constitution

Catholics and Politics! Is nothing sacred? | Daily Meditations with Fr. Alphonse

Posted on Updated on

Daily Meditations with Fr. Alfonse: Luke 7:31-35 Catholics and Politics!.

“Everyone is an expert today. Everyone. There are very few professions that we still respect. And by respect, I mean those whom I trust may know more than I do with regards to a specific discipline.
Now, I still believe in experts. And I believe in them because I know I can’t be an expert in everything. I simply don’t have enough time to read up on everything.
Early this morning I came up with two professions that I thought we still respected: doctors and lawyers. But as I sit here writing this meditation, I believe I am wrong with regards to doctors. I think we go to the doctors only as a last resort. Why? Because we think we know better. So, we Google our symptoms; we self-diagnosis; we self-prescribe and then we finally go in to see the doctor. When the doctor gives us our medication, we end up not following the instructions. Why? Because we think we know better.

The same holds true for God and the Church. We are like children. And just like children, we tend to put as much trust in God and the Church as a child puts in the wisdom and experience of his/her parents. Not much.

So who do we trust? Superstars! All kinds of them too: music stars, actors and actresses, billionaires and their wives, politicians and their children.”

He goes on to explain the difference in knowledge and wisdom, and dogma vs. propaganda…. worth the read.

[Why the] Catholic bishops strike back | Washington Times

Posted on

Catholic bishops strike back | Washington Times.

“Why go to battle with the Catholic Church? The answer may lie beyond the current fray. So much of what the Catholic Church stands for is antithetical to so many positions of Mr. Obama and his core supporters (think abortion, embryo-destructive research, same-sex marriage). Perhaps, at bottom, this is no more than a power play. Take the Catholic Church down a notch now and make future battles easier later.”

Love this op-ed piece speculating the real reason for the HHS mandate.

Hate the fact that she’s probably right.

Security at pro-choice White House counts unborn children – Washington Times

Posted on

Security at pro-choice White House counts unborn children – Washington Times.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said there’s a disconnect at the White House.

“It is ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House — yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

Government mandated fuel-efficiency?| The Economist

Posted on

Government mandated fuel-efficiency? | The Economist.

I am not entirely on board with this idea, even after reading this paragraph.  The author discusses many of the same concerns I have.

“What the administration’s spin-doctors did not mention, needless to say, is the cost in terms of our ancient liberties. Mandatory energy-efficiency standards are a bit of a conundrum for a liberal outfit like The Economist. On the one hand, they clearly are an intrusion into the workings of the free market. On the other, they work. No one beyond the libertarian fringe seems to mind very much, they save us money that we would otherwise be too lazy or short-sighted to save for ourselves, and they’re normally designed in such a way that manufacturers manage to meet them without too much grief. Indeed, you can make the case that the failure to tighten fuel-economy standards during the 1990s and 2000s contributed to the collapse of the American car industry. A more visible hand was needed, it seems, and the European and Japanese carmakers labouring under one coped better than the likes of GM and Chrysler.”

 

Primarily though, I’m not interested in being forced to pay $XX,XXX for a car that meets the new MPG standards.  This is not going to be cheap to manufacture or cheap to purchase.  It may be cheap to own, but that’s assuming fuel-efficent parts are not more expensive to manufacture or install, which, judging from the precedents of hybrids, they won’t be.  That’s not really a benefit you can sell upfront, or at all, to certain people.

 

This is still an infringement of our rights, regardless of how good it is for the ‘environment’.  I’m not that excited.