San Jose, CA., Jul 8, 2008 / 11:57 pm (CNA).- Reaction continues to the decisions of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), which took place between June 21 and June 28. The assembly nullified proscriptions against sexual behavior outside of marriage and called for a vote to delete the church’s constitutional standard requiring fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. It also initiated a process that could remove mention of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality form the Heidelberg Catechism.
When it comes to accepting homosexuality, and assorted misuses of the sexuality God gave us, why worry about what He said about it. Fidelity in marriage is not important. Chastity outside of marriage is not important either. It's all about what we want to do.
This sort of thing makes me thank God each and every day that I'm sailing on the Barque of Peter with Benedict XVI's hand firmly on the rudder.
I have been waiting longingly for a new translation of the Holy Mass that I as a "John Catholic" would be able to understand. I have been having a problem with the Our Father as it's written. I really don't understand what a lot of the words mean.
"Our Father who art in heaven..."
I know what art is. It's paintings and sculptures, maybe even music. Is this telling me that God is a painting or a sculpture in heaven? Aren't we told we aren't to worship statues and paintings?
"...hallowed be thy name"
What is hallowed? I know what Halloween is, it's a day that people dress up like someone else. Does this mean God's name is supposed to be dressed up as someone else?
"...thy kingdom come..."
I know you had problems with "dew of the spirit" bringing to mind "doo doo". What exactly do you think "come" brings to mind? The "thy" is problematic. We English speakers don't use that word any more.
"...thy will be done.."
I always thought God was finished, but if he will be done (finish some time in the future), I guess he's not finished yet.
"...on earth as it is in heaven..."
Does this mean God is not finished with either Earth or heaven?
"...give us this day our daily bread..."
I don't eat bread every day (trying to watch those carbs, you know), and some people have gluten intolerances so they can't eat any kind of bread at all. If all God gave them were bread, they'd be real sick puppies.
"...and forgive us our trespasses..."
I make it a point never to tresspass, because I'm on the lookout for the "Posted" signs on any land I want to hunt on and I don't go there. If I'm asked to leave someone's property I always leave immediately so I'm never trespassing, so I have nothing to be forgiven for.
...as we forgive those who trespass against us...
All folks are welcome on my property so I don't have to forgive any trespassers.
...and lead us not into temptation...
God leads us into temptation? I thought that was the Devil's job. I guess I have my theology all messed up.
...and deliver us from evil...
God is going to put us in a box and ship us away from evil? That's what deliver means. But it could also mean deliver us like a baby. But that doesn't make sense. Delivering a baby takes them from where they are safe and warm and brings them into a harsh and cruel world. We need to be a lot clearer with this one.
...amen...
What about the women? And the proper English is a man, not a men.
I have a suggestion for the new translation of the Our Father that gets the point across.
Our Daddy, who lives in heaven.
Holy is your name.
I hope your kingdom arrives, and everyone does what your want both here on earth and in heaven.
Feed us every day, and forgive our screw ups, as we forgive those whose screw ups affect us.
Help us do the right thing and protect us from evil.
And that's the truth!
I think this is translated so that John and Mary Catholic can understand it. Feel free to include it in the new translation with or without attribution.
The Curt Jester is again touching the "third rail" of liturgical discussion with his post entitled "Casual Sunday".
Here is a sign I would like to see in some parishes. Though my own parish does have a "Out of respect for our Lord" sign that lists what should not be worn.
Go check it out.
The discussion there seems to be positive, but it seems that every time I have gotten into a discussion about the appropriateness of certain styles of dress, the conversation always comes back to me. "You shouldn't be looking", I'm told. "Are you some sort of pervert?", I have been asked. There is also the old time favorite: "You need to have custody of your eyes!".
Maybe I have an inordinate propensity to look at female skin that is presented to me, but whenever I ask for a little help from the female population (and parents of minor females) I'm told "it's my problem". Because God helps those who help themselves, in the interest of helping myself and those red blooded men who have testosterone, CPF Enterprises presents:
EYE CUSTODIANS™
Does it seem sometimes that it's dress up as your favorite Saint day at your parish and many of the women have decided to dress up as St. Mary Magdalene (before her conversion)?
Is it more likely that the girl in front of you will be dressed up like Madonna the pop star than The Madonna (the mother of God)?
Do you find yourself praying "give us this day our daily breast... no BREAD! BREAD!" because the woman in the row ahead of you has hers served up like twin loaves?
When you complain, are you told: "Don't worry about me, you should have custody of your own eyes!"?
Well Saint Paul said: "If your eye offends you, pluck it out..." but you don't have to go that far, you can get EYE CUSTODIANS™!
Yes, EYE CUSTODIANS™. Guaranteed to block not only UVA and UVB, but all wavelengths of light in both the visible and invisible spectrum. None of those images of scantily clad fellow parishioners will get through the opaque, flat black, distraction-blocking patented Chastity Shield™. You once again will be able to easily concentrate on the Mass. The reflection inhibiting coating on the inside of the Chastity Shield™ prevents the reflection of any errant images from the rows behind.
And all this for the super low price of $19.95. If you act right now, not only will you get the world famous EYE CUSTODIANS™ we will throw in a second pair absolutely FREE! And that's not all. We will throw in a medal of Saint Maria Goretti which contains a fourth class relic absolutely FREE!
Act now! Next time someone is inappropriately dressed in church, let the parish know you have custody of your eyes with the EYE CUSTODIANS™
Both Darwin and I are of a traditional bent of mind. We've read the 1962 Missal, and we appreciate the richness of the language and the clarity of the rubrics. We love Gregorian chant and own a Graduale. Both of us learned basic Latin responses such as "Et cum spiritu tuo" from our parents, who remembered saying them at Mass as children. So we're predisposed to like the Extraordinary Form. We want to like the Extraordinary Form. And yet every EF Mass we've ever been to has left us wondering, "Is this really what it's all about? Why is anyone attached to this?"
I blogged about this earlier. When you are out on the road and you're hungry, you many times decide to stop at McDonald's. Not because McDonald's food is particularly tasty or good for you, but because you know that wherever you go it will be pretty much the same. There won't be any wierd sauces or unusual spices, you'll get a bland, fast and cheap meal prepared the same way anywhere in the world you travel.
My wife and I attend first Friday mass at a local Franciscan hermitage. The Mass is the Extraordinary form. The priest, God bless him, sometimes trips over the latin words and has to go back. The young acolyte is excellent in his responses. My wife and I have our own missals and can follow along pretty well (we do get lost at the "secret prayers"). But I know that if we go to the Extraordinary Form, we're not going to see:
o Clowns.
o Pita bread consecrated for communion.
o Dancers in the sanctuary.
o Music that sounds like a bad lounge act and is possibly heretical.
o The one handed grab at communion time.
Also, my guess is that the Darwins (like my wife and me) are attending low Mass which is pretty basic. This sort of thing is one of the reasons that I believe the Holy Spirit was prompting the church fathers to convene the Second Vatican Council. There was real reform that needed to be done. Mrs. Darwin recounts her experience with the delicious fruits of that Council:
Conversely, the few times we've been to the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin have been wondrously reverent and marvelously beautiful. Perhaps that's because we're attuned to the rhythms of the Novus Ordo and so can immerse ourselves in the richness of this form of worship. But also, the careful planning and preparation and clear love of the form and the language have shown through in the attitudes of the priest and the choir and the congregation. The worship aids have been clear and concise so that even someone who had never attended any mass, let alone a mass in Latin, could follow the prayers and respond appropriately. The same has been true of the few and various Byzantine Divine Liturgies we've attended -- even in a completely unfamiliar language, with an unknown structure, we didn't feel at sea because both the priest and the faithful were unambiguous about what they were doing, and what role each played.
This is what the Council envisioned. Not Fr. Comedy Act and the liturgical "Rockettes".
But I believe catechesis is required by those Extraordinary Form groups who would like to see their numbers grow. People want to know what they are supposed to do and when. It might behoove someone to have a little class, maybe with coffee and donuts, to go over the missal with folks who have an interest in getting it right.
It might even foster "community". And "community" is not a dirty word.
The rite of the Mass could change. According to some indiscretions [i.e. leaks], Benedict XVI has charged the Congregation for Divine Worship to study some modifications in the liturgy. In particular, the Pope is said to have the intention to restore Latin for the formula for the Eucharistic consecration within the Mass in the "vernacular language", i.e. the one celebrated in the different national languages. The same could happen to the formulae of Baptism, Confirmation, Confession and of the other sacraments. In addition, the exchange of peace among the faithful during the Mass, which today takes place prior to the distribution of the Eucharist, could be anticipated (as in the Ambrosian rite) to the offertory so as not to disturb the recollection that precedes Communion.
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- A University of Central Florida student, upset religious groups hold church services on public campuses, is holding hostage the Eucharist, an object so sacred to Catholics they call it the Body of Christ.
No, it is the Body of Christ.
Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.
"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."
A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.
"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
What they needed was a few big ushers to speak with him about consuming the host right then, having him open his mouth to show he's done it, or return it to them for proper purification. Should he not have complied, he should have been tackled and the Body of Christ forcibly removed from him. Should they be brought up on charges, so be it. Saint Tarcisius attempted to protect the Eucharist and paid with his life. Some jail time shouldn't be a problem for those who really believe in the real presence.
Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday.
What we need are a few of those Opus Dei monks like in The DaVinci Code. Have a special ops group go to this bozo's home and rescue Jesus.
Alternately, this young activist should be charged with disruption of a religious service and trespass.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"
Posted by: tony on 07/02/2008 08:19 PM (Read: )
So spake the Supreme Court of the United States of America with regards to the unconstitutional total ban on handguns in Washington, DC.
Anyone who has even scratched the surface of my blog writings can probably figure out my opinion of this ruling. However, the most liberal Vox Novista, Morning's Minion, holds the opposite view, and he believes he has the backing of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
He starts out with...
The US Supreme Court has declared the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns to be unconstitutional as it violates the so called individual "right to bear arms". We need to unpack this. The Catholic perspective is to start with Aquinas, who viewed law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community". The Enlightenment era gave us another view of the law, predicated on the notion of individual liberty as the foundation of society. In other words, the person has to right to do as they wish in search of personal fulfilment, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of another. Law is then all about the enforcement of social contracts.
And with this, I am in total agreement. If I own a handgun and keep it in my home, I don't infringe on anyone else's rights. If I carry a handgun, concealed on my person, I don't infringe on anyone else's rights. When I talk about rights, I'm referring to those endowed by our Creator, namely life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I'm not talking about some of the "rights" that Morning's Minion's ideological compatriots espouse, like the "right to not be offended", the "right to have their irrational fears mollycoddled" or the "right to be totally safe no matter how stupid you are".
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness implies that we are adults who understand that with these rights come responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is not to infringe on others' rights while pursuing your own.
It would be erroneous not to credit the Enlightenment with its achievements. Too often, rulers abused the notion of "common good" (if they even bothered to seek a rationale) to trample upon human rights and human dignity. In re-discovering and liberating this essential Catholic teaching, we must be grateful to "Enlightenment values". But we cannot go too far, for the underlying anthropology is false. It is used to support laissez-faire liberalism, based on the notion that market exchange is a "free" exchange that reflects natural differences in the various actors. This approach as been condemned vociferously by the Church from Pope Leo XIII onwards, for the Church looks at these issues through the lens of the common good, the way Aquinas viewed the law. The ethic of private liberty has led directly to gay marriage, where the goal is simply the satisfaction of personal desires as opposed to the common good which would emphasize the bearing and rearing of children. And of course abortion is justified in this manner: the "right to privacy" is paramount, and the unborn simply cannot be active participants in a social contract.
And this describes what happens when desires are enumerated as rights. You end up with the "right" to marry the "being of your choice", the "right" to kill your unborn child for the sake of convenience or the "right" to deny food and water to an inconvenient "born" person who is ill and unresponsive.
This is a rather lengthy introduction, but, I believe, an essential one. For the right to bear arms that the Supreme Court upheld today comes directly from this notion of personal liberty trumping the common good. For the authorities charged with the common good in DC, an area suffering from extremely high gun-related violence, felt that a ban on handguns was appropriate. Of course, this ban can have limited effect absent border controls at the Potomac river. But is this a valid argument for inaction? To use that logic, the ability to travel means that no laws restricting abortion should be enacted either.
This is the result of an enumerated Constitutional right trumping an erroneously defined "common good". DC is an area of extremely high gun related violence. This doesn't come from an inordinate number of guns, it comes from an inordinate number of criminals. We don't need more gun control, we need more criminal control. The NRA is foursquare behind this movment including increased jail terms for the use of guns in the commission of a crime.
At this stage, it is useful to see what the Church teaches on this matter. Here are some statements from the USCCB:
"Since such a significant number of violent offenses are committed with handguns and within families, we believe that handguns need to be effectively controlled and eventually eliminated from our society. We acknowledge that controlling the possession of handguns will not eliminate gun violence, but we believe it is an indispensable element of any serious or rational approach to the problem....
We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence."
That is quite clear. We need a national ban on handguns. I would like the many Catholics who are cheering this ruling to explain why they so gleefully go against the bishops on this one. For this ruling really pits the two alternative approaches to law against each other. Do we go with personal liberty, which includes the right to own handguns for self-defense? Or do we go with the common good, in an atmosphere of out-of-control gun death? I stand with the Church on this one, and deem the Supreme Court decision quite shameful, rooted as it is in the kind of reasoning that gave us Roe v. Wade and gay marriage.
In Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, the bishops reiterated their support for legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons. "As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."
"Sensible regulation of handguns". I'd imagine Morning's Minion and I would differ as to what constitutes sensible. It would also vary wildly from state to state and community to community. That's what a comprehensive federal "anything" makes no sense in this case.
And as far as "out of control gun death", DC has that with the ban in place. Also, if you make even a cursory investigation into gun death statistics, you'll find that the murder rates are the highest where guns are the most regulated. If banning guns isn't working, I guess the solution is to ban them more. Well, that's the liberal solution and is also the definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".
Scalia’s history lesson is also misplaced. First, he appeals very much to the Enlightenment-era philosophy that was prevalent when the constitution was written. Just because the "founders" believed it does not believe it is right.
It is a right because the founders (without the sneer quotes) enumerated it specifically in the Bill of RIGHTS.
And anyway, as I noted, you can draw a direct line from this position to Roe v. Wade.
Actually, you can't. Nowhere in the Constitution is a "right to privacy" or a "right to abortion". Directly in the Bill of Rights is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".
Second, he forgets that public policy geared to the common good differs by age. A simple example: it would not be possible to achieve universal health care during this middle ages, so there is no duty to try. You know where I am going with this. Scalia's attempts to freeze-frame jurisprudence in the late-18th century is quite at odds with the notion of law promoting the common good. Then again, his is a sola-scriptura approach to textual analysis.
The Constituion is a recipe book for the greatest experiment in self governance. It is designed to be followed exactly. If times have changes, and the Second Amendment no longer makes sense, then repeal it. The mechanism is in place to do so. Get two thirds of the states to ratify it and it's a done deal. Problem is, Morning's Minion doesn't like the idea of the people's representatives deciding what "the common good" is. He's more comfortable with elitist judges doing it. He doesn't like a hard and fast "Constitutional cookbook" he likes one more flexible to his own taste, much like that reprehensible "spirit" of Vatican II.
FInally, the empirical question. Let me point out for a start that the rest of the developed world views the United States as extreme and insane in its approach to guns. When gun homicide and suicide rates are off the charts, the American defenders to the pseudo-right shrug their shoulders and claim that banning guns would not solve anything. It's just that, well, the United States is just more violent than elsewhere. Nonsense on stilts.
I don't much give a tinker's damn about what the rest of the world thinks. People are getting killed in places like DC precisely because of the banning of firearms. DC, Virginia Tech, the LIRR with their gun free policies turn themselves into "sheep pens" ripe for the slaughter. Gun violence will be curbed when criminals fear the armed citizen more than the police. If everyone had the right to carry a firearm concealed, and any "sheep" on the street could be packing "teeth", then the smarter criminals would find a safer line of work, and the stupider ones would be "Darwined" out of the gene pool.
According to the extensive research of David Hemenway from Harvard’s School of Public Health, the US is actually not that exceptionally violent, at least among other high-income, industrialized nations. Crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents are not particularly high by OECD standards. What differs about the US is "lethal violence". So while guns don’t induce people to commit crimes, they make crimes lethal. The international evidence is beyond dispute: the availability of guns leads to greater rates of homicide and suicide, and no offset in terms of lower non-gun murders. We are talking here about a primary component of the culture of death.[ed.- Emphesis, mine]
So Morning's Minion makes my point for me. Criminals are committing crimes with guns. New gun laws are making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns. Criminals are not affected by gun laws (even existing ones which are many times not enforced). So the net effect of new gun laws on the number of guns in the hands of criminals is zero, zip, nada. However, the carrying of weapons by responsible citizens have a huge effect on the crime rate. Municipalities which have enacted required gun ownership ordinance have seen an 85% reduction in violent crime. And this is all violent crime, not just gun crime.
I’ve even tried to do a simple empirical study on this blog, looking at cross-country gun ownership and homicide rates. I found that gun ownership rate are positively and significantly related to homicide and suicide rates across 19 advanced economies, and that a bevy of other factors — GDP per capita, demographics, ethnic divisions, urbanization and inequality– did not seem to matter on their own. It’s the guns, stupid! What causes gun deaths is the availability of guns. Score one for Occam’s razor. I did a little further analysis, to see if the availability of guns enhanced the underlying factors that might cause violence. It does. Introducing a non-linear element in the regression suggests that gun ownership is especially detrimental when ethnic divisions and inequality are elevated. Does that sound like any country you know?
This is unadulterated bullsh*t. What wasn't broken out was the rates of gun ownership among law abiding citizens. This makes any study flawed. Of course increased gun ownership among murderers would increase the murder rate.
The other argument often touted in that many gun-owning communities are inherently peaceful, and that the problems are localized to a few inner-city areas. Even if that were true, what happened to the notion of solidarity? What happened to the common good? Ah, I forgot, individual liberty matters more. Silly me.
I have plenty of solidarity with my inner city brethern. I want them to have the exact same rights and opportunity to defend themselves that I have. I would like to see them able to own and carry a handgun, and have numerous places to target shoot, be trained and build their proficiendcy and confidence.
In these peaceful places, you will probably find that guns are a way of life. Children are taught to shoot and hunt at a young age. Also, in many of these places where they cling to their guns (to quote Barack Obama) they also cling to their Bibles and their Christian faith.
Why don't we play Morning's Minion's fantasy scenario out to the conclusion he seems to want.
In 2008, King Morning's Minion waved his magic wand and all handguns magically disappeared. Now citizens everywhere no longer fear being murdered by a handgun.
However, there appears to be a jump in assaults by big men on small men, and a jump in assaults and rapes by big men on women. It seems that criminals no longer fear armed citizens, so they are assaulting people with knives, chains, clubs and their bare fists.
A large man can easily kill a woman with his bare hands. Women are smaller and substantially weaker in their upper body than men. God gave us different sizes and physical abilities. Samuel Colt made us equal again.
It seems that Senator Obama has seen fit to give a "partiotism" speech. Were he a true patriot, there would be no need to tell us how patriotic he is, his partiotism would resonate in every action that he did. That he sees a requirement to tell us how patriotic he is, is very telling. Senator Obama says:
Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is - or is not - a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given ["God DAMN America" -- Rev White]. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, ["America is a downright MEAN country" -- Michelle Obama] more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
Frankly Senator, the more I learn about who you are, the less I like you. I think throughout this campaign, you have been very careful to hide who you are. As the campaign drags on (thank God) we learn more and more about you and none of it is pretty.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
It's nice that you would not question Senator McCain's patriotism, but that would be as silly as my questioning your blackness (excuse me, mulatto-ness). Senator McCain's patriotism is on display for everyone to see from his inability to raise his arms fully due to the torture he endured serving his country to his bucking of his Republican party on many issues he believed were critical to best interest of this country he loves.
Nobody can question Senator McCain's good name, the worth of his word, or the love of his country, least of all you, Senator Obama. After all, you spent 20 years worshipping in a church where hatred of America, more specifically white America was the meat and drink of the teachings from the pulpit.
You are still an unknown, Senator. Quite honestly, I don't trust you. I remember a scene from the movie Con Air. Nicholas Cage's character is speaking with a black revolutionary in the mold of the Black Panthers (much like your friend, William Ayers).
Diamond Dog: Yee-ha! What's on your mind, hillbilly? Cameron Poe: Now, let's see, what was I thinking? Oh, yeah — "Yee-ha," that's right. I was just wondering what a black militant - that would be you - is doin' taking orders from a white boy on a power trip? Now don't you think that's strange? Diamond Dog: A means to an end my white friend, a means to an end. See, I can play house nigga till we get to where we're going... and then, the day of the Dog begins...shh.
If you are elected, Senator, I'm wondering how long it will take for "the day of the Dog" to begin.
Baroness Ilora Finlay, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said Labour's policy of denying free care to patients who use their own money to buy the latest drugs went to the heart of the purpose of the health service.
Lady Finlay, a doctor who specialises in the palliative care of cancer sufferers, asked:
'Can we justify spending billions of pounds on the relief of relatively minor conditions and deny patients with life-threatening disease the support of the NHS when they want to bridge the costs themselves?'
Hmmm... It looks like if one of the peasants in England wants to pay for their own drugs, their lords and masters want to yank out all of the rest of their benefits in the interest of "fairness".
The Government says allowing cancer suffers to pay for some drugs while receiving others free would create a two-tier health service, with patients on the same ward being given different drugs depending on their ability to pay.
So in England, you have the right to the same lousy health care as every body else. If you want to use some of your hard earned money to increase the quality, they will punitively eliminate the rest of your benefits.
Look closely, United States Citizens. This is the sort of thing that Barack Obama has in mind for you.
Well, I'm being a little premature. My blogbuddy, Paul, The Regular Guy™ is getting off his political tush and doing something.
t's time to kick off this campaign in a serious way! I'm in the process of collecting the signatures I need for ballot access. If you live in my area, I'd be grateful for your help.
But most people who read this won't be able to help collect signatures. If you're willing, especially if you are pro-life, you can help in two ways. First, by your prayers. If you would say even one prayer for me, I'd be very grateful. If you'd add my campaign effort to your regular prayer list, I'd be even more grateful. And I'd like to ask that if you'll pray for the success of this campaign, you'll also leave a comment here to say so.
God is my campaign manager, and He's let me know that this campaign will go nowhere without your prayers.
For those who aren't familiar with Paul Mitchell, he's a blogger who pontificatesbloviates discusses political issues with a decidedly Catholic viewpoint. You can get a feel about his past posts at Thoughts of a Regular Guy.
Second, you can help materially. I have a brand-new PayPal donation link in the upper right. If you can donate any amount, even just $1, please do. If you can donate $5, or $10, or even $100, please do. No amount is too small. You know what you spend your money on, you know what you can spare. But I have to believe that the most important thing we can do for the pro-life cause today is to elect state legislators.
Indeedy. I am going to try and help Paul out as best I can. Paul is foursquare on the side of the babies. I don't believe they could get a better advocate in the Illinois legislature.
In my race, this is going to be the second election in a row in which Planned Parenthood has endorsed both the Republican and Democratic candidates. It's time for an alternative. I didn't want to be the alternative, but here I am.
If you believe you should be included in this list and are not, it's just an oversight. Please e-mail me and I'll get it corrected as soon as I'm able.
