Notre Dame Worried About Protecting Their Image, But In A Greedy Way

Notre Dame never fails to disappoint. Not worried about their Catholic "Brand" they gave Obama a stage and an honorary degree. Further, they arrested non-violent protestors in the course of that situation.

Yet, now they are so worried about logo revenue they have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Chapman High School in Kansas in order to get them to change their logo. Who is Chapman, they are the school that was destroyed by a tornado last summer along with almost 80% of the rest of the town.

Look, I know there are lots of great students at Notre Dame, and lots of great alumni. Most of my Professors at Ave Maria graduated from there. And even though they have every right to do this, and that there are lots of "grey" areas in all of these stories, Notre Dame never seems to take the high ground in any of them. Oh, and for those wondering, Notre Dame could have done several things here. Licensed the logo out or have them alter is slightly are two easy solutions.

Oh, and how did ND find out about the logo? Well, Chapman has been using the logo since 1967 but it wasn't until someone from ND saw it on the Chapman website while reading about the devastation by the tornados that they finally contacted them. Nothing says Spiritual Work of Mercy like legal action motivated by profit motives.

†††

Sports Anchor Fired - Uptown Hockey & Gay Marriage: Part II

Earlier in the week I posted about a hockey story that didn't involve the Wings, Sharks, or a Big Silver Cup. There was a Twitter controversy that started when Todd Reynolds, the Vice President of Uptown Hockey (a player representative agency) Tweeted from the Uptown Hockey Twitter account. The controversial statement was that he disagreed with Sean Avery (a New York Ranger, and well known controversial player) regarding "Gay Marriage." You can catch up on all that at my original post (Link).

Well since then there has been fallout, and as a matter of fact, in my blogging absence, Thomas Peters over at CatholicVote.org posted about it and linked to a LifeSiteNews Story:

One of Canada’s leading TV sports broadcasters fired one of its anchors Wednesday after he voiced support for true marriage on Twitter.

Damian Goddard, the now-former host of “Connected” on Rogers Sportsnet, had tweeted his support of Burlington hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who created a stir this week when he criticized New York Rangers hockey star Sean Avery for shooting a TV ad backing gay “marriage.”

“I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage,” wrote Goddard on May 10th. He also voiced support for U.S. Olympic gold medalist Peter Vidmar, who resigned as chef de mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team after homosexual activists created a controversy over his support for true marriage.

Sportsnet had distanced themselves from the comments on their own Twitter account. They announced Wednesday that Goddard had been fired and did not specify the reasons.

“Mr. Goddard was a freelance contractor and in recent weeks it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization,” said Sportsnet spokesman Dave Rashford in a statement.

Nevertheless, Goddard is standing by the comments. “In terms of what I said, I stand by it,” he told the Toronto Star. “I’m a devout Roman Catholic. It’s not about hate at all."

Well, for those wanting a Catholic connection, we have one in Goddard. Both Goddard and Reynolds have continued to stand up for what they believe in and aren't backing down. Even in the face of the double-standard attacks they have been getting - being called intolerant by folks that don't tolerate their religious beliefs.

Goddard and Reynolds are men who have or had good jobs, in the spotlight, and I imagine pay quite well. Yet, even when they aren't forced to, they are willing to put those material things on the line to stand up for their religious and moral beliefs. We knew that there would be fall out from this situation, but I am surprised that it came in the form of someone else supporting Reynolds being who lost their job.

I wish I could get Goddard to talk about how his faith played a role in this whole situation, and looking back how it played a role in his thought and decision making process. It goes to show that we will be persecuted for our Faith, and that the days of persecution are upon us. Can we say that we would do the same in the face of our virtues and beliefs coming into direct collision with our jobs or life? I hope that we can be brave enough to choose our God over our job.

†††

Cardinal Pell: Politicians can't be 'Cap't Catholic' one minute then vote contrary to the Church's teachings

Cardinal Pell has never been one to shy away from controversy. In fact, he has had his own share of controversy in the past. That being said, he has come out recently and made a very strong statement about politicians and their faith. Although not an American, his message rings true for all politicians – Aussie, British, American, et al.

In an interview given to the Sunday Herald Sun, Cardinal Pell sent a strong message to Catholic politicians, one that echoes the sentiments of our own Archbishop Charles Chaput. Cardinal Pell's primary point is that it is wrong to claim to be Catholic but then to cast votes that go against the teachings of the Church. From his SHS interview:

"If a person says, 'Look, I'm not a Christian, I've a different set of perspectives', I disagree but I understand," the Archbishop of Sydney said.

"If a person says to me, 'Look, I'm nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me', I understand that.

"But it's incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they're as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions."

This is a common element for many Catholic politicians in this country, especially those on the Democratic side of the aisle. They use the will of the people as their excuse to vote a certain way. What they fail to understand that running a campaign, or putting yourself in a position to be a Catholic that votes against the teachings of the Church is wrong. As Cardinal Pell says, to be 'Cap't Catholic' or to simply claim to be Catholic brings with it certain responsibilities. First and foremost amongst those responsibilities is to vote to uphold the teachings of the Church.

Cardinal Pell explained:

He said: "To the extent that on a significant number of issues you depart from Christian teachings you know it's incongruous to be billing yourself as a champion of Christian rights. And the Catholic Church doesn't teach the primacy of conscience. You know if somebody said apartheid was all right, nobody would say, 'Yes you can say that because of the primacy of conscience'."

This message needs to be heard by more politicians far and wide. We need more Bishops, Cardinals and priests that are willing to stand up and proclaim the true teachings of the Church. We need our clergy to demand that our Catholic politicians act properly and hold them to task when they don't. I support the denial of Communion for those that consistently promote positions incongruous with the Church's teachings. We can't convince the faithful to uphold the teachings of the faith, if we aren't holding those in the public eye to the same standard.

††† 

Contact Alaska "Catholic" Senator - Mark Begich re: Nelson-Hatch Pro-Life Amendment

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 the Senate will vote on a Pro-Life amendment. As we all know, December 8th is also the Feast of the Immaculate Conception - the celebration of the day when God put in motion the plan to secure "LIFE" for all humans by creating a pure vessel for Christ to dwell in as man.

Here is "Catholic" Senator Mark Begich's contact info. Remember D.C. is 4 hours ahead of AK time, so plan accordingly.

Contact him and tell him to either vote for the Nelson-Hatch Amendment or stop calling himself Catholic - because we all know you can't be Catholic AND Pro-Choice!

More Info:
http://begich.senate.gov/public/

Let me paint a picture...

Let's say you wake up one day to find that a scandal had popped up over night. Someone had discovered emails between the Pope and some Cardinals which essentially explained that the Catholic faith was predicated not on historical fact and belief, but on simply a "desire" for it to be true. The emails also explained that contrary to actual evidence AGAINST the faith, the Church was able to cover up against such evidence, and perpetuate their desire.

Imagine what would happen? The entire faith would crumble. People of all depths of belief would be left helpless. On top of this... the Church infrastructure would crumble. Laws would be enacted instantaneously stripping the Church of any and all rights it had in society, and the entire "endeavor" would go bankrupt in days. Churches would close, the clergy would become unemployed nothings. It would become the largest fraud in history. Governments would be scorned for their support, and would be themselves vulnerable to attack and failure due to their complicit support of the Church financially and legally. 

Anything related to Christianity would become worthless. The social repercussions would be unfathomable. People would commit acts contrary to the Church's teaching simply in an act of rebellion and as a statement of their anger. Yet... a fraud like that could never be perpetuated could it? Could an entire belief structure fall apart over night? Could an entire industry which was made up of legal, financial, theoretical, scientific, industrial, and social facets suffer a credibility blow such as this and not face the wrath of unfettered reprisal? Of course not... this country and our global society would not stand for it. People would rage against that "wizard of oz" and destroy the very memory of such a thing... wouldn't we?

"Dear Cong. Stupak...."

...you broke our heart and our hopes. Way to hold firm to those "CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES."

I guess he never promised us the world... but it's sad how quickly the affair is over :(
CMR has a great summary of it if you don't want to watch the video.
H/T: Creative Minority Report

"...let's say we lost that amendment, we need 218 and we get 217... would I still vote against health care? If I had to vote my conscience, I probably would not [vote against it]."

Well sir, your conscience is rotten, and your "give it our best" mentality is weak. Im glad Thomas More didn't cave, that Joan of Arc didn't cave, and I am sure as glad Jesus didn't say, "well hey I got whipped, that's good enough, I am going to get off this cross now." So much for integrity....



I am definitely nominating him for a CERF award this week.
For more info on CERF see this post: CERF AWARDS
How sad :( I knew it was too good to be true... is it time to give up hope that Catholic Democrats exist in pure form?

Double Standard In the NFL Concerning Ownership (NSFC Links) - A Different Take

***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** ***WARNING***

There are links and words in this post that are NOT SAFE FOR Children/Catholic/Crocodiles/Captains (NSFC)

***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** ***WARNING***

Now... before I begin, I just want to explain why I am willing to post such things. I am not PROMOTING or even CONDONING what is "behind" the links I am posting. Sometimes though, to make points and explain things I need to link directly to the source. I will not ever post anything directly viewable on *this

* site that is inappropriate, but links may contain questionable material. Before making such posts, I will always attempt to warn readers. (Probably not with big red words, but in some manner)

Ok so this week there was a lot of talk about Rush Limbaugh possibly becoming a part owner in the St. Louis Rams. He explains the situation in his own words in the Wall Street Journal.

A lot of other media sources have their own take, which essentially take the position that this was all about race, but not because they wanted it to be, but because Rush had made it that way. Unfortunately that is not the truth. Media outlets like VIBE described the battle to be about principles and standing up against "hatred." What they didn't know was the double standard they were espousing.

WAIT!?!?! What? Not sure how that creates a double standard? Well let's start with a couple of presuppositions.

• Let's say that Rush's past is tainted with "questionable comments."
• Let's say that if nothing else he has made poor word choices.
• Let's say that he has publicly said and done things that are hurtful to players and the image of certain players in the NFL, especially black NFL'ers.

Ok, now that we have our jumping off point, and I am not saying I believe all those things, or that they are true - it is simply painting things in the strongest light for the anti-Rush camp. Unfortunately, there are SEVERAL other part owners that currently have done much worse, than we are even placing on Rush with our heavy handed presuppositions.

Don't believe me? Check out the pithy post over at Big Hollywood: NFL Owners

I won't even mention words Plaxico, Pac-man, Donte', or Vick. That would be just too easy. Even eliminating those criminals, you are still left with a motley crew of owners. I guess what is good for the goose, ISNT good for the gander...