Coach was preparing for the Masters National Swim Meet, therefore I prefaced my text with:  “You don’t need to reply.”  Yet, within an hour, my Inbox revealed this answer, “ Wow — that’s awesome!  You’re right!  That puts everything into proper perspective!  Have you written an article about that?  You should, because that’s such a good point.  Thanks for sharing.”

I thought, “‘We’re infinitely valuable; ergo the Cross’, everybody knows that!  Why write an article saying, ‘God doesn’t make junk?’”  Yet deep within myself, I know I haven’t internalized that truth.  For Satan continually tempts me to envy other people’s success or progress in virtue.  I imagine that if I could be the brightest star in the heavens, then certainly my worth will have been proven.  I may sulk, “But why didn’t God give me the talents he gave her?  What’s wrong with me?  I’m so worthless.  It’s no use.  Who would love me, anyway, if they really knew me?”

Then my Guardian Angel reminded me of a book I read years ago called The Search for Significance by Robert McGee.  In this Christian self-help book, McGee reveals a lie that Satan uses to cause people to despair.  The lie is this:  Your success, plus what people think about you, equals your value.  I recognize that evil axiom as a perversion of truth and a lie.  For Genesis tells us that each of us is created in the Image and Likeness of God.  He has animated us with his pneuma (breath of life and spirit); therefore, we have dignity as transcendent beings.  Father Walter Schu writes in The Splendor of Love , “No single human being can be relativized in the presence of another.” The philosophy of Rationalist Materialism promulgated by secular humanists reduces the human person to the status of an “object” to be exalted for what he can do or produce. Original Sin, combined with that philosophy, continues fueling my pride yet sense of worthlessness.

The lust for temporal glory tempts many of us.  We erroneously believe our worth must be quantified.  For instance, “the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus, with her sons at her side. Kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. ‘What do you want?’ Jesus asked. She said, ‘Promise me that my two sons may sit at your right hand and at your left hand in your kingdom.’  Jesus replied, ‘You don’t know what you’re asking for,’ Then Jesus said to the sons of Salome. "Can you drink the cup of suffering I am going to drink?"  Jesus refers us to the cross as the way to regain our true identity as sons and daughters of the king.

Before he was Pope John Paul II, Bishop Karol Wojtyla wrote:

The evil of our times consists in the first place in a kind of degradation, indeed in a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person.  This evil is even more of the metaphysical order than of the moral order. To this disintegration planned at times by atheistic ideologies we must oppose, rather than sterile polemics, a kind of “recapitulation” of the inviolable mystery of the person.

Perhaps there is no greater mystery than the full response Jesus gives to his disciples about one’s importance. “ Instead, anyone who wants to be important among you must be your servant. And anyone who wants to be first must be your slave. Be like the Son of Man. He did not come to be served. Instead, he came to serve others. He came to give his life as ransom for many people." Quite beautifully, Mary carried the preborn Jesus as she, the “handmaid of the Lord”, hurried to serve her cousin, Elizabeth.  We do well to remember that Mary, God’s vessel, evoked Elizabeth’s greeting, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42), not because of who she was, but, rather, who she carried within her.  Whenever we serve in Christ’s name, His presence within us blesses the work and evokes authentic praise.

A person’s genuine success derives from freely choosing to place one’s talents at the service of God and man.  Jesus clearly states that only God exalts a person; and, if you exalt yourself you will be humbled. Of himself, he said, “I do not receive glory from men” (John 5:41).  Over the centuries saints have abased themselves for the sake of furthering God’s plan.  St Thomas Aquinas refused many temporal honors such as becoming archbishop of Naples. He believed he could better serve the Church through his study, contemplation, prayer, and writings.  Ironically, in his humility of simple service to God, the Church venerates his name centuries after his death.  Who did accept the archbishopric of Naples?

Saints Martin de Porres and John Masias, Dominican brothers who lived in Lima, Peru during the late 1500s, became saints by living simple lives of charity toward the weakest among us:  the poor. Martin de Porres had the intellect to serve as a doctor, but because of his biracial heritage, that occupation was denied him. Yet, he never embraced the presumption of self-pity and lived joyfully.  St John Masias served his community as its Gatekeeper for years.  His docility to his state in life, gave him the Wisdom to recognize Jesus in the poor who came to his gate.  He fed them the Bread of Life along with bodily sustenance.

Mother Theresa believed God chose her because her nothingness allowed only Christ to live within her.  Within this purity of heart, she began her work as a solitary nun working under the Indult of Exclaustration (a religious living apart from their community).  Hidden in Calcutta’s slums, the only witnesses to her love died before testifying to her greatness of spirit.  In secret and in darkness she brought glory to God and recognition to the dignity of the poor as she gave Jesus what he asked of her.  Yet, her simple “yes” to God in the work he gave her, garnered praise. Causing her much suffering, the world heaped honors upon her including the Nobel Peace Prize.   Through prayer, she guarded her “nothingness” which accomplished greatness for God’s glory.  She told her sisters, “The work is God’s work and not our work, that is why we must do it well. How often we spoil God’s work and try to get the glory for ourselves.”

Frequently we seek praise and recognition as proof of our worth.  Mother Theresa understood our value lies in dying to ourselves so that Christ can live in us.  She embodied St. Paul’s words, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”  (Gal 2:19,20) What is this “faith”?  It is the certainty that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”  Jesus shed his blood for each one of us individually.  Each one of us is the Prodigal Son, the lost sheep, the missing coin. We’re infinitely valuable. Filled with God’s grace, the Holy Spirit allows each one of us, using faith and reason, to incarnate Christ’s humanity and live as adopted sons and daughters of the Eternal Father.

Repeatedly Sacred Scripture tells us of God’s tender love for individuals. Isaiah says, “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?  Though she may forget, I will not forget you!  See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.”  (Is 49:15-16) Having borne and nursed 11 children I cling to that passage as re-enforcement of God’s love for me.  In a sense, he carved me on the palms of his hands when my sins nailed his hands to the cross. Also, of sparrows Jesus tells us “that not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.  And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  So don’t be afraid: you are worth more than many sparrows.” (Matt 10:29-31)

Through his humanity, Jesus perfectly understood the need for people to experience a personal love.  He experienced the love and nurturing a family provides.  Each of us is born into a family that should provide the first glimpse of the agape love of God for each of us.  Indeed, the Church declares the family is a School of Love. In his divinity Jesus knew that, unlike angels who posses infused knowledge, people come to understanding in and through their bodies and minds.  Therefore, he washed the disciples’ feet as an example of humble service to us and loved us unto death on the cross.  Jesus gave us the Eucharist so we’d never be lonely.  Finally, he commanded us to love one and other, as he had loved us so we could incarnate God’s love for man.

Individually, we must embrace God’s personal love for us and return charity to Jesus as we find him in our brother.  Tragically, some of us might not know what love is because we have not experienced human love in a meaningful way.  For this reason, we must reach out in love to others in a heroic way. Sadly, too, we might not want to accept God’s love, because in order to swoon on his breast, we must embrace the stumbling block of our personal sin and nothingness without the Trinity.  Our contrite heart and the worthy reception of the sacraments, especially Eucharist and Confession, activate the redemption of the Cross and the resurrection of the empty tomb.  We must constantly strive, with God’s grace, for freeing self-knowledge.  Mother Theresa’s prayer, her little way , can help us:  “Jesus in my heart, I believe in your faithful/tender love for me.  I love you.”

St John of the Cross knew that the only significant accomplishment of our life would be accomplished in our soul, unseen by human eyes.  He wrote in Dark Night of the Soul

When a person journeys through the temporal world guided by God’s secret plan for his soul, he will achieve the success of which St John of the Cross writes: union with God.  The Trinity exploded with love, creating bright lights: each one of us.  God destines each of us to dwell in the “mansion” he has prepared for us in heaven.

In faith I do believe my email to my daughter’s good coach for, as St Thomas Aquinas wrote, “To take something away from the perfection of the creature is to abstract from the perfection of the creative power itself.”  Each of us is the “bestest ever”; and so I pray, “Holy Spirit, increase my faith as I accept God’s love for me and for each human being, regardless of our flaws or outward success.” Despite temptations toward human respect, I have embraced the vocation of raising a large family in the cloister of my home where washing feet and dying to self occurs continuously and unseen.  In my heart, as proven by my works, I do not want to be the brightest light in the universe, a supernova, a dying star.  In faith, hope, and love I’ll happily reflect authentic Light right here on Earth.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him, shall not perish but have eternal life — John 3:16.

Clueless as usual where Catholicism is concerned, the secular media have tended to treat Benedict XVI’s action in political terms, as a power grab. This interpretation ignores the fact that the Anglican traditionalists most likely to take advantage of the new provision for “personal ordinariates” have been pleading for something like this for years. The Pope has simply responded to those pleas.

But secular journalists aren’t the only ones to get it wrong. Catholic voices also have been raised in this chorus of callousness. Consider the final paragraph of an article in the London Tablet, a reliable platform for progressive Catholic views: “It is hard to see how this new development will do anything but further sow division in the Anglican Communion and confusion among Catholics who have long been committed to the work of ecumenism.”

As to Anglican “division”: the departure of Anglicans who’ve anguished for a long time over the direction of their fractured communion is much more likely to restore a semblance of unity to that deeply troubled body than it is to create more division.

As to Catholic “confusion”: the confusion admittedly felt by many Catholics about the nature and intent of ecumenism is largely a product of a post-Vatican II interpretation that reduces the ecumenical enterprise to endless dialogue leading—God knows how—to some sort of corporate merger in an unimaginable future. Confusion is a mild word for it.

Most of all, though, such critical comments miss the fundamental point—the relief potentially afforded to those Anglican groups most directly affected by Benedict’s generous gesture. That is best understood in human terms.

A year ago in Rome I had a substantial chat with an Anglican woman who is a member of one of these groups. Moved by her faith and her ardent desire for communion with the Holy See, I told her at the end of our conversation: “I can only hope and pray that you get what you want—and get it soon.”

It’s often said that conservative Anglicans are upset about things like women bishops and openly homosexual bishops. No doubt they are. But much else is involved.

Several years ago an American woman—a contented member of the Episcopal Church—told me an anecdote concerning an Episcopal clergyman which she insisted was true. It seems that this gentleman, in a fit of whimsy, was seen one day to give communion to a dog. The lady seemed to think that was just fine. I was appalled—at what had happened, at her approval of it, and at what it disclosed concerning the state of Episcopalian belief in the Eucharist.

A man who’d been an Episcopalian for years but finally came over to Rome once shared a useful insight with me. “The trouble with those people,” he said of his former co-religionists, “is that they’re sentimental.”

A number of present Anglicans seem to agree. I am glad that Pope Benedict has offered these troubled believers a congenial way out of the dilemma in which their sentimental Anglican brethren placed them. As for those who don’t like what the Pope has done, I suggest they remove their blinders and congratulate him on an act of Christian charity.

On November 3, we noted that the “War on Christmas” had begun. One piece of evidence that was offered was the decision to have a “Holiday Tree,” instead of a “Christmas Tree,” in Frankfort, Kentucky. But after getting pounded by outraged Christians, Gov. Steve Beshear has reversed himself: both he, and the state government, have now chosen to call the Christmas Tree the “Christmas Tree.”

Christians have every right to be insulted when agents of government refuse to acknowledge their holiday, and it matters not a whit if the stated purpose is inclusion. Indeed, the politics of inclusion is a malignant cultural cancer that needs to be wiped out, along with its parent ideology, multiculturalism.

Congratulations to Gov. Beshear can be extended by contacting his director of communications, Jill Midkiff: Jill.Midkiff@mail.state.ky.us

The amendment in question, proposed by Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth this week, purports to remove “federal funding for abortion” in H.R. 3962 by hiring contractors to issue checks for abortion - essentially putting one more procedural step between abortion and those who pay for them through the government plan.

The USCCB memo told congressional staff Thursday that U.S. bishops did not consider the amendment sufficient - that it does not, in fact, address any of the pro-life concerns in the health bill.

“On examination, it is not a meaningful compromise. It addresses none of the substantial criticisms offered by the Catholic bishops’ conference and other pro-life advocates for health care reform,” wrote Richard Doerflinger, secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB, in the memo.

In a column discussing the U.S. bishops’ attitude towards the health bill, Denver auxiliary bishop James Conley noted that the U.S. bishops’ have diligently worked to establish true pro-life language to the bill; but, “as of November 5, all those efforts have failed.” “‘Common ground’ thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy,” wrote Conley.

The response by the USCCB may have a significant impact on pro-life lawmakers’ resolve to block the abortion-expanding bill: Bloomberg reports that, according to Ellsworth, several pro-life representatives were waiting to hear the bishops’ assessment before making up their mind about the language.

According to Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, the “rule” or parameters for voting on the House bill will allow a vote on the Ellsworth amendment - but will not allow a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would secure long-standing federal policy against abortion funding. A vote on the rule is expected Friday evening.

“[The Ellsworth amendment] serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson called the Ellsworth Amendment “a political fig leaf made out of cellophane.”

“It directs the federal Secretary of Health to hire a contractor to deliver to abortion providers the payments for elective abortions, payments that are explicitly authorized by the bill [on page 110],” he said. “This is a money-laundering scheme — a federally funded ‘bag man’ will deliver government funds to abortionists. This is federal funding of elective abortion.”

Pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) called Ellsworth’s proposal equivalent to the government “taking out a contract on the unborn.”

Shortly before Ellsworth introduced his amendment, Smith had warned thousands of pro-lifers tuned into a Stop the Abortion Mandate webcast Monday to be on guard against phony compromises designed to strip support away from the critical Stupak/Pitts amendment.

(Click here for contact information for elected officials)

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pro-Life Lawmakers Condemn ‘Sham’ Health Bill Abortion Compromise

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill

“Prove me, O LORD, and try me;
test my heart and my mind.”

Harry Houdini, among his many other amazing feats, included in his act the opportunity for a strong man from the audience to punch him in the stomach as hard as possible.  Houdini’s stomach muscles were amazingly strong and the audience was always impressed to see Houdini withstand the hardest pummeling that could be delivered.  One strong but not terribly bright man was so impressed that he went backstage to see Houdini after his performance and, as Houdini rose from his chair to greet him, the man caught him off guard with a powerful punch to the abdomen.  A few days later, Houdini was dead from internal hemorrhaging. There’s a difference between testing us in our strength and testing us in our weakness. Today’s verse from the Psalms is meant to remind us of that.  There is a foolish and a sensible way to pray the prayer contained in that verse.  The foolish way is to, in effect, tell God, “Come on.  Hit me as hard as you like.  You’ll never find my weak spot because I don’t have any.”  Of the people who pray this way, Oscar Wilde once remarked that those whom the gods would destroy receive the answers to their prayers.  However, there is a sensible way to pray this prayer as well.  That is to pray it as gold might pray to a goldsmith.  It is to pray that we be “proven” by the refining fire of God’s love and tested by him until he makes us pure of all the dross of sin in our lives.  To such a prayer, prayed in humility, God will never make refusal.

For those of us who read the newspapers and watch the nightly news, bad news is no novelty.  We get it all the time.  But once in a while something happens that is so monstrously evil that it almost stops our hearts.  One of those dreaded moments came several years ago this week when we listened with horror to the confession of a young mother who strapped her two little boys in the back seat of the family car and drowned them — so she could be free!  To us her actions seem incomprehensible, beyond belief.  “She must be crazy,” we say.  But, in fact, there’s a good chance she’s not. There’s a very good chance, indeed a likelihood, that her monstrous deed is quite comprehensible, almost predictable!

Big choices rarely come from outer space.  They come from within.  They come from the inner person that we have created — a tiny piece at a time — through thousands of choices across many years. Just as we are what we eat, we become what we choose.  It happens so slowly that we rarely notice, but through our daily choices we shape our heart as surely as a sculptor shapes his clay.  And our heart in turn impresses its shape on our deeds.

So, if a heart has slowly taken a shape that habitually says to itself, “I want what I want when I want it,” can there be any surprise that when a big moment of choice comes the choice is to seize what I want with no thought of what I may be doing to others?  How could that be a surprise?  The ugly deed is always “bought and paid for” well in advance.

But there’s another side to this tale, and it’s a happier one. Because gracious and true hearts are made in exactly the same way as vicious and selfish ones — through thousands of daily choices across many years.  Not one of our thousands of tiny decisions to be compassionate, gracious, and true ever gets lost.  Every one of them is incorporated into the fabric of our heart, and piece by piece they help to shape the deeds that come after them.

The two widows in Sunday’s readings had built gracious and true hearts in just that way over the years, and so when each was asked to give away all she had, the decision almost made itself. It didn’t come from outer space.  It came from the gracious inner person each widow had created one piece at a time.

We have, with God’s help, the power to create for ourselves hearts and lives that are compassionate, noble, and true.  We have the power to shape our future by shaping our present.

God has given us incredible power for good.  Let us not waste it! Let us use it well this day and always!

“[Our goal is] to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.” -Dr. Lena Levine, colleague of Margaret Sanger and medical secretary of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1930s

“We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity.” -Faye Wattleton, President of Planned Parenthood from 1978-1992

This summer, one of America’s largest community organization networks was “busted” thanks to the efforts of two college kids with nothing more than a video camera and a desire to expose the truth. The shocking footage of ACORN workers advising Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe on everything from tax evasion to sex trafficking to prostitution sparked a firestorm of controversy and cast doubt upon the credibility of an organization that receives millions in federal funds—funds purportedly used to assist low-income individuals in improving their lives.

Few are aware, however, that before this intrepid pair set their sights on ACORN, O’Keefe conducted a similar campaign against Planned Parenthood. In a series of recorded telephone calls to Planned Parenthood offices across the country, O’Keefe posed as a prospective donor who wanted his contributions restricted to funding the abortion of African-American babies. In each instance he was assured that his wishes would be honored; not once was he turned away or taken to task for his despicable views.

Some interpret this as damning evidence that Planned Parenthood still actively embraces the vision of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who openly advocated for the sterilization of “undesirables” like minorities, immigrants, and the handicapped; and who viewed birth control primarily as a means “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” While the organization would deny that its goal today is to “control” the growth of minorities, it is worth noting that minorities are disproportionately impacted by abortion, of which Planned Parenthood is the leading provider.

From a politically-correct and multicultural perspective, however, Sanger’s current relevance lies not in her eugenicist ideology, but in her legacy of advancing the feminist cause well before the word “feminism” made its way into our lexicon. She was among the first to champion the notion that a woman’s body was her own and that a woman had a right to choose life or death for her unborn child. Almost a century after Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, NY, Planned Parenthood continues to champion this cause by waging a systematic campaign to liberate young people from the constraints of family and traditional sexual morality.

In spite of evidence indicating that responsible parenting plays a formative role in influencing children’s sexual choices, Planned Parenthood has worked to supplant parents as the definitive authority on kids and sex. Its unabashed advocacy of pre-marital sexual experimentation, promiscuity, and abortion reveals a radical anti-family agenda that has no respect or regard for the role of parents in guiding kids’ sexual choices, no use for the sexual mores that go along with the institution of marriage, and little concern for the emotional or physical health of children.

Unfortunately, few are aware of the extent to which the United States Congress has aided and abetted Planned Parenthood’s crimes against the American family.

Last year, Planned Parenthood received approximately $350 million from the government in the form of grants and contracts. This money subsidized, among other things, an estimated 300,000 abortions. That amounts to 822 abortions every day, or 34 abortions per hour. When Planned Parenthood isn’t busy ridding the world of unwanted children, it’s spending millions to influence public policy and ensure our children are hearing its “sex without consequence thanks to birth control and abortion” message early and often, on the taxpayer’s dime, in public school classrooms across America.

Planned Parenthood goes out of its way to downplay its role as an abortion provider, emphasizing on its website that abortion services only account for three percent of its annual business. What the organization fails to acknowledge, however, is the role it plays in perpetuating the kind of irresponsible and short-sighted attitudes that lead to unwanted pregnancies—and thus, abortions—in the first place.

According to its mission statement, “Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility…. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.” In plain English, that means “Kids, don’t let your parents saddle you with any hang-ups about sex outside of marriage. Use birth control to prevent pregnancy, and if that fails, you can fall back on abortion. Don’t let an unwanted child interfere with your plans for life.”

It’s notable that Planned Parenthood’s mission statement says nothing about the fundamental responsibility of each individual to exercise self-control in the sexual arena. Planned Parenthood’s goal is sex without restraint or consequence. Its view was summed up by President Obama—an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood—when, during his campaign, he said the mistake of an unwanted pregnancy is a “punishment” that should not have to be tolerated.

But, you can’t eliminate a pregnancy without eliminating the unborn child. Therefore, the abortion that Mr. Obama advocates and that Planned Parenthood provides actually results in the “punishment” of an innocent party. Where’s the justice in that?

Until we repudiate the false notion that we can have sex without consequence and abortion without injury, organizations like Planned Parenthood will continue their government-assisted campaign to sexualize our children. A step in the right direction would be for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and stop interfering with parents’ rightful role in educating their children about sex.

“The Catholic Church is a leaven in the dough,” began Msgr. Sedrak.  His social activism in a minority context is considerable.  This social and pastoral development gives the Church (which is at least eight million strong) a respected public persona in a population of more than 80 million inhabitants.

In the Diocese of Minya, where there are 50 000 Coptics of the Catholic rite, the Church supports “marginalized categories of people such as the handicapped, the deaf, the mute and the sick.”  The bishop explained that prisoners are also helped along with their families. “Over time, there were even children who were becoming criminals! So, little by little and with care, the work done with them diminished significantly the number of those who would otherwise choose the same road as their parents had.  There has been great progress,” he said proudly.

In the area of education, there are more than 185 catholic schools in Egypt, five of which are in the Diocese of Minya, and they hope to build another.  Education plays a crucial role, according to the bishop, as it lays a foundation for a better society and encourages a more open dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Many Muslims have developed a willingness to dialogue after seeing firsthand the good conduct of individual Christians.

This dialogue is sometimes complicated by the daily discrimination encountered by Christians at all levels. “Personally, as a Christian leader, I have problems building a church, without a doubt.  According to the rule, nothing is clear.”  But, Bishop Sedrak added, even Muslims find that laws are often “weakened” by “corruption” and “a disorder that invades everywhere.”  He estimated that from the political point of view “even Muslims are suffering.”

On the subject of interreligious dialogue, the bishop remarked, “In Egypt, one must distinguish between Islam and Muslims.” He continued, saying, “With Islam, I cannot go very far, because we will be discussing dogmas – convictions which will never change.  However, with Muslims, people who live with me every day, I can dialogue.”

This is especially true with Muslims who have attended Catholic schools, as well as those who have used the social services put in place by the Church which are open to everyone. “One must distinguish between simple, everyday people who are seeking their daily bread [and Islam].  If you are of service to them, you are considered to be a good person… and then they will like you!

The Synod: Having the courage to speak the truth

Bishop Sedrak also participated in the Synod on Africa which was held at the Vatican from the 4^th to the 25^th of October.  Commenting on the Synod, the bishop said, “This assembly of bishops, experts, those interested in the Church in Africa – this is already a fruit.  Sharing our experiences, our misfortunes and difficulties; getting along is already a fruit.”

The bishop also commented on the Synod discussions concerning the “prophetic role of the Church.” He said, “Prophetic role: as in, having the courage to speak the truth when it is needed.  Saying yes when needed, and saying no when needed.  Not always evading problems, that is a prophetic role in my opinion.”

Another remarkable happening for Msgr. Sedrak is the fact that he can ‘count himself’ among Africans. “Before, as an Egyptian, I did not consider myself to be an African, but now, I have something new.”  Along with this ‘new sense of belonging’ to the Church of Africa, the bishop of Minya was touched by the Holy Father’s conduct with regard to the Synod.  He “leaves his work to be present with us…and he was really there!”  A situation, he reckons, that “changes a Churches’ mentality; meaning: there are not great and small; there is but one Church.

Not leaving, despite it all

Bishop Msgr. Sedrak also expressed concern about the exodus of young people from Egypt, especially by Christians. He explained that it is easy to leave the country and he believes that at times this exodus is supported by the national government and even the international community.

The bishop summarized his views, saying “I believe that to be Christian in a country that is majority Muslim is a vocation.”  He also said that standing your ground requires prayer, courage, wisdom and strength… and a helping hand from outside.  “Egypt, we must help, because it is a very important country at all levels: for Africa, for the Middle-East and even for the world”!

Last year, Aid to the Church in Need provided more than $500,000 in aid to support Church projects in Egypt.

ID)) : ?>
ID); ?>

Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon and the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Dan Restrepo, visited the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, on Wednesday to compel the country’s recalcitrant democrats to make a deal with the man the latter had lawfully removed from the presidency on June 28th. It remains to be seen whether, pursuant to this deal, ex-President Manuel Zelaya will now be - as he claims - restored to power.  What is already unmistakable, though, is that it is better to be a foe of America than its friend.

The Obama administration has been on the wrong side in this affair from the moment the Honduran supreme court and congress acted as required by their nation’s constitution in the face of Zelaya’s effort to engineer an illegal second term.  Instead of standing with those who lawfully protected democracy, President Obama and his minions immediately joined the region’s authoritarians - including notably Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro brothers - in declaring Zelaya a victim of a “coup.”

When the interim Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya’s own party, and his countrymen refused to reinstall the latter, Team Obama unleashed their full “soft power” arsenal upon America’s impoverished ally.  Drawing upon an opinion authored by notorious transnationalist Harold Koh, the State Department’s Legal Advisor, which found that the Hondurans’ action was indeed a “coup” and must be reversed, the U.S. administration and/or its allies on Capitol Hill: cut off most aid to Honduras; issued travel warnings to discourage tourism; blocked visas for officials of the interim government; tried to preclude fact-finding missions to Tegucigalpa by Republican legislators; and promoted the heavy-handed, pro-Zelaya “diplomacy” of the Organization of American States’ leftist Chilean secretary general, José Miguel Insulza.

As the Honduran democrats refused to bend to such coercion, Obama’s team dropped the big one:  The United States would join the hemisphere’s large and growing block of authoritarian nations in refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the election scheduled for the end of this month.

The effect of this power-play would be to deny the people of Honduras the one peaceful means they would have to end the nightmare Zelaya unleashed.  Representatives of all of the parties, including Zelaya’s, were anxious to have the elections go forward as planned and, on the basis of free and fair balloting, democratically select a new president.  During their visit last week, however, the American officials - joined by the widely reviled U.S. Ambassador to Tegucigalpa Hugo Llorens - evidently made the Hondurans, as mafia godfather Vito Corleone would say, “an offer they can’t refuse.”

According to the resulting deal, it will be up to the Honduran high court and legislature to decide whether Manuel Zelaya will be restored to power for the remaining three months of what was once his term in office. As both acted in the first place to depose him, that would not seem likely.

But with the likes of Harold Koh, Tom Shannon and Dan Restrepo calling the shots, the would-be dictator may be right when, according to the Associated Press he claimed on Friday that the “U.S.-brokered pact will restore him to power in about a week.”  In addition to authoring the opinion that justified Obama’s hard line on the Honduran democrats, Koh is fixated on having international norms (for example, opposing “coups”) trump national sovereignty (for example, the Honduran constitution).

Worse yet, as Nicolle Ferrand points out in the Center for Security Policy’s Americas Report, Shannon was no help to Latin American friends of freedom during his tenure in the Bush administration.  That profile would certainly square with a report in Honduras’ El Pais newsapaper on Sunday that Shannon is now lobbying legislators there to allow Zelaya’s restoration.

Then, there is Dan Restrepo, yet-another problematic product of John Podesta’s left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) - an organization whose staffing of and influence over the Obama administration is extremely worrisome.  Ferrand speculates that Restrepo’s attachment to Zelaya’s restoration may have something to do with his sympathy for the radical drug-legalization agenda of George Soros, a key CAP benefactor.  After all, among Zelaya’s other misdeeds, the ousted president stands accused of being deeply involved in the narco-trafficking that Chavez and the Colombian FARC have increasingly used Honduran territory to conduct.

At the very least, it is predictable that Venezuela and other Chavista regimes will be doing all they can to intervene in Honduras’ pending decisions about Comrade Zelaya’s fate.  They surely will calculate that, with the Americans forcing open the door to their man’s return to power, the more trouble they threaten or foment in Honduras, the more likely it is that he will be allowed to walk through it.

There has been a “coup” alright in Honduras.  America’s friends there have been undercut and demeaned.  This country’s many enemies in the region have been encouraged to redouble their attempt to hijack yet another of its few remaining democracies.  And the United States is diminished by demonstrating that it is willing to use its influence and leverage to hurt the former and help the latter.  Whether Manuel Zelaya actually regains the presidency or not, last week’s “deal” represents a coup for the Obama Doctrine.

On his blog Boehner states that this premium “will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”

He continues: “Section 213 [of the bill] describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum 1$ per enrollee per month.”

His statement immediately gathered attention among those favoring the health care bill, who denied that Boehner’s post accurately portrayed the situation.

According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, however, “Boehner’s post is perfectly accurate.”

Johnson told David Brody of CBN News that “we call it the ‘abortion surcharge.’  It is just one more thing illustrating what we’ve been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions.”

Nevertheless, Johnson continued by saying that “even if the Democratic leadership struck out the ‘abortion surcharge,’ the same fundamental problem would remain:  The ‘public option’ is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand — no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing.”

According to Boehner, such funding of abortion makes “Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity” an affront “to the American people.”

In addition to speaking about the abortion premium, Boehner also states that the Health and Human Services Secretary “is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.”

The current Health and Human Services Secretary is Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion “Catholic” who vetoed several pro-life bills during her time as Governor of Kansas.  She is infamous for having invited the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor’s mansion in 2007.  Tiller had given significant quantities of money to Sebelius’ campaign.

Boehner continues to write that, additionally, the “Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.”

Boehner has previously made no secret of his opposition to the abortion-funding Democratic health-care bill.  As he wrote on National Review Online in July, “If a health-care bill doesn’t lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written?”

He continued: “Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?”