George Offerman
The Scott Roeder trial has created a firestorm in which the majority of the pro life groups are falling all over themselves to ‘distance’ themselves from what Roeder did. The unintended consequences of this action, however, have the negative impact of throwing out the fact that what Tiller did was the whole reason Roeder did what he did. In this, the pro life groups are going along with the prosecution in that child killing is off the table as an issue of debate. Obviously, as Christians, we may disagree on this point, but our debates and comments should remain within a respectable brotherhood and be done in Charity and dignity.
However, the advisory board of Operation Rescue, evidently led by the Rev. Patrick Mahoney takes this to an extreme, in which they (the board, or whoever actually writes this press release) unloaded a personal attack on Randall Terry. This memo is thick with intentionally emotional and attacking language, and a search of their archives shows they never even came close to showing Tiller the disrespect they are heaping on Randall Terry. This is a personal vendetta, and there is nothing conciliatory in their language, that would convince even the greatest skeptic that this is not an intentional hatchet job. Here is the press release in its entirety:
WICHITA, Kan., Jan. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, Randall Terry, who is regrettably traveling to the Roeder trial in Wichita, stated in a news release, "We are not coming to condone or condemn Scott Roeder's actions," and dared to compare Roeder to the Civil War figure John Brown.
The Advisory Board of Operation Rescue issues the following statement on Randall Terry's refusal to condemn violence.
"The Board of Operation Rescue wants to make it clear that Randall Terry has no affiliation or involvement with Operation Rescue. That has been the case for over 17 years.
"Sadly, Randall Terry has chosen to abandon the Christ-centered principles contained in the historic Operation Rescue Pledge of Non-violence. By refusing to condemn the actions of Scott Roeder, Mr. Terry has completely abandoned the core principles of Operation Rescue.
"Mr. Terry's relentless thirst for media attention has led him down a road of extremism, fringe actions, and bizarre media stunts which have isolated him from the pro-life community and the timeless principles of an organization he helped establish.
"Our prayer is that Randall will return to a place of humility and sanity and once again embrace the cross of Christ and stop choosing to be involved in cheap and pathetic public relation stunts that harm the pro-life message."
Read Operation Rescue's Pledge of Non-violence
Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, 540-583-4741, Member of Operation Rescue's Advisory Board and Director, Christian Defense Coalition
SOURCE Operation Rescue
As one can see, this memo focuses more on the ‘lack of character’ of Mr. Terry, than it does the merits of Mr. Terry’s arguments, or purpose of being there. The interesting thing is that those who are responsible for this press release are supposed Christians in good standing. Yet they are engaging in personal attacks, and then attempting to hide behind the Christianity moniker. To those, or to who penned this memo: You are the arbiter of justice and humility and you have the authority to determine who is repentant and who is a lost sinner? Where did you get this authority? Arrogance.
It is Operation Rescue that is looking unchristian and petty, by writing and publicly releasing this trash into the debate. Disagreeing with Mr. Terry’s tactics is one thing, the personal attacks, especially in the name of Christianity, is so unbecoming of the true Cross of Christ and Christian Charity that it reeks of hypocrisy and hate. And these people believe they are at the forefront of ending legalized child killing? They believe they are the model of solid Christian behaviors?
Again, read the memo, and take in how much is focused on the trial, and how much is focused on the comments made about Randall Terry and his ‘character’.
I have been accused of many things since writing about some of the issues I have with Operation Rescue, but I have kept it on the factual course, by pointing out problems with their press releases, and asking questions that are pertinent for a donor to an organization. I, in return, have received insulting and condescending e-mails, and had strong hate mail sent my way, that I have not printed or published or even discussed other than the initial correspondences with Troy Newman (and even some of that was edited). I have not returned in kind what I have received from Operation Rescue, or its backers, and have attempted to get answers from an organization that is beginning to appear more suspect the more I attempt to get answers to very basic questions. These are not qualities of a well run Christian organization, and they sure are not qualified to discuss the character of others, when they themselves have questionable tactics, release trash that mimics a press release as seen above, and responds only with mocking and condescending tones when asked straight forward questions.
The irony of this is, that Operation Rescue and many who support them see what I have written as an ‘attack’, yet they spin their personal vendettas as ‘facts’ and do it, supposedly in the ‘humility of Christ”. Only in the land of make believe and double speak does this have any merit. It is incredible that not only do they do to others what they themselves do but claim they don’t, but then they make claims that others, who point out their unchristian behaviors, are being evil, and unchristian, and thus end up becoming their whipping posts. I, for one, have about had it with this behavior, and also have about had it with those who back this bad behavior. We have this epidemic of child killing going on, and there are those, such as the advisory board of Operation Rescue, too busy wanting to trash those who are doing something about it.
So, the e-mail, phone calls or whatever else comes my way concerning this posting, I will publish and discuss them in their entirety in this forum. I am going to call those people out by name, and demand they address the issues that are relevant and to the point, and refrain from personal attacks and name calling. I will focus on their hypocritical and sinful behavior, and call it what it is.
My message is simple and clear: back those up willing to do something about ending legalized child killing, and leave the personal vendettas at home. If the organizations want to act in an unchristian manner, then I will gladly point it out in a public forum.
******
One last comment pertaining to a statement made by ‘the advisory board’ and that is the claim of ‘returning to a place of humility and SANITY’. I don’t know who made this statement, but I want to know who has the clinical experience and can legally make a psychiatric diagnosis on someone. I am licensed in my state where I practice clinical social work, and have the authority to diagnose mental disorders. Whoever is making a claim of Mr. Terry’s ‘insanity’ better be licensed and better be prepared to back this claim legally. I take great exception to this statement, and it better be recanted by the board, and an apology forthcoming very soon.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
MEMORIES OF DAYS PAST
George Offerman
I had the pleasure to spend the evening with a former classmate and current Rector of St. Francis Seminary in Milwaukee, the Very Reverend Don Hying. It had been several years since we last saw each other, and we both remarked at how quickly the time had gone by. We also discussed the strange turn of events that Fr. Don was now in charge of the place we had had many strong feelings about and it was one of the last moves Fr. Don may have chosen on his own.
Fr. Don was staying at Theological College, the same location in which I ended my seminary experience, and I had not been in that building for close to 23 years. It was a shock, to say the least that the place was totally transformed from the days I was there. What was immediately noticeable was how the ‘modern’ worship space had changed to a more contemplative, traditional adoration friendly place. The institutional look was gone, and in its place a friendlier and welcoming environment that one would actually want to spend time in.
We then discussed how the formation of priests has changed significantly from the 80’s and was more conducive in keeping good men in and focusing more on the spiritual aspects of the priest hood. Devotion to Mary, Eucharistic Adoration, emphasis on praying the Office of the Hours and wearing collars is in, and the pop psychology and all the other ‘shenanigans” that both of us knew 20 + years ago was fairly and evidently absent. I have driven by Theological College on many occasions over the years, but had no interest in going in and re experiencing memories I’d rather leave buried.
However, I was more than mildly surprised when going into the new and improved Theological College, and was very impressed with the staff and seminarians I was able to meet. I am also impressed with the fact that despite many of the ‘interesting’ experiences Fr. Don went through, that he is able to take the helm of the Seminary and actually bring about very good and needed changes with the blessings of then Archbishop Dolan, and the current Archbishop Listecki.
Things appear to be going in the right direction for at least some of the Seminaries in this country. To have a high quality priest such as Fr. Don at the helm, gives me much hope that things will continue for the better for some time. Fr. Don told me that he has chosen his own staff to work with, that he requires the seminarians to pray in front of abortion clinics, and is advocating and promoting devotions and paying more attention to the mystical side of the church, versus the sociological and philosophical aspects. It seems these men are getting some solid direction, and are expected to participate in priestly formation as it was meant to be.
We also spent much of the evening reminiscing about our experiences and had some good laughs. We had quite the cast of characters in our class, and noted that most decided priesthood was not for them. We then discussed how if the formation had been properly followed as the church instructed, how many more may have made it to ordained ministry. In many ways, we both agreed that we were on our own to devise our spiritual formation, and found that we consulted with each other to get direction.
From this visit, I have some hope that the time of the 80’s “Goodbye Good Men” is over. It will take time, but the men going through priestly formation now are getting a solid education concerning the true nature of the Catholic Church, and one day, some will be elevated to that of Bishop. At that time, one can only hope that when society wants to dictate to the Church how they must act, and what they can say, these brave men will stand up to them, do the right thing, and have legions of believers backing them up.
I had the pleasure to spend the evening with a former classmate and current Rector of St. Francis Seminary in Milwaukee, the Very Reverend Don Hying. It had been several years since we last saw each other, and we both remarked at how quickly the time had gone by. We also discussed the strange turn of events that Fr. Don was now in charge of the place we had had many strong feelings about and it was one of the last moves Fr. Don may have chosen on his own.
Fr. Don was staying at Theological College, the same location in which I ended my seminary experience, and I had not been in that building for close to 23 years. It was a shock, to say the least that the place was totally transformed from the days I was there. What was immediately noticeable was how the ‘modern’ worship space had changed to a more contemplative, traditional adoration friendly place. The institutional look was gone, and in its place a friendlier and welcoming environment that one would actually want to spend time in.
We then discussed how the formation of priests has changed significantly from the 80’s and was more conducive in keeping good men in and focusing more on the spiritual aspects of the priest hood. Devotion to Mary, Eucharistic Adoration, emphasis on praying the Office of the Hours and wearing collars is in, and the pop psychology and all the other ‘shenanigans” that both of us knew 20 + years ago was fairly and evidently absent. I have driven by Theological College on many occasions over the years, but had no interest in going in and re experiencing memories I’d rather leave buried.
However, I was more than mildly surprised when going into the new and improved Theological College, and was very impressed with the staff and seminarians I was able to meet. I am also impressed with the fact that despite many of the ‘interesting’ experiences Fr. Don went through, that he is able to take the helm of the Seminary and actually bring about very good and needed changes with the blessings of then Archbishop Dolan, and the current Archbishop Listecki.
Things appear to be going in the right direction for at least some of the Seminaries in this country. To have a high quality priest such as Fr. Don at the helm, gives me much hope that things will continue for the better for some time. Fr. Don told me that he has chosen his own staff to work with, that he requires the seminarians to pray in front of abortion clinics, and is advocating and promoting devotions and paying more attention to the mystical side of the church, versus the sociological and philosophical aspects. It seems these men are getting some solid direction, and are expected to participate in priestly formation as it was meant to be.
We also spent much of the evening reminiscing about our experiences and had some good laughs. We had quite the cast of characters in our class, and noted that most decided priesthood was not for them. We then discussed how if the formation had been properly followed as the church instructed, how many more may have made it to ordained ministry. In many ways, we both agreed that we were on our own to devise our spiritual formation, and found that we consulted with each other to get direction.
From this visit, I have some hope that the time of the 80’s “Goodbye Good Men” is over. It will take time, but the men going through priestly formation now are getting a solid education concerning the true nature of the Catholic Church, and one day, some will be elevated to that of Bishop. At that time, one can only hope that when society wants to dictate to the Church how they must act, and what they can say, these brave men will stand up to them, do the right thing, and have legions of believers backing them up.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
CHUCK BALDWIN'S MESSAGE ON 1-22-10
George Offerman
I am an avid fan of Chuck Baldwin and think he is very insightful concerning many issues pertaining to our great country. Chuck penned a commentary that is so good, that I am taking the liberty of posting it in its entirety. I could not have said this one tenth as well as Mr. Baldwin, and believe this commentary should be read by as many Americans as possible.
The Truth About Abortion
By Chuck Baldwin
January 22, 2010
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100122.html
Today marks the 37th anniversary of the infamous US Supreme Court Roe v.
Wade decision, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide. The aftermath of this tragic ruling is the deaths of over 40 million (a very conservative number) innocent unborn babies. It is no hyperbole to say abortion is America's holocaust. Think of it, every American citizen today, 37 years old or younger, has never known a country that respected and protected innocent human life in the womb. Put it another way: when Hitler's Third Reich was at its zenith, the abortion rate was 40%. In 2003 (the last year that I checked), the abortion rate of the county in which I live was 39%. And I live in the heart of the so-called "Bible Belt." In fact, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be in America is not in an automobile without wearing a seat belt, or in a commercial airliner with
a potential terrorist on board. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be is in the womb of one's mother.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson once headed America's largest abortion clinic in New York City. He admitted superintending over the killing of 75,000 unborn babies. He later recanted his pro-abortion activity and wrote what may be the quintessential book defending an unborn child's right to life, "Aborting America." Dr. Nathanson said, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy."
Dr. Mildred Jefferson was a surgeon at Boston University Medical Center, a diplomate of the American Board of Surgery with many honors and awards. She said, "Many people try to hide behind the confusion of not knowing what happens before a baby is born. But we do not have to be confused. We in medicine and science have a different name for every stage of the development of the baby, but it does not matter at all whether you know those names or not. When a young woman has not had much opportunity to go to school and she becomes pregnant, no one has to tell her that she is going to have a baby.
"I became a doctor in the tradition that is represented in the Bible of
looking upon medicine as a high calling. I will not stand aside and have
this great profession of mine, of the doctor, give up the designation of
healer to become that of the social executioner. The Supreme Court Justices only had to hand down an order. Social workers only have to make arrangements, but it has been given to my profession to destroy the life of the innocent and the helpless.
"Today it is the unborn child; tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly or those who are incurably ill. Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political or moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order. To that question, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I answer 'Yes.' It is everyone's responsibility to safeguard and preserve life. A child is a member of the human family and deserves care and concern."
How many physicians, scientists, teachers, pastors, missionaries, statesmen, musicians, businessmen, and notable contributors to society have been murdered in the womb?
At this point, I can hear someone interrupting, "What about cases involving rape or incest?"
While these cases number less than 1% of pregnancies, consider this case
history: a 12-year-old girl was raped and became pregnant. "Get an
abortion," you say? Congratulations. You just killed Ethel Waters.
And as Dr. Jefferson said, just where does the acceptance of abortion lead? If we listen to the former governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm, elderly people who are terminally ill have a "duty to die and get out of the way." (Source: New York Times)
And does anyone remember Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana?
A little baby was born April 9, 1982, with Down's Syndrome in a Bloomington, Indiana, hospital. The parents refused to allow a doctor to correct a defect in the esophagus that prevented eating because the child was born with Down's. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the parents' right to make this decision. Despite many couples on hand willing to adopt the child, adoption offers that came in from all over America, and an appeal pursued to the U.S. Supreme Court, Baby Doe died of starvation on April 15, 1982.
Add to this blatant disrespect for human life the potential for mandated
government-run national health care--complete with cost-related
rationing--and one can only imagine how the value of human life will
continue to decline in these United States. Plus, if you want to do some
personal research that will really send chills up your spine, start
investigating the fact that many scientists and researchers are seriously discussing genetic manipulation and genetic engineering. Good grief! Our own government and military are already culpable in grotesque medical experimentation with both civilian and military personnel.
Our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has admitted to using military
personnel as human guinea pigs for medical, biological, and mental
experimentation under various programs associated with the now-infamous
title, MK-ULTRA. CIA officials say the programs have all been scrapped.
Don't you believe it.
In addition, consider the testimony of Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a physician
specializing in internal medicine and cardiopulmonary diseases. She obtained her medical degree from the University of Oregon Medical School in Portland. She spent two years as a medical officer in the US Army.
Dr. Gerster told Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, "I was asked to become a member of the American College of Physicians many years ago. It's any honorary society of internal medicine. I was very proud right up until the day that the society gave the James D. Bruce Award for Medical Research to Dr. Saul Krugman for the following experiment. Dr. Krugman had taken living hepatitis virus MS2 and injected this living virus into 25 retarded children in Willowbrook Home for Retarded in upstate New York. This was defended on the basis that they would probably get the hepatitis virus anyway."
Consider, too, that, contrary to what most people assume, the vast majority of physicians graduating from medical school today no longer take a Hippocratic-type oath--an oath that binds physicians to the following: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary [medical device] to cause an abortion."
As Schaeffer and Koop pointed out in their book, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" "The Declaration of Geneva (adopted in September 1948 by the General Assembly of the World Medical Organization and modeled closely on the Hippocratic Oath) became used as the graduation oath by more and more medical schools. It includes: 'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.' This concept of the preservation of human life has been the basis of the medical profession and society in general. It is significant that when the University of Pittsburgh changed from the Hippocratic Oath to the Declaration of Geneva in 1971, the students deleted 'from the time of conception' from the claus ."
Today, the ageless principles that had guided the medical profession
throughout Western Civilization have been expunged from a majority of our physicians' training and practice. And the Roe Supreme Court decision had much to do with this.
What is especially irritating about the whole abortion debate is the way the subject has been used as a political football by those on both the right and the left of the political aisle. While the national Democratic Party proudly touts itself as being "pro-choice," (meaning, pro-murdering unborn babies), it has been the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party that is mostly to blame for legalized abortion being left as the law of the land for nearly 4 decades.
Think of it: the GOP has dominated US Supreme Court appointments for the 37 years since the Roe decision. In fact, the 1973 court that released the Roe decision was a Republican-appointed court by a 6-3 margin. The same GOP-dominated court also rendered the Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision reaffirming Roe.
Consider still: the "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire
federal government from the election of 2000 to the election of 2006: six long years of GOP domination of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the US Supreme Court. And in all that time not one single unborn baby's life was saved. NOT ONE!
And, yet, each year, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) would introduce the
Sanctity of Life bill. And each year, the bill would sit in the document
room of the Capitol Building and gather dust. What would Rep. Paul's bill do? Two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court. Had the "pro-life" Republican congress passed Dr. Paul's bill, and the "pro-life" President, G. W. Bush, signed it into law, Roe v. Wade would have been effectively overturned.
So, why didn't President Bush trumpet the bill? Where was the Republican
leader in the Senate? Where was the Republican Speaker of the House? Where was Orrin Hatch? Where was John McCain? Where was Lindsey Graham? Where was Glenn Beck? Where was Rush Limbaugh? Where was Newt Gingrich? Where was Sean Hannity? Where was the National Right to Life Committee? Where were the tens of thousands of "pro-life" pastors and Christians?
And, yet, these same "pro-life" pastors, church members, and "conservatives" refused to support Congressman Paul for President in 2008, because he was not "conservative" enough. Actually, they opposed him because he opposed the war in Iraq, which means they would rather support a politician who promotes taking America into unconstitutional wars--but who will do nothing to overturn Roe and save the lives of unborn babies--than support a man who demands that the Constitution be followed, and actually had a constitutional plan to overturn Roe and end abortion-on-demand as a national "right." No wonder Jesus noted that unbelievers often have it over believers in the brains department. (See Luke 16:8.)
I remind you that preserving life and liberty is the primary purpose of
government (read the Declaration of Independence, for example). At this
point, however, I think it is safe to conclude that to pretend there is any hope that Washington politicians (from either party) will do anything to overturn Roe is pure fantasy. At this point, it is up to State legislatures and governors to preserve life in their respective states. Several states are already beginning to do just that.
According to Fox News a few years back, 30 states were poised to pass laws outlawing abortion if and when the US Supreme Court ever reversed its Roe v. Wade decision. What they need to do is stop waiting for the US Supreme Court to reverse itself, and go ahead and stand on their own State authority and autonomy, and outlaw abortion in their states now, as legislators in South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia are already attempting to do.
Legalized abortion is a national holocaust; an affront to our national
character; a contradiction of established principles subscribed to from the beginning of Western Civilization; an insult to the principles of our Declaration of Independence; a bane of our national spirit; and a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God. That we have allowed it to continue for 37 years now stands as an indictment against this generation of Americans and bodes ominously for the well-being of our posterity.
I am an avid fan of Chuck Baldwin and think he is very insightful concerning many issues pertaining to our great country. Chuck penned a commentary that is so good, that I am taking the liberty of posting it in its entirety. I could not have said this one tenth as well as Mr. Baldwin, and believe this commentary should be read by as many Americans as possible.
The Truth About Abortion
By Chuck Baldwin
January 22, 2010
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100122.html
Today marks the 37th anniversary of the infamous US Supreme Court Roe v.
Wade decision, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide. The aftermath of this tragic ruling is the deaths of over 40 million (a very conservative number) innocent unborn babies. It is no hyperbole to say abortion is America's holocaust. Think of it, every American citizen today, 37 years old or younger, has never known a country that respected and protected innocent human life in the womb. Put it another way: when Hitler's Third Reich was at its zenith, the abortion rate was 40%. In 2003 (the last year that I checked), the abortion rate of the county in which I live was 39%. And I live in the heart of the so-called "Bible Belt." In fact, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be in America is not in an automobile without wearing a seat belt, or in a commercial airliner with
a potential terrorist on board. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be is in the womb of one's mother.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson once headed America's largest abortion clinic in New York City. He admitted superintending over the killing of 75,000 unborn babies. He later recanted his pro-abortion activity and wrote what may be the quintessential book defending an unborn child's right to life, "Aborting America." Dr. Nathanson said, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy."
Dr. Mildred Jefferson was a surgeon at Boston University Medical Center, a diplomate of the American Board of Surgery with many honors and awards. She said, "Many people try to hide behind the confusion of not knowing what happens before a baby is born. But we do not have to be confused. We in medicine and science have a different name for every stage of the development of the baby, but it does not matter at all whether you know those names or not. When a young woman has not had much opportunity to go to school and she becomes pregnant, no one has to tell her that she is going to have a baby.
"I became a doctor in the tradition that is represented in the Bible of
looking upon medicine as a high calling. I will not stand aside and have
this great profession of mine, of the doctor, give up the designation of
healer to become that of the social executioner. The Supreme Court Justices only had to hand down an order. Social workers only have to make arrangements, but it has been given to my profession to destroy the life of the innocent and the helpless.
"Today it is the unborn child; tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly or those who are incurably ill. Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political or moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order. To that question, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I answer 'Yes.' It is everyone's responsibility to safeguard and preserve life. A child is a member of the human family and deserves care and concern."
How many physicians, scientists, teachers, pastors, missionaries, statesmen, musicians, businessmen, and notable contributors to society have been murdered in the womb?
At this point, I can hear someone interrupting, "What about cases involving rape or incest?"
While these cases number less than 1% of pregnancies, consider this case
history: a 12-year-old girl was raped and became pregnant. "Get an
abortion," you say? Congratulations. You just killed Ethel Waters.
And as Dr. Jefferson said, just where does the acceptance of abortion lead? If we listen to the former governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm, elderly people who are terminally ill have a "duty to die and get out of the way." (Source: New York Times)
And does anyone remember Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana?
A little baby was born April 9, 1982, with Down's Syndrome in a Bloomington, Indiana, hospital. The parents refused to allow a doctor to correct a defect in the esophagus that prevented eating because the child was born with Down's. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the parents' right to make this decision. Despite many couples on hand willing to adopt the child, adoption offers that came in from all over America, and an appeal pursued to the U.S. Supreme Court, Baby Doe died of starvation on April 15, 1982.
Add to this blatant disrespect for human life the potential for mandated
government-run national health care--complete with cost-related
rationing--and one can only imagine how the value of human life will
continue to decline in these United States. Plus, if you want to do some
personal research that will really send chills up your spine, start
investigating the fact that many scientists and researchers are seriously discussing genetic manipulation and genetic engineering. Good grief! Our own government and military are already culpable in grotesque medical experimentation with both civilian and military personnel.
Our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has admitted to using military
personnel as human guinea pigs for medical, biological, and mental
experimentation under various programs associated with the now-infamous
title, MK-ULTRA. CIA officials say the programs have all been scrapped.
Don't you believe it.
In addition, consider the testimony of Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a physician
specializing in internal medicine and cardiopulmonary diseases. She obtained her medical degree from the University of Oregon Medical School in Portland. She spent two years as a medical officer in the US Army.
Dr. Gerster told Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, "I was asked to become a member of the American College of Physicians many years ago. It's any honorary society of internal medicine. I was very proud right up until the day that the society gave the James D. Bruce Award for Medical Research to Dr. Saul Krugman for the following experiment. Dr. Krugman had taken living hepatitis virus MS2 and injected this living virus into 25 retarded children in Willowbrook Home for Retarded in upstate New York. This was defended on the basis that they would probably get the hepatitis virus anyway."
Consider, too, that, contrary to what most people assume, the vast majority of physicians graduating from medical school today no longer take a Hippocratic-type oath--an oath that binds physicians to the following: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary [medical device] to cause an abortion."
As Schaeffer and Koop pointed out in their book, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" "The Declaration of Geneva (adopted in September 1948 by the General Assembly of the World Medical Organization and modeled closely on the Hippocratic Oath) became used as the graduation oath by more and more medical schools. It includes: 'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.' This concept of the preservation of human life has been the basis of the medical profession and society in general. It is significant that when the University of Pittsburgh changed from the Hippocratic Oath to the Declaration of Geneva in 1971, the students deleted 'from the time of conception' from the claus ."
Today, the ageless principles that had guided the medical profession
throughout Western Civilization have been expunged from a majority of our physicians' training and practice. And the Roe Supreme Court decision had much to do with this.
What is especially irritating about the whole abortion debate is the way the subject has been used as a political football by those on both the right and the left of the political aisle. While the national Democratic Party proudly touts itself as being "pro-choice," (meaning, pro-murdering unborn babies), it has been the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party that is mostly to blame for legalized abortion being left as the law of the land for nearly 4 decades.
Think of it: the GOP has dominated US Supreme Court appointments for the 37 years since the Roe decision. In fact, the 1973 court that released the Roe decision was a Republican-appointed court by a 6-3 margin. The same GOP-dominated court also rendered the Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision reaffirming Roe.
Consider still: the "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire
federal government from the election of 2000 to the election of 2006: six long years of GOP domination of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the US Supreme Court. And in all that time not one single unborn baby's life was saved. NOT ONE!
And, yet, each year, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) would introduce the
Sanctity of Life bill. And each year, the bill would sit in the document
room of the Capitol Building and gather dust. What would Rep. Paul's bill do? Two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court. Had the "pro-life" Republican congress passed Dr. Paul's bill, and the "pro-life" President, G. W. Bush, signed it into law, Roe v. Wade would have been effectively overturned.
So, why didn't President Bush trumpet the bill? Where was the Republican
leader in the Senate? Where was the Republican Speaker of the House? Where was Orrin Hatch? Where was John McCain? Where was Lindsey Graham? Where was Glenn Beck? Where was Rush Limbaugh? Where was Newt Gingrich? Where was Sean Hannity? Where was the National Right to Life Committee? Where were the tens of thousands of "pro-life" pastors and Christians?
And, yet, these same "pro-life" pastors, church members, and "conservatives" refused to support Congressman Paul for President in 2008, because he was not "conservative" enough. Actually, they opposed him because he opposed the war in Iraq, which means they would rather support a politician who promotes taking America into unconstitutional wars--but who will do nothing to overturn Roe and save the lives of unborn babies--than support a man who demands that the Constitution be followed, and actually had a constitutional plan to overturn Roe and end abortion-on-demand as a national "right." No wonder Jesus noted that unbelievers often have it over believers in the brains department. (See Luke 16:8.)
I remind you that preserving life and liberty is the primary purpose of
government (read the Declaration of Independence, for example). At this
point, however, I think it is safe to conclude that to pretend there is any hope that Washington politicians (from either party) will do anything to overturn Roe is pure fantasy. At this point, it is up to State legislatures and governors to preserve life in their respective states. Several states are already beginning to do just that.
According to Fox News a few years back, 30 states were poised to pass laws outlawing abortion if and when the US Supreme Court ever reversed its Roe v. Wade decision. What they need to do is stop waiting for the US Supreme Court to reverse itself, and go ahead and stand on their own State authority and autonomy, and outlaw abortion in their states now, as legislators in South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia are already attempting to do.
Legalized abortion is a national holocaust; an affront to our national
character; a contradiction of established principles subscribed to from the beginning of Western Civilization; an insult to the principles of our Declaration of Independence; a bane of our national spirit; and a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God. That we have allowed it to continue for 37 years now stands as an indictment against this generation of Americans and bodes ominously for the well-being of our posterity.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
SCOTT ROEDER TRIAL
George Offerman
This trial, starting in Wichita, Kansas this week has the potential of defining the pro life battle for at least the next decade, if not more. The reason for this is the fact that the prosecutor is attempting to have Mr. Roeder’s ‘motive’ thrown out as testimony for his actions. Now, without trying to sound like I am condoning Mr. Roeder’s actions, it is also clear that our justice system always takes motives into account when determining crime and sentencing (Just look at the hate crimes legislation for that).
These are the questions posed to potential jurors by the prosecutor:
- What is your religious affiliation/denomination, if any?
- Do you attend a place of worship, i.e., Church, Temple, etc.? If yes, state where and how often?
- If applicable, do you participate in other activities in your place of worship? If yes, please state the type of activities and how frequently:
- If married or living with a mate, please describe their religious preference:
- If applicable, does your place of worship and/or particular denomination take an official stand on the practice of abortion?
- How would you rate the importance of your religious beliefs in your day to day life? Utmost important, Very important, Somewhat important, Not important at all
- Do you have any principles based on religious or ethical teaching or dogma that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror? If yes, please explain.
If one takes the time to read these questions, it appears obvious that the prosecutor wants to ‘stack’ the jury with atheists or non practicing Christians as a way of securing a murder one conviction, and to leave the question of abortion off the table. Regardless of what one thinks about Roeder’s actions, his primary motivation was to stop Tiller from murdering more babies and Mr. Roeder believed he had a right to do this.
Mr. Roeder also deserves a fair trial by his peers, and this cannot occur if the primary motive for committing the crime is not on the table for discussion or scrutiny. This also has the potential of twisting the protection of law for others who engage in activities that may become unpopular in the future.
Now, I want to be clear on what I just stated so that no one distorts or reads into the above statement. I am not comparing what Roeder did to activities such as Notre Dame, but if the government, or the judicial system can get away with labeling crimes and activities in such a way that motives can be banned as evidence, it will not be long before any activity deemed ‘uncivil’ or confrontational will have no defense. Roeder committed murder, and this is indisputable. He deserves punishment, and will have to deal with whatever his peers decide. However, Roeder should have his day and say in court, and his motives are very relevant, and need to be heard. As pro lifers, as well as Americans, we must insist on that occurring, because our country is built on these principles, and there should be no individual or groups that are made the exceptions to lawful jurisprudence.
As repulsive as many may see this, once there is justification to take one’s rights away, it can be justified in other situations. For instance, is it such a leap of thought to label Roeder an extremist or terrorist, and disallow his defense, then jump to other behaviors, such as what the ND 88 did and deny them their rights? Obviously, what Roeder did versus the ND 88 are apples and oranges, but given the fact that the ND 88 were surrounded by Obama supporters, who were unmolested by the police shows prejudicial actions, and in that end is not dissimilar to Roeder being denied his defense.
The problem is, that it is the liberal faction in this society, accompanied by the mainstream press that is publicly trying Roeder (by disallowing and criticizing his defense) before the trial has even begun. This is a dangerous situation, and the application from a case in which someone acted violently and unilaterally and without widespread support, most likely will be applied to non violent, peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience, and the outcome very well may be long term jail, or other harsh measures that will be right around the corner.
This trial is very important, and it is not the time for the pro life side to be silent about it. We need to make our voices heard, and make sure that Roeder gets his day in court, no matter how repulsive one may believe this to be. One day soon, it may be the mainstream Christian facing a judge and Jury, and the Christian may be informed that the Bible, belief system or church cannot be used as a defense for whatever the charge against the individual by the developing god/state will be.
This trial, starting in Wichita, Kansas this week has the potential of defining the pro life battle for at least the next decade, if not more. The reason for this is the fact that the prosecutor is attempting to have Mr. Roeder’s ‘motive’ thrown out as testimony for his actions. Now, without trying to sound like I am condoning Mr. Roeder’s actions, it is also clear that our justice system always takes motives into account when determining crime and sentencing (Just look at the hate crimes legislation for that).
These are the questions posed to potential jurors by the prosecutor:
- What is your religious affiliation/denomination, if any?
- Do you attend a place of worship, i.e., Church, Temple, etc.? If yes, state where and how often?
- If applicable, do you participate in other activities in your place of worship? If yes, please state the type of activities and how frequently:
- If married or living with a mate, please describe their religious preference:
- If applicable, does your place of worship and/or particular denomination take an official stand on the practice of abortion?
- How would you rate the importance of your religious beliefs in your day to day life? Utmost important, Very important, Somewhat important, Not important at all
- Do you have any principles based on religious or ethical teaching or dogma that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror? If yes, please explain.
If one takes the time to read these questions, it appears obvious that the prosecutor wants to ‘stack’ the jury with atheists or non practicing Christians as a way of securing a murder one conviction, and to leave the question of abortion off the table. Regardless of what one thinks about Roeder’s actions, his primary motivation was to stop Tiller from murdering more babies and Mr. Roeder believed he had a right to do this.
Mr. Roeder also deserves a fair trial by his peers, and this cannot occur if the primary motive for committing the crime is not on the table for discussion or scrutiny. This also has the potential of twisting the protection of law for others who engage in activities that may become unpopular in the future.
Now, I want to be clear on what I just stated so that no one distorts or reads into the above statement. I am not comparing what Roeder did to activities such as Notre Dame, but if the government, or the judicial system can get away with labeling crimes and activities in such a way that motives can be banned as evidence, it will not be long before any activity deemed ‘uncivil’ or confrontational will have no defense. Roeder committed murder, and this is indisputable. He deserves punishment, and will have to deal with whatever his peers decide. However, Roeder should have his day and say in court, and his motives are very relevant, and need to be heard. As pro lifers, as well as Americans, we must insist on that occurring, because our country is built on these principles, and there should be no individual or groups that are made the exceptions to lawful jurisprudence.
As repulsive as many may see this, once there is justification to take one’s rights away, it can be justified in other situations. For instance, is it such a leap of thought to label Roeder an extremist or terrorist, and disallow his defense, then jump to other behaviors, such as what the ND 88 did and deny them their rights? Obviously, what Roeder did versus the ND 88 are apples and oranges, but given the fact that the ND 88 were surrounded by Obama supporters, who were unmolested by the police shows prejudicial actions, and in that end is not dissimilar to Roeder being denied his defense.
The problem is, that it is the liberal faction in this society, accompanied by the mainstream press that is publicly trying Roeder (by disallowing and criticizing his defense) before the trial has even begun. This is a dangerous situation, and the application from a case in which someone acted violently and unilaterally and without widespread support, most likely will be applied to non violent, peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience, and the outcome very well may be long term jail, or other harsh measures that will be right around the corner.
This trial is very important, and it is not the time for the pro life side to be silent about it. We need to make our voices heard, and make sure that Roeder gets his day in court, no matter how repulsive one may believe this to be. One day soon, it may be the mainstream Christian facing a judge and Jury, and the Christian may be informed that the Bible, belief system or church cannot be used as a defense for whatever the charge against the individual by the developing god/state will be.
Monday, January 25, 2010
RANDALL TERRY'S APOLOGY TO ARCHBISHOP BURKE
George Offerman
I can personally attest to this apology, and the content written by Randall Terry. As one of the nine representing the Vanguard of St. Catherine, I was physically present in the room in which this interview took place. As Mr. Terry has stated, the other eight had an opportunity to review and make any corrections to this letter prior to going public with it. So I can say with clear conscience and no equivocation, that this letter represents the story in which all nine of us can recollect to the best of our abilities.
For over a year now, I have read many accounts, whether in the mainstream press, or the blogosphere, that misaligned Randall Terry, and by extension, us. The one common factor in all of the speculation and innuendoes is that NONE of those making the accusations were present in the room. If I were to engage in such behavior, I would be seen as an incompetent, ignorant and prejudicial individual, and would be held in contempt by many. Yet it seems those that have taken the same liberty do not see the contradictions in their behaviors, especially the Christians, who should be very aware that slander and gossip are sinful behaviors.
To this end, I stand by the words of this letter, and will take personal offense by anyone, who will claim to know better what happened in a closed meeting they did not attend. It will only reflect their own ignorance and prejudice, and I will call them out on this by name. The letter follows.
My Apology to Archbishop Burke
Randall A. Terry
What follows is my apology to Archbishop Raymond Burke, my defense of him, and my defense of my associates and myself who have been maligned due to the controversy that emerged after we released the videotaped interview that I did with Archbishop Burke in Rome in March of 2009.
Writing this has been a very painful exercise for me, one that I have put off far too long. The dust has mostly settled, and I felt that the situation with Archbishop Burke was unfinished business that needed some level of resolution, at least from our perspective. I apologize for not addressing this sooner.
Every member of the team present in Rome has been given full liberty to edit and critique my words, and to sign their names in agreement that what I am saying is an accurate and forthright record of what happened.
From February 28 to March 7, 2009, eight Catholic companions and I traveled to Rome to meet with various Vatican officials. It was an absolutely magnificent trip, exceeding our expectations on every level. When we arrived, our first act was to go to the tomb of St. Catherine of Sienna and invoke her prayers for our mission. As it turned out, our prayers (and surely hers!) were answered in abundance.
The purpose for our pilgrimage was: 1) to meet with the Prefects or their representatives of as many Congregations and Pontifical Councils as we could; 2) to give them documentation showing that a great number of American Roman Catholic bishops were not upholding the teaching of the Church concerning the protection of unborn babies in the legal/political realm; and 3) to bring renewed focus on certain bishops who refuse to safeguard the Holy Eucharist; i.e., they refuse to obey and enforce Canon 915 with politicians who support child killing.
(For any who do not know, Canon 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.")
We named ourselves The Vanguard of St. Catherine of Siena, to honor the patroness of our effort. We chose this name because of St. Catherine’s forthright declarations of corruption in certain bishops and cardinals of her day, and her very direct and at times jarring advice given to the Popes of her time.
The printed record we gave them was entitled Oves Sine Pastore: A Plea to Vatican Leaders to Restore a Faithful Catholic Leadership in America.
We had the privilege of meeting with:
- His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect, Apostolic Signatura;
- His Eminence, Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Cardinal, Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments;
- His Eminence, James Francis Stafford, Cardinal, Major Penitentiary, Apostolic Penitentiary;
- His Excellency, Rino Fisichella, Titular Archbishop of Voghenza, President, Pontifical Academy for Life;
- Father Thomas Powers, Congregation for Bishops;
- Father Kevin Lixey, Pontifical Council for the Laity;
- Father Victor Ghillo, Pontifical Council for the Family;
- Monsignor Anthony R. Frontiero, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
In addition to these, Joseph Landry and I met briefly with Monsignor Richard Soseman, from the Congregation for Clergy. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith did not meet with us, but received Oves Sine Pastore.
When we met with them (with the exception of Monsignor Richard Soseman), we did not merely shake hands, deliver Oves Sine Pastore, and leave. We sat down, usually with me sitting next to whomever we were meeting. I went through the document with each of them, page by page.
The other individuals with me were then given an opportunity to speak, and we fielded questions from our hosts. Many heartfelt words were shared.
At the core of our request for action from Vatican officials was this:
1. That they renew a call for obedience from American bishops in regards to the enforcement of Canon 915, as outlined in 2004 by then Cardinal Ratzinger;
2. That they review and alter (as they deem proper) the means by which priests are selected, vetted, and reviewed for consecration to the episcopacy when a vacancy emerges in a diocesan see;
3. That they investigate the corrupting influence of U.S. government money in the U.S. Church: 1) its connection to the silence of bishops under the 501(c)3 tax exempt status; and 2) the corrupting influence of government moneys funding various Catholic charities.
4. That they relocate the Archbishop of Washington DC and the Bishop of Northern Virginia – who have both publically stated their refusal to obey and enforce Canon 915 - and replace them with bishops who will agree before hand to withhold Holy Communion from Catholic politicians that openly betray the Church and Christ by promoting the legalized murder of unborn babies by abortion.
The last item above was clearly the most audacious by some people’s standards, but this was (and is) requested because the Congressional promoters of child killing live in DC and Northern VA when Congress is in session, and many of them receive Holy Communion while openly defying the Church. This is a horrifying scandal, with enormous temporal and eternal consequences. Our plea was that Vatican officials make it a major priority to bring this scandal to an end.
I must again emphasize that with every single person we met, save the one – a total of nine meetings – we went through Oves Sine Pastore in its entirety. Moreover, without exception, we made the above four mentioned requests with crystal clarity.
When we returned and alerted the American media about our trip and certain aspects of it, certain Catholic polemicists and bloggers were incredulous that anyone at the Vatican would meet with us if they knew the purpose of our visit before hand.
One of our more caustic critics wrote:
Now, does anyone believe even for a second that these Vatican men would agree to meet with Randall Terry to discuss the removal of American bishops? Does that even pass the smell test? Can you hear Cardinal Stafford say, "Sure Randall, come on in and let’s talk about getting rid of two American bishops."?
What I think really happened is that when Randall Terry called for these meetings, he said it was to talk about the American pro-life movement. Maybe he said he wanted to discuss how the pro-life movement should respond to Catholic politicians who are unfaithful on abortion.
His sense of smell was quite mistaken. Moreover, as a professional, he should have checked his facts, and made a phone call to our team and me. We did not do a “bait and switch,” as he suggests; Vatican officials knew we were coming to discuss American Bishops.
Sue Cyr, a dedicated pro-life advocate and leader from Dallas TX, was (with her husband Tom) on the team that met with Vatican officials. She arranged all but one of the meetings (the exception being the one with Archbishop Burke, which I arranged.) In her e-mail she told them that we wanted to come and discuss the crisis we have with American bishops.
Here is the e-mail she worded and sent:
February 17, 2009
Dear [Name of Bishop],
We pray you’re doing well. A group of ten pro-life leaders from the United States request an appointment with you during the week of March 2-6, 2009. [Ed. Note: One leader cancelled at the last moment.]
The group will be traveling to Rome with Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, organized to end abortion in the United States. Randall met with the Holy Father in 1991, and spoke at the Vatican for an international pro-life gathering of leaders.
We represent many groups of people who have been fighting abortion in America for many years. We would like to meet with you about the serious situation here in the United States and the Church’s role in abortion.
We would like to also share a packet of information with you about what happened with many American Bishops in the last election helping to elect a very pro-abortion president, which will result in the loss of millions of more lives. It also includes details about Bishops continuing to encourage and support pro-abortion politicians with the Sacraments. And we'd like to discuss the role of the laity in ending abortion.
Please contact me for an appointment.
Sue Cyr
As you can see, we made clear the overarching purpose of our meeting – addressing our concerns about American Bishops.
The Vatican is acutely aware that the Church in America is in a crisis; they know that the Catholic Church is in a battle to fearlessly teach and live out orthodoxy. They are also aware that there is great disparity among U.S. Catholic Bishops in regards to their orthodoxy, their defense of the babies, and their safeguarding the sacredness of the Eucharist. We are in scandalous times in America, Europe, and throughout the world.
We decided that due to the intense nature of our visit that the verbal discussions of those meetings would stay between us and the bishops or priests with whom we met. This was done so that no one would be quoted after the fact, and caught off guard by any whiplash from the press or the Internet world.
Many frank and honest things were said by us and by our hosts in the warmth and clarity of those meetings, but we have not quoted anyone after the fact from that day to the present.
This commitment had two exceptions. First, we intended to release Oves Sine Pastore as a public document once our meetings were done. The various reactions to Oves Sine Pastore, the words of advice, etc., from our hosts would remain private, but the document would be released.
Second, if anyone wanted to do an “on the record” interview, any such interview would be for the public record. That interview – and only that interview, not unguarded words that same person might have said “off the record” – would be made public.
Joining us on the trip was Mario Paveglio, a professional videographer from the Harrisburg Pennsylvania area. He brought two (2) professional video cameras to capture and record the interview of anyone who would agree to be interviewed on the record.
All of our meetings were with the various dicastories on an individual basis; i.e., we met with each person individually; Burke separately, Stafford separately, etc.
After the presentation of Oves Sine Pastore, we asked Archbishop Burke, Cardinal Cañizares, and Cardinal Stafford if they would be interviewed “on the record.” Archbishop Burke agreed to do the interview on the spot; Cardinal Cañizares agreed to do his interview on the following day.
Cardinal Stafford met with us for almost two hours; just him and us, with no staff present. It was one of the most moving experiences I have had in many years. Several in our group shed tears; we had a beautiful time of prayer. He is a very prophetic man. Due to the length of the meeting – and because he had another appointment - he suggested we do the interview with him on our next trip to Rome. He - and all of us - were sure we would make another trip to Rome for these life and death issues for the babies and the Church. And as per our decision, our discussions with Cardinal Stafford have remained private.
We explained to Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Cañizares that the interviews would be for my radio and TV show, and that we would get them out to the pro-life movement at large.
We filmed the interviews, finished our week in Rome, brought the footage home, and began our work to release the interviews.
About three weeks after returning, I decided to air the Archbishop Burke interview on my daily radio show, and to release his interview and the Cardinal Cañizares interview that afternoon at a press conference at the Press Club in Washington DC, and then on line as a video. The date was March 25.
Some background is in order here.
In addition to being a pro-life leader, I have been a broadcaster since 1989, broadcasting a daily radio show until 2000, then resuming it again twice since then, including most of 2008. I also recently filmed 14 episodes of my new television show, Insurrecta Nex.
In the standards of the broadcast industry, once an interview is done on the record, it is not only potentially to be used for the broadcaster that recorded it, but it also can become a news story in and of itself. Think of how many times you have seen an interview done by one network, and clips of it are also being shown on other networks all over the country, or being discussed in newspapers, because of the newsworthy material in the interview.
When we did the interviews with Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Cañizares, we made very clear to both of them that these interviews would be used on my radio and television shows. And as I stated, we also told them that we would get them out far and wide to pro-lifers throughout America.
From our perspective, the interviews were spectacular. They both said things that would thrill the hearts of the faithful.
I confess; there was little new here from Archbishop Burke’s lips; he had been saying these things for years. His words had been covered in various Catholic online journals, or printed newspapers. But as far as I know, very few of his words had made it into the national media.
What was new were two things: First, it was the first time to my knowledge that he and Cardinal Cañizares were on video tape – not just in print or with an audio recording – and since this is a video generation, and the TV medium is the warmest and most effective way of communication, we felt these interviews had tremendous power to encourage and strengthen the faithful on the issues of child killing in general, and giving Holy Communion to the promoters of child killing.
Second – and this was the huge breaking news - Archbishop Burke clearly said that faithful Catholic laity should urge U.S. bishops to cease the scandal; and he also said (in so many words) that those Catholics who voted for Obama knowing that he supported child-killing had at some level participated in cooperation with evil. Here is the transcript of my question about communion, and his exact answer. A link to the transcript and the video of the entire interview are at the end.
Mr. Terry: When the election was approaching, Bishop Martino said he would not serve Communion to Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden. There were a handful of other bishops who made similar statements, for which the laity and the faithful were rejoicing. But the deafening silence from so many other bishops—and also the bishops who stepped up such as in Washington DC, Virginia, others...Massachusetts...[and] said that we will serve Communion—was so painful for us. What word of encouragement would you give, first to the laity on our struggle to bring orthodoxy back, and then to your brother bishops and priests?
Archbishop Burke: I think simply to say: reflect upon this norm of the Church’s discipline—Canon 915—which is one of the most important canons to safeguard the greatest treasure that we have in this life, namely, the Communion that we have with our Lord Jesus Christ, and His true body and His true blood; and to, in every way work so that also public witness is given to the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist. And so I would encourage the faithful when they are scandalized by the giving of Holy Communion to persons who are publicly and obstinately in sin, that they go to their pastors, whether it’s their parish priest or to their bishop, to insist that this scandal stop. Because, it is weakening the faith of everyone. It’s giving the impression that it must be morally correct to support procured abortion, in at least in some circumstances, if not also generally. So they need to insist that their parish priest and the bishops, and for the rest...to my brother bishops and brother priests...simply to say: the service of the Church in the world today has to begin first and foremost with the protection of the life of those who are the most defenseless and the most innocent, namely the unborn, and certainly has to extend also to those who are gravely ill, or burdened with serious illness, who have special needs; and also now more and more their lives are being threatened by a culture of death which sadly has infected our nation. So I would just urge my brother bishops and my brother priests to see as the most fundamental witness and service which they can give in leading also the faithful in their pastoral care is the apostolate of the respect for human life.
Anyone who has followed the multi-decade struggle of faithful Catholics begging Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to politicians who promote the murder of the innocent – and are thereby in public, grave sin – would know that this was a critically important statement from Archbishop Burke. It was newsworthy because he is a former U.S. Bishop – the most outspoken on Canon 915 – and because he now holds one of the highest offices in the Vatican.
At the time the interviews were taken in Rome, we did not have a plan to hold a press conference concerning the content. But on further reflection, I decided to send out the two press releases; one dealing with our meetings in Rome, the second inviting the press to see the interview with Archbishop Burke.
We sent out two press releases; the first on March 12, the second on March 23. (They can be retrieved at www.Christiannewswire.com.) That is where things began to get tense.
Here is the March 12 Press release:
Vatican Meeting: Americans Bring Case to Replace DC Archbishop
WASHINGTON, Mar. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Randall Terry, Operation Rescue Founder, led a delegation of nine pro-life leaders in an unprecedented series of meetings with Vatican officials from March 2-6 in Rome. (Names below.) The reactions ranged from shock to heartfelt agreement.
The purpose was to beg Vatican officials to intervene decisively in the American Catholic Church. Vatican officials were presented with irrefutable evidence that a majority of US bishops refuse to uphold key teachings of the Church.
The entire document -- Oves Sine Pastore (Sheep Without a Shepherd) -- is at www.humbleplea.com. The complete list of requests at tab 5.
Mr. Terry States:
"Our first request was that the Holy See relocate Archbishop Donald Wuerl (DC) and Bishop Paul Loverde (Arlington V.A.), and to replace them with bishops who will uphold the laws of the Church -- namely, bishops who refuse to serve Communion to any politician who supports the killing of children by abortion.
"Recent headlines proved our point. Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, Kansas, recently excommunicated Governor Kathleen Sebelius. President Obama selected her to head Health and Human Services, where she will promote abortion. When she comes to DC, Archbishop Naumann will be scoffed at, she will receive Communion with Archbishop Wuerl's or Bishop Loverde’s tacit approval, and American Catholics will descend further into scandal and confusion.
"If these two bishops are relocated, and Bishops of the caliber of Naumann are put in the DC area dioceses -- which are watched by the whole world -- it will show all humanity that the Holy See is serious about defending innocent life, and that the Eucharist is not to be profaned or scandalized. It will also tell all U.S. Bishops that the days of fear, equivocation, and outright disobedience are coming to an end."
------------------------
For some Catholics, the very fact that we dared to go to Rome and make these requests was shocking. Then the fact that we would make the document public – and publicly restate that we want Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde to be relocated - was more than they could bear. “This just isn’t done…” I was told.
I stand by every word of that press release, without equivocation. If you want to understand why we believe it is in the interest of the Church, the babies, and the souls of the faithful, please read Oves Sine Pastore. (If someone will not take the time to read it, it is a bit unjust of him or her to criticize us.)
The second press release – issued March 23 for a March 25 press conference - dealt with the Archbishop Burke interview. Here it is:
Archbishop Burke, Third Most Powerful Man in Vatican, Gives Candid Interview Dealing with President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Communion, U.S. Bishops, and the Guilt of American Catholics in the Last Election
WASHINGTON, March 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- On March 2, 2009, His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, granted an unprecedented interview to Randall Terry.
Mr. Terry will show the entire interview (approx 12 minutes) at the Press Club on Wednesday, March 25, at 10:00 A.M.
The questions ranged from how the Church should deal with pro-abortion politicians like Vice President Biden receiving Communion, the failure of certain U.S. bishops to obey and enforce Canon Law, what faithful laity should say to errant bishops, the guilt of Catholics who voted for Obama, and what we must do to bring reform to America and the Church.
In light of the recent invitation of Notre Dame to have President Obama speak at commencement, this interview is very timely.
Randall Terry states:
"Everyone who has seen this interview is stunned at Archbishop Burke's candor and clarity. His words thunder, and are without equivocation.
"As one of the Pope's most powerful Prefects, we believe his words signal the Vatican's intention to deal more directly with American bishops, priests, and laity, who are betraying the lives of the innocent unborn, and Catholic Truth by their actions or by their silence.
"Since Archbishop Burke is the head of the papal courts, his words carry enormous weight concerning Church law. If cases are brought against individuals on these various matters, he is the "chief justice" in the Vatican.
"The faithful will be strengthened by his words; the errant and rebellious will be warned."
-----------------------------
These are my words. Obviously, they were very direct. I meant them to be; I wanted the press to come and see the interview, and I wanted the treacherous in the Church to take notice. (I have since been told that the Prefect of the Signatura may not be the third most powerful man in the Vatican. I gladly leave it to others to make that distinction.)
Forgive me for waxing polemic, but we do have FIFTY MILLION MURDERED BABIES who have sewers and landfills for graves. And many of the perpetrators of that murder are Catholics who receive the Body and Blood of Christ, after they help kill His Holy Innocents by abortion. If this crime and public scandal does not warrant withholding Holy Communion, what does?
Well, I got my wish…and more.
Two Catholic staffers – if my memory is correct, one was from the Archdiocese of DC, the other from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) - were present at the press conference, quietly seething. (They identified themselves as employees.) Please note: for those bishops who refuse to obey and enforce Canon 915, their staffs are supportive of them. (One doesn’t keep a job for long if one bucks the boss.)
My guess is that when they left, they went back to their offices, and immediately started to stir up trouble for me…and subsequently, for Archbishop Burke.
In the meantime, the media world (including the New York Times) took note of the interview, and a fairly good debate was underway. The world of faithful Catholic blogs lit up with rejoicing. People were thrilled with Archbishop Burke’s clarity and courage. Maybe American bishops would start to respond appropriately to this epic crisis.
But these turbulent waters can have a sudden change in the wind; a storm followed.
The next day, March 26, the USCCB released this statement for Archbishop Burke:
“Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.“
Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.
“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.
"Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.
“Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
“Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
“If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.
“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”
(Most Rev.) Raymond L. Burke
March 26, 2009
-------------------------------------
I was stunned. Our Vanguard of St. Catherine of Sienna team was in shock, deeply hurt and frustrated.
And of course, the Internet world that cared about this (for righteousness or evil) convulsed with confusion and anger – mostly against me – but also against Archbishop Burke.
Here are samples against me: “Randall Terry may have manipulated the Burke interview in an improper way;” he is “a divisive character” who “set Archbishop Burke up,” and “Archbishop Burke was duped by Randall Terry on purpose of interview...”
Here are samples against Archbishop Burke: “Shame on the bishops who don't follow Canon 915, and shame on Ab. Burke for putting their feelings and his political stature ahead of holiness.” And “Blaming the interviewer for regrettable things that one says in an interview is, of course, a very old trick.”
Before going further, let me point out something very glaring in Archbishop Burke’s USCCB’s issued statement, which may hold a critical key in unraveling some of this mess.
His statement read:
“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.
As you can see in the press releases I issued, I said no such thing. There is no impression given at any point in anything that I had sent out as a “media advisory” that would indicate Archbishop Burke would be present in Washington DC.
What that means – and I am trying to be delicate here – is that somebody deceived Archbishop Burke, whether intentionally or not. Somebody called him up – and to some degree - bore false witness against me, what we were doing with the interview, and what we had done in the press conference. It is obvious to any objective judge of the facts that I did not ever say, nor did anyone present at the press conference expect that His Excellency would actually be there in person. The question is: what else did they tell him that caused him to react the way he did?
Also please note, my press release announcing his interview is not a “severe criticism” of the bishops. Moreover, at the press conference, I never attributed any criticism of Archbishop Burke towards his brother bishops other than anything he said in the interview. We unveiled the interview, and let it stand for itself.
In short, I am convinced that much of this controversy was started by the deceit or malice of whatever party(s) contacted Archbishop Burke. I think it is safe to say that whoever contacted him is not in agreement with the need to enforce Canon 915. Archbishop Burke reacted to their contact, as any one of us might have.
Given this background, let me now apologize for what I can (in good conscience), defend Archbishop Burke, defend my associates, and stand by the essence of what we have done.
Your Excellency, I apologize for not informing you that we would use this interview in a press conference. Please forgive me.
Your Excellency, I apologize for confusing your title in the interview – “not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,” but rather as a bishop from the United States. I did not know of such a distinction. I ask you to please forgive me.
Your Excellency, I am sorry for any trouble I have unjustly or unduly caused between you and your brother bishops. Please forgive me.
Your Excellency, if my associates and I ever have the privilege of another audience with you, I assure you this will not happen again. And as you have seen from our other discussions and those with other men (that have stayed “off the record”) we have honored boundaries, as we have understood them. My associates in the Vanguard of St. Catherine of Sienna are guiltless in this whole situation.
For those who are upset with Archbishop Burke, please do not be. I am certain he was caught off guard by this sudden firestorm, and that at some level he was misled by those who contacted him. Moreover, he made very clear (in a subsequent interview) that he did not retract a single word of the interview he did with me, and he has since then repeatedly called for the enforcement of Canon 915.
I consider Archbishop Burke one of the greatest men alive, certainly one of the greatest bishops in the Catholic Church. His treatise on Communion in PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA (2007) entitled The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin was brilliant. (I often wonder if he received his current appointment in part because of that dissertation.) Read it at: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
In closing, I say this: any missteps or stumbling of mine notwithstanding, the fight over child killing and Communion is to orthopraxy what the fight over the nature of Christ and the Trinity was to orthodoxy. We are fighting to end the most horrific crime in the history of the human race, as well as fighting for the soul of the Church.
This battle is going to get messier, and more turbulent. History shows us that the fight over the Nicene Creed involved bishops in severe (sometimes violent) conflict with each other, and also involved the faithful laity being in conflict with errant bishops. And many scholars credit the faithful laity with saving the Church.
Long Life to Archbishop Burke, and may his work The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion become the standard text for all seminarians regarding their duty as future priests. May they – and all bishops and priests – rise up as one man to protect the Holy Eucharist from being profaned by those whose hands are covered with innocent blood. Amen.
To read Oves Sine Pastore, or to see the Archbishop Burke interview or read the transcript of the interview, go to: www.humbleplea.com
In Christ’s Wounds Kept,
Randall A. Terry
Attested to by those present in Rome:
Sue Cyr
Tom Cyr
Ed Faddoul
Joseph Landry
George Offerman
Kathy Offerman
Mario Paveglio
Sandra Paveglio
see link: http://www.spiritdaily.com/terryapology.htm
I can personally attest to this apology, and the content written by Randall Terry. As one of the nine representing the Vanguard of St. Catherine, I was physically present in the room in which this interview took place. As Mr. Terry has stated, the other eight had an opportunity to review and make any corrections to this letter prior to going public with it. So I can say with clear conscience and no equivocation, that this letter represents the story in which all nine of us can recollect to the best of our abilities.
For over a year now, I have read many accounts, whether in the mainstream press, or the blogosphere, that misaligned Randall Terry, and by extension, us. The one common factor in all of the speculation and innuendoes is that NONE of those making the accusations were present in the room. If I were to engage in such behavior, I would be seen as an incompetent, ignorant and prejudicial individual, and would be held in contempt by many. Yet it seems those that have taken the same liberty do not see the contradictions in their behaviors, especially the Christians, who should be very aware that slander and gossip are sinful behaviors.
To this end, I stand by the words of this letter, and will take personal offense by anyone, who will claim to know better what happened in a closed meeting they did not attend. It will only reflect their own ignorance and prejudice, and I will call them out on this by name. The letter follows.
My Apology to Archbishop Burke
Randall A. Terry
What follows is my apology to Archbishop Raymond Burke, my defense of him, and my defense of my associates and myself who have been maligned due to the controversy that emerged after we released the videotaped interview that I did with Archbishop Burke in Rome in March of 2009.
Writing this has been a very painful exercise for me, one that I have put off far too long. The dust has mostly settled, and I felt that the situation with Archbishop Burke was unfinished business that needed some level of resolution, at least from our perspective. I apologize for not addressing this sooner.
Every member of the team present in Rome has been given full liberty to edit and critique my words, and to sign their names in agreement that what I am saying is an accurate and forthright record of what happened.
From February 28 to March 7, 2009, eight Catholic companions and I traveled to Rome to meet with various Vatican officials. It was an absolutely magnificent trip, exceeding our expectations on every level. When we arrived, our first act was to go to the tomb of St. Catherine of Sienna and invoke her prayers for our mission. As it turned out, our prayers (and surely hers!) were answered in abundance.
The purpose for our pilgrimage was: 1) to meet with the Prefects or their representatives of as many Congregations and Pontifical Councils as we could; 2) to give them documentation showing that a great number of American Roman Catholic bishops were not upholding the teaching of the Church concerning the protection of unborn babies in the legal/political realm; and 3) to bring renewed focus on certain bishops who refuse to safeguard the Holy Eucharist; i.e., they refuse to obey and enforce Canon 915 with politicians who support child killing.
(For any who do not know, Canon 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.")
We named ourselves The Vanguard of St. Catherine of Siena, to honor the patroness of our effort. We chose this name because of St. Catherine’s forthright declarations of corruption in certain bishops and cardinals of her day, and her very direct and at times jarring advice given to the Popes of her time.
The printed record we gave them was entitled Oves Sine Pastore: A Plea to Vatican Leaders to Restore a Faithful Catholic Leadership in America.
We had the privilege of meeting with:
- His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect, Apostolic Signatura;
- His Eminence, Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Cardinal, Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments;
- His Eminence, James Francis Stafford, Cardinal, Major Penitentiary, Apostolic Penitentiary;
- His Excellency, Rino Fisichella, Titular Archbishop of Voghenza, President, Pontifical Academy for Life;
- Father Thomas Powers, Congregation for Bishops;
- Father Kevin Lixey, Pontifical Council for the Laity;
- Father Victor Ghillo, Pontifical Council for the Family;
- Monsignor Anthony R. Frontiero, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
In addition to these, Joseph Landry and I met briefly with Monsignor Richard Soseman, from the Congregation for Clergy. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith did not meet with us, but received Oves Sine Pastore.
When we met with them (with the exception of Monsignor Richard Soseman), we did not merely shake hands, deliver Oves Sine Pastore, and leave. We sat down, usually with me sitting next to whomever we were meeting. I went through the document with each of them, page by page.
The other individuals with me were then given an opportunity to speak, and we fielded questions from our hosts. Many heartfelt words were shared.
At the core of our request for action from Vatican officials was this:
1. That they renew a call for obedience from American bishops in regards to the enforcement of Canon 915, as outlined in 2004 by then Cardinal Ratzinger;
2. That they review and alter (as they deem proper) the means by which priests are selected, vetted, and reviewed for consecration to the episcopacy when a vacancy emerges in a diocesan see;
3. That they investigate the corrupting influence of U.S. government money in the U.S. Church: 1) its connection to the silence of bishops under the 501(c)3 tax exempt status; and 2) the corrupting influence of government moneys funding various Catholic charities.
4. That they relocate the Archbishop of Washington DC and the Bishop of Northern Virginia – who have both publically stated their refusal to obey and enforce Canon 915 - and replace them with bishops who will agree before hand to withhold Holy Communion from Catholic politicians that openly betray the Church and Christ by promoting the legalized murder of unborn babies by abortion.
The last item above was clearly the most audacious by some people’s standards, but this was (and is) requested because the Congressional promoters of child killing live in DC and Northern VA when Congress is in session, and many of them receive Holy Communion while openly defying the Church. This is a horrifying scandal, with enormous temporal and eternal consequences. Our plea was that Vatican officials make it a major priority to bring this scandal to an end.
I must again emphasize that with every single person we met, save the one – a total of nine meetings – we went through Oves Sine Pastore in its entirety. Moreover, without exception, we made the above four mentioned requests with crystal clarity.
When we returned and alerted the American media about our trip and certain aspects of it, certain Catholic polemicists and bloggers were incredulous that anyone at the Vatican would meet with us if they knew the purpose of our visit before hand.
One of our more caustic critics wrote:
Now, does anyone believe even for a second that these Vatican men would agree to meet with Randall Terry to discuss the removal of American bishops? Does that even pass the smell test? Can you hear Cardinal Stafford say, "Sure Randall, come on in and let’s talk about getting rid of two American bishops."?
What I think really happened is that when Randall Terry called for these meetings, he said it was to talk about the American pro-life movement. Maybe he said he wanted to discuss how the pro-life movement should respond to Catholic politicians who are unfaithful on abortion.
His sense of smell was quite mistaken. Moreover, as a professional, he should have checked his facts, and made a phone call to our team and me. We did not do a “bait and switch,” as he suggests; Vatican officials knew we were coming to discuss American Bishops.
Sue Cyr, a dedicated pro-life advocate and leader from Dallas TX, was (with her husband Tom) on the team that met with Vatican officials. She arranged all but one of the meetings (the exception being the one with Archbishop Burke, which I arranged.) In her e-mail she told them that we wanted to come and discuss the crisis we have with American bishops.
Here is the e-mail she worded and sent:
February 17, 2009
Dear [Name of Bishop],
We pray you’re doing well. A group of ten pro-life leaders from the United States request an appointment with you during the week of March 2-6, 2009. [Ed. Note: One leader cancelled at the last moment.]
The group will be traveling to Rome with Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, organized to end abortion in the United States. Randall met with the Holy Father in 1991, and spoke at the Vatican for an international pro-life gathering of leaders.
We represent many groups of people who have been fighting abortion in America for many years. We would like to meet with you about the serious situation here in the United States and the Church’s role in abortion.
We would like to also share a packet of information with you about what happened with many American Bishops in the last election helping to elect a very pro-abortion president, which will result in the loss of millions of more lives. It also includes details about Bishops continuing to encourage and support pro-abortion politicians with the Sacraments. And we'd like to discuss the role of the laity in ending abortion.
Please contact me for an appointment.
Sue Cyr
As you can see, we made clear the overarching purpose of our meeting – addressing our concerns about American Bishops.
The Vatican is acutely aware that the Church in America is in a crisis; they know that the Catholic Church is in a battle to fearlessly teach and live out orthodoxy. They are also aware that there is great disparity among U.S. Catholic Bishops in regards to their orthodoxy, their defense of the babies, and their safeguarding the sacredness of the Eucharist. We are in scandalous times in America, Europe, and throughout the world.
We decided that due to the intense nature of our visit that the verbal discussions of those meetings would stay between us and the bishops or priests with whom we met. This was done so that no one would be quoted after the fact, and caught off guard by any whiplash from the press or the Internet world.
Many frank and honest things were said by us and by our hosts in the warmth and clarity of those meetings, but we have not quoted anyone after the fact from that day to the present.
This commitment had two exceptions. First, we intended to release Oves Sine Pastore as a public document once our meetings were done. The various reactions to Oves Sine Pastore, the words of advice, etc., from our hosts would remain private, but the document would be released.
Second, if anyone wanted to do an “on the record” interview, any such interview would be for the public record. That interview – and only that interview, not unguarded words that same person might have said “off the record” – would be made public.
Joining us on the trip was Mario Paveglio, a professional videographer from the Harrisburg Pennsylvania area. He brought two (2) professional video cameras to capture and record the interview of anyone who would agree to be interviewed on the record.
All of our meetings were with the various dicastories on an individual basis; i.e., we met with each person individually; Burke separately, Stafford separately, etc.
After the presentation of Oves Sine Pastore, we asked Archbishop Burke, Cardinal Cañizares, and Cardinal Stafford if they would be interviewed “on the record.” Archbishop Burke agreed to do the interview on the spot; Cardinal Cañizares agreed to do his interview on the following day.
Cardinal Stafford met with us for almost two hours; just him and us, with no staff present. It was one of the most moving experiences I have had in many years. Several in our group shed tears; we had a beautiful time of prayer. He is a very prophetic man. Due to the length of the meeting – and because he had another appointment - he suggested we do the interview with him on our next trip to Rome. He - and all of us - were sure we would make another trip to Rome for these life and death issues for the babies and the Church. And as per our decision, our discussions with Cardinal Stafford have remained private.
We explained to Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Cañizares that the interviews would be for my radio and TV show, and that we would get them out to the pro-life movement at large.
We filmed the interviews, finished our week in Rome, brought the footage home, and began our work to release the interviews.
About three weeks after returning, I decided to air the Archbishop Burke interview on my daily radio show, and to release his interview and the Cardinal Cañizares interview that afternoon at a press conference at the Press Club in Washington DC, and then on line as a video. The date was March 25.
Some background is in order here.
In addition to being a pro-life leader, I have been a broadcaster since 1989, broadcasting a daily radio show until 2000, then resuming it again twice since then, including most of 2008. I also recently filmed 14 episodes of my new television show, Insurrecta Nex.
In the standards of the broadcast industry, once an interview is done on the record, it is not only potentially to be used for the broadcaster that recorded it, but it also can become a news story in and of itself. Think of how many times you have seen an interview done by one network, and clips of it are also being shown on other networks all over the country, or being discussed in newspapers, because of the newsworthy material in the interview.
When we did the interviews with Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Cañizares, we made very clear to both of them that these interviews would be used on my radio and television shows. And as I stated, we also told them that we would get them out far and wide to pro-lifers throughout America.
From our perspective, the interviews were spectacular. They both said things that would thrill the hearts of the faithful.
I confess; there was little new here from Archbishop Burke’s lips; he had been saying these things for years. His words had been covered in various Catholic online journals, or printed newspapers. But as far as I know, very few of his words had made it into the national media.
What was new were two things: First, it was the first time to my knowledge that he and Cardinal Cañizares were on video tape – not just in print or with an audio recording – and since this is a video generation, and the TV medium is the warmest and most effective way of communication, we felt these interviews had tremendous power to encourage and strengthen the faithful on the issues of child killing in general, and giving Holy Communion to the promoters of child killing.
Second – and this was the huge breaking news - Archbishop Burke clearly said that faithful Catholic laity should urge U.S. bishops to cease the scandal; and he also said (in so many words) that those Catholics who voted for Obama knowing that he supported child-killing had at some level participated in cooperation with evil. Here is the transcript of my question about communion, and his exact answer. A link to the transcript and the video of the entire interview are at the end.
Mr. Terry: When the election was approaching, Bishop Martino said he would not serve Communion to Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden. There were a handful of other bishops who made similar statements, for which the laity and the faithful were rejoicing. But the deafening silence from so many other bishops—and also the bishops who stepped up such as in Washington DC, Virginia, others...Massachusetts...[and] said that we will serve Communion—was so painful for us. What word of encouragement would you give, first to the laity on our struggle to bring orthodoxy back, and then to your brother bishops and priests?
Archbishop Burke: I think simply to say: reflect upon this norm of the Church’s discipline—Canon 915—which is one of the most important canons to safeguard the greatest treasure that we have in this life, namely, the Communion that we have with our Lord Jesus Christ, and His true body and His true blood; and to, in every way work so that also public witness is given to the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist. And so I would encourage the faithful when they are scandalized by the giving of Holy Communion to persons who are publicly and obstinately in sin, that they go to their pastors, whether it’s their parish priest or to their bishop, to insist that this scandal stop. Because, it is weakening the faith of everyone. It’s giving the impression that it must be morally correct to support procured abortion, in at least in some circumstances, if not also generally. So they need to insist that their parish priest and the bishops, and for the rest...to my brother bishops and brother priests...simply to say: the service of the Church in the world today has to begin first and foremost with the protection of the life of those who are the most defenseless and the most innocent, namely the unborn, and certainly has to extend also to those who are gravely ill, or burdened with serious illness, who have special needs; and also now more and more their lives are being threatened by a culture of death which sadly has infected our nation. So I would just urge my brother bishops and my brother priests to see as the most fundamental witness and service which they can give in leading also the faithful in their pastoral care is the apostolate of the respect for human life.
Anyone who has followed the multi-decade struggle of faithful Catholics begging Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to politicians who promote the murder of the innocent – and are thereby in public, grave sin – would know that this was a critically important statement from Archbishop Burke. It was newsworthy because he is a former U.S. Bishop – the most outspoken on Canon 915 – and because he now holds one of the highest offices in the Vatican.
At the time the interviews were taken in Rome, we did not have a plan to hold a press conference concerning the content. But on further reflection, I decided to send out the two press releases; one dealing with our meetings in Rome, the second inviting the press to see the interview with Archbishop Burke.
We sent out two press releases; the first on March 12, the second on March 23. (They can be retrieved at www.Christiannewswire.com.) That is where things began to get tense.
Here is the March 12 Press release:
Vatican Meeting: Americans Bring Case to Replace DC Archbishop
WASHINGTON, Mar. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Randall Terry, Operation Rescue Founder, led a delegation of nine pro-life leaders in an unprecedented series of meetings with Vatican officials from March 2-6 in Rome. (Names below.) The reactions ranged from shock to heartfelt agreement.
The purpose was to beg Vatican officials to intervene decisively in the American Catholic Church. Vatican officials were presented with irrefutable evidence that a majority of US bishops refuse to uphold key teachings of the Church.
The entire document -- Oves Sine Pastore (Sheep Without a Shepherd) -- is at www.humbleplea.com. The complete list of requests at tab 5.
Mr. Terry States:
"Our first request was that the Holy See relocate Archbishop Donald Wuerl (DC) and Bishop Paul Loverde (Arlington V.A.), and to replace them with bishops who will uphold the laws of the Church -- namely, bishops who refuse to serve Communion to any politician who supports the killing of children by abortion.
"Recent headlines proved our point. Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, Kansas, recently excommunicated Governor Kathleen Sebelius. President Obama selected her to head Health and Human Services, where she will promote abortion. When she comes to DC, Archbishop Naumann will be scoffed at, she will receive Communion with Archbishop Wuerl's or Bishop Loverde’s tacit approval, and American Catholics will descend further into scandal and confusion.
"If these two bishops are relocated, and Bishops of the caliber of Naumann are put in the DC area dioceses -- which are watched by the whole world -- it will show all humanity that the Holy See is serious about defending innocent life, and that the Eucharist is not to be profaned or scandalized. It will also tell all U.S. Bishops that the days of fear, equivocation, and outright disobedience are coming to an end."
------------------------
For some Catholics, the very fact that we dared to go to Rome and make these requests was shocking. Then the fact that we would make the document public – and publicly restate that we want Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde to be relocated - was more than they could bear. “This just isn’t done…” I was told.
I stand by every word of that press release, without equivocation. If you want to understand why we believe it is in the interest of the Church, the babies, and the souls of the faithful, please read Oves Sine Pastore. (If someone will not take the time to read it, it is a bit unjust of him or her to criticize us.)
The second press release – issued March 23 for a March 25 press conference - dealt with the Archbishop Burke interview. Here it is:
Archbishop Burke, Third Most Powerful Man in Vatican, Gives Candid Interview Dealing with President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Communion, U.S. Bishops, and the Guilt of American Catholics in the Last Election
WASHINGTON, March 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- On March 2, 2009, His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, granted an unprecedented interview to Randall Terry.
Mr. Terry will show the entire interview (approx 12 minutes) at the Press Club on Wednesday, March 25, at 10:00 A.M.
The questions ranged from how the Church should deal with pro-abortion politicians like Vice President Biden receiving Communion, the failure of certain U.S. bishops to obey and enforce Canon Law, what faithful laity should say to errant bishops, the guilt of Catholics who voted for Obama, and what we must do to bring reform to America and the Church.
In light of the recent invitation of Notre Dame to have President Obama speak at commencement, this interview is very timely.
Randall Terry states:
"Everyone who has seen this interview is stunned at Archbishop Burke's candor and clarity. His words thunder, and are without equivocation.
"As one of the Pope's most powerful Prefects, we believe his words signal the Vatican's intention to deal more directly with American bishops, priests, and laity, who are betraying the lives of the innocent unborn, and Catholic Truth by their actions or by their silence.
"Since Archbishop Burke is the head of the papal courts, his words carry enormous weight concerning Church law. If cases are brought against individuals on these various matters, he is the "chief justice" in the Vatican.
"The faithful will be strengthened by his words; the errant and rebellious will be warned."
-----------------------------
These are my words. Obviously, they were very direct. I meant them to be; I wanted the press to come and see the interview, and I wanted the treacherous in the Church to take notice. (I have since been told that the Prefect of the Signatura may not be the third most powerful man in the Vatican. I gladly leave it to others to make that distinction.)
Forgive me for waxing polemic, but we do have FIFTY MILLION MURDERED BABIES who have sewers and landfills for graves. And many of the perpetrators of that murder are Catholics who receive the Body and Blood of Christ, after they help kill His Holy Innocents by abortion. If this crime and public scandal does not warrant withholding Holy Communion, what does?
Well, I got my wish…and more.
Two Catholic staffers – if my memory is correct, one was from the Archdiocese of DC, the other from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) - were present at the press conference, quietly seething. (They identified themselves as employees.) Please note: for those bishops who refuse to obey and enforce Canon 915, their staffs are supportive of them. (One doesn’t keep a job for long if one bucks the boss.)
My guess is that when they left, they went back to their offices, and immediately started to stir up trouble for me…and subsequently, for Archbishop Burke.
In the meantime, the media world (including the New York Times) took note of the interview, and a fairly good debate was underway. The world of faithful Catholic blogs lit up with rejoicing. People were thrilled with Archbishop Burke’s clarity and courage. Maybe American bishops would start to respond appropriately to this epic crisis.
But these turbulent waters can have a sudden change in the wind; a storm followed.
The next day, March 26, the USCCB released this statement for Archbishop Burke:
“Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.“
Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.
“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.
"Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.
“Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
“Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
“If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.
“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”
(Most Rev.) Raymond L. Burke
March 26, 2009
-------------------------------------
I was stunned. Our Vanguard of St. Catherine of Sienna team was in shock, deeply hurt and frustrated.
And of course, the Internet world that cared about this (for righteousness or evil) convulsed with confusion and anger – mostly against me – but also against Archbishop Burke.
Here are samples against me: “Randall Terry may have manipulated the Burke interview in an improper way;” he is “a divisive character” who “set Archbishop Burke up,” and “Archbishop Burke was duped by Randall Terry on purpose of interview...”
Here are samples against Archbishop Burke: “Shame on the bishops who don't follow Canon 915, and shame on Ab. Burke for putting their feelings and his political stature ahead of holiness.” And “Blaming the interviewer for regrettable things that one says in an interview is, of course, a very old trick.”
Before going further, let me point out something very glaring in Archbishop Burke’s USCCB’s issued statement, which may hold a critical key in unraveling some of this mess.
His statement read:
“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.
As you can see in the press releases I issued, I said no such thing. There is no impression given at any point in anything that I had sent out as a “media advisory” that would indicate Archbishop Burke would be present in Washington DC.
What that means – and I am trying to be delicate here – is that somebody deceived Archbishop Burke, whether intentionally or not. Somebody called him up – and to some degree - bore false witness against me, what we were doing with the interview, and what we had done in the press conference. It is obvious to any objective judge of the facts that I did not ever say, nor did anyone present at the press conference expect that His Excellency would actually be there in person. The question is: what else did they tell him that caused him to react the way he did?
Also please note, my press release announcing his interview is not a “severe criticism” of the bishops. Moreover, at the press conference, I never attributed any criticism of Archbishop Burke towards his brother bishops other than anything he said in the interview. We unveiled the interview, and let it stand for itself.
In short, I am convinced that much of this controversy was started by the deceit or malice of whatever party(s) contacted Archbishop Burke. I think it is safe to say that whoever contacted him is not in agreement with the need to enforce Canon 915. Archbishop Burke reacted to their contact, as any one of us might have.
Given this background, let me now apologize for what I can (in good conscience), defend Archbishop Burke, defend my associates, and stand by the essence of what we have done.
Your Excellency, I apologize for not informing you that we would use this interview in a press conference. Please forgive me.
Your Excellency, I apologize for confusing your title in the interview – “not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,” but rather as a bishop from the United States. I did not know of such a distinction. I ask you to please forgive me.
Your Excellency, I am sorry for any trouble I have unjustly or unduly caused between you and your brother bishops. Please forgive me.
Your Excellency, if my associates and I ever have the privilege of another audience with you, I assure you this will not happen again. And as you have seen from our other discussions and those with other men (that have stayed “off the record”) we have honored boundaries, as we have understood them. My associates in the Vanguard of St. Catherine of Sienna are guiltless in this whole situation.
For those who are upset with Archbishop Burke, please do not be. I am certain he was caught off guard by this sudden firestorm, and that at some level he was misled by those who contacted him. Moreover, he made very clear (in a subsequent interview) that he did not retract a single word of the interview he did with me, and he has since then repeatedly called for the enforcement of Canon 915.
I consider Archbishop Burke one of the greatest men alive, certainly one of the greatest bishops in the Catholic Church. His treatise on Communion in PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA (2007) entitled The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin was brilliant. (I often wonder if he received his current appointment in part because of that dissertation.) Read it at: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
In closing, I say this: any missteps or stumbling of mine notwithstanding, the fight over child killing and Communion is to orthopraxy what the fight over the nature of Christ and the Trinity was to orthodoxy. We are fighting to end the most horrific crime in the history of the human race, as well as fighting for the soul of the Church.
This battle is going to get messier, and more turbulent. History shows us that the fight over the Nicene Creed involved bishops in severe (sometimes violent) conflict with each other, and also involved the faithful laity being in conflict with errant bishops. And many scholars credit the faithful laity with saving the Church.
Long Life to Archbishop Burke, and may his work The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion become the standard text for all seminarians regarding their duty as future priests. May they – and all bishops and priests – rise up as one man to protect the Holy Eucharist from being profaned by those whose hands are covered with innocent blood. Amen.
To read Oves Sine Pastore, or to see the Archbishop Burke interview or read the transcript of the interview, go to: www.humbleplea.com
In Christ’s Wounds Kept,
Randall A. Terry
Attested to by those present in Rome:
Sue Cyr
Tom Cyr
Ed Faddoul
Joseph Landry
George Offerman
Kathy Offerman
Mario Paveglio
Sandra Paveglio
see link: http://www.spiritdaily.com/terryapology.htm
Thursday, January 21, 2010
PRIORITIES
George Offerman
I am rather dismayed that the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, is a proponent of Roe V. Wade. On the surface, it is good that hell care may very well go down in flames, but it shows that the majority of the pressure put on the democrats, and the most influential constituency is mad up of those that are looking at taxes and big government as the major source of problems, and not the number one issue of preserving all life and protecting the unborn. What a shame.
It is more imperative that the pro life movement becomes more relevant, and step up to the plate to get its job done. Legalized child killing is above and beyond the most relevant issue our nation faces, yet it is relegated to back room status, and does not get much attention from the Republican Party, other than lip service around election time.
If we as Christians truly take a Theo centric view of the world, we have to do something about this. It cannot be treated as an inconvenience and avoided at all costs in order to ‘keep the peace’. If people, including Christians, find it more important to vote for the wallet instead of for life, it will be very clear where God will intervene next. I, as well as many others, have been stating that the economic concerns are the greatest impediments to the majority of people truly getting involved in this fight, and if money becomes the new god, then the Living God will eventually let this false god have its day. And will it be ugly, especially when it goes to its intrinsic value: zero.
The march for life takes place tomorrow, and it will be seen as to what effect we will have on anyone in the government and society. There are many ‘undercurrents’ that will be at play tomorrow, and one is Fr. Jenkins appearing (for the first time) and demonstrating some hypocritical stances, such as trying to peddle his snake oil, that once drunk, will make him look pro life. There are many who wish he would stay in South Bend, and not cause any more dissention than what he already did. Evidently, it is more important for Fr. Jenkins to feed his ego, than deal with the realization that he is a polarizing individual that claims to be an ordained priest in good standing in the Catholic Church.
There will also be Bishops present on the stage, that will give flowery, and possibly some tough speeches, but will not follow through on what they themselves will call out believers to do. They will mock the faith, and justify their betrayal of their vows to carry out the gospel of Jesus Christ, and serve the Body of Christ to child killers who have blood on their hands.
There will be those that praise the recent elections, and state how this has changed the pro life movement, without looking at the fact the motivation for change had to do more with economic reasons than principles, like the sanctity of life and real belief in God and his justice. Much lip service will be paid to this, and there will be a lot of feel good statements made, but most will go back to their lives afterwards, and not do much until next year.
There will then be the counter protestors who will garner much media and a great deal of attention. Their tired and contradictory arguments will be given the same moral gravity as the word of God, and will be promoted by the mainstream media as the ‘enlightened and sophisticated’ positions. This will be what the mainstream media pushes, and this will be the impression that the uninformed masses will get. We need to do something about this and create a firestorm tomorrow that will garner the right attention.
I am rather dismayed that the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, is a proponent of Roe V. Wade. On the surface, it is good that hell care may very well go down in flames, but it shows that the majority of the pressure put on the democrats, and the most influential constituency is mad up of those that are looking at taxes and big government as the major source of problems, and not the number one issue of preserving all life and protecting the unborn. What a shame.
It is more imperative that the pro life movement becomes more relevant, and step up to the plate to get its job done. Legalized child killing is above and beyond the most relevant issue our nation faces, yet it is relegated to back room status, and does not get much attention from the Republican Party, other than lip service around election time.
If we as Christians truly take a Theo centric view of the world, we have to do something about this. It cannot be treated as an inconvenience and avoided at all costs in order to ‘keep the peace’. If people, including Christians, find it more important to vote for the wallet instead of for life, it will be very clear where God will intervene next. I, as well as many others, have been stating that the economic concerns are the greatest impediments to the majority of people truly getting involved in this fight, and if money becomes the new god, then the Living God will eventually let this false god have its day. And will it be ugly, especially when it goes to its intrinsic value: zero.
The march for life takes place tomorrow, and it will be seen as to what effect we will have on anyone in the government and society. There are many ‘undercurrents’ that will be at play tomorrow, and one is Fr. Jenkins appearing (for the first time) and demonstrating some hypocritical stances, such as trying to peddle his snake oil, that once drunk, will make him look pro life. There are many who wish he would stay in South Bend, and not cause any more dissention than what he already did. Evidently, it is more important for Fr. Jenkins to feed his ego, than deal with the realization that he is a polarizing individual that claims to be an ordained priest in good standing in the Catholic Church.
There will also be Bishops present on the stage, that will give flowery, and possibly some tough speeches, but will not follow through on what they themselves will call out believers to do. They will mock the faith, and justify their betrayal of their vows to carry out the gospel of Jesus Christ, and serve the Body of Christ to child killers who have blood on their hands.
There will be those that praise the recent elections, and state how this has changed the pro life movement, without looking at the fact the motivation for change had to do more with economic reasons than principles, like the sanctity of life and real belief in God and his justice. Much lip service will be paid to this, and there will be a lot of feel good statements made, but most will go back to their lives afterwards, and not do much until next year.
There will then be the counter protestors who will garner much media and a great deal of attention. Their tired and contradictory arguments will be given the same moral gravity as the word of God, and will be promoted by the mainstream media as the ‘enlightened and sophisticated’ positions. This will be what the mainstream media pushes, and this will be the impression that the uninformed masses will get. We need to do something about this and create a firestorm tomorrow that will garner the right attention.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
MIRACLE IN MASSACHUSETTES
George Offerman
Now that it is official that Scott Brown won the election, we can look at this turn of events at least as an inspired event, if not truly a miracle. As late as last week, the most optimistic pundit was talking about a Brown loss, but strong showing, that will shake up the political establishment. I don’t think anyone really believed Mr. Brown was going to pull this off, given the history of Massachusetts electing very liberal Senators and Congressmen. Well, heaven may have had a very different view of things, and hearts were stirred to do the right thing.
Now, it is time to capitalize on this victory. It is time to take the offensive and begin to set the agenda and fight against the liberals. We need to act as if we have the truth on our side, because we do. We need to begin to hold the other elected officials throughout this nation accountable for their behaviors and voting records, and get rid of the pretenders and liars. It is time to set a national agenda, unify our side and get candidates willing to do whatever it takes to turn the tide of liberalism and get back to God given common sense government.
It ought to start with Senators like Lindsay Graham who made outrageous statements in his supporting Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. If one remembers, Senator Graham spoke about the ‘new republican’ and how the need to be in the middle is more important than ever. This is a huge change for the supposed pro life Senator, and demonstrates that the side that most have come to believe having championed the pro life cause have actually abandoned the cause for political expediency.
If we can have a miracle in Massachusetts, why not miracles in other places? Why is it that our side wants to settle once the crisis is past? Is it not becoming very obvious that the pro life movement is being played by many, if not most of the politicians? It is so important that those claiming to be pro life actually work to end legalized child killing in a consistent fashion, and take the punches they are elected to do. We, as a movement must hold them to this standard, and be willing to replace them if they don’t.
In the meantime, it is worth celebrating that the possibility of this hell care plan going down in flames as it deserves. It does demonstrate that God’s Grace still abounds and He will intervene when the motives and actions are in alignment. This election took it to the liberal establishment, and they now have to reconsider where they are taking this country. Obama is now forced to deal with this, and it is very possible that if hell care goes to the end it deserves, Obama will be seen in the future as someone who ultimately could not get the job done, and his party will have to look for true leadership elsewhere.
Much good can come out of this, but the window of opportunity will be open for a very brief moment. This is the day in which we must act, and act with courage and conviction, like most of our enemies do. It can start with the pro lifers and the tea party people getting a clear and concise agenda and using this week as a launch point to convince those in power that their jobs and careers are on the line. We have their attention now, and the right forces are running scared. The light has been shined onto the enemy’s camp, and they have been found bankrupt, morally, ethically, and fiscally.
Let us continue to call on the name of our Lord and Savior, and labor in the light. We have the truth on our side, and for the first time in quite a while, several forces are converging on our side that can create a huge opening in this battle. We need to jump in.
Now that it is official that Scott Brown won the election, we can look at this turn of events at least as an inspired event, if not truly a miracle. As late as last week, the most optimistic pundit was talking about a Brown loss, but strong showing, that will shake up the political establishment. I don’t think anyone really believed Mr. Brown was going to pull this off, given the history of Massachusetts electing very liberal Senators and Congressmen. Well, heaven may have had a very different view of things, and hearts were stirred to do the right thing.
Now, it is time to capitalize on this victory. It is time to take the offensive and begin to set the agenda and fight against the liberals. We need to act as if we have the truth on our side, because we do. We need to begin to hold the other elected officials throughout this nation accountable for their behaviors and voting records, and get rid of the pretenders and liars. It is time to set a national agenda, unify our side and get candidates willing to do whatever it takes to turn the tide of liberalism and get back to God given common sense government.
It ought to start with Senators like Lindsay Graham who made outrageous statements in his supporting Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. If one remembers, Senator Graham spoke about the ‘new republican’ and how the need to be in the middle is more important than ever. This is a huge change for the supposed pro life Senator, and demonstrates that the side that most have come to believe having championed the pro life cause have actually abandoned the cause for political expediency.
If we can have a miracle in Massachusetts, why not miracles in other places? Why is it that our side wants to settle once the crisis is past? Is it not becoming very obvious that the pro life movement is being played by many, if not most of the politicians? It is so important that those claiming to be pro life actually work to end legalized child killing in a consistent fashion, and take the punches they are elected to do. We, as a movement must hold them to this standard, and be willing to replace them if they don’t.
In the meantime, it is worth celebrating that the possibility of this hell care plan going down in flames as it deserves. It does demonstrate that God’s Grace still abounds and He will intervene when the motives and actions are in alignment. This election took it to the liberal establishment, and they now have to reconsider where they are taking this country. Obama is now forced to deal with this, and it is very possible that if hell care goes to the end it deserves, Obama will be seen in the future as someone who ultimately could not get the job done, and his party will have to look for true leadership elsewhere.
Much good can come out of this, but the window of opportunity will be open for a very brief moment. This is the day in which we must act, and act with courage and conviction, like most of our enemies do. It can start with the pro lifers and the tea party people getting a clear and concise agenda and using this week as a launch point to convince those in power that their jobs and careers are on the line. We have their attention now, and the right forces are running scared. The light has been shined onto the enemy’s camp, and they have been found bankrupt, morally, ethically, and fiscally.
Let us continue to call on the name of our Lord and Savior, and labor in the light. We have the truth on our side, and for the first time in quite a while, several forces are converging on our side that can create a huge opening in this battle. We need to jump in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)