Tag Archives: Lay Catholic

Video: Obama ‘guaranteed’ everyone can keep their insurance in a video by his staff on WhiteHouse.gov

Linda Douglass Obamacare GUARANTEE 2 blogThe video below busts President Obama for lying about Americans keeping their health plan if they like it.  This video isn’t just on any website.  It’s in a blog post on www.WhiteHouse.gov right here and both the video and the post are damning!

Notice the last lines of the screen shot above from the blog post:

“For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them.”

The video is presented by Linda Douglass, the Communications Director for the White House Office of Health Reform.  She starts off by talking about misinformation out there right now (on the internet) by giving an example that says Obama wants to eliminate private insurance.  She follows up by saying, “nothing could be farther from the truth.”  She also accuses people of (selectively editing) the president’s words with a computer to “make it sound like he’s saying something he really didn’t say.”

Finally, at minute 1:03 she confidently says, “..here’s a clip that they probably won’t show you.”

Oh, but we will show it to you.

See minutes 1:03 to 2:11 in the video below.  The White House uploaded this video to their Youtube site on August 3, 2009.

I can’t imagine this video or its blog post staying up much longer.  Make sure to watch it in its entirety and share this post with friends and family who have believed the president has been truthful about ‘everyone keeping their insurance plan if they like it.’

Just like the White House’s blog post headline reads, ‘facts are stubborn things.’

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

Obama ‘guaranteed’ everyone can keep their insurance on a strange WhiteHouse.gov (video)

Linda Douglas

This post has been improved.  Click here for a more in depth version.

The following strange video busts President Obama for lying about Americans keeping their health plan if they like it.  This video isn’t just on any website.  It’s on www.WhiteHouse.gov!  It is presented by Linda Douglass, the Communications Director for the White House Office of Health Reform.

Linda Douglass starts off by talking about misinformation out there right now (on the internet) by giving an example that says Obama wants to eliminate private insurance.  She follows up by saying, “nothing could be farther from the truth.”  She also accuses people of (selectively editing) the president’s words with a computer to “make it sound like he’s saying something he really didn’t say.”

Finally, at minute 1:03 she confidently says, “..here’s a clip that they probably won’t show you.”

Oh, but we will show it to you.

See minutes 1:03 to 2:11 in the video below.

I can’t imagine this video staying up much longer.  Make sure to watch it in its entirety and share this post with friends and family who have believed the president has been truthful about ‘everyone keeping their insurance plan if they like it.’

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

Catholic Sisters file suit for being forced to break their vows under Healthcare law (video)

Sr. Mary Bernard LSPThe Healthcare law (PPACA, aka Obamacare) has many victims.  One of the law’s mandates, known as the “HHS Mandate” requires the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs for its employees.  A law that forces Catholic sisters to break their vows to Jesus Christ is a bad law.  A law that must be repealed.  Until the time for repeal arrives politically, the sisters will have to fight by filing suit to save their ability, ” …to live for Him (Jesus) and for Him and the elderly.  That’s our life,” says Sister Mary Bernard in the video below.  Sister Mary Bernard (pictured above) also weeps as she describes how the Sisters’ see Christ in the elderly and bring Christ to them through themselves when elderly in their care pass away, “…and when they finally find the hand of God…  You know they’re there…  It’s a happy moment…  I’m crying.”

Little Sisters of the Poor 2

The Democratic Party and President Barack Obama consider the Healthcare law to be their signature achievement.  An achievement that separates Jesus Christ from those who are vowed to Him is no achievement.

Watch the emotional video below from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about the Little Sisters plight.  After watching the video, read the Becket Fund’s press release from September 24, 2013 about the Sisters’ class-action lawsuit.

Video:

Press Release and its link:

Little Sisters of the Poor seek protection from IRS fines for following their vows

For Immediate Release:  September 24, 2013
Media Contact: Emily Hardman, ehardman@becketfund.org, 202.349.7224

Washington, D.C.,  — Today, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious order of Sisters dedicated to caring for the elderly poor (see video).  Without relief, the Little Sisters face millions of dollars in IRS fines because they cannot comply with the government’s mandate that they give their employees free access to contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.  The Little Sisters are joined by their religious health benefits providers, Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust, and a class of other religious organizations facing similar fines, in the first class action lawsuit against the Mandate.

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women Religious founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan.  They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over 13,000 needy elderly persons.  Thirty of these homes are located in the United States.

“Like all of the Little Sisters, I have vowed to God and the Roman Catholic Church that I will treat all life as valuable, and I have dedicated my life to that work,” explained Sister Loraine Marie, Superior for one of the three U.S. provinces in the Congregation.  “We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government’s program to provide access to abortion inducing drugs.”

Little Sisters of the Poor

Although the Little Sisters’ homes perform a religious ministry of caring for the elderly poor, they do not fall within the government’s narrow exemption for “religious employers.”  Accordingly, beginning on January 1, the Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

“The Sisters should obviously be exempted as ‘religious employers,’ but the government has refused to expand its definition,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for the Little Sisters.   “These women just want to take care of the elderly poor without being forced to violate the faith that animates their work.  The money they collect should be used to care for the poor like it always has—and not to pay the IRS.”

The lawsuit is the first of its kind both because it is a class-action suit that will represent hundreds of Catholic non-profit ministries with similar beliefs and because it is the first on behalf of benefits providers who cannot comply with the Mandate.

The lawsuit was filed in federal District Court in Denver.  There are now 73 lawsuits challenging the mandate.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.  They recently won a 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Emily Hardman, Communications Director, at ehardman@becketfund.org or call 202.349.7224.

###

Additional Information:

Becket Fund

Please share the Sisters’ story.  Forward it to everyone you know.  Though the Democratic Party and its politicians knew that their Healthcare law would violate the vows of religious persons like the Little Sisters of the Poor, surely individual Catholics who identify as Democrats did not want such effects on their religious sisters, nor would they want such a bad law.  Surely, these Catholics never believed their religious sisters would have to choose between obedience to God and obedience to government run by the Democratic Party.

Pray that the sisters will be free to live the Evangelical Counsels of voluntary poverty, chastity and obedience.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

Website for the Little Sisters of the Poor:

http://littlesistersofthepoor.org/

The Four Cardinal Virtues

Lay Catholic LogoThe Four Cardinal Virtues

  1. Prudence
  2. Justice
  3. Fortitude
  4. Temperance

Blessed Be GodAs published in BLESSED BE GOD A Complete Catholic Prayer Book © 1925 by Very Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., S.T.M. and Very Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P., S.T.M.

The Three Theological Virtues

Lay Catholics logo

The Three Theological Virtues

  1. Faith
  2. Hope
  3. Charity

Blessed Be GodAs published in BLESSED BE GOD A Complete Catholic Prayer Book © 1925 by Very Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., S.T.M. and Very Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P., S.T.M.

Frame the Truth and Stay on Message: Please Just Say “Marriage”

Lay Catholics logoBy Kim Lehman

Do you believe that marriage is, and only can be, between a man and a woman? Do you believe it is the bedrock of society? Finally, do you believe that Nature’s God instituted marriage in the beginning? If you said yes to all of these questions, this article is being written for you. Let me explain. Words matter and how you frame a message matters. In fact, whoever defines the language controls the message and frames it in their favor. This is why I am making the case that if you believe the above statement, then you can never use the word “gay” before the word “marriage.” If you do not believe me, then you should study the word battles in the abortion issue. It was through my work with the Right to Life in Iowa that I learned these important lessons of language—first being that you never repeat your opposition’s message or use “their” language. Please read on before you write again to defend marriage.

Again, you never repeat your opposition’s message in order to give your rebuttal. Don’t give them free space on your page. This is by far the biggest error of the right. The opposition said what they said to persuade, and they carefully crafted their words. They have the disadvantage since they must “change” culture, so they are not going to use your words. Christians and pro-life people react with very little strategy when they publish an article. To their credit they want to defend truth and are willing to step out of their comfort zone to speak up—great, and thank you. With that said, to their fault, they are not paying attention to how to fight the battle with words. Consider why the liberal papers flip pro-lifers’ words from “pro-life” to “anti-choice”. This is not an accident and has a definite motive behind it. They want their readers to view pro-life people as an “anti” kind of people, which has the subliminal effect of making the reader want to disassociate with an “anti” group, as opposed to reporting us as “pro” life, which would have a drawing effect. Take also into consideration the abortion industry’s use of “pro-choice” instead of “anti-life”. Why do you think the largest abortion group in the United States call themselves Planned Parenthood instead of Abortions Aplenty? The answer is obvious; they do not want people to view them as advancing more abortion. Words really, really, really matter when engaging in social issues.

Let this be the rule of thumb when you want to engage in the battle of words:

Whoever defines the word, frames the issue in their favor. So long as you use their language, you have yielded and helped them without even knowing it.

My hope is that my friends in this battle for marriage will be persuaded to stop using the opposition’s language. Make no mistake; marriage has been under attack for a long time. You do not have to look far to realize that the younger generation places very little value in the institution. Why is it under attack? I am convinced that marriage is a reflection of the triune God, and a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church, with Him as the bridegroom and us as His bride. So in fact, this is far more than what it appears. Let’s face it; God instituted marriage as his plan to populate the earth by creating each new generation and as a reflection of his love. Marriage is about a life-long commitment that includes bringing children into the world. If a couple is unable to have children, they can either adopt or serve mankind in another way. The order of society should still maintain a mother and a father uniting to pro-create and raise children. This is so obvious that it is a wonderment that so many people are confused today. However, it’s not the first time in history that people have lost their way on this issue. The question is: how did we get here? I believe a good place to start in understanding how America fell so fast as to devalue marriage can be found in Humanae Vitae, written by Pope Paul VI.

I contend that the other side has done a good job dismantling marriage by using propaganda. They took advantage of the fact that most people are lazy thinkers and do not like to be controversial. Reframing the language began with a simple word–“gay”, which at one time meant “happy” or “joyful”, yet now it means someone who has sex with the same gender. Not too long ago this sexual act was called perversion. In fact, because of this perversion God’s judgment fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, and men who engaged in this sexual act were thereafter referred to as Sodomites. Like all sins that lead to eternal death, it should be treated for what it is–sin that can be forgiven. Let’s face it, all of us are sinners and need to repent to be restored to God. However, it is evil to say that a sin is no longer a sin. In the case of sexual perversion, many now say that people are born this way. We are all born with a sinful nature—that is, a desire to sin. Not only is everyone born bent to sin, but we are all born with a sexual drive. The reality is, as sinners, we are all given the choice to act upon all types of sinful inclinations or to reject them to do what is right. No one is without sin. Make no mistake—there is no one without excuse. Nature bears witness to the truth. It is black and white. The problem today is that people are buying into the lie that we can’t help ourselves and therefore it must be okay. It is not okay and we must speak the truth, with love and with the correct words.

So let’s get back to what language to use or not to use in defending marriage. You must ask yourself again whether or not you truly believe that marriage is, and can only be, between a man and a woman. If so, then we can say with confidence there is only one kind of marriage. Right? Try not to contradict yourself by putting the word “gay or homosexual” with the word marriage. If it can’t be and doesn’t exist then do not speak it into existence. If you choose to use their language, they will use it against you. How? Once you allow them to create a new kind of marriage by using their language, all they have to do is say you are discriminating against “blank-marriage.” See how subtle, and yet so simple. You become your own worst enemy. This information is probably a decade late, but I’m hopeful that at least some will catch on.

For those of you who have the habit of using their language instead of saying “marriage”, don’t be undisciplined or lazy and think that what I just said doesn’t matter, for not only does it matter, it matters a lot. You must decide what you believe and then speak the words. Marriage stands alone for it is what it is. Do not help your opposition any longer by repeating “their message.” Please! Discipline yourself and stay on message.

If you were to ask me how I say it, I use these words:

  • Defend marriage (number one choice to say over and over again)
  • I encourage you to stop the destruction of marriage
  • I support marriage
  • Please support marriage with me
  • Marriage is a blessing
  • Marriage is under attack
  • Rebuild marriage for the sake of our children
  • Marriage has always been male and female, and I might add, will always be and cannot be anything but one man and one woman
  • We must not let marriage be dismantled
  • Encourage our children to marry
  • Society didn’t create marriage and therefore has no power to redefine it

Never call it “traditional Marriage” for that implies there is more then one kind of marriage (very subtle.) You will notice that your opposition will never say they are destroying marriage or dismantling it. They are very disciplined to use their own language and compel you to use it in rebuttal.

The objective for both sides is to frame the message to get agreement:

  • If you ask people if they support marriage, they will say yes
  • If you ask them if they want to destroy marriage, they will say no
  • If you ask them if society should help rebuild marriages in the US for the sake of our children, they will say yes
  • If you ask people if they want to protect marriage, they will say yes

Remember to frame the issue or your message in a way that the public will support. So stay on message and love all people, and for the sake of our loving God, never agree with a lie by repeating the lie in order to rebut it. Simply state your message. Why give them free advertising? Frame the truth and stay on message.

Best wishes,
Your friend in truth with love,
Kim Lehman, IA

TheKimmyView@aol.com

The Student Attacking GW Newman Center Priest is a False Priest in a False So-Called Catholic Church

Lay Catholics logoTwo homosexual students are attacking and trying to remove the Catholic priest who runs the Catholic Newman Center at George Washington University.  Why?  Because he teaches Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

Turns out that one of the aggressor students (Damian Legacy) toward Father Greg Shaffer (the Catholic priest at the Newman Center) was ordained as a priest in the heretical “North American Old catholic church.”

Here is an excerpt from The GW Hatchet story about Damian Legacy’s ordination:

“Now on the precipice of graduation, the openly gay student is an ordained priest within the North American Old Catholic Church, which encourages LGBT members to join its clergy. Legacy was ordained in October, and since then, has held personal morning masses and structured prayer sessions six times a day. He also hosts masses for other students in his City Hall room.”

Read the entire story from The GW Hatchet HERE.  It is entitled “Keeping the faith, defending sexuality.”  There is also a photo of the student appearing to celebrate (m)ass.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

The Pope Urgently Calls Catholics to Counter President Obama’s “Radical Secularism” on Freedom of Religion

What did Pope Benedict say?

“… it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.”

“Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed CATHOLIC LAITY endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the FUTURE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.”

– Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI’s (paragraphs 6 and 7)  ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THEIR “AD LIMINA” VISIT (Click for full Address):

When did he say this?

On January 19, 2012, the day before President Obama’s religious freedom crushing HHS mandate was announced.

Why didn’t you know about It?

Most Catholics don’t read the Pope’s letters and the letters are not reported on widely in the media.

Who is limiting religious freedom and denying Catholic individuals and institutions the right of conscientious objection with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices?

President Barack Obama

Do you trust Pope Benedict XVI when he says there are threats to religious freedom or do you trust President Obama when he says there are none?

Your answer here.

What are you going to do about it?

Your answer here.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

-END-

George Washington versus Barack Obama on Religious Freedom

Barack Obama is no George Washington when it comes to respecting religious freedom. Let’s compare how important Catholic and Protestant clergy have responded to both of these presidents regarding our first, most cherished American liberty.

Responses from clergy regarding Barack Obama

In his January 19, 2012 address to American Catholic Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI recognized threats to religious freedom by Obama without stating his name (the HHS mandate was announced the next day.):
“…it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres… Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.”

In an interview on February 21, 2012 Rev. Franklin Graham expressed his willingness to practice civil disobedience in the face of Barack Obama’s attack on religious freedom:
“I am very concerned, because what they tried to do to the Catholic Church in mandating contraception, I don’t believe the compromise is a true compromise. You’re still paying for it, but it’s going to be paid for now through the insurance carrier, who is then going to charge you… I think every Christian out there should be concerned that we will be forced to bring people into our organizations, and put them on our payrolls, when we know that they are opposed to everything that we believe… at that point, I would just have to break the law and take it all the way to the Supreme Court and fight it…”

In a March 2, 2012 letter to Catholic bishops, Cardinal Dolan of New York stated the following in regard to President Barack Obama’s disturbing opinions on religious freedom:
“At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates (HHS mandate requires all insurance companies to provide free contraception, including the morning-after pill and sterilizations — even to employees of religious-affiliated organizations that have a moral objection) or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” (Obama invited them to “work out the wrinkles”) Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America (a Catholic Jesuit magazine.) The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own (Obama’s) definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.”

Responses from clergy regarding George Washington

In a 1789 letter from the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Bishops’ Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury (pictured) express their confidence in George Washington:
“We are conscious from the signal proofs you have already given that you are a friend of mankind; and under this established idea, place as full a confidence in your wisdom and integrity, for the preservation of those civil and religious liberties…”

In 1790 Bishop John Carroll (the first Catholic bishop and then archbishop in the United States) wrote “An Address from the Roman Catholics of America to George Washington, Esq., President of the United States” by:
“… you encourage respect for religion, and inculcate, by words and actions, that principle…”

In his January 1895 encyclical (letter,) Longinqua, Pope Leo XIII showed the great historical admiration the Catholic Church had and will always have for President George Washington:
“American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic… and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop (John Carroll) was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church… for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

From the above letters it is easy to see the comfort level with a president who will be respectful of religious freedom like George Washington versus a president who is harmful toward it like Barack Obama. President Obama has had no kind reply to people of faith about their religious freedom. Only disregard through his actions, like the HHS mandate which was born from the unjust ObamaCare law.

On the other hand, in correspondence dated March 1790, a humble President George Washington replied to Bishop John Carroll with a letter to Roman Catholics stating, among other things;  “And I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed… it shall be my constant endeavor to justify the favorable sentiments which you are pleased to express of my conduct. And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”

Those are great and humble words from our first leader, who protected our first American freedom, who voluntarily stepped down as President of the United States and could have been king. Now, our forty-fourth leader, who refuses to protect our first freedom, must be made to involuntarily step down by the popular suffrage or we will have a man who will continue to act unabated against religious freedom as if he is our king.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

The Seven Sacraments

Lay Catholic Logo

The Seven Sacraments

  1. Baptism…..Matthew XXVIII. 19.
  2. Confirmation…..Acts VIII. 17.
  3. Holy Eucharist…..Matthew XXVI. 26.
  4. Penance…..John XX. 23.
  5. Extreme Unction…..James V. 14.
  6. Holy Orders…..Luke XXII. 19.
  7. Matrimony…..Matthew XIX. 6.

As published in BLESSED BE GOD A Complete Catholic Prayer Book © 1925 and THE MAN OF GOD Catholic Prayers and Devotions For Men © 1927 by Very Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., S.T.M. and Very Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P., S.T.M. and Roman Catholic Daily Missal 1962, © 2004

Note:  Blessed Be God published a typographical error for the location of the Holy Eucharist in the Bible as Matthew XVI, 26 instead of the correct location of Matthew XXVI, 26.  We made the correction above in the list of the Seven Sacraments.