This book would be good for priest support groups, a priest alone, or to read by others who support priests in their ministry.  He encourages priests to be more attentive and aware of what they do when celebrating the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.  He reminds them to take some time every day in prayer.  Although they should remember social justice in their ministry, it should not be the center of their ministry; that place belongs to Christ.  He encourages priests to mix Catholic social teachings with what they say and do.  He reminds priests — and all Catholics — what the identity of the priest is, that he is set apart from amongst God’s people in a special sacramental way.  A priests should not be ashamed to be identified as a priest.  This book offers encouragement and practical aids on how priests can improve  their preaching and how devotion to the Mother of God can be of great help to priests in the fulfillment of their ministry.  He also discusses the vow of chastity which is under attack again in the media.  He ends the book with a positive, noting that the priesthood is being renewed and that gradually more young men are answering the call of Jesus to the priesthood.

Fr. McBride’s book can be used in a group study setting, a retreat, or profitably read alone.  He uses quotes from various saints, popes and ordinary priests and people.  He tells stories which help to emphasize the points he is making in each chapter.  For further reflection he provides questions at the end of each chapter.  Since it is not overly deep or academic, the book can be quickly read, but and probably the best way to appreciate it is at a slow reflective, meditative pace.

Fr. Alfred McBride, O.Praem., holds a diploma in catechetics from Lumen Vitae, Brussels, Belgium, and a doctorate in religious education from the Catholic University of America.  He has written many books.  The timing of this book is good due to the re-stirring of the sexual abuse scandals and the media attacking the priesthood and the Church.  This book is highly recommended for priests, bishops, and for anyone who supports priests in their ministry.  This book is a great encouragement to priests!

Support Catholic Exchange and encourage a priest by clicking here to get A Priest Forever:  nine signs of renewal and hope from our online store.

“Thanks for bringing me into this world, for clean laundry and for helping me through hard times.”

And then she was gone.

I peered out around the corner of the laundry room.  No one.  I checked the liquor cabinet.  No, she hadn’t gotten in there.  I hadn’t heard anything crash or break recently.  Christmas wasn’t coming and her birthday had come and gone.

So my daughter was being genuine?  Huh.  Maybe I haven’t scarred her for life after all.  I worry about that.  I mean, as a child, I made huge promises to myself that I’d never ever grow up and repeat the “mistakes” my parents made as they raised me. I was going to be the coolest yet best mom ever. Calm. Kind. Fair. Consistent. Likeable. Non-embarassing in public (unless I needed to threaten ultimate discipline). Cool. Hip. Successful.

Yet there are days I fear the most vivid memory my children will have of me will be my mouth wide open, eyes crossed and flames flying out of my ears.

I envision them lying on some therapist’s couch:  “I can still her now Doctor.  She’d fly into these hissy fits…throwing stuff away, muttering stuff about dogs and sedatives and ingrates…She had classic lines she used:  ‘Oh no, don’t bother.  Don’t anyone lift a finger to help me.  I’ll do it, I always do. God forbid anyone else put the lid on the peanut butter and put it away. Keep that up and I’ll show up at school and have lunch with you! What do I look like, your personal slave or something?’ ”

The couch, naturally, is highest-grade Italian leather.  Nicer than any piece of furniture I was ever able to give my children.  And it’ll be clean. Not coated with dog toy stuffing and dog hair. No used dental floss under the cushions or drool, barf or snot stains on them.

They’ll shell out big bucks to lay on that clean couch — money they’ll be able to earn only because I, the mother who scarred them for life, spent my own therapy budget on tuition for the best schools.  They’ll share how their over bearing mother spent countless late nights quizzing them for tests and dragging them to the 24-hour store to purchase poster board for a project due in the morning but assigned 6 weeks ago. How I dragged them out of bed at dawn on Saturday mornings, shoved #2 pencils in their hands and hauled them off to take the SAT. How I nagged them to complete their college applications on time. How I insisted on driving and flying them across the country to visit top-rated universities.

Yeah, they’ll spend a lot of time on that couch.

“Mom, I’m going to the library before work then I’ll finish my homework after dinner. I love you!”

Well, maybe not too much.

In his letter to ACN, he writes about the attack on January 17th, 2010, “in which over one hundred persons have been reportedly killed followed by an early morning raid which occurred on March 7th in the villages of Dogon Nahawa, Ratsat and Zot Foron, some 15 kilometers south of the city of Jos.”

“The villagers of the Berom ethnic group (mainly Christians) alleged that their attackers were Fulani Muslim herdsmen who swooped on them while they slept. The attack which lasted more than two hours began at about 2:30 am and the victims were completely unprepared for the fury of the marauders.”

The Holy Mass will be said tomorrow, on the 19th of March 2010, at St. Jarlath’s Parish Church Bukuru, where clashes resulted in the physical destruction of lives and properties.

To show the importance of this common prayer for peace in the region of Jos, his Eminence Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson who has officially taken over from Cardinal Renato Martino as the President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, will preside at the Mass.

The Archbishop of Jos hopes that this common prayer by so many will also bring comfort to those who were affected by this tragedy. He appreciates the support, which the Archdiocese of Jos is receiving from other dioceses of Nigeria and international church agencies.

He wrote: “Our Justice, Peace and Caritas Department has already attempted to attend to some food, medical and clothing needs of the many thousands who were displaced (Muslims, Christians and others).”

In the chapel of Aid to the Church in Need’s International headquarters in Königstein, Germany, Mass will be said at 8.00 a.m., in a gesture of solidarity and compassion with these suffering in Jos. All are invited to join in pray for the victims and their families.

Gibbs also suggested that the CHA and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious’ (LCWR) break with the U.S. Bishops has provided legitimate political cover for pro-life Democrats to switch their votes from “no” to “yes.”

“I think over the past twenty four hours we have seen strong indications from those in the Catholic Church that support our belief that the legislation is about health care reform, and that it shouldn’t and doesn’t change the existing federal law [on abortion]. The Catholic Health Association and the order of nun’s support is very important,” Gibbs told reporters on the White House lawn for Thursday’s press conference.

CHA president Sr. Carol Keehan and LCWR sparked an uproar this week after they came out definitively in favor of the Senate health care bill, which top pro-life organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in addition to countless others, have strongly condemned as unacceptable for its abortion funding provisions. Since then, in their quest to woo the final pro-life Democrat holdouts among House lawmakers, party leaders have attempted to paint CHA’s support for the bill as a bona fide endorsement from the Catholic community.

So far, the president’s strategy appears to have paid off: some lawmakers have evidently already taken the two groups’ endorsements as an excuse to switch their vote.

Gibbs cited Congressman Dale Kildee’s (D-MI) Wednesday press conference – in which he explained how CHA’s endorsement had “affected his thinking” to get him to support the bill – as a sign that Democrats may be able to get more lawmakers on board in the same way.

Gibbs said that the president had been engaged on the issue, and a reporter asked if he had reached out personally to the groups.

“The President met earlier this week with Sr. Keehan of the CHA,” said Gibbs, saying the meeting took place in the Roosevelt Room, but that he “did not get a detailed run-down of the pitch that [Obama] made.”

“I do know that he was effusive about her support and her as a person for making the courageous statements that she has,” he said.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), one of the pro-life Democrat holdouts against the bill, pointed out this week that, as a trade association, the Catholic Health Association (CHA) has more at stake with the bill’s passage than it may openly admit.

“I think the hospitals have a different perspective because they’re running large institutions,” Kaptur said. “They have a lot of issues at stake. They have to balance their budgets and so forth. I think that the Bishops are probably in a different position. I don’t think that they’re really managerially responsible for these institutions.”

Unlike the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, CHA is a for-profit entity, and analysts have pointed out that it would greatly benefit financially from the passage of the bill. CHA had already promised large sums of money to the Obama administration in July to help pass the legislation – before it was ever crafted.

Anyone seeking to know the position of a newspaper on any given issue would be well advised to consult the editorial page. Anyone seeking to know the position of a labor union on any given issue would be well advised to consult what union officials say. Anyone seeking to know the position of the Catholic Church in the U.S. on any given issue would be well advised to consult the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The fact that some reporters, union members or Catholics disagree with some of the positions taken by the editors, officials or bishops is interesting, but changes nothing.

This needs to be said as media outlets are now trying to cast the bishops as one voice among many in the Catholic community. Of course, adding to the confusion are fraudulent Catholic groups like Catholics United, a front for its benefactor, George Soros; the National Catholic Reporter, a newspaper known mostly for its rejection of Catholic teachings on sexuality; groups like NETWORK, a Catholic organization whose founder Sister Marjorie Tuite was threatened with expulsion from her order because of her aggressive pro-abortion position; and an array of dissident nuns. Previously, Donna Quinn, the co-director of the National Coalition of American Nuns, signed a statement demanding abortion coverage in the health care bill.

All of this started when a nun who heads the Catholic Health Association (CHA) said she liked the Obama bill. It quickly metastasized into something so bizarre that we now have a liberal Catholic, E.J. Dionne, wondering why the bishops are undermining the CHA!

The Catholic League stands with the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Archbishop Charles Chaput, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, and all those Catholics who truly oppose abortion and refuse to compromise Church teachings.

Of course, that soapbox must be provided first. So who would give this naked man a fig leaf of respectability? The Washington Post would.

The Posties awarded Raines their marquee venue – the Sunday Outlook section — to denounce Fox News Channel and its owner Rupert Murdoch. Announcing this was tugging at his “professional conscience” (thus suggesting he has one), Raines demanded to know “Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team?”

What has Murdoch done to break with the “team” of American media? Raines lamented his “blatant political alliances started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher’s political career.” No! But wait, this one’s even more rich; he also declared “For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party.”

Raines expects people to believe you can say “news media” and “Barack Obama” and not think “blatant political alliance.” On Sunday, his New York Times published a half-page “photo illustration” of Obama’s head at the center of a cross, surrounded by a halo glow of white light.

But let’s continue. Raines then indicted Fox News president Roger Ailes. “Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II.”

After sentences like that, conservatives have to put the paper down. The laughter is beginning to deprive oxygen to the lungs.

Raines cannot be serious, and he isn’t. This article makes much more sense if you read it in Raines Code. What he’s saying is this: the “old-school news organizations” are the exclusive venue for liberals, and liberal activism. Who let these fair-and-balanced pretenders in here to create the “news” differently? He charged that Ailes has torn up “the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals.”

Raines Code translation: Damn you, Ailes. You broke us.

Do the liberal media remember civil rights and Watergate and Vietnam as events they covered with objectivity? Do they deny (and deny warmly recalling) how their passionate advocacy defeated segregationism, militarism, and Richard Nixon?

Even when he’s so dishonestly trying to wrap himself in an objectivity blanket, Raines still can’t help but spew his leftist opinion. His liberal-media team “bore witness to a world of dynamic change, as opposed to the world of Foxian reality, whose actors are brought on camera to illustrate a preconceived universe as rigid as that of medieval morality.”

The media are, in his view, dynamic activists in the Hope and Change business. He is outraged that Fox News has stalled health “reform.” In his Orwellian Raines Code, liberal bias is objectivity, and the refusal to banish Fox News from the media is surrendering “the sword of verifiable reportage.”

It’s certainly not “verifiable reportage” to insist the media haven’t been partisan in 100 years, or that Fox News is currently conducting an anti-presidential “campaign without precedent in our modern political history.” Decrying president-bashing sounds a little tinny from a man who viciously charged after Hurricane Katrina that President Bush protected Big Oil “while the poor drown in their attics and their sons and daughters die in foreign deserts.”

The most important rebuttal to Raines is this. In a free country – which America still is, barely, despite the designs of liberals – media elitists do not get to decide who is allowed to report, and who is banished from the briefing room. They don’t get to select a unanimous liberal “team” and a rigidly liberal “rulebook.”

Fox News exists. It can’t be legislated away by Nancy Pelosi, and it can’t be wished away by Howell Raines. It’s popular with millions of Americans who’ve spent their entire lives being pelted by the mudslinging of the Fox-hating media “team.”

Poor Howell Raines. His New York Times is crumbling while the Fox News Channel was just named the most trusted news network in America by the public. Those…peasants!

“In the past two days, congressional leaders and the White House have brought tremendous pressure on prolife Democratic members of Congress to support a fatally flawed Senate version of health care reform,” states the brief alert signed by Archbishop Charles Chaput and Bishop James Conley.

“Regrettably, groups like Network and the Catholic Health Association have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation’s Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill,” they continue.

“Do not be fooled. Nothing has changed.

“The Senate bill remains gravely flawed on the issues of abortion funding, conscience protections and the inclusion of immigrants. Unless seriously revised to address these issues, the Senate version of health care is unethical and should be firmly opposed.”

CHA, a trade association of Catholic hospitals, and Network, a liberal group of religious sisters, both recently flouted the U.S. bishops to throw their weight behind the bill that the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and countless high-profile pro-life leaders and organizations have condemned as the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

“This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it,” wrote Network.

Taking up that line, White House Press Secretary Gibbs in a press conference Thursday alluded to the groups’ support as indication the bill had cleared the hurdle for Catholic acceptability.

Even more “Catholic” support for the health bill is expected to emerge in the coming days: this week, a group of 25 “pro-life” Catholic and Christian leaders issued a letter urging Congress to pass the bill “as Christians committed to a consistent ethic of life, and deeply concerned with the health and well-being of all people.”

Yet the ranks are swelling of U.S. bishops stepping up to the epic tug-of-war for the Catholic name.

In a speech in Minneapolis Wednesday, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph called on CHA to “loudly and publicly” reverse their stance, which destroys the power of Catholics standing together against anti-life provisions in health care reform.

“Their recommendation to allow the passage of the critically flawed Senate bill is clearly at odds with the U.S. Bishops Conference and every pro-life group in this country,” said Finn, as reported in the diocese’s Catholic Key blog. “Their permissive stance diminishes the potential that Catholic solidarity might have in requiring the abortion prohibition and other essential elements in a morally sound proposal.”

“If the Catholic Health Association claims to represent Catholic Hospitals they should keep in mind that, as a bishop, so do I represent the Catholic Hospitals within my diocese,” he added.

In remarks published by the Washington Post Tuesday, USCCB Pro-Life chair Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Bishop William F. Murphy, chairman of Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop John Wester, chairman of Committee on Migration, explained their reasoning for opposing the Senate health care bill.

“We as bishops continue to insist that health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority,” they wrote. “We are convinced that the Senate legislation presented to the House of Representatives on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis sadly fails this test and ought to be opposed in its current form.”

The Post also published a piece by USCCB media relations director Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, exposing the coercive abortion funding embedded in the bill.

“Why has the Senate designed a system that lets insurance companies force people to pay for abortion services they do not want and find morally repulsive – and gives federal subsidies to those companies to help them do it?” wrote Walsh. “That could happen under the Senate bill, if your child has asthma and the best specialist is not in the one health plan in your state that excludes abortion services.

“To get your child to that specialist, you’d have to ante up for the abortion fund in the plan.”

“Why anyone in Congress would want to hide from Hyde is astounding,” Walsh concluded. “This is legislation that has had bipartisan support since it was first passed more than three decades ago. … A wise leadership would adopt Hyde in a minute, and move on to creating a reformed health care plan with an abortion position people already have shown they can live with.”

Dr. Shawn Ritenour: “Foundations of Economics” is an introduction to economic principles, showing there is no conflict between Christian doctrine and sound economics. The book demonstrates that the foundation of economic laws are derived from a Christian understanding of nature and humanity; explains basic economic principles of the market economy and applies them to various economic problems; and shows that Christian ethics regarding property implies a free economy.

I wrote the book because I had not found any other book that satisfactorily integrated systematic economics rooted in human action with the Christian doctrines of man and creation as well as the Christian ethic of property. Professors at Christian colleges and universities are mostly left to supplement one of the standard works with articles from an explicitly Christian perspective. Many of these materials do not advocate biblical principles in the area of the state and economic policy but merely offer interventionism dressed-up in Christian language.

Kengor: That’s indeed a major problem, which is why I’m so excited about this book. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that the very foundation of economics, not to mention the American republic in some respects, is the right to private property. Do you agree? If so, is that Scriptural?

Ritenour: The foundation of economic activity and policy is private property. All action requires the use of property and all economic policy is about how people can legally use their property. To benefit from the division of labor, we must be able to exchange our products, which requires private property. Private property is definitely Scriptural. The Bible explicitly prohibits theft, fraud, moving property barriers, debasing money, violating labor contracts, as well as coveting. These prohibitions apply to both citizens and rulers. In my text, I apply this conclusion to issues such as confiscatory taxation, government subsidies, business regulation, and monetary inflation.

Kengor: I find it very telling that Karl Marx was first and foremost against private property, not to mention against God as well. In the “Communist Manifesto,” he wrote plainly: “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.” And yet, there are some religious left Christians who claim that the Bible, especially in certain Old Testament passages, preaches a form of socialism and even communism. A student of mine had a teacher at a private Christian school in Ohio who instructed the class that as Christians they should be communists. Can you address this argument?

Ritenour: Communism can be condemned strictly on the basis of the Christian ethic of property (among other reasons). Nothing in Scripture either commands or implies that the means of production should be controlled by the state. There are passages in the early chapters of Acts that are often cited as promoting “Christian communism,” but, in fact, actually illustrate Christian sharing. The various Christians still owned their property, but were generous in sharing whenever they saw a need. When Peter rebukes Ananias in Acts 5, he explicitly says that both the property that Ananias and Sapphira sold and the monetary proceeds from selling it were theirs to do with what they wanted. That is not the gospel according to Marx.

Kengor: I like the way you turn the religious left’s thinking on private property on its head. You note that “God prohibits our coveting the property of others.” With that being the case, isn’t it wrong for the government to use the mighty arm of the state to forcibly remove property from one person to give it to another?

Ritenour: I see no other way around that conclusion, especially when we realize that, in our day of mass democracy, the state usually accomplishes policies of wealth redistribution by inciting envy and covetousness among the populace.

Kengor: What about profits? Reconcile the profit motive with the God of Scripture. We have people in this society who portray profits as greedy or unjust.

Ritenour: Profit is the reward entrepreneurs receive for more successfully producing what people want. This is no easy thing to do. Entrepreneurs must invest in present production of goods they sell in the future. Neither entrepreneurs nor government bureaucrats know exactly what future demand will be. Therefore, production necessitates bearing risk. If the entrepreneur forecasts future demand incorrectly, he will waste resources and reap losses. If he forecasts the future correctly, he serves his fellow man by producing goods people want. It seems only right that such producers are rewarded with profit. In a free market, the only way entrepreneurs earn profits is to serve customers better than anyone else.

Kengor: What about the redistribution of goods? Surely, God wants us to share, to help our fellow man. “Love thy neighbor” might mean more than simply giving him a hug.

Ritenour: Certainly the Scriptures are clear that when we see our neighbor in real need, we are called to do more than merely wish him well. We are called to share our material possessions whether that is food, clothing, and shelter, or money he can use to pay for such goods. However, the Bible never calls upon the state to force people to do so. All of the charity we see provided by Christians in the New Testament was exactly that: charity. It was voluntary sharing by caring Christians. That is how we truly love our neighbor.

Kengor: Indeed, that’s the parable of the Good Samaritan in a nutshell. On a separate point, near the end of your book, you make a statement that’s especially appropriate right now, given the prevailing view by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. You write, “We simply cannot grow the economy into prosperity by resorting to government spending. It cannot be done.” Are you arguing from a strictly economic standpoint or also biblically?

Ritenour: Both. Forcibly taking money from someone to give to another in an attempt to “grow the economy” is a violation of Christian ethics. It also fails to achieve the explicit goal of its advocates. Government spending must be financed by taxes, borrowing, inflation, or some combination of the three. Economics teaches us that all three ways hamper the market economy and result in capital consumption, which causes relative impoverishment, not prosperity. As recent economic events teach us, trying to achieve permanent prosperity by ignoring the economic laws that God has created is a fool’s game. Violating the morality of private property has disastrous consequences.

Kengor: Shawn Ritenour, this book is much needed. It’s a blessing that students who come to Grove City College can learn this perspective. It’s my hope that students at other colleges, and especially Christian colleges, can read this book as well. Where do you recommend that readers go to buy a copy of your book?

Ritenour: The book is for sale at the usual places on-line: Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com. You can also order it direct from the publisher at www.wipfandstock.com. If readers want to learn more about the book, they can look at the book’s website www.foundationsofeconomics.com.

The LCWR claims to represent 59,000 US Catholic nuns, and its letter delivered to Members of Congress on Wednesday urges them “to cast a life-affirming “yes” vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week.”

“We join the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), which represents 1,200 Catholic sponsors, systems, facilities and related organizations, in saying: the time is now for health reform AND the Senate bill is a good way forward,” says the letter.

The letter states that the Senate bill “will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions.”

They furthermore add that the bill does nothing to harm longstanding conscience protections and will support of pregnant women. “This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it,” says the letter.

LCWR President Marlene Weisenbeck, FSPA, signed the letter along with 59 other women religious leaders, beginning with Sr. Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun known for dissident views substantially at odds with Catholic doctrine.

The defections are a critical blow to the US Catholic Bishops Conference, which has fought doggedly to oppose the Senate health-care bill, and hold together a fragile coalition of pro-life Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who have been experiencing relentless political pressure and arm-twisting to abandon their opposition to the Senate bill rooted in concerns that the measure would lead to an increase in abortion.

The USCCB has refused to support the health-care bill on several serious grounds. The Bishops have demanded better conscience protections for health-care institutions and providers. They said they must oppose the bill until language from the Pitts-Stupak amendment prohibiting federal subsidies to health-care insurance plans that cover abortions is somehow adopted.

The Bishops have also demanded that the Senate provision giving seven billion dollars to “community health centers” be amended to exclude abortion providers before they can support the bill.

The way the Senate language is written, groups like Planned Parenthood specializing in sexual and reproductive health, esp. abortions, could qualify as community health centers – which the nuns say will “serve poor women and children” – and tap into those billions set aside.

But the actions of CHA led by Sister Carol Keehan may be providing the final shove to push ObamaCare across the finish line.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City excoriated Keehan and CHA for providing the political cover “for any member of the House who chooses to buckle under the pressure of the President and the Democratic leadership to accept government funding of abortion.”

The Archbishop emphatically stated that the US Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, and “every other creditable pro-life organization” realize that the Senate language will make abortion more accessible through federal subsidies.

Already, some pro-life Democrats are starting to wither in their objections to the bill and cave. The resolute Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told National Review Online as reported Friday, that he was almost certain the White House had peeled away a couple of his twelve Democrats, who pledged to vote against the bill without Stupak-language.

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), who formerly supported the Stupak amendment, announced Wednesday morning that he would now be supporting the Senate bill, saying he believed the Senate language sufficiently prevented federal money from subsidizing abortion.

Politico reported that Oberstar ironically slipped away from reporters into an elevator occupied by none other than Bart Stupak.

“I was deeply troubled to learn that Sister Carol Keehan, the Chief Executive for the Catholic Health Association has urged members of the House of Representatives to vote for the Senate Health Care Reform Bill,” said Naumann writing in The Leaven, the Kansas Archdiocese newspaper. “This action by the Catholic Health Association could not come at a more critical time.”

The archbishop pointed out that CHA’s intervention comes at a time when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hammering away for votes for the Senate bill, and right in her crosshairs stands the “Pro-Life Democrats,” whose opposition is critical to defeat the Senate bill. In fact, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) indicated earlier this week that some of his pro-life Democrats may be wavering under the relentless pressure that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have put on them to support the bill.

This latest maneuver from CHA has all the appearance of being a deliberate attempt to undermine the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has urged Catholics to oppose the bill “unless a way is found to amend the bill to prohibit federal funding of abortion and provide conscience protection for health care professionals as well as health care institutions.”

“The Catholic Health Association’s position, in effect, provides cover for any member of the House who chooses to buckle under the pressure of the President and the Democratic leadership to accept government funding of abortion,” protested Naumann. “They can now defend themselves by pointing out that Catholic Health Care leaders recommended they vote for the bill.”

The archbishop called Keehan either “incredibly naïve or disingenuous” for asserting that the Senate bill prevents federal funding of abortions, when the U.S. Bishops, National Right to Life Committee and “every other creditable pro-life organization” say otherwise.

“Either the bill permits previously prohibited government funding of abortion or not. This is not a technicality,” stated Naumann.

He reiterated the three grave problems the USCCB had discovered in the Senate bill: first, the seven billion dollars “for services at Community Health Centers that can be used directly for elective abortions.” Pro-life groups point out that Planned Parenthood would qualify as a community health provider under the bill.

Second, he said, the bill “uses federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions. By subsidizing plans that cover abortions, the federal government will expand abortion coverage and make abortions more accessible.”

Third, the Senate legislation “uses the power of the federal government to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions even if they are morally opposed to abortion.”

“If the Senate had wanted to prohibit federal funding for abortion all they had to do was accept the language that had been adopted by the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority,” he said. “The Senate rejected this language.”

Naumann added that the U.S. Catholic Bishops have other concerns as well, such as adequate conscience protection for health care professionals as well as institutions, which he said the Senate bill fails to provide.

“One would think that the Catholic Health Association would be extremely concerned about conscience protection. However, if the Catholic Health Association is willing to compromise on government funding for abortion, then who needs conscience protection?”

The archbishop explained that he does not doubt the “laudable intentions” of Sister Keehan and the CHA, who observe serious problems in the health care system. “However, it is not permissible to try to improve the quality of life for some by cooperating in the killing of the most innocent and vulnerable members of our human family,” he said.

Naumann added that believing in President Obama or Senate and House leadership promises to correct the issues in a later fix-it bill was “foolish,” saying that while Obama has flipped on many campaign promises, he has been scrupulously faithful in his promises to Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion industry to advance their agenda.

The Kansas archbishop said that while no swing votes on health-care reform are Kansas Congressmen, he urged Catholics to contact those critical swing votes. “These House Members hold the fate of the entire nation in their hands. They need to hear from Americans throughout the country,” he said.

Finally, the archbishop told Catholics “to contact Sister Carol Keehan and the Catholic Health Association expressing to them your disappointment in their willingness to accept government funded abortion as part of health care reform.”

Visit The Leaven’s website to find contact information for key Congressional swing votes and Sr. Carol Keehan of CHA.