Not for attribution

Nicely said by bishops and opportunely reaffirmed:

At the conclusion of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ fall meeting, the bishops of the United States issued a special message strongly confirming their opposition to the HHS mandate.

“With its coercive HHS mandate, the government is refusing to uphold its obligation to respect the rights of religious believers,” the US bishops stated.

“Beginning in March 2012, in ‘United for Religious Freedom’ we identified three basic problems with the HHS mandate: it establishes a false architecture of religious liberty that excludes our ministries and so reduces freedom of religion to freedom of worship; it compels our ministries to participate in providing employees with abortifacient drugs and devices, sterilization, and contraception, which violates our deeply-held beliefs; and it compels our faithful people in business to act against our teachings, failing to provide them any exemption at all.” [boldface…

View original post 18 more words

Obama trying to run something

Obama, overwhelmed by requests for his deciding things, especially from Rahm E., told staff he wanted fewer of them.

Undoubtedly, every president is vexed by the same problem–everyone wanting a piece of him, a flood of information and demands for decisions, decisions, decisions. I suspect that if Obama had even the slightest bit of administrative experience in his career of legislating, teaching and community organizing, he might have better handled this problem.

I guess that’s why the American people have elected much fewer lawmakers president. They intuitively know that they need someone with management and administrative skills, such as a governor or a military leader.

This by Dennis Byrne is to become a theme or already is. Electing an executive without executive experience? Pig in poke?

Meet Bruce Rauner tonight in River Forest

Oak Park Republicans

Don’t miss this opportunity to meet one of the Republican candidates for governor, Bruce Rauner!

Come to the Good Earth Greenhouse tonight, 7900 Madison, River Forest, 6:30-8:30.

Hear his platform and ask your questions.  There is NO charge for this event.  Appetizers and cocktails.

Bring your family and friends.
I look forward to seeing you.

Linda Tibensky
Republican Committeeman

View original post

More from Rauner

Oak Park Republicans

Since announcing for governor, I’ve done over 300 events, put more than 30,000 Illinois miles on the Ford and built a grassroots team of more than 1,000 volunteers and over 70 volunteer coordinators.

The response to our plans to get spending under control, reverse the Quinn-Madigan tax hikes, transform our schools and enact term limits has been tremendous.

Now, we’re going up with television advertisements to spread our message far and wide.

Watch our new ad by clicking: http://youtu.be/ONJp_m1TXfA

11.13_video_screen_v3.151513.jpg

Please help spread the word by sharing our ad on Facebook and Twitter or by forwarding to your friends.

Onward to victory,

BR

View original post

Rauner plays moneyball, erases giving limits for all in governor race

Oak Park Republicans

Kirk Dillard does not like it:

“Bruce Rauner has shown he will stop at nothing to buy his way into office, but Republican voters will see through it. Rauner voted as a Democrat and has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat candidates like Dick Durbin, Mayor Daley and Mayor Emanuel,” said Dillard campaign manager Glenn Hodas.

“GOP voters can’t be bought. They want a governor who is tested and prepared, with the experience that money can’t buy.”

Waiting till now to pump up his campaign, however, Rauner provided time for big-bucks individual donors and others to give and sign on:

By waiting until now to take the caps off, Rauner was able to cripple efforts of his competitors to tap big-money donors who then ended up gravitating to Rauner. That includes Ron Gidwitz, who joined on Rauner’s campaign team, abandoning his previous support for Dillard.

The law…

View original post 99 more words

What do these bishops know about what makes the world go ’round?

Bishops had a choice to make about their new leaders:

BALTIMORE (Reuters) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan agreed on Monday with Pope Francis’ call for a heightened concern for the poor, but disputed the idea that U.S. bishops haven’t paid enough attention to the issue.

“That’s been a constant, constant concern of the conference of bishops since our founding in 1917,” said Dolan, the outgoing president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is meeting this week to pick new leaders.

They made their choice:

(Reuters) – U.S. Catholic bishops elected two centrist conservatives as new leaders on Tuesday, an archbishop from Kentucky and a Texas cardinal, both of whom expressed “solidarity” with Pope Francis’ strong emphasis on the poor.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, 67, of Louisville, Kentucky was elected to a three-year term as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, while Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, 64, of the Galveston-Houston diocese, was chosen as vice president.

Archbp Kurtz explained a (slight?) shift in emphasis:

“I believe we are very much in solidarity with Pope Francis, and that is, his way of articulating clearly that we need not only to serve the voiceless and the vulnerable, but to be an advocate,” Kurtz told reporters after his election. [boldface added]

A spokesman for The Left registered approval:

Christopher Hale, senior fellow with [eight-year-old] Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a progressive group that focuses on social justice issues, said he believes both Kurtz and DiNardo “will move the American Church in the direction Pope Francis desires.”

And for the vice-presidential choice as immigration-reformer:

Hale cited Kurtz’s “long pastoral experience” and praised DiNardo as a “tireless leader on immigration reform. He knows firsthand the problems of a broken immigration system.”

My question: How are these two on economics? Advocacy and activism for Jesus’ sake is admirable. But do they know economics?

Is it time to separate church and state marriages?

Given the shift in marriage’s civil legal definition to include same-sex couples, it is time that Catholic conversations about the issue recognize that we are talking about two different realities when we use the word “marriage”—a legal contract on the civil side, and a sacramental covenant between two baptized people on the other—and adjust our practice accordingly.

Doing so would allow Catholics to have a fruitful intramural conversation about our theological understanding of the sacrament of marriage without at the same time being entangled in the question of whether families and couples that don’t fit that vision should have access to the legal benefits and duties that go with its civil parallel.
It would also acknowledge what should be obvious to everyone: Even if civil and religious marriage were once a single entity, the ties uniting those two dimensions have now almost completely unraveled. [boldface added]
I get this. Of course, it solves one problem, assuaging a sort of theological discomfort, without addressing the societal issue. This is odd for a liberal publication like U.S. Catholic, for which societal issues are rarely ignored.
But there’s another thing. It’s “vision” in the midst of this paragraph that gets to the sensibilities involved, the sort of romanticized concept of religious belief. This romanticizing pervades liberal Catholics’ discussion and masks, rather embodies, what lies at the heart of their worldview. Is this clear to anyone but me?