repeated, I just noticed that it was crossed out, I asked our vicar if he knew why it was crossed out and he said no, maybe Msgr. knows.  Fr. Ray, in cassock and surplice, looked at me and said "it's repeated" I said, oh guess I should have read the whole page.  He followed up with she changed what I had written, I said I'm not surprised and went to but the binder back.  Fr. Ray was over to greet the people who were at Mass, a first for a pastor of our parish to actually do.  


A few weeks later we had Confirmation,  I as a catechist in the program was there to support my teens from youth ministry and those I actually taught.  I had gotten a random email asking me if I would serve as a "cup bearer" at Mass.  I said I'm around to serve as EM if necessary.  I walked into the sacristy and Fr. Ray greets me with "Miss Woolley, what can we do for you?"  I was thinking oh no he knows the last name too.  All kidding aside, I knew he knew my name, he just never called me by it.  The conversation continued with me asking about the set up for EMs and we discussed what would happen.  


I've found that since the youth ministry retreat Fr. Ray and I are both more friendly to one another, maybe it's the I understand your issues with the parish Father, I have the same ones or it's that I said but I like your ideas.  


His homilies are excellent, I haven't blogged about a homily since Fr. Brian was here.  For me it's just nice to have a pastor I feel comfortable being a smart ass around, I certainly couldn't do that with the last pastor, and Fr. George and I was friendly but we didn't see eye to eye on everything, I have a feeling that Fr. Ray and I would and do see eye to eye on everything.  


At the Triduum it just dawned on me that he had very quickly become my favorite pastor and that was a spot long held by Fr. George, who do a lot for me and to keep me in the parish.  I nearly walked away from the parish while it was under the last pastor, but I kept at it and because of Fr Ray I stayed.  When Fr. Ray came I had heard you're going to love him, he's great for your parish, and all of that good stuff from people who knew him.  I tried and keep an open mind and heart about it and sure enough I got to know the man slightly and lo and behold he is great for our parish and I do love him, now I hope he stays. He's not afraid to come and say and teach Church teaching.  He'll call out the New York Times on an ad, he'll tell you why abortion is wrong.  Maybe that's why I like him, he's authentic Catholic and not afraid to teach and defend Holy Mother Church.  


Hear that Bishop Serratelli, no moving my pastor, you can take one of the vicars, just not the one I like and send us the awesome deacon we had over the summer.  ;)  

Diocese of Paterson's Chrism Mass

I finally made it to the Diocese's Chrism Mass.  I borrowed a camera from work and got some pictures but most of them are fuzzy as either I or the priest was moving and the flash was off.  Oh well, it wasn't about taking pictures it was about the priesthood and good, holy priests.  The Mass was bilingual of course Bishop Serratelli preached in both Spanish and English, with the English portion getting the bulk of the homily, though I'm pretty sure that basically the same thing was said in either language.  As usual I don't remember much of what the Bishop said in his homily, but I do remember thinking as I sat way in the back of our Cathedral, "he's preaching to his priests."  He did not let his priests, himself or his people off the hook. He called all of us to be true to the Church, to not be afraid to be Catholic and to speak out.  He reminded his priests and his people, that the priests are called liked St. Peter and how much like St. Peter most begin their priesthood with enthusiasm and vigor and slowly they begin to ask questions, be it, where do I get the money for all our programs, our school, our buildings.  Bishop Serratelli went on to speak on how we need good holy men, like those there tonight and I couldn't help but think he's preaching to the choir, but our priests do need to hear thanks and good job because so often they are put down and ignored because they are speaking the truth.

The homily was geared towards the priests but that doesn't mean the lay person can't take anything away from it, as basically the priest is called to teach and defend Church Teaching as are the faithful members of the Church and Bishop Serratelli said as much.  At the end of the Mass we got the short "second homily" as Fr. Brian calls it or as most others would call it the comments before the close of Mass.  In this short but forceful commentary the good Bishop reminded the people that it was our duty to pray for and defend Church teaching especially now as the Freedom of religion is being challenged and how laws are against what we teach.  I remember actually saying "Rock on Serratelli!" as I stood at the back after Communion so I could position myself to take pictures of the priests and deacons walking out.

The Chrism Mass is one of those that is often said to be the priests' Mass as they are renewing their commitment to the priesthood and to the Diocese as is the Bishop.  One of my favorite parts of any con-celebrated Mass is when the priests all chant the "through Him, with Him and in Him" at the end of the Eucharistic prayer.  I don't know why but I have always liked that.  I also remember at the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer and I'm sure it's actually in the prayer but it was nice to hear "Holy Mother Church", and to have the Church referred to in the feminine pronouns.  

What also strikes me is how happy the priests are, I knew a good few of the men there, but the ones I know personally and with whom I still keep in contact with, Fathers Brando, Brian, Martin, George, Kevin, Geno and of course the Bishop all had smiles on their face.  Fr. George had his classic ear to ear grin on. Fr. Kevin was very happy to see me and actually waved to me which was odd, but Fr. Kevin actually me recently.  Fr. Brian and Fr. Martin see me all the time as they are my parish priests.  Fr. Geno was in classic Fr. Geno mode of just happy.  Fr. Brando was typical of himself, a huge smile to greet me along with the classic you look great comment, he will always be one of my favorites just for that.  ;)

I don't know if my parish priests saw me or not, but when I went to Mass on Tuesday Fr. Martin came back into the Church and said "Mary nice to see you" and gave me the usual kiss greeting. While not overly out of the ordinary it was not at all how he normally greets me, makes me wonder if either he's finally gotten used to the parish or if he actually saw me at the Chrism Mass but opted to not say anything.

Anyway Bishop Serratelli gave a wonderful homily and reminded us that we need to pray for and defend the Church now more than ever and that we need to give our children to the Church for vocations.  I've often said to myself and God, "you can have all my sons, just give me a good holy Catholic man to have some with."  God can have the girls too, but I've always felt like the sons should I have any would be priests.  Oh well, that's not happening anytime soon.

As usual the Chrism Mass was beautiful and a great way to start Holy Week.  Hopefully I can participate fully in the Triddumm this year and not just Friday and Saturday, but that's up to the Holy Spirit.

Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 05/14/2009

Bishop Serratelli kept his political but not political streak going this week, it really makes me wonder what next week's will be on, I doubt it will be on Notre Dame, but one never knows.

Prayer: Power Beyond Politics

Storefront churches, stone cathedrals, synagogues, temples and mosques break the secular landscape of the United States. Their presence stands as a witness to the voices of believers raised to God in prayer. In fact, recent polls claim that 92 percent of Americans believe in God or an Ultimate Being and nearly six out of ten Americans pray every day. (Jacqueline L. Salmom, “Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds,” Washington Post, June 24, 2008).

Traveling to the Holy Land aboard his Alitalia charter jet on May 8, Pope Benedict XVI spoke on the power of prayer. He said, “As believers, Christians are convinced of the power of prayer. It opens the world to God, and we are convinced that God listens and can work in history. And I think that, if millions of believers pray, this is truly a force that can have an influence and advance the cause of peace.”

In the United States, this belief in the power of prayer gave birth to a national day of prayer. In 1952, President Harry Truman first established it. Then, President Reagan signed a resolution in 1988 to make the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer each year. Every president thereafter has done the same. This year, President Obama proclaimed May 7 as our National Day of Prayer. He called “upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.” (I don’t know how I feel about this considering yes I do want our military to come home from Iraq but at what cost to the people over there. I don’t get how people can say Iraq was better under Saddam, I just don’t get it. I don’t get the feeling that Obama is a huge fan of our troops, don’t ask me why it’s just a gut feeling.)

Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush used to mark the day with a White House observance. Under previous administrations, the White House hosted an interfaith service. Protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders were invited for an event at the East Room. This year, the President chose not to have such an event. (Not too much of a surprise, so what type of event did he have for National Day of Prayer, no prayer at all?)

Some people found this decision an occasion to praise the President for distancing himself from our National Day of Prayer. The prayer service at the White House offends some because it is a public act of religion. (Isn’t Mass or any type of religious service a “public act of religion:, is my saying a Rosary in a park, or across the street from an abortion mill (clinic gives the idea of them actually doing something good, mill sounds more appropriate in my crazy brain.) a “public act of religion, how about when I make the Sign of the Cross when I walk or drive in front of a Catholic church, isn’t that also a “public act of religion.” I know I’m being petty about it, but really it makes me think.) It disturbs others because it is not inclusive enough. (Inclusive of what, the major religions are there, there was no mention of Islam, but that could have been an oversight. Do people want Satanic worship and Wicca included, really come on, people can be so strange.) On the other hand, there were those who expressed disappointment that the President did not seize the opportunity to unite people of so many different faiths in a common act acknowledging our need for help from God.

Lost somewhere in the cross fires of the discussion was another decision that the President made. (Bishop seems to refer to our President as President more than President Obama, I just happened to notice that, I wonder why.) Near the end of Bush's second term, members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Madison. They petitioned the judge to put an end to the custom of prayer proclamations issued by presidents and governors. They view the day as disenfranchising the millions of Americans who do not believe in God or do not pray. Obviously, they do not follow the polls about belief and religion in America. (Nice little zinger in there at the end, considering Bishop Serratelli mentions said poll at the beginning of his column.)

The Obama administration has asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case against proclaiming public days of prayer. As the President said in his proclamation, “Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer.” His words ring true at this moment of challenge and crisis for our country. (Obama’s doing something good and right, wow! He, Obama, might as well have tossed in the whole there are no atheists in fox holes when speaking of great challenges not to mention all the prayers being said for a change of heart for him.)

The real discontent with our National Day of Prayer is much wider than opposition to a public display of religion. The day is too cozy a relationship between Church and State for those who wish to put a chasm between the two. (From what I’ve heard the separation of Church and State was to keep the State out of the Church not the other way around, but I wasn’t around when this started and don’t know if it’s true, but I like the sound of it.) In a word, the opposition to the day springs from the desire to silence the voice of religiously committed individuals from the public discussions of major issues.

Since 1978, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of 12,000 atheists and agnostics, has been working to keep Church and State separate. Nontract #6 of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. states: “ Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics (honestly, just say Catholics as if one follows Christ’s teachings one would realize that one should be conservative on certain issues.) would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. (I always find this one amusing as all should also include the pre-born but obviously it does not as they mention “women’s rights” which if the fancy way of saying, “allow women to suffer as they let someone kill their baby”) History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.”

Such a strong characterization of religious people fails to see that, when it comes to Catholics and the Catholic approach to common good, Catholics offer the wisdom of a 2,000 year tradition of ethical reflection. When speaking to the issues of public concern, Catholics bring their contribution based on the natural law. The natural law knows no religious boundaries. It is open to all. It is gross misstatement of truth to label arguments based on reason as simply the religious convictions of the narrow-minded.

We cannot let some make religion today the dividing social issue that race was in America in the past. We are religiously more diverse today than in the last century. Presently there are more American Muslims than there are American Episcopalians, Jews or Presbyterians. Los Angeles, with more than three hundred temples, has welcomed the largest variety of Buddhists anywhere.

With such religious diversity, a National Day of Prayer is a blessing for our country. Prayer places our country in the hands of the God “who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Prayer that opens our hearts to God also opens our hearts to others, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Prayer is truly a power beyond politics. (It does, and I need to start saying some more prayers, not just for our President and country but for other things as well, such as good holy bishops and good holy men to enter the priesthood, and good, holy women and men to enter religious life and marriage. So much to pray for more than likely not enough time to do it.)

Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 05/07/2009

Bishop Serratelli has taken the past few weeks to make his column not necessary political, but along those lines. He never came out and said Notre Dame was wrong and I am surprised and disappointed in that, but then again maybe he waited to see the whole thing play out and that is what the 5/21/09 column will be about, then again I have not read the column from 5/14/09. From the topic I see that the Bishop has kept the political, but not political stance. As usual my thoughts are in red and I have added my emphasis to it as well.

President Obama and Lady Justice: The Supreme Court and its Judges

In the Old City of Berne, Switzerland, there stands the famous “Fountain of Justice” (Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen) . From the 16th century until modern days, Hans Gieng's statue of Lady Justice has graced the fountain. It is the oldest representation of Lady Justice blindfolded.

This image of Lady Justice traces its origins to Themis, the Greek goddess of divine order and law, and to Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice. In her left hand, Lady Justice holds a scale. This signifies duty to measure the strengths of each case, weigh the evidence and then decide the case. In her right hand, she wields a double-edged sword. This signifies her obligation to execute her judgment with precision for one party or against another.

Coins from the days of ancient Rome depict this image of Lady Justice without the blindfold. Her eyes are open and she sees all the evidence before her. But ever since the Renaissance, Lady Justice has appeared with her eyes blindfolded. In the dispensing of justice, there should be complete objectivity. Blind justice. No cowering before the powerful. No trampling of the weak. No favoritism to any party. Complete impartiality.

This symbol of Lady Justice blindfolded is found in our courthouses and halls of justice. Could this symbol lose its meaning? (I think it already has considering most times it’s guilty until proven innocent vs. innocent until proven guilty.) Should the very notion of justice in an era of change be redefined?

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, our new President will have his chance at appointing his first Supreme Court judge. Other appointments will surely follow. The President has made clear his own understanding of the qualifications needed for the post. The President has reiterated the tried and true requirements of extensive legal training and experience as well as a devotion to the rule of law and a sound ethical record. But he also has added another prerequisite.

In July 2007, at a conference of Planned Parenthood, the President, prior to his election, had said this about future judges: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”

On Friday May 1, 2009 during the White House press briefing, the President said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation… I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” The President once again is remaining true to another promise that he made during his campaign for the presidency. (Obama’s consistent at least, he mentioned empathy both times. However he doesn’t know my struggles, the pain I have watching him and other politicians drag this country down by allowing abortion to happen. Yes I am a one issue voter I’ll admit that a person’s stance on abortion is what makes me vote for him/her, but I believe that life is one of the most precious gifts we can give someone and it shouldn’t be taken from the most defenseless, the pre-born. Yeah another promise that hurts the babies even more.)

For centuries, Western civilization has tried to achieve equal justice under the law. Does the requirement of empathy in a judge mean Lady Justice must now take off her blindfold? Is this a change for the better or not?

The President’s insistence on empathy as a quality in a good judge can claim biblical precedent. When Solomon began his rule, he prayed at Gibeon. He asked God not for riches and wealth, but for “an understanding heart, to govern [his] people and to distinguish between right and wrong” (1 Kgs 3:9). God granted him his request for empathy and his judgments became legendary. (Of course the Bible scholar would find something to quote and compare it too.)

In 1 Kings 3:16-28, the Scriptures relate an example story of Solomon’s ability to judge because he was empathetic. One day, two prostitutes came before Solomon. They both had a son, but one son died. Each woman claimed that the son that was alive was hers. Solomon was empathetic to the feeling of the true mother. He knew that she would prefer her son to live. And, so when he proposed cutting the live child in half and giving each woman half, the heart of the true mother was revealed. She preferred the other woman to have her son alive rather than each to be given half his dead body. (And he chose a story that most people will know.)

Solomon as a judge was empathetic. It was his “understanding heart” that saved the life of the child of a marginalized woman who was a true mother. “The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment” (1 Kgs 3:28).

Is Solomon the appropriate paradigm for the role of judge today? It is good to remember that the empathy that served Solomon well was not something he acquired on his own through training or experience. It was a gift that God gave him in answer to his prayer. Furthermore, Solomon was not limited to one role in governing his people. He was king and legislator as well as judge and last court of appeal.

Centuries have passed. Today in our democratic society, many people would be very uncomfortable in trusting to one individual, no matter how wise or spiritual, all the power that Solomon wielded in his day. We are in an imperfect world. In such a world, we have a system where the legislator is separate from the judge and where rights are guaranteed by law. ( Only the rights of some are guaranteed by some, the pre-born are forgotten by some laws; not the killing of a pregnant woman, then they are acknowledged. This country is so strange.)

Courts decide between the guilty and the innocent. Courts do not make the laws. They make their decisions on the basis of rights guaranteed in the law. Therefore, in a court of law, economic condition, sexual orientation, educational background can never be the determining factors. If a judge is to give special consideration in his decision to his own empathy, the question then arises, to which party in a case should he be empathetic? Would this be the death knell to impartiality? Will we suffer the tyranny of the courts where judges refashion our society according to their own opinion or political agenda?

Legislators elected by the people make the laws. Judges appointed by the government apply them. The distinction works. Lady Justice is blindfolded. But if the blindfold is going to be removed by a President who makes empathy a requirement for Supreme Court judges, will we have judges like Solomon? Will we finally have judges, as in the case of Solomon, with “an understanding heart,” judges who recognize a true mother always safeguards the life of her child? Will we have judges who protect the life of children, even those not yet born? Without empathy to those most vulnerable, there is no justice for all. (I don’t think I could have said it any better, that last sentence is quite true.)

Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 4/30/2009

The second part of Bishop Serratelli's 2 part series on Tolerance. I've been slacking in posting because the pollen and the trees have been kicking my butt.

Tolerance: The Trojan Horse of Secular Liberalism- Bishop Serratelli’s weekly column from April 30, 2009 with my emphasis and comments.


In today’s society, the principle of tolerance has become the clarion call for people of diverse views, moral convictions and religious beliefs to live together with a sense of civility to one another. By its definition, tolerance is inclusive. It seeks to embrace all individuals in a society that does not condemn individuals simply because they are different. In terms of liberal secularists, tolerance is based on cultural diversity. It is a pragmatic way to keep the peace.

Yet, tolerance alone does not always work. The drive to equate same sex unions with marriage and to give them the same legal definition as marriage has also become an occasion for intolerance. Those who are committed to marriage as an institution designed by the Creator for a man and a woman are labeled discriminatory and unjust. (That we are.)

Most recently, this type of attitude surfaced during the Miss USA 2009 pageant. On April 20, 2009, one of the judges, Perez Hilton, who is quite open about his views, asked Carrie Prejean, Miss California, her view on legalizing gay marriage. Miss Prejean was not unaware of the trap that was being set for her. (Of course she wasn’t, this wasn’t your typical “beauty queen” question.) After affirming the freedom of choice (interesting choice of words, then again I’m on high alert with Obama being at Notre Shame next week.) that Americans enjoy, she went on to say, “…I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.” Some in the audience booed her response, but others applauded even louder.

Miss California did not express an outrageous conviction. But Perez Hilton believes that her answer cost her the contest. His subsequent name calling of Miss California clearly revealed the inability to allow someone to disagree with the agenda that is behind the move to redefine marriage. (These so called promoters of equality for all, are so prejudiced it’s not even funny.)

Miss Prejean should be commended for her honesty and integrity. (I totally agree, God bless this young woman for standing up and not conforming to what society says she should believe and be.) Not everyone agrees. The Executive Director of Miss California USA/Teen USA has stated that he is “personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman.” In a word, there is no room for disagreement. Is this not a form of intolerance? (I dare to say it is.)

The issue of tolerance and intolerance on the issue of marriage is not an academic question. If society labels those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage intolerant and discriminatory, the trajectory is set to curtail religious freedom. Anti-discrimination laws can then be invoked to monitor and control churches in the areas of sex education in the schools, the hiring of employees, the use of church facilities and in many other areas. (Unfortunately, even in our own diocese, this is happening, because children and their parents are in the public school frame of mind and CCD or Religious Education programs leave a lot to be desired when it comes to teaching Catholicism. Often times I feel that I’m too conservative for a Catholic school or church or as I like to say I’m too Catholic for them, which is sad, as I do nothing other than my duty as a Catholic, go to Mass on Sunday and uphold and teach the teachings of the Catholic Church.)

In our culture, tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups. But it certainly does not mean neutrality. This is clearly the case in growing confrontation between the secularist agenda and the Catholic Church in terms of health care. (Yes, which makes my decision to attend nursing school an interesting one, however it is at a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear about my application, in case anyone was wondering.)

The Church has always favored responsible parenthood and has taught natural family planning as the moral means to achieve this goal. (While I am not a fan of natural family planning, I understand why it is used by some, but it is to be used to plan a child not to say we don't want a child right now so we're going to use NFP to not have children.) Based on the objective nature of human sexuality, the Church teaches that artificial contraception contradicts an authentic expression of marital love between a husband and a wife and, therefore, is morally unacceptable. For this reason, Catholic institutions do not include contraception in their health insurance for their employees. (I remember wanted to call him, Bishop Serratelli with an issue I had with my coverage when I worked for the Diocese of Paterson, but I don’t remember off hand what it was. I know the Archdiocese along with Oxford offers Catholic care which falls under this, maybe things have changed since I last had health coverage.) Up until recently, the laws included exemptions for conscientious objections clauses and protected the freedom of Catholics to live according to Catholic teaching in this area.

Today, however, secular liberals are experiencing great success in removing this freedom. At least eighteen states have enacted "contraceptive mandate" laws. The laws bear names such as The Women's Health and Wellness Act or The Women's Contraceptive Equity Act. These laws mandate health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives. Any failure to do is punishable as discrimination.

Without the freedom to express one’s views and not be punished for them, without the freedom to hold to one’s moral and religious beliefs and live according, the dignity of the human person is denied and the common good of society itself is diminished. Government does not have the right to treat believers as a “divisive minority whose rights must always yield to the minority secular agenda, especially when religious people are overwhelmingly in the majority” (Cardinal Pell, “Varieties of Intolerance: Religious and Secular,” Divinity School of Oxford University, March 6, 2009).

Both Homer in the Odyssey and Virgil in the Aeneid relate the story of the Trojan horse. After a long, unresolved 10-year siege of Troy, the Greeks built a huge figure of a horse. Inside the horse, they left their warriors and sailed away. The Trojans took the horse into their city as a trophy for winning the war. During the night, the Greek warriors stealthily crept out of their hiding place, opened the city gates for the rest of the Greek army that had returned under the cover of dark and destroyed the city. What, at first, was seen as the sign of victory actually became the cause of defeat.

Today, our society has happily overcome many prejudices that divide us. We have managed to live in peace with people whose views and religions differ from one another. Secular liberals, however, market a truncated tolerance that leaves no room for those who oppose their secular agenda. If society welcomes such tolerance within its city gates, will it not be the Trojan Horse that brings the demise of a free society? (Oh it probably will be, this country is so far away from where it was with morals, and the sad part is that we, America, are not as bad as other countries.)

Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 4/23/2009

As is usually the case for when I actually read the Bishop's weekly column I usually enjoy it and agree with what he has to say. The bold and italics are my additions for the most part there are a few I tried to bring over from the article. My comments are in the parentheses and are red.

Tolerance When Politics Reign Supreme

In 1878, President Hayes and his wife Lucy officially opened the White House grounds to the children for an egg roll event on Easter Monday. Except during the two World Wars, weather permitting, all the Presidents after Hayes have continued this tradition. Each Easter Monday, thousands of young people show up for this fun-filled event. Not only is it one of the oldest presidential traditions, it has become the largest annual event held at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In any event held at the White House, politics is never far from sight. This year, the first egg roll of the new administration was not any different. The souvenir egg was deliberately designed to signal concern for the environment. This certainly is part of the President’s agenda and not without merit. We are caretakers, not simply consumers, of the goods of this earth. (Exactly, we should care for the environment, but you don’t need to go overboard, God did create the Earth.) But there was a second innovation this year that carries with it a message that the White House wishes to give to the country. (One can only imagine what is it!)

The President enthusiastically welcomed the crowd. Mrs. Obama said, “Our goal today is just to have fun. We want to focus on activity, healthy eating. We've got yoga, we've got dancing, we've got storytelling, we've got Easter egg decorating, and we've got basketball, soccer as well.” But there was more to the event that just fun. It was a political statement made in bright colors. (Of course it was!)

The Washington Times (April 14, 2009) reported that same-sex parents wore rainbow-colored leis to the event. They were clearly drawing attention to their sexual orientation. What a sad situation. An event in which people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds and diverse moral convictions come together to have fun with the youngsters became a moment for some to push their agenda of changing the culture. (I wonder what would happen if I showed up wearing a Rock for Life or other Pro-life shirt, stating that abortion is murder, or one saying Proud to be Catholic, or even better one that said I’m a heterosexual, don’t know how much they would like that.)

But this was not a spontaneous demonstration on the part of the participants. It was orchestrated by the White House itself. (How sad, that the White House orchestrated it. I guess people would bitch and moan if something promoting a respect for life as in stopping abortion was started by the White House.) In a studied effort to make a statement about the future of marriage in this country, the White House allotted tickets for the event to gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples. Representatives from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other groups that promote same sex unions as equal to marriage reported that they had been encouraged to have their members come out to the event. (How disgraceful, and I know I’m going to sound bigoted and homo-phobic, but I’m not, you can live your life as you want, just live it chastely as all people are called to live and celibate, like all single are called to. Marriage is a sacrament and we need to start teaching it that way again and looking at it that way, it’s a calling, it won’t be easy and it’s all about just living with each other.)

Events like this are staged, organized and executed on the principle of tolerance. Today’s secular liberalism has espoused tolerance as its foundational truth. But secular liberals do not apply tolerance to every situation with equal zeal.

In the same week that the White House made a point of showcasing its gay- friendly agenda, the White House also issued a request to a Catholic institution that violates the very concept of tolerance. Before the President made his first speech as President at Georgetown, the prestigious Jesuit University, the White House, according to the Los Angeles Times, asked Georgetown University to cover all religious symbols (Guess Obama doesn’t like competition, or just can’t admit that he’s human, and that it doesn’t matter what is written above his head.) at the scene of the President's economic speech.

When President Obama gave his speech on economics on April 14, he spoke on a stage in Gaston Hall. Behind the place where the President stood, there is normally seen the monogram IHS. These letters are the first three letters of the name of Jesus in Greek. For the President’s speech, the university covered the letters. (It’s just sad how “Catholic” Universities have forgotten how to defend Christ and His Bride.)

Why is it acceptable that the President of the United States can be seen one day with gays and lesbians publicly displaying their convictions, but on the very next day cannot be seen in a Catholic institution with a symbol of its faith on display? (I wish I knew Bishop Serratelli, I wish I knew. It’s a good question that the Bishop puts forth, seems ironic that Obama can’t be tolerant when it comes to the Church.)

One can only wonder about the courage of an institution that hides the symbols of its own faith. Has the symbol lost its meaning? Does the institution value faith as the life-principle of its intellectual pursuit of truth? (This reminds of the first homily I heard Bishop Serratelli give. Seton Hall have the Bishop the honor of saying our Mass of the Holy Spirit, the opening Mass of the year. During his homily, Bishop Serratelli came and said WE NEED TO BE CATHOLIC, not just in our actions, but in how we teach as well. I am paraphrasing as the homily was a good nine or eight years ago, but I do remember how forceful and how poignant it was that the Bishop a professor at SHU was basically telling off his co-workers, and I was proud to call him Bishop then and still am today.)

The White House’s request for a Catholic university to hide a symbol of Catholicism in order to accommodate the presence of the President is a gross example of the intolerance that has infected the relationship of the State to the Church. (Quite true!) At the least, the university’s compliance with the request missed an opportunity to make a statement about a right understanding of tolerance. When partisan politics reign supreme, tolerance for opposing beliefs will quickly vanish. In a just society, tolerance cannot be a one way street.

+Arthur Serratelli

Well said Bishop, well said. He’s been quite on the Notre Dame situation but I’m thinking that might come out next week as I think this is a 2 part series on tolerance. I’m hoping he says something about Notre Dame, it’s not like him to be this quiet about something in the pro-life movement or something that can be used as teaching moment, he’s done it before.

I've been waiting for this

Finally, Pappa Arty aka Bishop Serratelli has said something involving politicans and abortion. I first met Fr. Serratelli on the bus ride down to the March for Life, he was rector of the minor seminary at the time, and Seton Hall United for Life, the organization I was a part of, was in charge of the bus. I know he's a very busy man, between changing the English translation, and other trips he took over the summer, so I gave him til now to say something and he did, because he's always been a strong voice for the unborn. While this "letter" aka column in the weekly diocesian paper, The Beacon, is not in direct responce to Pelosi or Biden, we all know which politican the Bishop is talking about. As I am at work, (It's all good, I work for the Church, they can't get mad at me for reading a Bishop's letter), I will just paste the article. Later on I will add my comments to/about it.

What follows is Bishop Serratelli's article, feel free to read it here or as I'm giving you the direct link to it on the Paterson Diocese webpage,

A Politician's Promise: No Right to Life! No Freedom!
After committing a murder in Rome, the famous 17th century Italian painter Caravaggio went to Malta to avoid the death penalty. While there, the Great Master of the Order of the Knights of Malta commissioned him to do a painting for the chapel of the Co-Cathedral of St. John in Valletta. Caravaggio chose as his theme the martyrdom of John the Baptist. He produced The Beheading of St. John, his largest work, the only one he ever signed. No doubt the scene touched him personally.

Herod was married to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John the Baptist preached against this sin, he incurred the hatred of Herod’s wife. The day her daughter Salome delighted Herod with her seductive dance, Herodias had her make Herod promise to kill John the Baptist. Within the severe architecture of a 16th century prison, Caravaggio vividly depicts the grisly moment when Herod kept his promise.

Caravaggio’s work, considered his greatest masterpiece, immortalizes the misguided fidelity of a ruler to his gruesome promise. With the stroke of the soldier’s sword, John dies and so does freedom. Freedom is based on the truth of the human person as created by God and protected by his law.
When a ruler can decide against God’s law, true freedom is sentenced to death.

Recently, a politician made a promise. Politicians usually do. If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood.

On April 18, 2007, in Gonzales v. Carhart, The Supreme Court upheldthe Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. The very next day prominent Democratic members of Congress reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The bill is misleadingly packaged as a freedom bill. It is not! It is a clear act of unreasoned bias to end abruptly and brutally the debate on the pressing and fundamental moral issue of the right to life.

For thirty-five years, Americans have been wrestling with The Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade. Most Americans now favor some kind of a ban on abortion. Most who allow abortion would do so only in very rare cases. In fact, in January, 2008, the Guttmacher Institute published its 14th census of abortion providers in the country. Its statistics showed that the abortion rate continues to decline. Abortions have reached their lowest level since 1974. There is truly a deep sensitivity to life in the soul of America.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would mortally wound this sensitivity. In effect, it would dismantle the freedom of choice to do all that is necessary to respect and protect human life at its most vulnerable stage. FOCA goes far beyond guaranteeing the right to an abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. It arrogantly prohibits any law or policy interfering with that right. While advocates trumpet this law as the triumph of the freedom of choice, they hide the dark reality that the law would actually inhibit choice.

Laws protecting the rights of nurses, doctors and hospitals with moral objections to abortion would no longer stand. Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics would also vanish. Gone the freedom of health care professionals to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath “to prescribe regimens for the good of …patients…and never do harm to anyone, to please no one [by prescribing] a deadly drug nor [by giving] advice which may cause his death.” Gone the freedom of conscience so essential for a civil society!

If a minority of avid abortionists succeed to impose this law because of the ignorance or apathy of the majority, the law would force taxpayers to fund abortions. Gone the freedom of taxation with representation!

In its 1992 Casey decision, The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional state laws requiring that women and young girls who seek an abortion receive information on the development of the child in the womb as well as alternatives to abortion. The ruling also determined that a period of waiting, usually 24 or 48 hours before making a decision about an abortion is not an undue burden. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify these laws immediately. Gone the freedom of women and young girls to have all the information they need to make their own choices!

In about half of the States, there are parental notification or consent laws in effect for minors seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled that these laws are permitted under Roe v. Wade. With the stroke of a pen, these laws would be abolished. Gone the freedom of parents to care for and protect their children and grandchildren!

Advocates of FOCA redefine a woman’s “health” so as to expressly permit post-viability abortions. Thus, a child who survives an abortion can be left to die for the health of the mother. No politically correct word can mask this reality for what it is. This is infanticide. Gone the freedom for a baby, once born, to live!

Science does not dispute that the child in the womb already has all the characteristics that he or she will develop after birth. Notwithstanding, abortionists obstinately refuse the right of the child within the womb to live as a fundamental human right. They are not happy that Americans have not swallowed their distorted propaganda that denies the dignity of the human person from the first moment of conception.

Pro-abortion advocates close their eyes to the fact that abortion even hurts women as it undermines the very fabric of our society. Their zeal for the Freedom of Choice Act sounds the alarm for decent Americans to wake up! The more the right to life is denied, the more we lose our freedoms. The “pro-choice” movement is not pro-choice. It stands against the freedom to choose what is right according to the truth of the human person.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, the present democratic candidate voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. This law was meant to protect a baby that survived a late-term abortion. When the same legislation came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served, he held to his opposition. First, he voted “present.” Next, he voted “no.”

Along with 108 members of Congress, the present democratic candidate for President continues his strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act. In aspeech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, he made the promise that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. What a choice for a new President!

At the time when Herod murdered John the Baptist because of his promise, Rome practiced the principle "one man, one vote." Whoever the emperor in Rome placed in authority over a subject people, ruled. Today we live in a democracy. We choose our leaders who make our laws. Every vote counts. Today, either we choose to respect and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the mother or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms. At this point, we are still free to choose!

Pentecost 2008

I heart my bishop! His homily rocked, he spoke of the Holy Spirit moving us to live life correctly, in economics, politics and what not and how we should not separate what we believe from how we live/behave. He spoke of respecting all life, unborn, terminally ill, poor... and I was beaming.

He also spoke of vocations and how when he comes in October he wants 6 young men from the parish to be ready to enter the seminary and at least as many young women to enter religious life.

I love my bishop!!!!!

More to come after the Mother's Day celebration, I didn't want to forget what the homily was about. :)

Edit/update, I didn't forget about the Bishop's homily or visit, I've have had a busy week.

I enjoy watching the madness that surrounds the Bishop's visit. You would honestly think the Pope was coming with all the details that need to be dealt with. So you add a few extra servers and tell the EMs they have to step down. Bishop Serratelli checks on his parishes to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I think one week he just needs to stop by and hang out in "the back of the Church" so he can what really happens. He's not stupid he knows that you had extra things for him or at least I would hope he does.

I am hoping to get a copy of his homily, because as I sat there I said to myself oh I so wish I could get a copy of that homily. Maybe I will get a copy and then I can post it and make comments on it.