Friday, February 24, 2012

Documentary of Nun Nominated for Oscar

I found this at Catholic Fire and thought I'd share it.

Just a Gripe

One of my biggest gripes about driving in this state is that few people seem to know what a stop sign is for.  I often observe people driving through, slowing then driving through, and almost stopping (their wheels never actually stop turning) at the stop sign across from our house.  I got "t-boned" by a lady who stopped at a stop sign but then went through the intersection without looking right first.  I frequently see cross ignore the stop sign at the exit to the high school parking lot.  At the four-way stop on the other side of the high school few vehicles actually stop at the stop sign.  I don't get it.  Can someone explain to me why "stop" does not mean stop?

And, one of these days some one is going to get killed in the high school parking lot.  I observed one 'kid' driving a truck getting impatient.  Yes, the car ahead of him was going excruciatingly slow (about 5mph).  But, once that car was past the stop sign, he hit the gas (not stopping at the stop sign), and gunned it around 10-12 teenagers walking through the parking lot.  He barely kept from hitting one teen as he screeched his tires around the group (who, btw, were NOT in the driving lane).  I drove behind the slow driver to the other end of the parking lot to the exit, while he drove to the other exit.  The irony is that that slow car was the only car ahead of me at the stop sign; I observed that there were 3 cars ahead of speedy Gonzalez.  He actually had to wait longer to get out of the parking lot because of his impatience.

Enough of a gripe for today.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Attack on Religious Liberty Contined...

Faith, Hope, Charity, with Sophia
(Wisdom) as Virgin Martyrs
"We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government." 
--USCCB statement on the so-called heath care 'Compromise'

I find it incomprehensible that any Christian would not understand the recent attack on religious liberty.  A "friend" on facebook said she didn't see attack on religious liberty at all.  Really?  Are you that blind?  An acquaintance at church really thought that Obama's so-called compromise was a change of heart on Obama's part?  Really?  Are you that blind?  I have a hard time comprehending why seemingly intelligent Christians don't get what is going on.

The issue for Catholics on "Obama Care" is the forcing of Catholic organizations to pay for something Catholics find morally reprehensible.  And this "compromise" ain't a compromise.  He says that Catholic organizations won't have to pay for abortifacients or sterilizations but the insurance companies will.  Huh?  You don't think the insurance company isn't going to pass on that expense to the employer buying the insurance, really?  It's not a compromise; it is a bait-and-switch.  So, yeah, most of the bishops are now saying they will make sure we do not pay for it.  IF  it comes down to that Catholic organizations (ie, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, charities, etc) will be FORCED to drop insurance coverage.  That is how serious it is!  Bishops would rather Catholic organizations pay the huge fines than be forced to pay for things Catholics (real, orthodox ones anyway) find reprehensible--it is against God law.

"Catholics should not be misled into accepting feeble compromises on issues of principle. The HHS mandate is bad law; and not merely bad, but dangerous and insulting. It needs to be withdrawn – now."
--Archbishop Chaput

Do some reading, please!
USCCB's reaction statement, In depth analysis: The Bishops Response to the Obama 'Compromise' mandate, Catholic World News article on the "Compromise", Recent Catholic New Service article, January Fox News item, Archbishop Coakley's letter, Fr. Z's blog listing all the Bishops and Archbishop's letters, messages, etc. out so far.

This is worth repeating:

"First they came for the Socialists and I didn't speak out because I was not a Socialist. 
Then they came for the trade unions, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
--Martin Niemoller, German pastor interred in Nazi concentration camps from 1938-1945.

More later...

Friday, February 10, 2012

Powerful "180 Movie" Documentary

180 Movie 
[click 180 ^there^ to view movie)
Not for children or the faint of heart. 

This movie is powerful and thought provoking.  What a movie for the younger (older teens and twentys) generation to see.

Threats to Religious Freedom in America

This is the name of a seminar just put on the schedule at CDU.  It is timely.  It has purpose.  Dr. Royal will review and discuss the present attack on religious freedom in America.  What can we do about it?  Learn where it comes from, who is doing it, and how we can prepare ourselves for battle against it or standing up to it. 

Sign up now the seminar starts March 5th.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Archbishop of Oklahoma, Bishop of Tulsa Stand Against Mandate

Bishop Coakley published his letter on January 26, 2012:

"We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law.  People of faith cannot be made second class citizens.  We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.  In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties.  I hope and trust we can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same.  Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less."

For other links to Bishops's messages from around the United states go to Fr. Z's blog where he has updated links.

Here is Bishop Slattery of Tulsa on YouTube:

Yet Another Journalistic Attack on Religious Liberty

Fr. Father Z's blog:
 This morning I heard one of the worst commentaries on the Obama heathcare mandate to date.  Rachel Maddow, who I do not watch and after what I heard will never watch on MS NBC, was interviewed by Matt Lauer.  Just a moment before there was actually a well balanced story about how the Catholic bishops, Republican candidates, even liberal Democrats feel that the Obama administration's mandate is wrong and unconstitutional  (The mandate that all employers provide contraception, including abortafacient drugs, and sterilizaation to their employees or face fines).  So, I guess Rachel was representing the "other" side of the issue.  It was plainly her opinion, and I noted her decidedly masculine attire and hair cut.   She said the Obama mandate was only providing for a woman's constitutional right to have access to contraception provided by their health care plan.  Am I missing something here?  Where is that written in the constitution?  And isn't that what Planned Parenthood's original premise?  to provide such services for "poor" women?  Oh, I guess I'm not missing anything--mandate to provide healthcare insurance to "all" women....Planned Parenthood provides these services...ah, got it.

     During the rest of her interview, she goes on with many exaggerated statements like "the vast majority of Catholics use contraception."  I would postulate that 1) neither she nor NBC has done any kind of research on this oft repeated statistical statement (repitition does not make propaganda, fact), 2) that she, nor NBC or any news agency for that matter, cares to hear the opinion of orthodox, faithful Catholics, 3) that the vast majority of faithful Catholic women of childbearing age actually do follow the magisterial teaching on this matter--at least the vast majority that I am associated with.  Not only were here statements on the feelings of Catholics an exaggeration, but an exaggeration based on assumptions not facts.
     The doosy of statements for me was her "example."  She said that not providing women employees with contraception under the health care plans of Catholic employers (such as nursing homes, hospitals, schools, etc) was like this: 

An Amish man applies for a bus driving job.  They don't discriminate against him because he is Amish, and he is hired for the job.  He shows up for work the next day and says that he can't drive because it is against his religion.  He should not have apply for the job that could have gone to someone else in the first place.
How would this apply to forcing Catholic employers to provide (ie, pay for) something that the Church believes (and I can say with a certain confidence that the vast majority of practicing Catholics agree with) is immoral?  Actually the story should have been something like this:

The government decided all communities should have a bus stop.  They went into the Amish community and said, "We're putting in a bus stop in your community.  You will provide an Amish bus driver."  "It is against our religious principles to drive a modern vehicle."  The government says, "Too bad.  Every citizen has the constitutional rigtht to have free bus ride to every community in the United States.  Therefore, you will provide that for your community."
Frankly, I'm surprised that the Obama administration (and much of the liberal press) doesn't understand the backlash.  It isn't just about contraception--although that is the large part of it.  The issue is the government telling religion-based organizations what they must do, even if it is against the moral, religious, or ethical (however you want to state it) code or law of their particular sect.  This is about the state being able to tell a church what to do.  It is the state infringing upon the churches rights.  It will not stop there.  This is only the beginning. 

I read a bishop quoted on Fr. Z's blog who said: "I will die in bed, my successor will die in jail, his successor will die in the public square."  (I couldn't find the name or the exact quote again to reference it, but I will keep looking).  I doubt he is far off the mark.

Sign the petition against this immoral heathcare mandate here.

For those who may not have been following the news on this subject, here it is in a nutshell, from Stop the Birth Control Mandate. org:

"The Birth Control Mandate On August 1, 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services, directed by Kathleen Sebelius, adopted the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that “the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods” be determined a “preventive care service for women.” Under these new guidelines, mandatory coverage will be provided for surgical sterilization, all prescription contraceptives approved by the FDA - including drugs like Ella that can cause abortions in the early weeks of pregnancy - as well as counseling to promote them. This directive from the Affordable Care Act initiative will be supported by tax payers without a conscience clause exemption, violating the civil and religious liberties of millions of Americans."

Friday, February 3, 2012

Komen v. PP

Wow!  What is going on there?  Someone at Susan G. Komen finally found the balls to stand up to Planned Parenthood and cut them off.  There was a lot of cheering in my house!  No, they've caved.  Really?

Research has shown that oral contraceptives, post-poning pregnancy through years of O.C.'s, and even abortions significantly increase a woman's chances of getting breast cancer, uterine cancer, and other cancers.  But, Komen's "march for the cure" has been giving Planned Parenthood at least $680,000 "for breast cancer screenings" every year.  PP says they only used that money for screenings.  One, this money, if indeed they ARE using the money "only" for screenings, frees up that much more money to use for their anti-woman, anti-life agenda.  And two, how do we know that it is used only for screenings?  Do they track those dollars from their receipt to clinics who give screenings?  And, PP's complete honesty should convince us that they only care about women's health?  Really.

I had planned for the first time to write to Komen and give a contribution.  I was rejoicing that they had finally severed their connection with the extremely shady and vile PP. 

Today, they caved.  The funny thing is, PP supposedly got over a $1 million dollars in contributions from women upset by Komen's decision.  They obviously don't need Komen's money--so WHY cave?  I don't get it!!!  They will not see a penny of mine, nor will I support their "charity" while they are in partnership with PP.  Never.

[Oops, the picture I posted was not the message I wished to convey. I have removed it. If any of you saw it already, my apologies]

Thursday, February 2, 2012

New Seminar on Religious Freedom

Catholic Distance University (CDU) is offering a three-week seminar pertinent to current events:
"Threats to Religious Freedom in America."  It starts March 5th. 

Here is the brochure:

Our first ammendment rights are under attack by this administration.  We should inform ourselves on what's at stake, and steel ourselves to make a stand--now!

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Fried Cabbage

I'm from the North y'all.  I've never tasted fried cabbage before. Now, mind you, I lived in Maryland (they consider themselves the South) for eight years in the 1980's to early 1990's.  I've never tasted fried cabbage.  (However, I did discover fried sweet potato fries while I lived there.  Talk about yummy!)  I've lived in Texas and Oklahoma now for 12 years--never saw fried cabbage.  In a little dive at a podunk airport, I tasted my first fried cabbage.  Wow!  You can really make everything taste better when you fry it--and I like cabbage.  Here's a quick easy way to do it:

Fried Cabbage (from memory):

1 head cabbage, core removed
about 1/3 c. oil
bacon (!)
1 onion
2 pinches sugar
salt and pepper

1.  Heat up the vegetable oil on med to med/hi heat in a deep pan, and cook the bacon in it .  The original recipe said 3 slices cut into thirds.  I add about 6 slices and cut them a little smaller so it goes farther when served. 
2.  Meanwhile chop the onion into a large dice.  Slice or chop the cabbage into a large dice.
3.  Once the bacon is cooked, add the onions.  Sweat them for a minute or two then add the cabbage.
4.  Add two generous pinches of white sugar (it helps the cabbage caramelize) and add salt and pepper.
5.  Cook, stirring frequently, until the cabbage is crisp-tender and reduce to about half its volume.

This takes me about 15 minutes total. 
Fried cabbage is so delicious, I serve it about once a week now and have very little in the way of left-overs (darn it!).  The only one that doesn't like it is my oldest son.  He is my picky eater, but I think that may be due to his diabetes.  I think he tastes things differently than the rest of us.  Anyway...
Try fried cabbage.  Delish!

I think this may be the original recipe I used: