"Thy servants and handmaids..."

"All Souls" - R. León at CIEA

Today, we the Ecclesia Militans, the Church Militant, fulfill a role like no other. Today, we especially remember and celebrate the Ecclesia Penitens, The Church Suffering - the expectant. Today we, through our prayers, help plead the case of those joyful souls who have made it to Purgatory and await only the merciful release of their souls to heaven.

If you are lucky enough to ever attend a Mass according to the usus antiquior on All Souls day, you will be treated to a Mass that is full of death, suffering and above all else JOY. Death is not an end for those who walk in the way of the Lord. It is a beginning. 

Our role...

··†··

I awoke this morning, much earlier than I normally do, and as I looked out at the cold, snow covered earth, I saw the sky starting to glow. It was clear, and so the mountains in the distance began to take shape as the sun rose. It honestly looked like the image above, but with mountains and not tombs. I thought instantly that it was my duty to do what I can today to remember the dead, and to help them finally reach Heaven. 

Secret (Second Mass, Missal of St. Andrew, © 1953):

Be favorable, O Lord, to our humble prayers on behalf of the souls of Thy servants and handmaids, for whom we offer up to Thee the sacrifice of praise: that Thou mayest vouchsafe to grant them fellowship with Thy saints. Though our Lord.

Isn't this what our faith is all about? Isn't it about the joy that comes from knowing we have a Savior? Isn't it the merciful promise to the many that if we follow Him, we will not die but have everlasting life? Isn't the hopeful expectation that we will be lead by angels into paradise?

Let us fulfill our role, let us pray for the dead. Let us live in expectation, hope, and joy that we will one day join the ranks of the Church Triumphant and be met by the holy martyrs at the holy city. 

Not the fearing death... but death without a Cross

···†···

There is a lot of discussion about things like the Dies Irae. As more Catholics embrace a seemingly more orthodox and traditional Catholic faith, things such as the Extraordinary Form of the Funeral becomes a topic of discussion. It isn't strange to hear terms such as: "Life Celebration," "Resurrection Mass," or "Memorial Mass" used in place of "Funeral Mass" or "Burial Mass" as the Catholic funeral was previously referred to. 

 The theological problems with the names themselves completely distorts our understanding and view of death. Not to mention the fact that the implication that rests on these concepts, that we die and are instantly assumed into heaven, completely fly in the face of what the Church teaches us about The Four Last Things: 

Death.

Judgment.

Heaven.

Hell.

In Msgr. Pope's article, he makes a very scary but honest point: How do we explain Hell to a generation (culture, society, person, etc...) with a very limited and simplified notion of God? I don't know. Just because we don't believe something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't there. Hell exists, the Devil is real, and death is final. Being "good", is a rather ambiguous manner in which to live. Do we really want to roll the dice on what we think is good, hoping it gets us to heaven? 

Now I am not saying we should live in fear, in a way where that fear becomes our motivation. Instead, we should fear the loss of heaven through our actions and sin. Many people in the Catholic faith want to make God completely forgiving. Meaning, they make him out to be a God that forgives all, no matter what.  But then what does the devil do? Does the devil only collect those souls that are "pure evil?" What is pure evil? See how this becomes a problem? 

In the end, I am going to place my hope in God, a God that judges with justice and imposes mercy. If I believe God to be the merciful God of truth, he must be just. To be just he must judge. Judgment makes right the acceptance into heaven those that followed God's law, and loved faithfully. We will all fault, O happy fault. But again, if we live according to God's commandments, we will be forgiven. Being "good" isn't enough, because "good" is a rather ambiguous term. Justice is truth. Truth is love. Let us accept a God that loves. Let us receive mercy, only once justice has been imparted.

Finally, let us not forget to pray for those that have no one to pray for them. There are many departed souls that have no one entrusted with their petitions. There are many reasons for this, but the reasons matter not. Let us simply bring forward in our mind the intention to pray for them, even if we dont know their names... God does.

From the Dies Irae:

Lo! the book exactly worded,

Wherein all hath been recorded;

Thence shall judgment be awarded.

When the Judge His seat attaineth, 

And each hidden deed arraigneth,

Nothing unavenged remaineth.

What shall I, frail man be pleading

Who for me be interceding,

When the just are mercy needing?

King of majesty tremendous, 

Who dost free salvation send us,

Fount of pity, then befriend us!

†††

Exposing Our Daughters

Modesty, it means a lot of things to a lot of people, and you can get get 11 opinions of its definition if you ask 10 people. Sometimes the best way to think about it is by determing what isn't modest and go from there. As a husband and father though, I think it is important for me to make sure that I understand what modesty is and why it is important. Some might think this is a "woman's area" but as a man, I have to have a voice otherwise the women in my life are left without an understanding of how modesty does and doesn't affect men. We are either foolish or liars if we think that the way a woman dresses only affects her as a person. That is why two recent blog posts on this subject, although on its "edges," peaked my interest in how they dealt with the subject.

Roccy Grimaldi's Stand on Modesty

··†··

The first post that caught my attention was at the Puck Daddy Blog, which is a Yahoo! Sports blog about hockey. The writer, Greg Wyshynski wrote a pretty harsh indictment of Rocco Grimaldi, a 2nd Round Pick of the Florida Panthers and a Freshman playing for the North Dakota Fighting Sioux. Grimaldi seems to be hockey's version of Tim Tebow. He is a great player, charismatic, and unabashedly Christian. Here is a taste of the Puck Daddy post:

I respect that, in the end, Grimaldi views faith as a way to affect positive change in someone's life and in society, which is a view I imagine places him in the majority in the United States.

What I don't respect, however, are Twitter rants that espouse Puritanical nonsense about how women need to cover themselves lest their feminine curves tempt men.

Rocco wants to know, ladies: Are you honoring God with those jeans that make your butt look great?

Before we go on, we can see a couple flaws in his thinking. He calls this "Puritanical nonsense." He decides as a blogger, that this subject is important enough, a week before the season starts, to write about. Remember, this a player who isn't even playing in the League yet. So, let's look at what nonsense he is talking about. From Grimaldi's Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/RGrimaldi23):

Ladies, you can help us guys out big time. Put your boobs away and everything else that is hanging out. Guys have a hard enough time with...

that temptation without u helping it along. When did being a beautiful girl become dressing with the least amount of clothes on? When did...

what u wear become a competition? Before you dress ask, “Does this outfit honor God, does it honor my body, does it help serve/love my...

brothers? If it’s a no to any of those questions, then u shouldn’t wear that outfit #ThinkBeforeYouDress

This seems pretty straight forward to me. I wonder if Puck Daddy has any daughters and if he wants them wearing jeans that "make their butt look good." As someone that has worked with teens and young adults, the carnage that exists in the minds and souls of young females comes from the fact that they live in a world where guys want and expect that they dress to "make their butt" look good. Here is PD's follow up:

There's a thin line between "ladies are too scantily clad these days" and "God wants you in a potato sack because your brothers can't help themselves," and Rocco ran through it. I mean, to each his own, but in my eyes this entire request veers uncomfortably close to the asinine "she was asking for it/look how she was dressed" denouncement women have had to battle for decades.

Wait? Did PD just pull out the "I am protecting women" card? I can't even unravel the convoluted thinking here. He finishes his social critique with the following:

But his comments about women are the kind of sexist, archaic thoughts that cloud the positive impact of faith. As a (lapsed) Roman Catholic myself, it's a constant struggle: You believe there are aspects of religion that are undoubtedly beneficial, but they're constantly overshadowed by clunky views on sex and gender that repel people and open up the entire community to ridicule.

So in the end, the reason PD doesn't like these views on sexuality is because they "repel" people and are a source for "ridicule"? How is this sexist? Isn't Grimaldi essentially saying: "Women, respect yourself and don't treat your body as an object? And don't tempt men to do the same?" Isn't that in and of itself sexist and archaic? Isn't saying, 'you should wear jeans that make your butt look good' a little... objectifying? It just makes my head hurt.

Look, Wyshynski is a hockey commentator, he isn't used to writing this stuff. He attempts to say that Grimaldi is objectifying women by saying that men should objectify them. There are too many falacies in his piece to disect it all. Needless to say, I think you can see the flaws, and you can also see that Grimaldi is the kind of player we need in pro sports and utilizing Twitter in a beneficial way. All that being said, Wyshynski should probably stick with hockey blogging, but from what I have read in the past he might want to start looking for something else entirely. Grimaldi, he is a stand-up young man and I would be proud to have sons that think like him (and play like him.) I would also be completely tickled to have my daughter describe a man like him as having caught her eye. We need more men like him.

Cheerleading... as a legitimate activity for our daughters?

··†··

The next post about modesty that caught my eye is actually on Faith and Family Live. It was written by Lisa Hendey of CatholicMom.com. She asks the question, "Is Cheerleading a Sport?" What is even more interesting are the questions not asked. Here is an excerpt of her post:

I would imagine that some of my same thoughts from last week hold true—the idea that a little girl should be exploring lots of different activities and also having time for just simple fun. But my sons grew up playing youth football and their teams were often accompanied by pint sized cheerleaders who seemed to be having a blast on the sidelines. I’ve also had the experience of staying at a major hotel in Orlando on consecutive Spring breaks when a cheer competition was in town and witnessed first hand the zeal the girls had for their sport.
I don’t know enough about private cheerleading teams to know the costs associated, but I’m sure there are often expenses related to cheering as there would be in travel soccer or tackle football. If we permit our second graders to dress out, hit full force, and travel to games, should there little sisters be encouraged to cheer competitively along the sideline or the court?

I’d love to hear from any of our moms who are former cheerleaders, to learn what you loved about your sport and what you learned on cheer team. I’d also love the input of moms of cheerleaders—has your daughter benefited from her sport and how have you countered any of the safety risks that seem to be prevalent as stunts and moves become more daring?

What about the questions that instantly pop in my mind: What about your thoughts on the uniform of Cheerleaders? And what about your thoughts on the nature and message of why cheerleaders exist? As a father these were the first things that popped in my head and when I read the post I was pretty shocked that they weren't there. (Similarly there was another post on the topic of Beauty Pageants that didn't ask the question either).

Now, I dont want to blame Hendey for not asking the questions I guess. F&FL try and pose pretty open ended questions thereby letting their readers take the discussion where it will. That being said, for a Catholic site, I don't think the modesty question is out of bounds. We aren't just talking cheerleading in general, we are specifically talking about younger girls.

I personally think the idea of cheerleading is generally pretty scandalous and often borders on immodest activity for our girls. Yes I will consider it a sport, but that being said, I don't think it is one we should have our young girls participate in. Even if there isn't an intrinsically bad nature to the sport, uniforms, or routines, there is too much room for "problems" to crop up. There are plenty of other sports for girls to participate in if we want our girls "active." I am quite familiar with the "culture" of it all, and just don't see how it adds anything positive to our girls lives, that they can't get somewhere else without short skirts and gyrating moves. For instance, I didn't post a picture of young cheerleaders on here because after Google searching it, I felt really uncomfortable looking at the pics trying to find one that was appropriate, they all just seemed very exploitive to me. Again, this is in light of the fact that the beneficial parts of the sport dont outweigh these negatives.
[*UPDATE*]:
After a littler further reflection, and some wise advice, I want to clarify something about cheer. I think there can be an appropriate way to have a cheer team, as it relates to attire, routines, and presentation. I am sure there are Catholic and Christian schools that have found a way to make the cultural and social benefits of it possible, while keeping out the exploitive and immodest features. I grew up playing hockey, so to mean I found cheerleading kind of ironic, that you need a bunch of cute girls to encourage you to cheer for a brutal game like football, maybe this is a perspective thing.


I didn't want this so much to be an indictment of cheerleading as to think about how we "expose" our daughters in the culture. We need to teach modesty as the norm, and not the exception. Everything we do with our children needs to be intentional, it cannot rely on the culture for a default, there are just too many knives to cut. 

Modesty... as something to desire

··†··

As a man, I take it as my duty to let the women in my family know how important modesty is for me as a man. I also take my role as a parent seriously. We need to teach our daughters to be desirable, but not sexy. I don't think either of these posts address that point and that scares me. We can't let things like dress simply exist because it is "normal" in our culture. Yes, cheerleading is a part of sports, but it doesn't have to be.  [This might be somewhat cultural so the question should be asked: If modesty is adhered to, can Cheerleading be a positive part of football?]One could argue that strippers are a part of bachelor parties, but we sure don't want our boys participating in that manner do we?

Therefore, we shouldn't be exposing our daughters in a way where we say it is OK to exploit their looks. It isn't just about the uniforms. In fact, I might even say that with proper modifications, I would be fine with the uniforms, instead what bothers me is what cheerleading portrays. It places our girls front and center and their "looks and movements" become center stage. We can't fool ourselves and say that it is simply an artistic expression, because then we are taking away their personhood from the equation. We have to teach our daughters to dress modestly, to act modestly, and to seek modest activities. Modesty is not the same as removing femininity from a woman; it is a way of acting and dressing that makes women desirable in a way that compliments both form and content. Our women deserve better than arguments for scantily clad clothing, "butt jeans", and cheerleading. We need to teach our daughters the virtue of modesty, and luckily there are women leading this charge. Our daughters deserve this, they are virtuous creatures of beauty, desirability, and love - not sex and lust.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is an important part of our humanity that we are attracted to one another in a physical way. I think that the sexuality and feminine form are works of beauty. Both man and woman were created in God's image, and I think that women got their form from God's "beauty". Yet, exploiting women distorts that form, and turns it from beauty into something else. Like all sin, it isn't pure evil, but a distortion of the good. Satan tempts us not with his designs, but by the abuse and deception of God's. Satan creates nothing, and therefore when I talk of modesty, I am not speaking against preventing against evil things, but against things that have good somewhere locked deep down inside, and are calling to us and enticing us with that hidden goodness. In the end modesty is about walking a difficult road because sex, lust, and immodesty are so easy, which is why we call girls that practice such things by the same vulgar name. We want our daughters called to a married vocation to have men like Grimaldi falling in love with them and not Wyshynski. We want their entire selves being desired, and not their bodies because their "butt looks good" in jeans.

Let us uphold things like beauty. Let us teach modesty to our daughters. Cheerleading and "tight clothing" are not natural inclincations. Yes, they are a part of our culture, but as Catholics we are supposed to be counter-cultural. There is beauty in modesty that preserves a woman as something to be desired not for what she gives, but for what she retains. We should want our daughters to be cherished for their femininity, and that can only happen, when they are viewed as a lady. Modesty allows for beauty to shine through in a way that magnifies not only he physical beauty, but her spiritual beauty as well.

†††

We Remember Still...

May perpetual light shine upon them.

†††

Fifty-Two babies, so far...: A Providence/AWHC Update

Fifty-two (52) is the number of babies, based on their own numbers, that the Alaska Women's Health clinic has aborted since July 11th. This is the date that AWHC set up their new offices inside of Providence hospital, a  situation that I posted about on August 7th.  Since the 7th, Sixteen babies have been aborted. I don't have numbers for contraception or sterilization services, but I can assure you that those figures would only compound this awful and scandalous situation. 

The Archdiocese has told me that meetings have taken place with Providence and that they are currently trying to determine what, how, when, why, who, and where things happened. The Archbishop is in Madrid for WYD, so I don't blame the slow go of things, but as I said - fifty-two babies (based on their numbers) have been aborted since they partnered with Providence.

Catholics from around the country have contacted me completely shocked that they would even allow a clinic to offer contraceptive services let alone sterilization. But then, to put inside a Catholic hospital, a clinic which admits to performing abortions and that is lead by such a notorious abortionist is beyond their comprehension.

So, while we wait for facts to be found, meetings to be held, and nuances to be debated - babies die.

FIFTY TWO... 

The Culture of death is claiming lives every day, I am doing what I can... are you?

††††††††††

††††††††††

††††††††††

††††††††††

††††††††††

††

Providence Hospital Alaska: New Home to Abortionist, Dr. Jan Whitefield's, AK Women's Health Clinic

Providence Hospital - Anchorage, AK

Providence Hospital, a Catholic Hospital, in Anchorage, Alaska recently got a new tenant. That tenant is none other than the Alaska Women's Health, P.C. clinic (aka Alaska Women's Health Services) a clinic notorious for providing abortion, contraception, and sterilization. One of the head physicians within the clinic is the infamous Alaskan Abortionist: Dr. Jan Whitefield.

This information was brought to my attention via an email from a blog reader, they wanted to let me know that they had found out that the Alaska Women's Health, P.C.,  had recently opened this new office inside of Providence Hospital. When I went to the AWHPC website to check it out for myself I found the address listed was indeed for a suite inside of Providence. The news announcement from their site:

We are proud to announce the merging of our two offices into a larger, newly renovated space on the Providence Hospital campus. Our opening date at 3260 Providence Drive, C Tower, Suite 322 will be July 11. We know you will enjoy the calming atmosphere and modern amenities our new clinic has to offer!

Immediately, I thought about Lila Rose, of Live Action fame, earlier this week helping lead more than 70 protesters against a hospital in Colorado that is in almost the same exact situation as what we see going on at Providence. So as I began researching what I could online, I was left with more questions than answers.

What is AWHS?

••†••

What exactly is going on in Providence at the AWHS? Well, it is hard for me to say for certain, but what I can do is give you some facts. First, the AWHS clinic has another location off of the Providence campus, so it is quite possible that no abortions are occurring on Providence property. I am not 100% certain if the off-site location does abortions either (or if they are done at some other medical facility) and whether it will remain open, in light of the new office in Providence. I can tell you that Dr. Jan Whitefield works for the AWHS clinic inside of Providence and he performs abortions - somewhere. Which leads to the question of who exactly is Dr. Jan Whitefield?

Dr. Jan Whitefield

••†••

Dr. Whitefield - Click to Enlarge

Dr. Jan Whitefield is an abortionist. He admits so himself in various court pleadings. The court pleadings I refer to are various complaints, spanning years, against various pieces of Pro-Life legislation and on behalf of abortion 'rights'. Dr. Whitefield is often one of the lead complainants in these court cases along with Planned Parenthood. In his most recent action against the State of Alaska regarding the "Parental Notification Law", Dr. Whitefield claims that he along with other physicians at AWHS perform over 500 first trimester abortions each year. Dr. Whitefield is also a physician provider within Providence. I couldn't ascertain exactly what that means, but I assume it has to do with physician privileges within Providence. Essentially, it means that he has the ability to admit and treat patients within Providence. When you search for him in the provider search on the Providence website it lists his organization as AWHS, so it is difficult to know if he receives any sort of payment for services from Providence directly.

This leads to the next logical inquiry, what services does the AWHS clinic provide? From their website, it is clear that there are various reproductive services provided which include Contraceptive services and Sterilization. As for abortion there was nothing listed on the site, but by his own admission, Whitefield has stated that they do perform abortions. The question is whether they do them at Providence. Unfortunately I could find no information to answer this question either affirmatively or negatively, yet it still leaves us asking whether this clinic should even be inside Providence based on what they do provide.

USCCB Ethicial and Religious Directives

••†••

Therefore, based on what services they do perform, and the fact that Dr. Whitefield is a well known abortionist, how does this square with the Ethical and Religious Directives that the USCCB requires that all CATHOLIC hospitals adhere to? [The E&RDs can be found at Providence's website or at the USCCB.]

It is pretty clear that abortion, contraception, and sterilization are against Catholic teaching and have no place in a Catholic hospital. What isn't as clear or immedietally evident is what the E&RDs say about partners or clinics within a Catholic hospital. For the directives that deal with such an issue, we must turn our attention to paragraphs 67-72:

67. Decisions that may lead to serious consequences for the identity or reputation of Catholic health care services, or entail the high risk of scandal, should be made in consultation with the diocesan bishop or his health care liaison.

68. Any partnership that will affect the mission or religious and ethical identity of Catholic health care institutional services must respect church teaching and discipline. Diocesan bishops and other church authorities should be involved as such partnerships are developed, and the diocesan bishop should give the appropriate authorization before they are completed. The diocesan bishop's approval is required for partnerships sponsored by institutions subject to his governing authority; for partnerships sponsored by religious institutes of pontifical right, his nihil obstat should be obtained.

69. If a Catholic health care organization is considering entering into an arrangement with another organization that may be involved in activities judged morally wrong by the Church, participation in such activities, must be limited to what is in accord with the moral principles governing cooperation.

70. Catholic health care organizations are not permitted to engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization.[44]

71. The possibility of scandal must be considered when applying the principles governing cooperation.[45] Cooperation, which in all other respects is morally licit, may need to be refused because of the scandal that might be caused. Scandal can sometimes be avoided by an appropriate explanation of what is in fact being done at the health care facility under Catholic auspices. The diocesan bishop has final responsibility for assessing and addressing issues of scandal, considering not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision.[46]

72. The Catholic partner in an arrangement has the responsibility periodically to assess whether the binding agreement is being observed and implemented in a way that is consistent with Catholic teaching.

To simplify what these mean to the situation at hand, we essentially have to look at two issues and how they relate to the Providence-AWHS relationship:

1. Material Cooperation (with evil) -  see #70


2. Scandal - #71

Material Cooperation & Scandal

••†••

For those unfamiliar with these terms or how they apply to this situation, Lisa Graas over at Live Action recently did an excellent job explaining them. One important directive that comes from another section of the E&RDs is paragraph 45, which states:

45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers. (Emphasis mine)

This leaves Providence having to answer a two part question:
Does having the AWHS clinic inside of Providence, provide abortion services (or other intrinsically immoral ones) based on the principle of material cooperation, and if not, does having such a clinic and doctor located within, and associated with, the hospital cause scandal?

I would answer YES to both questions.  Without getting into too much theology or philosophy we  to need secure a decent understanding of what is meant by immediate material cooperation. Lisa Graas and I both reference a Catholic dictionary for an understanding of the term. Based on the following it is hard to say that Providence is guilty of IMC:

In immediate material cooperation, one person actually does something morally wrong with another person. Thus if a surgeon and an assistant are both engaged in actually aborting a fetus, the co-operation of the assistant is immediate. Immediate material co-operation in the sinful act of another is always wrong. It is pointless to say that a person who is not under duress performs a criminal action without intending to do so.

Yet, they are most definitely guilty of Mediate Cooperation:

Mediate material cooperation is concurring in the wrong action of another, but not in such a way that one actually performs the act with the other or agrees with the evil intention of the other. While doing something that is in itself good or indifferent, a person rather gives an occasion to another's sin, or contributes something by way of assistance.

Providence co-operates in several ways. They have granted office space to the AWHS, the have given privileges to and utilize the services of Dr. Whitefield, and they allow for the clinic to provide other intrinsically immoral services. One could argue that the new facilities and access to patients helps co-operate with evil through the ease of access to Dr. Whitefield by some patients.

As for Scandal, even if one finds a grey area to reside in regarding Material Cooperation, there is no denying that this situation causes Scandal. The definition is:

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.

It is obvious that a clinic that provides immoral services and has a history of providing abortion will likely induce women that come into their clinic to have an abortion. As Dr. Whitefield himself claims, the AWHS clinic provides over 500 abortions a year. Those patients more than likely obtain guidance and services by walking through the doors of the clinic. Not only that but the last sentence in paragraph #45 above states that:

In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

So clearly Catholic hospitals are put on notice by means of this directive, that any association with an abortion provider has the danger of scandal. Therefore, an abortionist as high profile as Whitefield is not only more likely to cause scandal but also more likely to utilize the office space at Providence to perform abortions even if they are "off-site."

••†••

Does this mean Providence is in the wrong? Well, it seems that way but there are always nuanced positions and distinctions that can be made. Overall I think that Providence is in the wrong an that there is at least mediate material cooperation if not a further degree of culpability. As for scandal, this definitely causes scandal.

Going further, if you read the E&RDs closely, you will see in part six that there is a requirement that the bishop be brought into the decision making process when a Catholic hospital is forming a relationship with an outside entity that may be questionable to the teachings of the Church. I am not sure if that occurred or not. In fact, I did contact the Archdiocese to both inform them of this situation, if they didn't know about it, and to ask questions regarding the E&RDs and how they relate to this situation. I was informed by a high ranking member of the Archdiocese that my concerns were being forwarded to the Archbishop and that this official would see how the Archbishop wants to proceed from here. This seems like an appropriate response, yet I don't know how or when the Archbishop will respond. In fairness to him, I sent the email on Thursday, and this is a rather intricate and complicated situation so I expect him to take a few days to really look into all aspects of it. 

As for what any of us can do now, I would suggest two things:

1. Pray. Pray that the Culture of Life is fostered and defended by all means possible especially through the courage and commitment of our Archbishop, priests, and religious. Rosaries and Chaplets of Divine Mercy are especially powerful in situations such as this, and if you have an opportunity may I suggest going down to Providence, and in a legal and respectful way, praying on site for the hospital and its commitment to the Church and Her teachings.


2. Contact the Archbishop. His contact information is:


• The Most Reverend Roger L. Schwietz, OMI


• 225 Cordova Street | Anchorage, AK 99501


• Phone: (907) 297-7755


• Email: ab.schwietz@caa-ak.org & kbakic@caa-ak.org (Exec. Asst.)

In terms of contacting the Archbishop, I would like to make a few suggestions. First, be respectful and charitable. What is most helpful in these situations, especially as we await his response, is not to accuse or place blame but instead to express how this impacts you as a Catholic. Second, We don't know all of the facts, we only know what we can ascertain on-line. Again, it is more helpful to discuss what we know for certain, rather than what we think is true or expect to be true. Finally, These sorts of things take time to sort out, discuss, and change if necessary. Please understand that this will most likely take more than a day or two in order to sort things out. Be patient, pray, fast and give alms. Don't forget to pray. I would suggest a novena for the Assumption.

I will keep you all updated on this and let us devote ourselves to praying for an outcome that fully supports the sanctity and Culture of Life.

NB: To stay "up-to-date" on developments in this situation please follow the blog - All posts related to this situation can be found under the "Topic Link": 'Providence Hospital'

†††

Lord Jesus Christ,
 You have conquered the power of death
And opened for humanity
The hope of eternal life in body and soul.

You granted your Mother
A share in heavenly glory,
And did not allow decay to touch her body.

As we rejoice in the Assumption of Mary,
Grant us new confidence in the victory of life over death,
And renewed reverence for the human body.

As we honor Mary, Assumed into Heaven,
May we proclaim the hope of Your Gospel:
That you want every human life seated on your throne.

May that hope strengthen us to protect every life here on earth.

You live and reign forever and ever. Amen.

Senator Lisa Murkowski & Archbishop Schwietz, please watch this video.

From American Life League:

Sorry for doubling up on posts but I just saw this and had to post it. It is relevant to Alaskan Catholics, Canon Law geeks, and just Catholics in general. It is VERY powerful.

•••

Abortion is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church - Always.

Over 3200 abortions will occur today.

Canon 915 exists.

Let the Dead bury their dead.

†††

A Painful Past

Some have asked why I haven't, or if I will, discuss and share my feelings on the history of abuse, and the current efforts to "heal" our communities regarding this issue.

Frankly, I don't think it is something I know enough about to discuss, nor do my thoughts or opinions matter much on this subject. I think that we can always look at things from our "arm chairs" and talk about how we could or should have done things differently but that doesn't fix any brokenness.

There have been horrible situations of abuse throughout this country, not just in the Catholic Church (you should research the statistics as compared to other "organizations") but in many other places. Nothing I say will fix any of that, nor do I have any magic solution on how to make it better in the past. Looking forward is another thing, but to be honest, it is such a sensitive subject that nothing I could say would do much good.

So on this subject, I will remain quiet unless some glaring need presents itself.

I will also pray... for all those affected and hurt by the horrible sins committed by those we are supposed to trust.

May God have mercy on all those affected by abuse.

†††

China: Persecution of Life and Freedom

This article speaks for itself. LifeSiteNews.com is instrumental in keeping us up to speed on the horrors of the Culture of Death – this story though is beyond extreme and shows the dark and evil culture that pervades in China. What we saw on the Olympics a few years back was nothing but smoke, mirrors, and a facade built on the evil and corruption of a society blood thirsty for death and destruction.

From LifeSiteNews.com:

Seeking to enforce the one-child policy that involves forced abortions and sterilizations for violators, a Chinese family planning official has been accused of killing a man after attempting to uphold the law.

Reggie Littlejohn, the president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, a human rights group that monitors the policy and supports victims of it, informed LifeNews.com about the incident.

On March 21, family planning officials entered the home of Xu Shuaishuai to seize his sister for a forced sterilization. Unable to find her, they beat Xu’s father and when Xu defended his father from the attack, one of the Chinese population control officials stabbed him twice in the heart with a long knife. Xu died on the way to the hospital.

“This murder is a shocking and extreme example of how coercive family planning presses fear into the hearts of the Chinese people every day,” Littlejohn said. “Women who become pregnant without a birth permit — illegally pregnant — are terrified of discovery and forced abortion. Fathers feel helpless to protect their wives and children. Paid informants — friends, neighbors, co-workers — tear down trust in Chinese society. Family members are detained and tortured.”

Read the rest: Chinese Family Planning Official Kills Man Over Forced Sterilization

†††

Uh-oh! Now what vital services were you talking about Sen. Murkowski?

A report from LiveAction has come out today that details the fact that Planned Parenthood really isn't in the business of vital services like Mammograms. Here is the account from their website:

In the tapes, a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states, inquiring about mammograms at Planned Parenthood. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells her she will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, KS explains to the caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

So my question now is... what vital services was Sen. Murkowski talking about that we should all be giving our tax dollars to?

What vital services Sen. Murkowski?

In an e-mail to a constituent, Murkowski expanded on her position, also taking shots at the House Republicans’ attempts to end Title X funding. “I do believe that Planned Parenthood provides vital services to those in need and disagree with its funding cuts contained in the H.R. 1 package,” she wrote in a Friday e-mail, obtained by POLITICO. “From 2002-2008, Planned Parenthood received $342 million in federal taxpayer money through Title X funding alone. With these funds, Planned Parenthood has provided women throughout the U.S. with important family planning and contraceptive services as well as screening for breast and cervical cancers for low-income women. I believe it is important that Title X organizations continue to receive funding. In Alaska, this includes five centers — two health department clinics, two Planned Parenthood clinics in Sitka and Soldotna and one independent clinic.”

Honestly, it profits a man nothing to trade his life for the whole world, but for Alaska?

†††

The Post Of Numbers

Some numbers to ponder regarding Senator Lisa Murkowski, Planned Parenthood, The Archdiocese of Anchorage, and Canon 915. (Brief reference in parentheses):

"From 2002-2008, Planned Parenthood received $342 million in federal taxpayer money through Title X funding alone. With these funds, Planned Parenthood has provided women throughout the U.S. with important family planning and contraceptive services as well as screening for breast and cervical cancers for low-income women. I believe it is important that Title X organizations continue to receive funding. In Alaska, this includes five centers — two health department clinics, two Planned Parenthood clinics in Sitka and Soldotna and one independent clinic.” -Lisa Murkowski

225 (Cordova)

•

10 (Days)

•

>5 (News reports published)

•

>15,000 (Abortions reported in Alaska since 2002, see also: Alaska)

•

1983 CIC 915 (Code of Canon Law)

•
1 (U.S. Senator supporting abortion and receiving Communion)

=

†††

The Anchor 'weighs' in - still waiting on 225

Heroes of the Archdiocese of Anchorage
Catholicism is about Choice & vital services

The list continues to grow:

• CatholicVote
• GLACC
• Defend Us In Battle
• LifeSiteNews

& now...

• The Catholic Anchor

Yes, the Catholic Anchor of the Archdiocese of Anchorage has linked an article, written by LifeSiteNews about Senator Lisa Murkowski and her opposition to defunding (federal tax dollars) Planned Parenthood. (Begich opposed it as well.) [h/t: GLACC]

Question that remains is: where is the statement from 225 Cordova? This story had made national rounds and yet the only thing we have is glancing article. I have a lot more that I would like to say, but I was reminded of prudence tonight... let us pray I am on the right side of that virtue. Until then, we should pray.

†††

Denial of Communion as a Pastoral Practice - Murkowski and Abortion

Sen. Murkowski supports federally funding Planned Parenthood.

Yesterday, we posted about how Senator Lisa Murkowski - (R) from Alaska has come out against attempts by her fellow Republicans in the House and Senate to remove the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider. CatholicVote.org and GLACC also posted on this issue. In other words, we aren't in the minority thinking that Murkowski as one of the only Republicans to oppose this plan, is problematic, but what makes it even worse is that she is a Mass attending receives Communion at Mass.

I made the claim that this sort of public support of abortion from Catholic elected officials must stop! Every time she comes to Mass and fellow Catholics see her, it suggests to them that they too can object and defy the teachings of the Church. It places doubt in their minds as to the supremacy of belief that the Church espouses. What exacerbates this problem is that we don't have priests or bishops that come out and denounce their action. In other words, we have no one willing to exercise a pastoral practice to remove this thought from the minds of Catholics.

Yesterday, Dr. Ed Peters a Vatican Canon Lawyer, discussed the idea of pastoral practice in relation to Communion, Canon Law, and Canons 915 & 916. He wrote this post in response to those critics of his analysis that the denial of Communion to elected officials via Canon 915 may be Canonically appropriate, are really a matter of pastoral practice. Such arguments separate Canon Law from Pastoral Practice and in essence turn Canon Law into a set of suggestions. Dr. Peters' response to this is:

while many canons do not have immediate pastoral relevance, many other canons do have obvious pastoral implications, and surely the canons on the reception and administration of holy Communion count among them. Indeed, the whole purpose of Canons 915 and 916 is to direct concrete pastoral practice!

Canons 915 and 916 boast aged, even ancient, nay apostolic, roots, and both norms are illuminated by copious and consistent canonical commentary reflecting many centuries’ worth of . . . . . what? . . . . . pastoral practice. In other words, one cannot discuss Canons 915 and 916 without discussing pastoral practice at the same time. The two disciplines are inextricably related. And not because I say so, but because they are.

Dr. Peters is saying that the entire purpose of Canon 915 is to direct pastoral practice. The law was put in place to not only guide, but direct the way in which priests and bishops form their pastoral flock through a specific practice – i.e. the reception or denial of Holy Eucharist. He continues and explains that the Church has done this to combat difficult issues:

Ours is certainly not the first generation to face the serious problem of Catholics whose lifestyle is protractedly and publicly at odds with important Church teachings, nor are we the first to face rampant ridicule and accusations of hypocrisy for holding Catholics to higher standards for their public behavior than we hold others to. It is precisely because the Church has such extensive experience in dealing with difficult issues that she has set down, for the guidance of pastors and faithful alike, certain norms for behavior in her Code of Canon Law, norms such as Canons 915 and 916.

In other words, it is in the Church's infinite wisdom that she has created a set of norms for pastors and faithful to follow. By not following Canon Law, what happens is that at a pastoral level, our Church leaders are saying that they disagree with how the Church guides them, and they are taking matters into their own hands. The purpose of Canon has multiple purposes and is at the disposal of the pastors and Bishops because it guides them to the heart and mind of the Church. Ignoring these Canons creates sacrilege (improper conduct with Communion) and scandal (the affect on the other faithful).

In fact, as important as the prevention of sacrilege is in the operation of Canon 915, it is not the only basis for the canon; rather, the prevention of scandal is also a key consideration, but scandal arises only from public behavior seriously at odds with Church teaching and order.

Will Abp. Schwietz utilize Canon 915?

Imagine the Catechesis that would occur if a bishop or priest came out and said, "The Church has spoken on this issue, and we will adhere to the infinite wisdom laid down by Her." Obviously, that statement isn't coming and therefore we will continue to suffer sacrilege, scandal, and confusing catechesis on the issue of Communion, Sin, and Church Doctrine. Until Canon 915 is used the way that Canonists like Dr. Peters explain that it should be, we will continue to have public officials like Senator Murkowski who think they can put on and take off their Catholicism like a sweater.

The teachings and doctrine of the Church are supposed to be definite and resolved in the minds of her leaders and the faithful. But when public figures that are Catholic like Murkowski call those teachings into question by her actions leaders of the Church have two choices. Either act and use the guidance of the Church to correct those actions and teach the rest of the faithful how to properly think and act about such issues, or not act and allow the actions to occur through some weak and uncourageous explanation all the while losing souls to eternal damnation and hell. One would think this would be an easy and clear cut decision...

†††

Murkowski opposes defunding Planned Parenthood

Vital Services?

In the past few weeks various Alaskan Catholic blogs have written quite a bit about Senator Murkowski, Archbishop Schwietz, Abortion, & Canon 915. See: (Fasting for Clarity on Abortion, Canon 915: a primer and list of resources, Alaska & Canon 915, and A Tale of Two Bishops [GLACC]).

It appears that these blog topics were somewhat prophetic, as news has come out today regarding further clarity on exactly where Senator Lisa Murkowski, a self professed Catholic and Republican, stands on the issue of abortion. Josh Mercer of CatholicVote.org and Dan over at GLACC have posted a Politico.com story about Murkowski and the recent bill to defund Planned Parenthood - the largest provider of abortions in the country.

From Politico.com:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has come out in opposition to the House’s attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, making her the first Republican senator to specifically support the beleaguered organization.

“I believe Planned Parenthood provides vital services to those in need and disagree with their funding cuts in the bill,” Murkowski wrote in a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Vice Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). “I ask you to consider these programs going forward to determine if there is room for allowing continued funding.”

Vital services? Where does it talk about those in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The Politico story goes on:

In an e-mail to a constituent, Murkowski expanded on her position, also taking shots at the House Republicans’ attempts to end Title X funding. “I do believe that Planned Parenthood provides vital services to those in need and disagree with its funding cuts contained in the H.R. 1 package,” she wrote in a Friday e-mail, obtained by POLITICO. “From 2002-2008, Planned Parenthood received $342 million in federal taxpayer money through Title X funding alone. With these funds, Planned Parenthood has provided women throughout the U.S. with important family planning and contraceptive services as well as screening for breast and cervical cancers for low-income women. I believe it is important that Title X organizations continue to receive funding. In Alaska, this includes five centers — two health department clinics, two Planned Parenthood clinics in Sitka and Soldotna and one independent clinic.”

This is problematic because she is causing scandal amongst the faithful. How do I know, well just today there were folks praying in front of the Planned Parenthood in Soldotna. How then do they reconcile their actions and beliefs against those of Senator Murkowski, and elected official that is a professed Catholic. One of these sides must be in line with Catholic teaching, the other must not for they are mutually exclusive.

It seems that she continues "obstinately persevere in grave sin" by supporting, promoting and funding abortion via her office as an elected official. What message does it send when she attends Mass with her constituents and fellow Catholics? Let us pray for her conversion, repentance, and return to a full understanding of the teachings of the Church.

For that to occur though, the Archbishop must act in some manner - we need a shepherd that is courageous. We cannot demand that he act, nor can we demand the manner in which he does act if he chooses to do so. But we can pray, and and can urge him to act. The way in which we should do so is to write a letter or email to him with charitable comments and an explanation of how this causes scandal amongst us the faithful. I don't know if it would be proper to suggest Canon 915, but we surely can prayerfully urge him to make some statement or take some action.

For ease his is Archdiocesan contact information:

Most Reverend Roger Schwietz, OMI

Archbishop of Anchorage

225 Cordova Street

Anchorage, AK 99501

907-297-7700

ab.schwietz@caa-ak.org

Kim Bacik

Archbishops Assistant

kbakic@caa-ak.org

Reverend Tom Lilly

Vicar General

tlilly@caa-ak.org

†††

Fasting for Clarity on Abortion

What would happen if pro-Abortion Catholic politicians fasted from the Eucharist during Lent? What if they waited until the Easter Season to receive? As Catholics, the Precepts of the Church require us only to receive the Eucharist during the Easter Season. (Catholic Doctrine also requires us to be in a state of Grace.) So what would happen if pro-Choice Catholics really looked at their views and themselves this Lent and said, "Yes, I will re-examine my thoughts and beliefs on this matter. I will do what is right for God"?

···•°···

Of course this would never happen... at least not on its own. But what if the Bishops requested it? What if Bishops actually grew strong during this Lent and sent a letter to these politicians and said,

"Canon 915 requires of me that I withold Communion from those of you that 'obstinately persevere in grave sin' and I don't want to have to do that... so for Lent - Fast from the Eucharist. Prior to Easter we will meet, and go from there."

Again this won't happen. For one, Bishops don't read my blog. Second, why should we think that the weak Bishops actually care about the thoughts and perceptions of their flocks? They allow the liturgical abuses, the modernist mayhem, and the heterodoxical and even heretical teaching that goes on every week in our parishes. Why would they want to make life hard on themselves?

···°•···

Sen. Murkowski's own words.

In our Archdiocese, that of Anchorage, we have two senators that are Catholic, one republican and one democrat. Both are pro-Abortion. Canon 915 has not been invoked by Archbishop Schwietz and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon, or really ever. But these Senators continue to come to Mass, and the people continue to be scandalized by it.

I know this idea will never catch on, but what if?

As a woman, and as a mother, I believe that abortion is a very personal issue that must be left to a woman and her physician, and not to elected officials.

It might just make all the difference...



Links:
A Tale of Two Bishops

†††