According to The Morning Journal newspaper of Ohio, Bishop Lennon’s decree was issued Nov. 11, 2009:

"Having been directed by the Holy See (in Rome) to act definitively in the matter of the alleged apparitions … and having reviewed the theological content of the alleged apparitions to Maureen Sweeney-Kyle and having consulted an expert in this matter, I … declare that the alleged apparitions and locations … are not supernatural in origin.” Lennon’s decree states he "forbid members of the clergy of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction" to celebrate the sacraments on the site of Holy Love Ministries.

"I admonish the faithful of the Diocese of Cleveland to cease gathering for any religious, liturgical, spiritual or devotional purpose on the site of Holy Love Ministries and declare that the Confraternity of the United Hearts of Jesus and Mary is not an approved association of the Christian faithful in the Diocese of Cleveland and may not legitimately use the name "Catholic" or represent itself as a Catholic group," Lennon said in his decree.

Rogue Apparitions

People have been going to this shrine since the early 1990‘s, drawn by founder Sweeney-Kyle’s claim that Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary and a host of saints are appearing to her with messages. On the surface, everything about the site appears to be Catholic, but they are not Catholic. They say so themselves. Therefore, this official proclamation by the Bishop will be of little regard to Sweeny-Kyle, or her husband Don Kyle, the director of Holy Love Ministries.

The Journal reported that Kyle responded to Lennon’s decree by stating:

"We at Holy Love ministries are, and always have been, an ecumenical ministry. We have no affiliation with the Diocese of Cleveland. We are sorry that the bishop has taken this position. As it has always been, all people of all faiths are welcome to join us in prayer and the peace that Heaven offers at this site."

This, fellow Catholics, should have been the red flag that immediately exposed the apparitions long before an official proclamation. When in the history of the Catholic Church have approved apparitions consisted of a Blessed Mother going freestyle outside the Church? When has Jesus rejected His own authority — that of the Catholic Church? The final Church proclamation comes as no surprise.

In 2005 an article in The Plain Dealer newspaper of Cleveland, OH reported on this ministry and its many suspicious claims:

“The ministry was formed around 1986, meeting in homes of followers or a few welcoming churches. Then came a time of upheaval. Sweeney insisted that the Virgin Mary’s messages demanded that she be given a new title, one recognized by the Catholic Church, that of “Our Lady Protectress of the Faith.” The Cleveland Catholic Diocese turned down this request. And soon the lengthy messages that Sweeney dictated into a tape recorder began denouncing the Catholic Church; others commented on political details of the day. Several members of Sweeney’s small ministry became disillusioned and left.”

The ministry changed locations and names several times and Sweeney-Kyle even changed husbands, divorcing and then remarrying two years later. The organization has been at odds with the Catholic Church almost from the start. It sought approval through official channels for several years, but instead, in 1999, the Catholic diocese issued a statement urging extreme caution. At that point, Holy Love Ministries took an “ecumenical” approach. Yet, as an ecumenical ministry it found time and space in many of its printed materials to rail against the Church. Would Jesus and His Blessed Mother and the saints choose Sweeney-Kyle to give the Catholic Church a tongue-lashing? No way.

Obedience or Defection?

The question now is, will those that were enthralled with this Shrine, accept Church authority or continue to follow a ministry that has officially been condemned?

I myself have visited a couple apparition sites that proved to be false. I understand this sort of devotion although I’m much more cautious these days. Yet, if everyone had awaited an official pronouncement from the Church, the 60,000 people that witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, Portugal would have stayed home that day. Nor would there have been the initial miracles to report at Lourdes, France if people did not flock to the miraculous spring. (Oh, and by the way, Holy Love Ministries has one of those miraculous springs. They had them at a couple of their locations.)

It’s not wrong to go to a site where purported apparitions are occurring. Catholics must keep their heads on straight and not wander from Church teachings, but praying at an apparition site is not wrong.

However, once the Church has condemned a site and declared it off limits to clergy and laity, it’s a different ball game. Then, it becomes a matter of obeying Catholic authority or thinking you know better. “The one who listens to you listens to me and the one who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me,” Luke 10:16.

Either we accept the authority of the Church, or we reject it. Those at Holy Love Ministries have openly rejected it. The question now is how will the many followers respond to the Bishop’s decree? I fear that many, enthralled by what they believe to be a miraculous site, will disregard the Church.

The Snares of the Devil

I used to wonder why the devil would have a hand in false apparitions when they inspired so many faithful Catholics to increase their prayer life and devotion to God and the Blessed Mother. What would the devil get out of the deal? This, my friends, is what he gets out of it: There will be a number of people who believed they were healed or their faith brought to life through Holy Love Ministries that, like a rebellious adolescents, will respond, “We don’t have to listen to the Church .”

Consider the options the devil has available to trap faithful Catholics? Such people will not be attracted to obvious evil. So, instead, the devil uses a Catholic facade to lure them in. Then, when God’s authority on earth — the Church — speaks against the fraud, a number of otherwise good Catholics get caught in the trap.

In November of 2006, I wrote an article for Catholic exchange exposing the Holy Love site. (http://catholicexchange.com/2006/11/06/94475/ ) After an angry backlash of emails telling me how wrong I was, I promised never to write about alleged apparitions again. In addition, there are a number of followers in the area where I live who were irritated by my observations. My life is stressful enough without stirring up such pots, I reasoned. I am proving, however, that we should never say never . After the Bishop’s decree, I felt compelled to appeal to all Holy Love followers, to accept the fact that the Church has the authority to condemn this site. Jesus told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church and he promised to send the Paraclete to keep the Church free from error.

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18: 17-18).

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:12-13).

If Jesus were giving messages on “all truth” to individuals, the result would not be thousands of denominations going in different directions. He speaks through His Church. The Church has spoken on Holy Love Ministries.

What of the many miracles and increased devotion so many experienced at the site? I did not save all the impassioned emails I received three years ago, but I did find similar comments on a site discussing Holy Love. One woman credited her father’s conversion from a Sunday church grumbler to attending Mass and saying the rosary daily — even two years after his visit to the site. Another person said that her fallen-away Catholic friend that once ridiculed the site became a believer. Someone said that such compelling evidence of positive fruits proves this is from God. No, it does not. That is why we have the Church, so that we don’t get led astray by what looks good on the surface.

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, always looks below the surface because all that glitters isn’t gold and regardless of how many people visit or how many statues are erected or rosaries said, it does not constitute proof.

I once read that people bring their own holiness to these sites. They pray and love God. God answers prayers. All this is holy in nature but is not proof of authenticity of purported apparitions. Too often, after apparitions are condemned people feel betrayed and give up on God and the Church. Then, all their gains are lost. Or, disappointment leads them to reject Church authority thinking that they are right and the Church is wrong.

Rather than allow such disappointment to derail them, they can instead take a big step closer to God. By giving their disappointment to God and continuing to walk with him, they acknowledge that his Church is bigger than a single ministry or the claims of any purported visionary.

The past prayers and experiences of Holy Love followers were very real. If people were inspired or received what they believe to be miracles at this site, then praise be to God! God can use all things for good. But now the line has been drawn. People can follow Sweeny-Kyle or the Church, but not both.

This couldn’t have been what OPT expected when it tried to capitalize on the obsession of leftist politicians with global warming.  But their press release, put out in September of this year, struck many as more than a little self-serving.  Perhaps it was that it hailed contraception as, of all things, “the latest in green technology.”  Or perhaps it was the OPT funded the very study by the London School of Economics that it later hyped in its press release.  Then there was the study itself, which made the rather strange claim that, “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies.”

The report concluded by claiming that “the population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.”  Although the authors stopped short of asserting, as Al Gore did, that babies cause global warming, they came close.  Readers are left with the impression that fewer breathing humans equal a greener, healthier planet.  We’ve never heard that one before.

A visit to OPT’s prehistoric web site is like a trip back in time. “By reversing population growth,” OPT says, “we’d be taking another green step towards environmental survival for all.”  There is no mention that Europe is dying.

The site even has a “Stop At Two” pledge, where environmental devotees can make a promise to reverse population growth.  One wonders whether any of OPT’s aging membership are still young enough to reproduce.

The intriguing thing about OPT’s most recent pitch for mass population control—disguised as a scientific study—is the reaction it garnered among the public.  One might expect at least some denizens of the Left to enthusiastically second its program, or at least nod approvingly.

Instead, the reaction was muted and, well, uncomfortable.

Austen Ivereigh of America Magazine , for instance, encountered OPT at London’s “Battle of Ideas” festival in early November. Ivereigh reminds us that “doom-mongers always ignore the elasticity of economic productivity,” and contends that “the ecological crisis will be solved by meeting the needs of the poor, not chasing them off the planet.”

Even Ellie Lee, a self-proclaimed member of the pro-choice movement, takes issue with the “moral imperative” laid down by the OPT.  “Campaign groups such as the Optimum Population Trust,” she writes on the Times Online, “seek to persuade us that we should plan, found and grow our families according to a moral imperative far more pressing than what we may feel is right for us.”

Lee is (rightly) miffed at the idea that OPT sees itself as a referee on who can have children, and when. “This is the attempt to manipulate the feelings and decisions of women all over the world,” she writes, “as they negotiate their way through the profoundly important process of making decisions about when to start a family.”

Brendan O’Neill, writing for Spiked! , thinks likewise.  He describes an invitation-only OPT conference that he attended earlier this year, quipping that the affair was “hideously white.”  There is something “unavoidably spooky,” he notes, about people who spend all their time “fretting about overpopulation.”

“You can bet,” he continues, “that when these well-to-do worriers about the human plague on the planet talk about burdensome people causing ‘congestion, overcrowding and loss of green space’ . . . they aren’t talking about themselves, or their friends, or their neighbors, or their mistresses; they’re talking about ‘them’. You know ‘them’! The breeders, the not-sufficiently-educated, the dwellers of teeming cities, not only in Africa and Asia but in Europe and America too.”

This apt observation shines a harsh light on the innate “creep factor” of organizations like OPT.  Their members, when viewed en masse, look less like crusading saviors of the earth, and more like angry, bigoted, pampered ideologues.  Their creed has not aged well.

Regrettably, gatherings of these types of crazy people are not limited to country clubs and richly-catered seminars.  Population obsession is alive and well in men like John P. Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar.”  PRI has reported on Holdren’s extremism in the past, and suffice it to say he has shown evidence of being yet another of these “well-to-do worriers.”  Unfortunately, he now has the President’s ear, as well.

However, culturally, population control is beginning to make the Western public uncomfortable.  While many still believe the world to be overrun with humans, the proposed “solutions” to this so-called “problem” are even more unthinkable.  Men like John P. Holdren, and the leaders at OPT, would do well to remember this.

As far as population control goes, in the words of a sixties song, the times, they are a-changin’

Mark pointed out to his reader that Scripture is clear on life after death and that Greek philosophy is not our source for it. And Mark is certainly correct about that.

But I think the reader was perhaps asking a different question from what the source of our doctrine is, or I might be reading a different question into it due to the wording – “build certain beliefs from.” That seems to be not merely asking for the source, but for why Greek philosophical terms and concepts seem to be built into Catholic theology. They are. And the why of that might be approached by means of an analogy.

Besides the construction of her theology and institutional organization, for what other constructions is the Catholic Church famous? I have chosen the words of the question with precision, so that for most of you, images of the great Cathedrals and St. Peter’s Square will spring instantly to mind. For when we speak of Catholic constructions, these marvelous edifices are the epitome. Now, of what are they built? For the most part, they are built of stone – fitting for both its versatility of application and permanence. And how are they built? By the methods of builders who build with stone, of course. And here is the pertinent question: Did the Catholic Church invent the art of building with stone? No. of course not. She built (and builds) her churches from materials that humans have been building with for millennia and she employs the very best of the methods for using those materials. The Church was born, so to speak, where the techniques of building with stone were already at their highest level of achievement, in the Roman-dominated Hellenic world, where great public buildings –- and the kinds of organization necessary to plan, finance, and accomplish their exquisitely-crafted construction — were a fixture of every city. In the course of her own life over the past 2000 years, the Church has added to the development of stone craft and architecture, creating soaring structures that elevate the human gaze and prompt reflection about our relationship to God.

I submit to you that the same thing is true of thinking systematically about doctrine. Greek philosophy is not any more necessary for an encounter with Christ, for he preaching of the Gospel, or for the operation of the Catholic priesthood than are the great cathedrals. But since faith seeks understanding, Catholics from the beginning have chosen to think systematically about their faith. And where the Church grew up there was readily at hand, as ubiquitous as granite, the most versatile and permanent construction blocks for thinking that had ever been created by human beings – the Greek language and Greek philosophy.

More though is at work here than mere happenstance. Never once from Abraham to Jesus’ birth did the physical location and cultural surroundings of the chosen people not interest the God who was preparing them to bear his Salvation to the world. The diaspora (dispersal) into Greek culture of the Jews was hardly some accident out of the providence of the God who “divided the nations” and “appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel” (Deut 32:8, Douay-Rheims). Even the great Hellenizer of the ancient world, Alexander the Great, was prophetically ordained (Daniel 2:39; 7:6; 8:5-7; 11:3-4). And what of that Greek mastery of thought? Do we say with Matthew Arnold that there was in the nature of man, “something that inclined him to Greek”? Perhaps.

Or better, we acknowledge with St. John that the very Logos is “the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” (John 1:9, Douay-Rheims). Now, Romano Guardini would have it that the Greeks were particularly graced with this light and specially prepared in thought for the conception of The Word — that there was a dual preparation of this world for the coming of the Logos, in both the Old Testament people and the Greek language and philosophy:

In order that this conception of the Logos, idea and source of all ideas, stand ready to serve sacred Christology, Greek thought labored for six centuries (The Lord, p 538).

In the course of her own life over the past 2000 years, the Church has added to the development of philosophy, making it the handmaiden of theology — that most elevated of human enterprises — seeking to know God in Christ, building the structure of her knowledge from the solid, polished, and exquisitely-crafted thinking of the Greeks.

Bishop Morin gave his report on CCHD to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Fall 2009 General Assembly in Baltimore.

"The bishops of the committee, as those responsible for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, continue to pledge ongoing support of efforts to ensure that all CCHD funds are used faithfully, effectively and in accord with Catholic social and moral teaching," said Morin.

CCHD is the subject of an independent and ongoing investigation by several Catholic groups that have exposed it for having contracted projects with some groups that are involved with or who have signed onto efforts, activities, or mission statements that conflict with the Catholic Church’s defense of the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. CCHD has already defunded two of those groups, but further investigations are continuing to reveal numerous other problematic groups.

A Reform CCHD Now (RCN) coalition has formed that includes Human Life International, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, Catholic Radio International, Americans Life League, and fifteen other groups. It has demanded concrete reforms of CCHD’s vetting process for groups seeking funds before Catholics are called upon to donate on November 22.

Regarding the criticism of CCHD, Bishop Morin told his fellow bishops that the charitable arm had experienced both fair and foul allegations about CCHD funding.

"Some [critics of CCHD] are motivated by a concern for the poor and respect for the Church, and some are seeking answers to legitimate questions about what and how and why CCHD does what it does, and how it can be made better," Morin said.

However, Morin proceeded to lash out at certain unnamed critics who he said harbor ulterior motives against the bishops and the Church.

"There are a few who have their own ideological or political agendas, they repeat or spread outrageous claims that the bishops are funding groups that are pro-abortion, groups that are not in support of the family, or other untruths," Morin insisted. "For these groups, this seems to be just another way to attack the Church and its shepherds."

Morin said that these groups, "constantly insist that the bishops are not as faithful to their responsibility to their caring for the life of the unborn."

Bishop Morin reiterated that CCHD is "absolutely pro-life from conception to natural death," and that social justice ministry to the poor was a form of pro-life advocacy.

He also denied the allegation that CCHD gives to any group "that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to church teaching," and emphasized that CCHD has a "zero tolerance" for grantees who violate the conditions of their contract, which requires respect and promotion of the Church’s core values.

Morin told the bishops that he believed that three "very particular isolated instances" were being used to paint CCHD and its 250 other grantees "with the same brush."

However, in recent days members of the Reform the CCHD Now movement have presented evidence for inappropriate activities on the part of a wide number of CCHD grantees, significantly widening the brush beyond the three cases of problematic funding alluded to by Morin.

On Monday, the day before Morin’s speech, the American Life League, an RCN member, revealed that they had discovered six more CCHD grantees engaged in activities contrary to Catholic teaching, such as promoting birth-control through sex-education, as well as Marxism, homosexuality, and greater access to condoms. In total these groups are allocated $220,000 for the year.

Michael Hichborn, ALL’s lead-researcher on CCHD, charged that given the ease with which they found the information on these groups, the bishops’ charitable organization could only be one of two things, either "incompetent or complicit."

"We’re finding more and more evidence every day with far less information than the CCHD receives through its granting process," stated Hichborn.

Hichborn and Rob Gasper, founder of BVM, both appeared Friday on EWTN’s "The World Over" program with Raymond Arroyo and argued their case for the needed reforms, explaining the evidence they had compiled, and revealing some new discoveries.

In his speech on Tuesday, Bishop Morin promised his fellow bishops that reform and "renewal" of its mission is in the works for CCHD, saying that even one case was one too many.

"We are using new tools to help ensure that groups keep their commitments, to avoid actions which conflict with Catholic Church teaching, and to not engage in any partisan political activity," Morin concluded.

Discussion on Morin’s report by the bishops, however, was tabled until Wednesday. Since the bishops did not discuss the CCHD report before the public session ended at 11 A.M., any discussion on the report will occur in their private session, which is closed off to reporters.

Is there any chance you’d say, “Sounds great, but that’s probably not for me?” Of course not! Yet that’s exactly what most Catholics have unwittingly been doing for the last four decades or so.

Pope John Paul II called the Second Vatican Council “the Spirit’s gift to the Church.”

Pope Benedict XVI has said that “the true inheritance of the Council,” the gift of which his predecessor spoke so often, “lies in the Council documents.

The Spirit’s gift; the Council documents…

In spite of the numerous times that these themes have recurred in the exhortations of the Holy Fathers over the last forty plus years, the “gift” has largely been left unopened as very few Catholics can say they’ve actually read any one of the sixteen Council documents from beginning to end. Far fewer still have ever taken the time to explore them more deliberately by the light of sacred Tradition. This is true even among Catholics who routinely read spiritual works and willingly participate in adult faith formation programs in their parishes.

Now this isn’t to say that Catholics are largely uninterested in Vatican II; indeed the opposite is true. Catholics are very interested in discovering the truth about the Council’s teachings; the fact that you’re reading this column right now is evidence enough.

So what exactly is going on here.

Well, I’ve had the great privilege of discussing Vatican II with countless individuals over the last five years or so — from ordinary laypeople to priests, from catechists to cardinals — and I’ve personally come face-to-face with some of the fears and assumptions that serve as an obstacle that stands between the People of God and the treasures of faith contained in the documents of the Council.

In spite of their sincere desire to know what the Council Fathers truly taught, even some of the most well catechized Catholics admit to feeling somewhat intimidated by the prospect of exploring the Council documents directly. Those in charge of adult religious education often misread this sense of apprehension and assume that very few people if any in the parish are truly interested in exploring the conciliar decrees. As a result, parishes rarely invite the faithful to participate in programs designed to assist in the effort.

This situation has been so prevalent for so long, there are actually very few faith formation programs like “Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II ” (available for those educators who are actively seeking them. In fact, I personally know of no others.

So how did we get to this point?

Let’s be honest; it’s not exactly a secret that many of our priests and bishops don’t even seem to agree on what the Council Fathers truly taught and intended. Toss in the fact that the secular media has a fondness for airing opinions that run contrary to that of the Church’s authentic voice; that of the Pope and those bishops who teach in union with him, and it’s not surprising that laypeople often draw the conclusion, “Heck, if our clergy can’t even agree on what the Council taught, what chance do I have of understanding it?”

While it may seem logical to assume that the documents of the Council are terribly complex, nothing could be further from the truth.

The very mission of the Council was to present the sacred deposit of faith in ways that modern men and women, read ordinary people, can readily understand. The conciliar documents weren’t written with only scholars and clergy in mind; they were very specifically written for all of us. No, they don’t read quite as easily as People Magazine; you’ll have to work a little bit harder than that, but they are remarkably approachable nonetheless.

So why aren’t we seeing a large scale effort in parishes worldwide to implement faith formation programs designed to break down the barriers of assumption and fear, encouraging Catholics to at long last explore the actual text of the rich and beautiful documents that were written specifically for them?

As much as it troubles me to say so, the unfounded notion that the typical Catholic is somehow unqualified to explore the Council documents has become institutionalized to some extent. I am sorry to report that no small number of those who are officially charged with catechesis, both on the diocesan and the parish levels, are of the opinion that the average Catholic is neither steeped enough in their faith nor intelligent enough to explore the Council documents directly. In fact, the catechetical director of a large archdiocese said this to me almost verbatim! This view reflects an undeniably elitist mindset that essentially says, “We get it, but they cannot.

Now, this is not to disparage or to judge these often dedicated catechetical leaders personally; it is simply to make known to you “the facts on the ground” such as they are after allowing fears and assumptions to run unchecked for forty plus years.

We see the unfortunate results in the kinds of faith formation programs that are routinely offered in most parishes. Many of the more common offerings contain little substance, and while some may touch on “conciliar themes” as interpreted by — you guessed it — those who believe that they alone “get it,” programs that offer the “Spirit’s gift” in the unadulterated words of the Council Fathers are practically nonexistent.

There is good news however. In spite of being decades old, the current situation is very easily corrected; all that is required is a simple act of the will on the part of all concerned.

If you who are reading this column right now occupy some official position in the field of evangelization and catechesis — whether you are an educator, a catechist, a priest or a bishop — please know that the people you are charged with serving need not be sheltered from the Council any longer. If you harbor any thoughts whatsoever that say “they can’t get it,” you really need to take a step back and prayerfully consider the fact that the very nature of your vocation is to make sure that they do get it!

Invite your parishioners to explore the actual documents of the Council firsthand. Be sure to assist them by providing a program that applies what Pope Benedict XVI calls the “hermeneutic of continuity;” one that helps them read the conciliar documents in the context of all that preceded it by the light of sacred Tradition. Whether it’s “Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II ” or some other program of your choice, a reliable approach will depend upon Sacred Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. as guideposts.

If you who are reading this are one of “the people in the pews,” you need to hear the voice of John Paul II echoing in your heart once more saying, “Be not afraid!” Set your fears and preconceived notions aside and tell your pastor that you’re prepared at long last to receive the gift of the Council. If he cannot be convinced to invite the entire parish to join you, simply delve into the Council documents on your own with the aid if a good faith formation tool at home.

Exactly what is this gift? Well it’s certainly not dry academics, and I can assure you that it’s anything but boring. You see, the gift of the Spirit is ever the same in the Church; it is no less than an encounter with Christ, and that’s exactly what all of us are invited to receive in the Council documents, if only we’re willing to say yes.

Thomas Cromwell: The rise and fall of Henry VIII’s most notorious minister by Robert Hutchinson. (New York : St. Martin’s Press. 360 pages. Hardback. ISBN 978-0-57794-0. $29.99.) Tells the story of Cardinal Wolsey’s fall from power over his failure to obtain a divorce from the Pope for Henry VIII who wanted to put away Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn and obtain a male heir. Cromwell then rose to power to become Henry’s most important minister. He assisted Henry to get rid of Anne Boleyn and to get new wives, Jane Seymour who died and then Anne of Cleves whom Henry divorced. Cromwell also helped Henry in financial and political matters which benefitted them both. Cromwell knew that he had to stay on Henry’s good graces or he would fall like Wolsey and others had done. He also assisted Henry in religious matters, but he was too liberal for Henry who still favored many Roman Catholic practices. This and Cromwell’s failure with the marriage of Anne of Cleves led to his downfall and his execution as a traitor.

Thomas Cromwell was a great organizer and administrator. Many of the ideas and methods he installed in the English government are still used by the British government of today. Greedy for power and wealth, he used his position to advance himself and his family. He was hated by the nobility who saw him as an upstart since he came from the poor class of England. He was corrupt and willing to do favors when a bribe was paid him. He held back some of the wealth from the dissolved monasteries and used some of it as bribes for others to keep them loyal to him. He was responsible for the destruction of many pieces of English art and architecture in order to get at the precious metals and jewels they were made of. He encouraged the destruction of many shrines in England like that of St. Thomas a Becket at Canterbury and St. Swithun and Winchester. He also destroyed some burial places of kings and queens, but Henry did not care as long as it brought him wealth. Cromwell was behind the martyrdom of many of the first English martyrs who are held today as saints or blessed.

Robert Hutchinson’s wonderful and entertaining book will keep the reader very interested and unwilling to put it down. Hutchinson uses quotes from various sources from Cromwell’s time period. He gives an equivalent for monetary amounts in his story so that the reader will have a better idea of how much money Cromwell was working with. There is a centerfold of color images. There are endnotes, a bibliography, and an index. There is a chronology and a list and short biography of major characters in the biography. The book jacket has an image of Thomas Cromwell, King Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and Hampton Court.

Another wonderful book about the same time period, and by the same author, is House of Treason: the rise and fall of a Tudor Dynasty (London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2009. 340 pages. Hardback. ISBN 978-0-297-84564-5. $32.77). This one is on the noble Howard family of England during the reign of the Tudors. This family was involved in the government of England because they were a high ranking family with royal blood which got some into trouble. The early dukes at times became too proud of their blood line and were seen as competitors with the King or Queen who were jealous of their prerogatives. This was because the Howards might have had a better claim to the throne than did the Tudors since they had Plantagenet connections. Some of the Dukes of Norfolk ran afoul of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and were executed for treason. Hutchinson describes all the intrigues and excitement this family got into. One of the Howards, Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, died in the Tower of London after having becoming a Catholic and was canonized a saint in 1970 by Pope Paul VI. The Howard family continued to have Catholic leanings which got some into trouble with the government. This is where the book ends, with the advent of the reign of the Stuarts and the Howard family surviving the Tudors

Robert Hutchinson is an expert on the Reformation in England and Wales and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquities. He is an associate tutor in church archaeology at the University of Sussex’s Center (England) for Continuing Education and is the author of many papers. He is the author of The Last Days of Henry VIII (2006), Elizabeth’s Spymaster (2007).

As the woman walked down the sidewalk, I realized she was a bit disheveled. But there was nothing else to alert me to the fact that I had just brushed shoulders with one of the needy of my hometown.

Christ told his disciples, "The poor you will always have with you."

A priest put an interesting slant on that for me by explaining that Jesus wasn’t just saying the poor would always be around. No, Jesus meant that, if you’re a follower of his, the poor will always be with you, emphasis on the "with you." That’s what it means to be a Christian.

It was a blustery late-October day when I was caught unawares by the woman’s hurried gesture. I proceeded into the warmth of one of my favorite spots, a locally owned bookstore. But as I roamed the shelves, I couldn’t get that woman off my mind.

Back home, I’d been reading an old book called "Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement" by Janet Poppendieck. In some ways the book is outdated because it was written in the late 1990s.

But actually, it fits our current vicious economic hard times because it describes the food banks and emergency food kitchens of the ’90s and how they had burgeoned since the 1980s when there were relatively few. Now, they continue to proliferate.

Of course, the Great Depression fostered the sight of breadlines — something Americans thought of as a national disgrace. In the 1980s, when the worst recession to hit America since the Depression descended, it was the beginning of huge charitable endeavors to feed the hungry. Our national safety nets fell behind and continue to lag as we experience this dire recession.

At my parish, leading up to the first week of Advent, we are organizing what we call a "food stamp challenge." Those of us brave enough (or foolish enough) will commit to living a week on an average of $1.64 per meal — the equivalent of food stamp benefits.

We will spend the equivalent of a "mobile food pantry" voucher on vegetables, milk and perishables, and we will buy the equivalent of one U.S. Department of Agriculture commodity emergency food program package.

This means I will get a 3-ounce can of tuna and will, if I want to eat, be forced to buy one can of fruit cocktail and one can of green beans.

There will be no lattes, probably no coffee at all, because if I spend money on even the smallest can, it will cut deeply into my food allotment.

I will not be able to buy those large, economical containers from the warehouse stores, because the poor can’t afford to buy memberships and invest in economical quantities.

A friend may take me out to lunch once, but can’t spend more than $4.50 on me.

Why are we doing this challenge?

It will make us more aware of how adequate or inadequate the food is that is available to the nation’s hungry. It will also encourage us to be better advocates.

But mostly, it will open our eyes a tiny bit to what our citizens in poverty go through. It will awaken us to the kind of want we seldom experience. And for a week, it will keep the poor just a little bit more "with us."

The initiative petition, filed October 21 with the Secretary of State’s office, would amend the Nevada Constitution to read: "In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ applies to every human being.  Article I Section 8 of the Nevada constitution states, ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’"

Nevada Life, Nevada Eagle Forum, Nevada Families and the Independent American Party, issued a joint statement opposing the Personhood initiative petition, saying the proposed constitution amendment "is so vague and general that it may not even apply to abortion at all."

"This amendment will harm the pro-life movement by giving pro-abortion courts more power to decide all matters relating to abortion such as parental notification, informed consent and taxpayer funding of abortion," the pro-life groups’ statement said. "These matters should be decided by the elected representatives of the people - state legislatures and Congress, not the unelected courts."

Considering the courts to be the "greatest threat to the unalienable right to life of the unborn," the pro-life groups believe the Personhood Initiative "will end up giving unlimited power to the courts to perpetuate and expand the disastrous effects of Roe v Wade and will interfere further with any legislative efforts to stop abortion."

Richard Ziser told the Las Vegas Sun that he believes the wording of the initiative petition is clear. The amendment will be voted on by the people and not imposed by the courts, hence the pro-life groups’ apprehension of giving "pro-abortion courts more power" is "another opinion and everybody has their own," he said.

Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA, observed that "Personhood Nevada is embarking in a battle against the greatest evil of our day, the dehumanization of defenseless people," while fellow cofounder Cal Zastrow charged that the opposing pro-life groups, while working toward the same goal, believed in "curbing instances of abortion" through outreach and education, instead of outlawing abortion.

"Praise the Lord for the vision and courage of Personhood Nevada to really end the murdering of children! When asked what legal language they propose to protect all preborn children in Nevada, other groups have refused to come up with any, but Personhood Nevada does have legal language and a realistic plan." Zastrow said.

Gualberto Garcia Jones J.D., legal analyst for Personhood USA, said in a press release "there is nothing vague in stating that ‘all human beings shall be considered persons’, just like there is nothing vague in stating that all persons have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Referring to the lawsuit filed against the sponsors of the Nevada Personhood Amendment initiative by Planned Parenthood (PP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Garcia Jones pointed out that "Abortion proponents have sued to stop personhood amendments in Colorado, Missouri, and Nevada because they realize that personhood amendments have the power to unravel the web of legal fictions that impose abortion upon America."

Does The Washington Post really think that the death and destruction of 9/11 "could" be right, or "could" be wrong?

Liberals cannot stand it when the national media won’t simply declare contentious debates over and their viewpoint settled truth. Take, for example, the allegedly inevitable impending destruction of global warming. It is the left’s position that the media should conclude one side is right and the other wrong. Conservatives should be ignored when they object. But that’s a debate over the future. It’s grotesque for an American newspaper to publish a "news analysis" that stares 9/11 in the face and said it "could" be a matter of right and wrong.

The Post’s analyst was reporter Barton Gellman, the author of a hostile biography of Dick Cheney (so he does have some definite feelings about who’s evil, after all.) He began by noting the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM for short) would make for "riveting drama." Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed on PBS it would not be a "show trial," but Gellman echoed the headline: "both sides hope to use the case to define Sept. 11 as a parable of right and wrong."

One might dismiss the willful moral ignorance as a simple journalistic endorsement of anything done by Holder and President Obama. But it sends a clear signal of the differences between the Bush era and the Obama era, and the media’s obvious preference for the latter. Liberal journalists always admonished President Bush for his "arrogance" and "certitude," and this is what they meant: he remained certain that the Americans who died on 9/11 were victimized, and were denied their civil liberties in the most complete and horrific way.

Liberals, on the other hand, have such a talent for finding moral "complexities" that they wind up showing more outrage for the fact that KSM was waterboarded than for the fact that KSM successfully plotted the death of 3,000 Americans. While liberals beat their breasts at the outrageous prospect of KSM being tried by a military commission, most Americans would prefer hustling KSM to the top of the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty and throwing him off.

Putting KSM on trial in a courtroom just blocks from his "accomplishment" is a decision that Holder and Obama made not in the interests of justice, but in the interests of flashiness, showing "the eyes of the world" in the most attention-grabbing, and increasingly tiresome way possible, that they are in no way comparable to Bush.

Liberals find "world opinion" to be a much more desirable and cosmopolitan standard than the worldview of simple-minded Americans. In the Post, Gellman quoted Georgetown law professor David Cole, without even calling him a "liberal," let alone what he should really be called, a radical defender of the civil liberties of terrorists. Cole argued that this trial marks a "sea change," that the sentencing will be "seen around the world as legitimate and not fixed," since the "world" thinks military commissions would be fixed.

Journalists don’t seem to consider whether "the world" is qualified to judge America as right or wrong, when "the world" is full of thuggish regimes that aren’t a fraction as punctilious as Americans are about the rule of law. Should the butchers of Tiananmen Square get to judge us? Should the Russians get to complain after their consolidation of power in the wake of the 2004 Beslan school massacre by radical Islamists? How about most of Europe, Great Britain and a handful of others excepted, that has redefined moral cowardice in the face of radical Islam? They should judge us, too?

Why can’t our media have enough respect for facts and for their fellow countrymen that we can all see a mass-murderer like KSM as a much greater villain than say, our naked-pyramid builders at Abu Ghraib? Will our media show 9/11 footage during this trial near Ground Zero with as much repetitive ardor as they bombarded us with Abu Ghraib clips in 2004?

It’s much more likely that they’ll wonder, in that wonderfully neutral way of theirs, whether Americans or terrorists will "control the narrative." And then we can get back to real problems, like the plight of the kangaroo rat.

It had single buttons that played whole chords. Other buttons played cymbals, marimba and other rhythmic beats.

I spent hours playing the thing. My father, too — his fingers are so big he had trouble playing just one key at a time — played it often.

And at family gatherings, my mother and her siblings would stand around it for hours, singing holiday tunes and other well-known standards.

I had no idea then how technological innovation made our living-room organ possible.

Harvey Olsen, a retired electrical engineer, electronics instructor and organ expert, told me about the history of the home organ.

In 1933, Lawrence Hammond, an inventor and high-end clock maker, got into the organ business. His goal was to produce a mechanical instrument that replicated the sound of a pipe organ.
Hammond’s very first organs consisted of spinning wheels — tone generators — and lots of other electromechanical parts. The machines were extremely well built and many are still functioning today.

By the mid-1950s, however, organ makers began replicating the organ sound with lower-cost vacuum-tube technology — tubes that looked and acted like light bulbs. It was much less costly to create tones electronically than with lots of mechanical parts.

By the late ’60s, vacuum tubes gave way to even-lower-cost transistor technology. The transistors were small, inexpensive and reliable. They enabled the development of compact integrated circuit boards — the electronic gizmos made it possible to produce more sophisticated sounds, such as a marimba beat.

They also allowed organs to be produced cheaply.

And so it was that the ’60s and early ’70s became the heyday of the home organ. Hammond, a high-end organ maker, soon found competition from low-cost producers, such as Lowrey, Thomas and Kimball.

Every mall had an organ store staffed with organ-playing sales representatives. They seduced thousands of suburban dads, such as mine, into digging into their wallets to bring organ music into their living rooms — something that had been unimaginable to my father as he grew up during the Depression years.

To be sure, our old Kimball organ brought us many hours of amusement. As sophisticated as we thought it was in the ’70s, we would have been shocked had we known what organs would be able to do by 2009.

Digital technology has revolutionized the organ, as it has everything else. Today, for significantly less than my father paid for our Kimball in the ’70s, a fellow can buy a digital organ that produces incredible sounds.

If you’re traveling in Europe and come across a pipe organ in a medieval church, you can probably buy a “sampling” software program that allows you to reproduce its exact sound in your living room.

In any event, we’ve had so much technological innovation in America that we take it for granted, but we do so at our own peril.

The fact is, innovators and entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of our economy. We need their inventions, many of them not yet known, to resolve a multitude of challenges we face — to produce the wealth we need to cover our bills.

Government spending is tying up needed capital and a proposed increase in capital gains taxes will only punish success and inhibit investment in new ideas. Shouldn’t the government do everything possible to unleash innovation — rather than quell it?

Where America’s innovators and entrepreneurs are concerned, can’t we strike a better chord?