53%

According to a new CBS News Poll, 53% of Americans are opposed to the new health care law.

The public is increasingly skeptical of the health care reform bill signed into law last week, a new CBS News poll shows.

More Americans now disapprove of the legislation, and many expect their costs to rise and the quality of their care to worsen; few expect the reforms to help them.

From CBS News:

Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law -- but his legislative success doesn't seem to have helped his image with the American public.

The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama's handling of health care - and still worried about the state of the economy.

President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill's passage in the House of Representatives. It's down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president's performance.

Starting Today

Learn more about the powerful Novena to Divine Mercy here.

"During these nine days I want you to lead souls to the Fount of My Mercy, in order that they may draw from it strength, refreshment and all the graces they need in the trials of their lives, especially at the hour of death. Each day you will lead a different group of souls and immerse them in the sea of My Mercy. Each day You will beseech the Father through My Bitter Passion for graces for these souls." - Christ to Saint Faustina

A United Front

From the Associated Press:

VATICAN CITY – Cardinals across Europe used their Holy Thursday sermons to defend Pope Benedict XVI from accusations he played a role in covering up sex abuse scandals, and an increasingly angry Vatican sought to deflect any criticism in the Western media.

The relationship between the church and the media has become increasingly bitter as the scandal buffeting the 1 billion-member church has touched the pontiff himself. On Wednesday, the church singled out The New York Times for criticism in an unusually harsh attack.

Women Warriors, Revisited

From the Times Online:

Servicewomen are diagnosed with mental disorders at a rate more than twice as high as their male counterparts, research showed yesterday.

In addition, officers were less likely than other ranks to report mental problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, according to statistics from the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Analytical Services and Advice (Dasa).

"The Gloves are Off"

That's how many in the media are referring to Cardinal William Levada's forceful response to the scurrilous New York Times hit pieces on the Holy Father. He offers a point-by-point refutation of the endlessly rehashed, drive-by accusations against Pope Benedict XVI, which have been featured most prominently in the increasingly discredited and uber-liberal newspaper.

Now, how many will actually read the response? Send it on to friends.

Some excerpts:

Goodstein’s account bounces back and forth as if there were not some 20 plus years intervening between reports in the 1960 and 70’s to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and local police, and Archbishop Weakland’s appeal for help to the Vatican in 1996. Why? Because the point of the article is not about failures on the part of church and civil authorities to act properly at the time. I, for one, looking back at this report agree that Fr. Murphy deserved to be dismissed from the clerical state for his egregious criminal behavior, which would normally have resulted from a canonical trial.

The point of Goodstein’s article, however, is to attribute the failure to accomplish this dismissal to Pope Benedict, instead of to diocesan decisions at the time. She uses the technique of repeating the many escalating charges and accusations from various sources (not least from her own newspaper), and tries to use these “newly unearthed files” as the basis for accusing the pope of leniency and inaction in this case and presumably in others...

The Times editorial wonders “how Vatican officials did not draw the lessons of the grueling scandal in the United States, where more than 700 priests were dismissed over a three-year period.” I can assure the Times that the Vatican in reality did not then and does not now ignore those lessons. But the Times editorial goes on to show the usual bias: “But then we read Laurie Goodstein’s disturbing report . . .about how the pope, while he was still a cardinal, was personally warned about a priest … But church leaders chose to protect the church instead of children. The report illuminated the kind of behavior the church was willing to excuse to avoid scandal.” Excuse me, editors. Even the Goodstein article, based on “newly unearthed files,” places the words about protecting the Church from scandal on the lips of Archbishop Weakland, not the pope.

Emphasis added

Who was in total control of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee during the late 1970s, all of the 80s, 90s, and right up until 2002? ARCHBISHOP WEAKLAND. The effects of his unfortunate reign are still reverberating. In my opinion, the negative consequences resulting from his tenure in Milwaukee are incalculable. More than anyone else, he should be questioned regarding all of this.

Milwaukee's new leader Archbishop Jerome Listecki recently offered his thoughts to local Catholics on where blame lays in this whole mess:

Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case. The mistakes were not made in Rome in the 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by Church officials, and by bishops.

Emphasis added

Anyone interested in learning more about Archbishop Weakland's legacy should read an excellent article written by Russell Shaw: Rembert Weakland's Oprah Ecclesiology

Pushing Abortion in Canada

From LifeSite News:

OTTAWA, Ontario, March 31, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canadian and U.S. pro-life leaders are denouncing U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she weighed in Tuesday on the debate over the Canadian government's G8 maternal and child health initiative, insisting plainly that abortion is necessary for maternal health.

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion," she told reporters when asked about Canada's G8 initiative.

Hillary Clinton thinks that "maternal health" requires access to abortion. Does this make any sense? So the "right" that a mother possesses to terminate the life of her child is intrinsically linked to her health in a positive way? Sick stuff.

The Fall

From Politico:

Barack Obama is getting more blame for what voters see as a lagging economy than at any other time in his presidency, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll out Thursday.

Additionally, 50 percent said Obama does not deserve reelection with 46 percent saying otherwise.

On Drilling

Don't get too excited with regard to Obama's volte face on offshore drilling. Ian Murray, writing for National Review Online's The Corner, clues us in on what's really afoot.

...while all the talking heads are chattering about Obama’s supposed pragmatism, the EPA will release today its final rule to allow California to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles under the Clean Air Act. That’s the real story, because once a “pollutant” (remember, we are talking about carbon dioxide, the stuff we exhale) is regulated under the Clean Air Act, it becomes subject to further and further regulation. The President will have the power (the obligation, according to well funded environmental lawyers) to regulate anything larger than a mansion — your small business, your office complex, your apartment building.

Nov. '10: Double Trouble for Dems

From Howard Fineman, writing for Newsweek:

A Democratic senator I can't name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.

On the day the president signed into law the "fix-it" addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it's not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.

Shroud Image

The History Channel is featuring a special on the Shroud of Turin. Scientists applied the latest in computer and 3D technology to come up with the most accurate picture ever of the man of the shroud. Looks fascinating.

From the USAToday:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Those surveyed are inclined to fear that the massive legislation will increase their costs and hurt the quality of health care their families receive...

Five-Thousand Fessios

The priest faces the east instead of versus populum, Gregorian chant and Latin are preserved, reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is upheld, tabernacles are front and center, translations are faithful to the original text, continuity instead of impromptu and helter-skelter...and so on. You are in a Catholic Church in America.

Wake-up. It was all just a nice dream. Enter reality: liturgical life in the United States.

The priest positions his "chair" to face the people and talks (down) to you as a teacher does to a five-year-old. The altar is referred to as the table; the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the "family meal". Fr. Fireside Chat cracks one excruciatingly painful joke after another. He saunters about in the nave to get closer to the people and to make them feel totally awkward by forcing them to answer stupid questions in front of everyone. He croons about the warm fuzzies that come from helping old ladies cross the street, and about love and other controversial stuff. The responses are schmaltzy and less inspiring than Stewart Smalley. The tabernacle is crammed into one of the dark corners of the church, barely visible but for the small candle (hopefully) flickering next to it. People kibitz loudly before during and after Mass about everything but God and Sacrament. The self-inflated, "Just try to ignore us!" choir usually acts as though they're performing on Broadway with Carol Channing.

In short: Out of control. And this is simply the average parish. I'm not even going to get into the clown Masses, the relentless incursions of feminism, or other far more egregious things that are all too common in far too many parishes. The way things are, one must feel relieved if it's bad, because at least it was not that bad.

Here's an excellent article on the liturgy from Ignatius Insight. Written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. in 2000, it covers all the basics about what's right and what's wrong about liturgical life in America since Vatican II. While reading this, I couldn't help but think, what if every priest in America had the liturgical vision of Fr. Fessio? (And hence, the odd title for this post) Things no doubt would be vastly different from today. His observations on the origins of Gregorian chant are fascinating, while his thoughts on Archbishop Rembert Weakland are enlightening, if not all that surprising.

Another question that kept cropping up was this: Where is there a correct implementation of Vatican II? In other words, where is the much vaunted "reform of the reform"? Now, I'm not suggesting that all priests are in error or sinning when it comes to facing the people, etc. Fr. Fessio elaborates more on this in his piece. But things vary so much now from parish to parish (some far worse than others of course) and all the aberrations outlined here by Fessio have long since become the norm. As a result, one would be hard pressed to find a parish in America that conforms across the board to the actual and not imagined reforms of Vatican II. In light of this, I can understand the rise in popularity of the Old Latin Mass and can see why so many find in it a secure refuge.

An excerpt:

Let me tell you what it [Vatican II] did not say. The Council did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their central location to some other location. In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned about the worthy and dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn't come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.

And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969.

P.C. Nation

Well, maybe not yet at least, but with a story like this one, perhaps it's not too far down the road. From ABC News:

One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.

Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday."

"My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday," said city council alderman Bill Edmond. "People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok."

What kind of person is satisfied with rulings like this?

Responding to Contemptible Slander

Fr. Raymond de Souza has done a magnificent job debunking the outrageous allegations against the Holy Father regarding an abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Every Catholic should read it. It can be accessed here.

George Weigel and Jay Scott Newman have also written an excellent defense piece, well worth reading.

We Knew It All Along

What this health care bill was really all about, that is.

Democratic Senator Max Baucus had this to say:

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind...Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

When you pause to think about what he's saying here, and what the ramifications will mean for this country, it's truly frightening. This kind of class warfare rhetoric is exactly the kind of drivel that socialists have been spewing for decades. The Dems. used to be a little better at concealing their true colors and loyalties, but now that they're flying high in the majority, the mask is starting to fall off.

Questions: Who are Max Baucus, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc., to determine what is "too wealthy" for a private citizen? What do they think individuals and/or corporations do with their extra income? Contrary to popular Uncle Scrooge myths regarding the wealthy, no one merely sits on their extra cash so as to revel in their status, or stuffs it under a mattress. That's not how wealth is created. Extra wealth is almost always reinvested back into the company in order to hire more workers, buy/replace new or old equipment, produce more goods, reward productive employees with raises, and so on. Extra money is also placed in savings accounts to accrue interest. These banks then lend this money out with interest to others who may want to start a business, etc. Sapping excess capital from "the wealthy" via punitive taxes and confiscation will only serve to harm everyone in the long term.

Answer the Question

While I'm not a huge fan of Bill O'Reilly, he does a fine job of exposing the truth regarding the penalty that's coming to all who refuse to get health insurance. Congressman Weiner refuses to answer the question: WHO does the penalizing? Answer: The IRS

Sign of the Times

Another winner from the AP:

DUBLIN - As long as Ireland has had pubs, Good Friday has been off-limits as a "dry" holy day — until now.

A Limerick judge ruled Thursday that the city's 110 pubs can open April 2 because the city is hosting a major Irish rugby match attracting tens of thousands of visitors. This will be the first time in the history of the Republic of Ireland that pubs anywhere in the country will open on Good Friday.

Such a judgment would have been unthinkable in the Ireland of old, where the Catholic Church enjoyed unquestioned authority from the public and deference from the government. Commentators were quick to suggest that Thursday's judgment represented a watershed in the shifting relations between church and state in this rapidly secularizing land.

Sad, but not unexpected.

Castro Congratulates Obama

From the Associated Press.

HAVANA (AP) -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."

Nice.

Rationing

Jonah Goldberg, writing for National Review Online:

The endgame was to get the young and healthy to buy more expensive insurance than they need or want. “Expanding the risk pool” and “spreading out the risk” by mandating — i.e., forcing — young people to buy insurance is just market-based spin for socialist ends. A risk pool is an actuarial device where a lot of people pay a small sum to cover themselves against a “rainy day” problem that will affect only a few people. Such “peace of mind” health insurance is gone. What we have now is health assurance. With health assurance, there are no “risk pools” really, only payment plans.

Under the new law, all the exits from the system are blocked. You can’t opt out or buy cheap, high-deductible Acme car-type insurance, even if that’s what you need. Ultimately, even that coercion won’t be enough to make the whole thing work, because the “cost curve” will not be bending.

Profit-hungry insurance companies were never the problem. (According to American Enterprise Institute economist Andrew Biggs, industry profit margins are around 3 percent, and the entire industry recorded profits of just $13 billion last year, close to a rounding error in Medicare fraud estimates.) Rather, health-care costs have been skyrocketing because consumers treat health insurance like an expense account. Putting almost everyone into one “risk pool” doesn’t change that dynamic; it universalizes it. And eventually, the only way to cut costs will be to ration care.

Emphasis added