Friday, March 30, 2012

Pro-abortion links still posted on Notre Dame’s website as “Internship Opportunities”

Notre Dame Dome

University spokesman sidesteps issue; pro-abortion professor calls TFP “monsters.” Confirmed: Some pro-abortion internships are funded by ND Gender Studies.

The Department of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame currently lists the following menu option on its webpage: “How to Find a Summer Internship.” When students click on that option they are sent to a page titled: “Summer Internship Opportunities,” which provides live links to pro-abortion groups. (Link)

Alerted about this fact, over 10,850 students and parents joined TFP Student Action in politely asking Fr. John I. Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, to have the website entries that point students to pro-abortion organizations removed.

Notre Dame Responds

Instead of acknowledging the fact that these live links are posted on Notre Dame’s website, connecting students with pro-abortion groups that recruit college interns -- and removing them -- university spokesman Dennis Brown attempts to divert attention from the core issue: The pro-abortion links.

“It has come to my attention that your group [TFP] has posted erroneous information regarding internships at Notre Dame. You are claiming that Notre Dame is ‘offering’ internships with pro-abortion organizations and encouraging students to apply with these groups, and that simply isn’t true,” states Mr. Brown in an email.

“The material you have alluded to on the Department of Political Science website is nothing more than a list of organizations that have offered internships to students in the past. We respectfully request that you discontinue disseminating this inaccurate information,” he wrote.

What about the pro-abortion links?

Mr. Brown, however, dodges the central question: What about the pro-abortion links? Were they removed? Well, no. In fact, those live links are still listed as “opportunities.” And what are students expected to understand from the term “opportunity” other than just that – opportunity?

However, to address Mr. Brown’s charge of inaccuracy, the title of TFP Student Action’s initial post was modified to read: “Unacceptable: Notre Dame website links to pro-abortion ‘internship opportunities.’” For the record, the original post was titled: “Unacceptable: Notre Dame offers pro-abortion ‘internship opportunities’ to students.”

ND Professor to TFP: “Back Off, You Monsters”

Meanwhile, TFP Student Action received the following email message from a Notre Dame professor:

“Back off, you monsters. I teach at the University of Notre Dame and we are a finer university than you know. Of course we announce internships to organizations like Center for American Progress, Emily’s List, Feminist Majority Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Institute for Women's Policy Research, National Women’s Law Center, Think Progress, United Nations Population Fund.

“Why wouldn't we? These organizations each and all do fabulous work. And this university is a university - it participates in all dialogue. That's what a good university does.”

Clearly, not all professors at Notre Dame respect the Catholic faith or the right to life.

Office of the President Responds

More recently, one of our readers received this message from Notre Dame’s Office of the President:

“Thank you for taking the time to write. Fr. Jenkins appreciates you sharing your thoughts, but he is not able to respond to each message individually.

“The information contained in the post on the TFP Student Action website was false. Contrary to the group’s unsubstantiated report, Notre Dame does not offer internships to the organizations that were cited and does not encourage students to apply for them. TFP has changed its story and no longer is making its original false claims. The list on the political science department website was just that, a list of internships students have taken and then self-reported to the department. No academic credit was given nor were university funds used with the internships in question.”

However, new facts only give rise to more concern.

Yes, Notre Dame did help fund pro-abortion internships

After additional research, Catholic blogger Kathy Schiffer at made another sad discovery on March 26. She found that internship grants have been given to students for work at other organizations that promote abortion and the homosexual agenda.

According to Notre Dame’s “Gender Studies” webpage:

“The Boehnen Summer Internship Grants are competitive grants that are awarded annually to Notre Dame Gender Studies undergraduate students who have secured unpaid summer internships that will help them analyze, understand, and gain valuable work experience in fields pertaining to Gender Studies...

“All currently enrolled Gender Studies Supplemental Majors and Gender Studies Minors are eligible to apply for these grants. The typical amount awarded is $2,500.” (Link)

To date, internship grants have been awarded to students for serving groups such as: (Link)

The Minnesota Women’s Consortium. Among the Consortium’s member groups, all of which claim to “empower women,” is Planned Parenthood. The Notre Dame intern has blogged about her experiences on

The Anti-Defamation League of Boston, where the intern’s goal is to help combat “sexism, racism and heterosexism.” This group supports the redefinition of God-ordained marriage.

The Resource Center Dallas. Its mission is to empower “the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.” This group supports same-sex “marriage.”

The National Organization for Women, one of America’s most active abortion advocacy groups.

The Illinois Safe Schools Alliance in Chicago. This pro-homosexualist non-profit encourages students to bring same-sex partners to highschool proms.

Among research internships in the Bio-medical Sciences was one program at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI). Their research is not restricted to adult stem cells; rather, they rely on embryonic stem cell lines derived from aborted fetuses, a type of research which the Church strongly opposes. (Link -- see page 9)

The Protest Continues

TFP Student Action is grateful to all its readers and members who signed the petition to Notre Dame. For the future of our culture and country, we cannot afford to compromise with evil or surrender on moral values.

We will continue our peaceful and prayerful protest until the pro-abortion links, and internships, are removed. The fact that Notre Dame students have served as interns for pro-abortion organizations in the past should cause embarrassment, not pride. Moreover, to post live links to pro-abortion groups under the title “Summer Internship Opportunities” is misleading and morally confusing to faithful Catholic students.

Therefore, we invite pro-life Americans to continue calling for their removal.

Please sign your instant protest today – right now – here

To give this peaceful effort more impact, please forward this message to all your pro-life friends (or even your entire address book). You don’t need to be a student to participate.

Contact information (please be firm yet polite):

The University of Notre Dame
Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Phone: 574.631.3903

Leave a protest message directly on Notre Dame's web site here

Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Right to Own Arms -- in 1474!

Those who claim that citizens do not have the right to own and bear arms really do not have a concept of history. Historically, individuals did own arms to protect themselves. The example below is from 1474 in a small town of 2,300 households in France:

"Moreover, while in a modern state the armory in the hands of individuals is practically insignificant when compared to the weaponry controlled by the public powers, in preindustrial Europe the situation was totally different.

"Troyes is a medium-sized city in France which in October 1474 counted some 2,300 households. An official inspection of all homes showed that at the time the citizens owned 208 jacks, 51 complete suits of armor, 109 breastplates and overshirts, 199 shirts of mail and coats of mail, 73 surcoats, 49 brigandines and underskirts, 785 sallets and armets, 151 barbutes and basinets, 271 crossbows, 547 muskets, with both automatic recoil and manual, 4 cannons, one serpentine, 389 lances, 855 hachets and hammers, 1047 spears, 201 javelins, double hooked lances, and pikes, 37 bows, 657 two-headed hammers of lead, copper, and iron.

"Moreover, in the shops of the town merchants there were for sale: 69 jacks, 6 complete suits of armor, one decorated breastplate, 5 overshirts, 14 brigandines, 6 shirts of mail, 79 lances, 110 sallets, 16 steel crossbows, 8 hammers, 56 swords, 17 pair of gauntlets. …

"Still, even for calmer periods and quieter areas, if one combines the armory in the hands of the private citizens and the weaponry owned by the public powers, one always finds that the particular form of capital represented quite a sizable amount of wealth.

Taken from: Carlo M. Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution: European Society and Economy, 1000-1700, (W.W. Norton & Co., New York), 1976, p. 103-104.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The Three Days of Darkness

by Robert Ritchie

This was one of our most popular posts on this blog. We are republishing it now as we approach Holy Week.

Although the Church does not oblige us to believe in any particular prophecy or private revelation, it certainly is telling that many mystics and saints speak of the Three Days of Darkness, such as:
Blessed Anna-Maria Taigi, Ven. Elizabeth Canori-Mora, Saint Hildegard and many others.
Here are a few quotes from these mystics.
Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769-1837 A.D.):

"God will send two punishments: one will be in the form of wars, revolutions and other evils; it shall originate on earth. The other will be sent from Heaven. There shall come over the whole earth an intense darkness lasting three days and three nights. Nothing can be seen, and the air will be laden with pestilence which will claim mainly, but not only, the enemies of religion. It will be impossible to use any man-made lighting during this darkness, except blessed candles. He, who out of curiosity, opens his window to look out, or leaves his home, will fall dead on the spot. During these three days, people should remain in their homes, pray the Rosary and beg God for mercy."

"All the enemies of the Church, whether known or unknown, will perish over the whole earth during that universal darkness, with the exception of a few whom God will soon convert. The air shall be infected by demons who will appear under all sorts of hideous forms."

The mystic Marie-Julie Jahenny also mentions the 3 days of darkness. (January 4, 1884):

"The three days of darkness « will be on a THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. Days of the Most Holy Sacrament, of the Cross and Our Lady. . . .» three days less one night."

"«The earth will be covered in darkness», says Our Lady on 20th of September 1882, AND HELL WILL BE LOOSED ON EARTH. Thunder and lightning will cause those who have no faith or trust in My Power, to die of fear."

"During these three days of terrifying darkness, no windows must be opened, because no one will be able to see the earth and the terrible color it will have in those days of punishment without dying at once... "

"The sky will be on fire, the earth will split... During these three days of darkness let the blessed candle be lighted everywhere, no other light will shine.... "

Sr. Rosa Colomba Asdenti of Taggia who lived in the 19th c. also prophesied a three days of darkness.

Palma Maria d' Oria (d.1863), as do other seers, tells of the activities of the demons:

"There shall be three days of darkness, during which the atmosphere will be infected by innumerable devils, who will cause the death of large multitudes of unbelievers and wicked men. Blessed candles alone shall be able to give light and preserve the faithful Catholics from this impending dreadful scourge.

Sr. Mary of Jesus Crucified of Pau, (d.1878):

"During a darkness lasting three days the people given to evil will perish so that only one-fourth of mankind will survive."

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Why Dump Starbucks?


A new campaign is urging customers across the globe to 'Dump Starbucks' because it has taken a corporate-wide position that the definition of marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become equally 'normal'. As such, Starbucks has deeply offended at least half its US customers, and the vast majority of its international customers.

On January 12th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that same-sex marriage 'is core to who we are and what we value as a company.'

Read more:

Monday, March 26, 2012

Green and Equal

Green and Equal, an impossible obligation

Written by Gary J. Isbell

Imagine being subject to laws that cannot be followed and being fined for not fulfilling this impossible obligation. This is the great dilemma faced by owners of hundreds of thousands of public pools that are now required to install wheelchair lifts and ramps in their pools, or else face fines and lawsuits because they violate disability laws.

Although the Department of Justice [DOJ] recently issued a 60-day stay of execution for the pool owners, it is only a temporary respite as the present administration has expanded the rules for public access under the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. In the name of equality, these rules now require publicly accessible pools have two “accessible means of entry” installed. One of these means must be a wheelchair lift or ramp. Spas are also required to provide a lift or transfer system to assist the disabled under the new regulations.

The ADA has created a situation that has been rightfully labeled "pool-mageddon" by those who oppose the ruling. It made no effort to “grandfather” any pre-existing installations. Rather it made a sweeping mandate that obliges all publically accessed pools and spas to comply. To add insult to injury, there are simply not enough lifts available in the country to comply with this new mandate. What is worse, the DOJ did not recognize the absurdity of this impossible mandate and reversed the decision. It has only stayed the execution of those who have no means to comply.

Do not think this is an isolated case of out of control socialistic regulations limited to the DOJ. In the name making fuels greener, the EPA has recently fined oil companies for not adding a required amount of a special bio-fuel called cellulosic ethanol to their gasoline and diesel. The problem is this additive does not exist. That’s right, the EPA is requiring firms to add a fuel that does not exist, under the penalty of hefty fines starting in 2011. Companies that supply fuel for transportation will face stiff fines when they close their books for 2011 because they did not comply with the federal mandate. It gets worse, the fines for 2012 are higher and the prospects of developing this fuel are nowhere in sight.

According to Tom Tanton, president of T2 & Associates in California, “cellulosic ethanol is not available commercially because the science and economics are not there yet. The technical difficulty stems from trying to break down the cellulose into sugar.” There is some hope on the horizon for the development of an industrial enzyme that will produce cellulosic ethanol in large quantities while at a low cost, which is being developed in Denmark by a company called Novozymes. They have been dedicated to perfecting this critical enzyme for the last ten years, but still do not have a winner. Tanton clearly sees that “this is undoubtedly a great scientific advancement, but there are still large hurdles to overcome before commercialization.”

Such mandates reflect the growing tendency to impose politically correct and green alternatives upon consumers through impossible mandates. It seems that bureaucrats believe that all persons are all born green and equal and woe to anyone who questions this ruling with the truth or reality.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Join Rally Against Mandate/Obamacare in St. Louis on Friday!

The Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom is being held Friday, March 23 at noon, local time, outside federal buildings, Congressional offices and historic sites across the country. The theme for the Rally is “Stand Up for Religious Freedom—Stop the HHS Mandate!”

Thousands of Americans will be participating in these peaceful rallies, organized by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society to oppose the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires all employers provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, even in violation of their consciences.

The location in St. Louis is here:

St. Louis
Office of Senator Claire McCaskill
5850 Delmar Boulevard (Map)
E-mail the Rally Captain
You are also encouraged to join the Jefferson City Rally March 27!

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

The Homosexual Movement Scores a Win in the Fr. Guarnizo Affair - Who Caused the Scandal and Why?

The Homosexual Movement Scores a Win in the Fr. Guarnizo Affair - Who Caused the Scandal and Why?

Written by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The news spread across the world, creating an international scandal around Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. On February 25, 2012, he denied communion to a lesbian, Ms. Barbara Johnson, at her mother’s funeral Mass. On the 28th, the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., Most Rev, Barry Knestout, sent Ms. Johnson a letter of apology criticizing Fr. Guarnizo’s “lack of pastoral sensitivity.”1

Priest Suspended for “Intimidating Behavior”
Even after receiving that letter, and in spite of having received communion at the Mass from the Eucharistic minister, in media interviews, Ms. Johnson said she would do all in her power to have Fr. Guarnizo removed from the parish. On March 9, the Vicar General sent a letter to the priests of the archdiocese saying that Fr. Guarnizo was “placed on administrative leave with his priestly faculties removed” because of his “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.”2

“Lesbian Asks and Archdiocese of Washington Heeds”
Again the news spread around the world, this time presenting the priest’s removal as a consequence of having denied communion to a lesbian. Some examples:

In the United States, among thousands of others, here is the headline in the liberal Huffington Post: “Rev. Marcel Guarnizo Suspended: Priest Who Denied Communion To Lesbian Barbara Johnson, Withdrawn For ‘Intimidating Behavior.’”3

In Brazil, a conservative site, Fratres in Unum, was categorical: “Lesbian Asks and Washington Archdiocese Accedes: Priest Who Denied Her Communion Is Punished.”4

In England, the MailOnline notes: “Priest who denied communion to lesbian at mother’s funeral suspended for ‘intimidating behaviour.’”5

In Italy, the site announces: “USA—Priest Who Refused Communion to a Lesbian Suspended – Barbara Johnson, Offended at Her Mother’s Funeral, Celebrates.”6

The Homosexual Movement Claims Victory
The web site of Dignity, an organization that rejects Catholic doctrine on homosexual sin, but still calls itself Catholic, did not hide its joy:

“Gay Catholic Leaders Applaud Priest’s Removal from Ministry, Repeat Calls for Dialogue with Church Leaders” reads the headline. The news item continues:

“DignityUSA and Dignity/Washington, DC today applauded the Archdiocese of Washington, DC for suspending Father Marcel Guarnizo from all ministry within the Archdiocese.… “The Archdiocese has acted appropriately in removing Father Guarnizo from ministry,” said Allen Rose, President of Dignity/Washington… “We are encouraged by this action, which will do much to restore Catholics’ faith in our Church’s commitment to pastoral ministry.”7

Lesbian Activist and “Catholic” Buddhist
On March 14, Fr. Marcel Guarnizo issued a public statement explaining what occurred and justifying his position. He also asserted that the reason for his ministry removal was because he had denied communion to a lesbian.

On the other hand, with additional data provided by the media and Catholic websites, one now can assemble a pretty reliable analysis of what happened.

For 25 years now, Ms. Jonhson has openly declared herself to be a lesbian and made that clear in a job interview for a position in a Catholic school, in which she called herself a “lesbian and a Buddhist.”8 News accounts state that she has been living for 19 years with a partner,9 so family members and friends at the Mass could hardly have been ignorant of this, all the more so since she was accompanied by her companion.

It Was Ms. Johnson’s Duty to Avoid the Possibility of Scandal
In the circumstances involving a funeral Mass, and above all for her own mother, it was first and foremost up to Ms. Jonhson to try and avoid any possibility of scandal. This is why it is hard to understand why, a few minutes before Mass started, she went to the sacristy with her partner and introduced her to the priest as “her lover.” The priest tried to speak with her but she left the sacristy and her partner stood in the priest’s way to prevent him from reaching her for further conversation.10

Was this Scandal Intentional?
During the Mass Father Guarnizo denied her communion because of a problem of conscience that he would fail in performing his duty were he to do so; but he did this so discreetly that it wasn’t noticed even by the Eucharistic minister next to him. This enabled Ms. Johnson to enter into the other line and receive communion.

Therefore, Father Guarnizo gave no scandal whatsoever and the episode became public only thanks to Ms. Johnson, who gave a number of interviews to newspapers and TV networks, presenting herself as the victim of a priest’s fanaticism and “lack of pastoral sensitivity,” in the words of the Vicar General.

Several analysts raised the hypothesis that Ms. Johnson sought to provoke this incident for ideological reasons. For example, in his well-read blog, Father John Zuhlsdorf noted, “a lesbian Buddhist instrumentalized her own mother’s funeral Mass so as to set a trap for a priest whom she wanted to provoke into refusing her Holy Communion.”11

Are there grounds for this hypothesis? It seems so. Ms. Johnson is a homosexual activist,12 Father Guarnizo did not know her beforehand, and had never asked her anything about her irregular situation. Moreover, it was Ms. Johnson’s sole initiative to make him aware of her situation shortly before Mass started. Accordingly, it does seem plausible that her intent all along was to create an incident in order to advance the homosexual agenda.

Situations when Communion Must be Denied
As Father Marcel Guarnizo recalled in his statement, in addition to the cases when Communion must be denied, listed in Canon 915, there are countless situations in which the priest has to decide on the spot what attitude to take, always seeking to avoid scandal, as much as possible; for example, in the case of non-Catholics, drunkards or drug-addicts, divorcees in new partnerships, who approach to receive communion.

In a July 2004 note to the USCCB, the then Cardinal Ratzinger recalled that denying communion where appropriate “is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”13

Giving Holy Communion Inappropriately Can Scandalize
There can be scandal both in denying communion to someone in a public and visible way when his sin is not public, or in giving communion to someone who is in a public situation of sin or notorious dissent with the Church’s doctrine, and this is well known to the faithful present in the church. A typical example of the latter was the scandal given by Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco, when he gave communion to two homosexual males associated with the notorious group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence who presented themselves before him dressed up shamelessly as nuns.14

An Organized Homosexual Movement
Given the existence of an organized homosexual movement that seeks to impose its ideology by all means and takes advantage of every circumstance to advance its agenda, ecclesiastical authorities and members of the clergy must act with great prudence. It is always important to make it clear that homosexual sexual relationships (as any other sexual relationship outside of marriage) are intrinsically evil and sinful, so that a person publicly living in such a relationship is objectively not in conditions to receive the Holy Eucharist.


1. “Full text: letter of apology to lesbian” at [back]
2. “Priest who refused communion to lesbian placed on leave, faculties removed — UPDATED” at [back]
3. 03/11/2012 10:03 pm. In the updated next day 03/12/2012 5:33 pm the title was changed: “Rev. Marcel Guarnizo, Priest Who Denied Communion To Lesbian, Put On Leave” at[back]
8. Thomas Peters, “News Outlets Failed to Reveal Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother’s Funeral … is a Buddhist and Gay Rights Activist” at[back]
9. Cf. Gail Huff, “Barbara Johnson denied communion at mother’s funeral due to sexual orientation” at[back]
10. “Priest: removal from ministry was tied to communion incident” - Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident,[back]
11. “Prof. Peters examines development in the case of denial of Communion to aggressive lesbian” at[back]
12. For example, we read in an article The Baltimore Sun of March 14, 2012:
“Gov. Martin O’Malley, who continues to campaign for same-sex marriage in advance of a likely referendum aimed at overturning the law he signed this month, will speak Friday at a conference in Baltimore for gay and lesbian Catholics.
“Also scheduled to appear at the conference …[is] Barbara Johnson, who was denied Communion at her mother’s funeral Mass in Gaithersburg last month because she is a lesbian.” (Matthew Hay Brown, “O’Malley to speak at conference for gay and lesbian Catholics - Cardinal warns that ministry ‘in no manner’ speaks for church” at[back]
13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles” at[back]
14. Cf. Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “Sacrilege, Scandal and Homosexual Ideology in San Francisco” at[back]

Monday, March 19, 2012

St. Teresa of Avila said: "Saint Joseph Gave me Everything I Asked for"

Written by Robert Ritchie

You live in a world surrounded by every type of sin and confusion. Your family is being ripped apart by every type of immoral and cultural force. You need to fight back with the power of Saint Joseph.


Try it, and find out for yourself just how powerful Saint Joseph is in tackling EVERY problem.

No one could put it better than St. Teresa of Avila:

"Saint Joseph gave me everything I asked for"

Free Saint Joseph Novena Book

I took for my advocate and lord the glorious Saint Joseph and commended myself earnestly to him; and I found that this my father and lord delivered me both from this trouble and also from other and greater troubles concerning my honor and the loss of my soul, and that he gave me greater blessings than I could ask of him.

I do not remember even now that I have ever asked anything of him which he has failed to grant. I am astonished at the great favors which God has bestowed on me through this blessed saint, and at the perils from which He has freed me, both in body and in soul. To other saints the Lord seems to have given grace to succor us in some of our necessities but of this glorious saint my experience is that he succors us in them all and that the Lord wishes to teach us that as He was Himself subject to him on earth (for, being His guardian and being called His father, he could command Him) just so in Heaven He still does all that he asks.

This has also been the experience of other persons whom I have advised to commend themselves to him; and even to-day there are many who have great devotion to him through having newly experienced this truth.

I used to try to keep his feast with the greatest possible solemnity; but, though my intentions were good, I would observe it with more vanity than spirituality, for I always wanted things to be done very meticulously and well. I had this unfortunate characteristic that, if the Lord gave me grace to do anything good, the way I did it was full of imperfections and extremely faulty. I was very assiduous and skilful in wrongdoing and in my meticulousness and vanity.

May the Lord forgive me. I wish I could persuade everyone to be devoted to this glorious saint, for I have great experience of the blessings which he can obtain from God. I have never known anyone to be truly devoted to him and render him particular services that did not notably advance in virtue, for he gives very real help to souls who commend themselves to him. For some years now, I think, I have made some request of him every year on his festival and I have always had it granted. If my petition is in any way ill directed, he directs it aright for my greater good.

If I were a person writing with authority, I would gladly describe, at greater length and in the minutest detail, the favors which this glorious saint has granted to me and to others.

But in order not to do more than I have been commanded I shall have to write about many things briefly, much more so than I should wish, and at unnecessarily great length about others: in short, I must act like one who has little discretion in all that is good. I only beg, for the love of God, that anyone who does not believe me will put what I say to the test, and he will see by experience what great advantages come from his commending himself to this glorious patriarch and having devotion to him.

Those who practice prayer should have a special affection for him always. I do not know how anyone can think of the Queen of the Angels, during the time that she suffered so much with the Child Jesus, without giving thanks to Saint Joseph for the way he helped them. If anyone cannot find a master to teach him how to pray, let him take this glorious saint as his master and he will not go astray.

May the Lord grant that I have not erred in venturing to speak of him; for though I make public acknowledgment of my devotion to him, in serving and imitating him I have always failed. He was true to his own nature when he cured my paralysis and gave me the power to rise and walk; and I am following my own nature in using this favor so ill.

Free Saint Joseph Novena Book

Friday, March 16, 2012

Join Over 20,000 Who Don’t Want ‘Gay-Straight Alliance’ at Notre Dame

Notre Dame Dome
Catholic students at
Notre Dame don't a
GSA club on campus.
Written by William Stover

The Catholic University of Notre Dame now faces another moral crossroads as pro-homosexual advocacy groups, assisted by the liberal media, pressure the university to sanction a “Gay-Straight Alliance” on campus.

Both the student and faculty senates recently passed non-binding resolutions in favor of establishing an official “Gay-Straight Alliance” club.1 Calling themselves the “4-5 movement” -- a reference to an alleged statistic that 4/5 college-educated people support their cause -- pro-homosexual activists are hoping the university will buckle to their immoral demands.

However, the movement to legitimize homosexual sin does not enjoy widespread support. In fact, a TFP Student Action petition against pro-homosexual clubs on Catholic campuses – including Notre Dame – collected over 20,350 signatures to date among college students and concerned Catholic parents.

The TFP’s online petition urges the president of the University of Notre Dame “not to approve, recognize or finance student clubs or activities that endorse or promote homosexual sin.”

“After inviting pro-abortion president Obama in 2009, Notre Dame once again has two options: To be faithful or to betray; to uphold its Catholic identity or to sell out,” said Tradition Family Property Student Action Director, John Ritchie.

“We hope Fr. John Jenkins will hear the voices of over 20,350 Catholic students and parents and energetically keep the ‘Gay-Straight Alliance,’ or any other equivalent club that fosters that sinful lifestyle, far away from the campus that bears the most pure name of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” he said.

When the homosexual lobby first attempted to start an official club in 1986, the University of Notre Dame’s Board of Fellow’s issued a response, stating that such recognition would be paramount to an “implicit sanction” of a lifestyle “not in keeping with the values of the University or the teachings of the Church.”2

That refusal is just as valid today, especially on the heels of a statement issued by Pope Benedict XVI, warning of “powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage.”

As the educator of so many young Catholics, we pray that Notre Dame does not cave in to the insidious demands of the homosexual revolution.

Sign here to stop pro-homosexual clubs at Catholic universities

Contact information:

Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
University of Notre Dame, President
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Phone: 574-631-3903

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The False Accusation Scandal

The False Accusation ScandalWritten by John Horvat II

When talking about the enormous decline in sexual abuse cases inside the Catholic Church in recent years, it is customary to preface the remarks by saying that even one case of the clerical abuse of minors is too many. Such a qualifier is completely justified. The sacred dignity of the priesthood demands that priests be held to high standards. The innocence of children (so destroyed by our hypersexualized culture) must be safeguarded at all costs. Even a single case of sexual abuse of minors is one too many.

However, a second qualifier should also be made when talking about the scandals. In the cases of sexual abuse accusations against priests, a single false accusation is one too many. There must be an equal zeal to defend the honor of reputable priests whose lives are being ruined by fraudulent claims and unscrupulous accusers. It cannot be tolerated that to the scandal of clerical abuse of children is now added the scandal of Catholic priests being falsely accused.

However, this is exactly what is happening. David F. Pierre’s latest book Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories is an incredible account of this great unreported scandal. He tells not just a few isolated cases but documents a systemic disregard for the reputation of priests, a hostile judicial review of cases and a marked media bias against the Catholic Church.

It is a tale that needs to be told. Countless priests have been falsely accused of committing horrific child abuse. This creates a climate of psychological terrorism which forces priests to live in the knowledge that a single phone call from the most flimsy witness about the most distant past can lead to a priest being banished from his flock and ministry immediately — sometimes within hours. He can expect no support from media.

David F. Pierre, Jr.
David F. Pierre, Jr.

Sometimes, even his own bishop assumes him guilty until proven innocent. When a priest’s reputation is finally cleared, the stain of the abuse claim lingers long afterwards.

David F. Pierre’s prior book Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church dealt with the media mistreatment of the scandals. This book puts a human face on the false accusations as he tells the stories of those who have suffered injustice at the hands of the unscrupulous. The author tells in detail the personal sufferings of several innocent priests and how the false claims impacted their lives. One case he cites is a monsignor who waited five years to

be exonerated of abuse charges even though his alleged victims denied having been molested.

Equally shocking is the extent of the false accusations based on flimsy evidence. The author tells, for example, how a recent and reliable report reveals that one third of accused Catholic priests in one major archdiocese were accused falsely. Estimates of false claims made against the Church in America from credible sources range from 17 to 50 percent. Mr. Pierre also shows how accusers have retained huge monetary settlements even though their allegations later proved to be false.

This book is fast-paced, informative, and impeccably researched. The false accusations are a scandal that must be exposed. As long as there is one false accusation, it is one too many.

Monday, March 12, 2012

VIDEO: Fighting Obamacare

This video captures the work of TFP Student Action volunteers on college campuses and busy street corners – on the front lines – opposing Obamacare’s recent attack on the Catholic Church. Please share it. Post it. Email it. Facebook it.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Challenging the Left at the University of Michigan

By William Stover


Ann Arbor, Michigan

Cold weather notwithstanding, today's campaigns were intense. Fliers ready, bagpipes tuned, and logical, sound arguments, prepared, we came into Ann Arbor, to the campus of the University of Michigan. Some say Ann Arbor is the Berkeley of Michigan. Setting up right in the middle of the campus, we were immediately confronted with a polarized public, but Berkeley is far worse.

One woman stopped and said: "Thank you so much for being here, tell everyone in your group 'thank you,' and keep up the good work!" After a short time a police officer arrived to make sure everything was in order. "I can see that you won't cause any trouble, but let me know if anyone gives you trouble," he said, and returned to his car. A few moments later, an upset liberal man threatened to call the police. "You shouldn't have the right to do this," he said. After being informed that we had already spoken with the police, he demanded to see our authorization. When asked what authority he had, he shot back: "don't ask me any questions!"


As the campaign continued, support and opposition intensified. One student, after reading our flier, returned to thank us and ask how he can get involved in the fight against Obamacare. Another student pointed out how Catholics are being targeted: "I don't think the federal government would force mosques to serve bacon," he said.

"God doesn't want you to do this out here," a passerby affirmed. "God believes in freedom of choice." When asked where the "choice" is for Catholics, he replied: "Well, you got me there. That's a good point."

After wrapping up the university, we finished off the day with a sign and wave campaign at the third busiest intersection in the state of Michigan.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Of Kings and Princesses and Saints

Saints Kyneburge, Kyneswide, and Tibba

The two first were daughters of Penda, the cruel pagan king of Mercia, and sisters to three successive Christian Kings, Peada, Wulfere, and Ethelred, and to the pious prince Merowald.

Statue of Peada, center, above western entrance to Lichfield cathedral. St. Chad on the left and Wulfhere on the right.

Kyneburge, as Bede informs us, (1) was married to Alcfrid, eldest son of Oswi, and in his father’s life-time king of Bernicia. They are said to have lived in perpetual continency. By his death she was left a widow in the bloom of life, and, renouncing the world, governed a nunnery which she built; or, according to others, found built by her brother Wulfere, in a moist fenny place, on the confines of the counties of Huntingdon and Northampton, then called Dormundcaster, afterwards from her, Kyneburgecaster, now Caster.

The author of her life in Capgrave says, that she lived here a mirror of all sanctity, and that no words can express the bowels of charity with which she cherished the souls which served God under her care; how watchful she was over their comportment, and how zealous in instructing and exhorting them; and with what floods of tears she implored for them the divine grace and mercy. She had a wonderful compassion for the poor, and strongly exhorted her royal brothers to alms-giving and works of mercy.

Peterborough Cathedral

Kyneswide and Kynedride (though many confound the latter with St. Kyneburge) were also daughters of Penda, left very young at his death. By an early consecration of their virginity to God, they devoted themselves to his service, and both embraced a religious state. Kyneswide took the holy veil in the monastery of Dormundcaster.

The bodies of these saints were translated to Peterborough, where their festival was kept on the 6th of March, together with that of Saint Tibba, a holy virgin, their kinswoman, who, having spent many years in solitude and devotion, passed to glory on the 13th of December. Camden informs us (2) that she was honored with particular devotion at Rihal, a town near the river Wash, in Rutlandshire.

See Ingulphus, Hist. p. 850. Will. of Malmesbury, l. 4. de Pontif. p. 29. Capgrave and Harpsfield, sæc. 7. c. 23.

Note 1. Bed. Hist. l. 3. c. 21.
Note 2. Camden in Rutlandshire.

The Lives of the Saints, Vol. III: March, by Rev. Alban Butler, New York, D.&J. Sadlier Publishers, 1866, pp. 522-523.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Murder on Demand

Murder on DemandWritten by Gary J. Isbell

The culture of death is again attempting to rationalize infanticide with a kinder, gentler euphemism they call “after-birth abortions.” The central tenet of this latest approach revolves around the relativist argument that if a child can be killed in the mother’s womb for reasons of convenience, then why not murder the child after it is born with the same rationale?

Two university students in Australia, Alberto Giubilini who attends Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, have written an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” The abstract reads: “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”[1]

Sadly, the Journal of Medical Ethics issued an unethical defense of this article by stating their purpose is not to present the truth, only well-reasoned arguments. “Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well-reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises, which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.”[2]

If a journal’s purpose is not to present the truth and promote the correct moral view, exactly what is the purpose of any communication? Perhaps the Journal of Medical Ethics has not heard of the eighth commandment. It does not seem the Journal has heard of ethics for that matter which is by definition that branch of philosophy dealing with the rightness and wrongness of certain actions. Giubilini’s and Minerva’s construct is only “well-reasoned” if one accepts the poorly-reasoned arguments made to justify abortion, and conveniently, they seemed to have skipped over those in their haste to justify the murder of newborns for the sake of convenience. If one first accepts abortion, then to murder the child after it is born or even euthanize any one who is deemed non-productive or a burden to society should be permissible.

To comprehend the essence of this entirely absurd discussion, it is only necessary to understand that the unjust killing of human life is a mortal sin and can never be justified. Attempting to discuss the moral status, personhood or viability of a zygote, embryo, fetus, child, adolescent or an adult are arguments that have absolutely no grounds in this debate. The right to life does not depend on any of these considerations. Life does not begin; it is transmitted and no one has the God-given right to life to interrupt its development. Attempting to prove scientifically when the soul is infused or if moral status exists in the womb is entirely irrelevant.

If the Federal Supreme Court ruled that it were permissible to kill one’s neighbor if they caused one inconvenience, no sane man would agree with this law, however, if it were passed, no doubt some people would practice it. After accepting the initial incomprehensible premise, then why not extend the legality of killing to anyone that causes anyone any inconvenience? Why not call for murder on demand?

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Links to Catholic Teenagers Campaigns Against Obamacare

Campaign against the Obama/HHS Mandate Held in the Snow

By William Stover
March 04, 2012

After attending Holy Mass, and having a light lunch, we were back on campaign. Distributing hundreds of fliers in Dayton, Ohio, we met significant support.

After being offered a flier "against Obamacare," a man showed the flier to his wife, who exclaimed: "Wow! This is awesome!"

Monday, March 5, 2012

TFP Student Action Road Tour Against Obamacare Kicks Off


Written by William Stover

On the morning of February 28, thirteen TFP Student Action volunteers piled into a van, ready and willing to defend the rights of the Catholic Church.

Our mission: to visit dozens of locations, in three states, to publicly and vocally decry the socialist Obamacare system, and its brutal attack on morality and true freedom. Our thirteen-foot banner sums it up well: "God's Law comes first. Repeal socialist Obamacare!"

After a preliminary drive of several hours, we alighted at our first stop, a busy intersection at Robinson Mall near Pittsburgh, Penn. The initial response on the part of the public was overwhelmingly positive. Our "Honk to free America from Obamacare" signs were very well-received and elicited thousands of supporting honks.

"I'm very happy that you are here. This is amazing!" said a college student who pulled off the road to greet us and take in the sound of all the honking. "I just can't believe it," he said with a broad smile. "Thank you! Thank you!"

After several hours of campaigning and distributing hundreds of TFP flyers, "Confronting Religious Persecution in America," we retired for the day and made plans to continue the good fight on the morrow.

Visiting the University of Pittsburgh

February 29

Undaunted by rain and wind, we arose early and prepared for what we knew would be an intense campaign. Coats on, five bagpipes playing, and fliers in hand, we set up our campaign directly in front of the famed Cathedral of Learning at the University of Pittsburgh. Very soon the crosswalks and bus stops were teeming with people, mostly college students, affording us the opportunity to hand out a huge number of fliers.

As classes let out, the number of pedestrians only increased. At one point, it was hard for us to see each other through the crowds, even though we were only a few yards apart.

Most of the students were extremely receptive to our message, though a few stopped to argue. "Well, I totally agree with them," insisted a bus driver to a co-worker. "I've seen the double standard on this campus. Muslims gather and use university buildings for religious services, but if Christians teach the Bible in those same places, you get shut down," he said.

After a long campaign and hundreds of fliers distributed, we moved on. A short drive brought us to our next stop: Duquesne University, a Catholic institution. Once again, the flier was a great success among the students. However, as Mr. Charles Sulzen said "reject socialist healthcare," one student shot back: "I support communism." Not one to remain quiet, Mr. Sulzen continued: "Did you know that Pope Pius XI taught that you can't profess to be Catholic while supporting socialism or communism?" The self-proclaimed communist still refused the TFP flier, though right on his heels were other students who expressed absolute agreement, took fliers, and thanked us for our presence.

At our lunch break at Panera Bread, our volunteers were peppered with questions: "who are you and what are you doing?" This sparked more friendly discussions. One gentleman, who was having lunch with his wife, approached each of our tables and said, "Strength and honor to you! Keep doing what you are doing."

Our next destination will be Columbus, Ohio.

Please pray for us.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Are Dolphins Really Persons!

Are Dolphins Really Persons?

Written by Gary Isbell

It seems that animal rights advocates are never satisfied. Now researchers are attempting to demonstrate that dolphins and whales are so intelligent that they should be recognized as “non-human persons” and accorded their own bill of rights. One simple question remains to be answered: How can one recognize personhood without solid evidence of a person, that is, an individual substance of rational nature?

The Telegraph published an article titled, “Dolphins ‘should be recognised as non-human persons,’”[1] where researchers make claims that large ocean mammals, or cetaceans, have distinctive personalities, cultures and even form societies. Therefore, to isolate dolphins and killer whales, in tanks in amusement parks is morally wrong because they are even more socially driven than humans. They add that killing them under any circumstance is equivalent to murder.

In the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, a team of international researchers discussed a proposal for the “Declaration of Rights” for cetaceans and suggested that the animals share the same rights to life, liberty and well-being as humans. Dr. Thomas White, an expert in ethics at Loyola Marymount, attempted to support this claim by stating that a person needs to be an individual and have an individual sense of self. He claimed that science has shown that individuality, consciousness and self-awareness are no longer unique human characteristics.

Two years ago in Helsinki, a group of researchers proclaimed a “Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.” They are also working to garner support from fellow scientists in hopes of bringing this to the attention of lawmakers. The ten-point document claims that each individual cetacean has a right to life, a free existence in their natural habitat, protection of their environment and that no person or organization has the right to own one or disrupt their culture.

One of the architects of that declaration, Dr. Lori Marino from Emory University in Atlanta, stated that the idea of cetacean rights has been prompted by a change in the understanding of the dolphin’s brain. “We went from seeing the dolphin or whale brain as being giant amorphous blob that doesn’t carry a lot of intelligence and complexity to being an enormous brain with a complexity that rivals our own,” she continues, “It’s different in the way it’s put together, but in terms of the level of complexity it is very similar to the human brain.” Dr. Marino somehow concludes that cerebral complexity alone allows cetaceans to possess a rational intelligence capable of making moral decisions, which therefore makes them persons.

All of these arguments simply do not put a cetacean on par with mankind — period. The fact that any animal can be trained according to Pavlov’s theory of classical conditioning through stimulus does not prove they possess the ability to conceive abstract ideas and perform deductive reasoning, which are two important aspects of the human soul. The fact that cetaceans are social, as are many other species of animals, certainly does not qualify them to be recognized as persons.

Perhaps the most outlandish claim is that cetaceans developed cultures and societies. When was the last time anyone witnessed a cetacean develop a musical style, architecture, cuisine, and a policy of law, astronomy or any other science? They swim, feed, communicate, breed and live today exactly as they did thousands of years ago; devoid of a culture, a society or responsibility for their actions. While these points do not expose the crux of the fallacious claims made by Dr. Marino and company, they help show how far these scientists will go in applying egalitarian myths to creation.

The principle argument animal rights advocates completely avoid is the fact that personhood denotes moral responsibility for one’s actions because it is an individual substance of rational nature. Only the human intellect has the capacity to discern right from wrong and good from evil and then choose. In order to exercise moral responsibility, one must possess the ability to conceive abstract ideas so as to have something against which to make a judgment. Otherwise, one acts out of animal instinct. If, for example, a dog bites someone, one does not sue the dog, nor is it possible. The owner is sued. This is precisely because a dog is not responsible for its behavior, the owner is. A dog merely acts out of instinct and is not capable of moral judgments because it lacks a rational intelligence, regardless of its social tendencies, individuality or self-awareness. A dog is not a rational animal and therefore, it is not a person.

If society recognizes the legitimate rights of persons, then all persons must understand those rights and respect the rights of others. Unfortunately, Dr. Marino and company fail to demonstrate how they are going to educate cetaceans of their bill of rights and their subsequent obligations in their society. One also wonders exactly how scientists will ascertain that cetaceans comprehend their new found rights imposed by humans. Has Dr. Marino ever asked cetaceans if they are unhappy with the life they live in captivity? If it is so bad, why don’t dolphin use their social and cognitive skills in an intelligently organized protest of their forced incarceration?

One nagging question remains: Do these champions of animals’ rights harbor the same sentiments toward a child in the womb? After all, would not the same logic and protections of this scientific “reasoning” apply to the unborn?

Thursday, March 1, 2012

A Sobering Surprise on Fifth Avenue

A Sobering Surprise on Fifth AvenueWritten by Norman Fulkerson

People began to enter the downtown New York City building at 7:30 in the morning, but by 11:30 a massive snake-like-line of people was so large, some got a bit frustrated and wondered if it was worth the wait, yet none left their spot. I overheard one very worldly and irritated looking businesswoman comment to her friend, as they watched the crowd, “It will take us an hour to get inside.” Her friend tried to allay her fear. “It won’t take that long.”

A myriad of media trucks only heightened the mystery for those passing by, who were unaware of what all the fuss was about. The most common questions were, “Why all the media?” and “What’s the line for?”

By now, you are probably wondering the same thing. Were these people waiting in line for the latest iPad? Or the newest version of the Apple i-Phone? Perhaps they were waiting their turn to see a famous celebrity inside?

No. They were waiting for neither something to buy nor someone to see. These New Yorkers; old and young, rich and poor, Churched and perhaps a number of un-churched, were waiting in line, to enter St. Patrick’s Cathedral, so that a priest could place ashes on their forehead, in the form of a cross as a reminder of a very sobering reality that we are all dust and to dust we shall return.

St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York City
Saint Patrick's Cathedral in downtown New York City where thousands queued up to receive ashes on Ash Wednesday.

The last place one would expect to find such large numbers of people participating in this most Catholic ritual is in the United States, I thought to myself. It was even more surprising for me, as an American, to see it in the Big Apple and on Fifth Avenue which is known for everything but such an attachment to, what some would call, an archaic religious custom. The biggest surprise came from a number of foreigners passing by.

A family from Catholic Ireland was amazed at the lines and asked me what was going on. They were surprised at the willingness of Americans to display a visible sign of their faith, but they did not even think about joining the New Yorkers. They were anxious to get to their destination, The Lego Store down the street.

The most shocking comment came from a couple from Austria who approached me with a look of utter shock.

“What is the line for?” they asked.

“It’s Ash Wednesday,” I responded, “these people are waiting in line to receive ashes.” Since the two were from a Catholic country, I figured this was a sufficient amount of information to satisfy their curiosity. To my surprise the man look at me a bit stupefied.

Ash Wednesday, Receiving Ashes on Forehead
Thousands lined up to receive the cross of ashes as a reminder of their mortality, then return to work with the visible sign of their Catholic Faith.

“What’s that?”

I then began to give, what amounted to, a brief sidewalk catechism class. “Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent, which lasts for forty days until Easter,” I explained.

“Ohhhh,” he responded as if recalling a childhood fairy tail he no longer believed, “We don’t do that any more in Europe.”

“Well, we still do it here in America,” I proudly responded as more New Yorkers brushed by us to enter the queue. It had, by then, stretched nearly to the end of the block.

America is often looked upon – even by some within her own borders – as the most liberal, Godless nation on earth. While there is much to criticize about America, there is another reality which often goes overlooked. On Ash Wednesday 2012, I got a glimpse of that reality and in all honesty I was as “mugged by reality” as the Austrian couple. They might no longer believe in such meaningful rituals, but thousands of New Yorkers showed they still do. They waited in line, had a cross of ashes marked on their foreheads as a reminder of their mortality, then returned to their place of work with a visible mark of their Catholic faith. All of this in the most recognizable city in America. It truly was another example of a paradox found, Only in America.