Monday, February 27, 2012

FREE LITANY DOWNLOADS - Relieve Anxiety - Find Peace


Stan & Pam Williams'
Favorite Litanies

Located at the bottom right of
 of our HOME PAGE
Scroll to the bottom right

prayerhands.jpg Some years back, one of our adult daughters was going through a particularly difficult time. To help her go to sleep one of us would sit by her bed and read litany prayers to her. Doing so helped her relax, trust God, and sleep well. We put them to tape and later to CD, and she used them whenever she needed to rid herself of anxiety. Today, we use them ourselves as we walk, drive, or try to go to sleep. When I have a busy day writing that takes me into the night it will always be difficult for me to get to sleep. So, I plug in my iPhone earplugs, start the Litanies, turn down the volume, and pray with them until I'm asleep. Works every time to calm me and focus on what's really important -- the things of God.

We used to sell these as a CD or MP3 downloads, but it was too much trouble bookkeeping the sales. So, we're not offering them permanently for free. If you like these, or have suggestions for others, please email us and share your thoughts.  

There is no music, just Pam and my voice, praying the verse and response. We hope you will use these, share them with your friends, and send them to our site to get other useful resources to strengthen your faith.

The five MP3 litanies you'll find at the bottom right of our home page are: 
-- Most Holy Name of Jesus  (5:06) 
-- Most Holy Trinity (5:09) 
-- Most Precious Blood of Jesus (2:58)
-- Most Sacred Heart of Jesus (3:38)
-- Resignation to the Will of God (4:14)  

Thursday, February 16, 2012

The Bishops' Abdication of Responsibility

I've promised myself that I would not spend much time on this, as I have another calling that demands my time in this same moral fight. I've been going back and forth with a popular Catholic radio show host and long-time friend about the HHS Contraception Mandate and Healthcare. He disagrees with Paul Rahe and Rush Limbaugh (who passionately read on-air most of Paul Rahe's essay "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil"), who claim that the bishops have brought this troubling infringement of the government on themselves by being so supportive of government sponsored and mandated healthcare... as long as it didn't include abortion, contraception, et al.

The following blurb confirms that the bishops have long been a supporter of universal healthcare INITIATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT (with a few moral limits). Let's first put that stake in the ground, and then examine the consequences of the bishop's actions.

This came last night from

====== QUOTE======
The following came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on February 14

WASHINGTON—The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said in a press briefing at the White House on February 13, “...I would simply note with regard to the bishops that they never supported health care reform to begin with...”
“This is not the case,” said Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Since 1919, the United States Catholic bishops have supported decent health care for all and government and private action to advance this essential goal,” Bishop Blaire said.“Long before the current battles, the Catholic Church was persistently and consistently advocating for this overdue national priority.”

In the recent health care debate the bishops called universal and affordable health care “an urgent national priority and moral imperative.” The U.S. Conference’s criteria insisted reform should be truly universal, protect human life and conscience and not discriminate against immigrants. “The [conference] opposed the final legislation because it failed this test, a judgment sadly but clearly borne out by the failure of the law and the recent regulation to protect conscience and religious liberty,” explained Bishop Blaire.

“I hope those who made or repeated this false statement will correct the record and report the bishops’ long and consistent record of  support for health care which protects the life, dignity and consciences of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.”

====== END QUOTE======

My radio friend points out that the bishops' support of Obamacare (sans the morally repugnant coverages for things like contraception and abortion) is consistent with the Church's teachings that seek the solidarity of humanity, the distribution of the earth's goods from those who have abundance to those in need, and the principle of subsidiarity.

I too agree with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us in regards to these principles, without hesitation. I understand how they are in accordance with Natural Law. I don't believe them blindly, but know I can defend them easily.

But I believe that the bishops err when they transfer responsibility for the fulfillment of those concepts from the venue of the individual, the family, and small organizations controlled by individuals (all with the oversight of the Church), into the hands of a government that is not prepared to be the moral arbiter of all things human, which healthcare nearly encompasses.

And my reading of the CCC backs up that view. Nowhere does the Church remove itself or the family from the responsibility of these things, and nowhere does the CCC give that responsibility into the hands of the civil authorities

My friend asks me if I think I know more about the teachings of the Church that the bishops? Of course not. But I'm not arguing "knowledge" but rather "practice" and the wisdom and discernment that accompany the implementing of that knowledge. Many lay persons were slow to hold the bishops accountable for their wisdom and discernment of how they dealt with sexually abusive priests.  Knowledge in that scandal was not the issue. Wisdom was. I have a letter from one particular bishop that declares to me that protecting the collegiality of the bishops is more important than publicly taking a pro life stance. Cardinal Ratzinger declares that shepherds who let poison spread in order to avoid conflict are like "mute dogs" and he finds their actions "repulsive. " So, I'm not real quick to embrace the bishops individual or collective actions without some common sense comparisons to Church doctrine and principles. You don't need to be a theologian to realize that a government that legalizes abortion, contraception, and fosters all sort of other immoral practices is not prepared to legislate and rule the morally delicate territory of healthcare. And in such an environment the bishop's embrace of government mandated healthcare is mind-boggling. Indeed it goes beyond mind-boggling. It's irrational.

So, why then are the bishops so anxious for the government to do such a thing? I think it's because they have inadvertently given up their God given responsibility to be moral leaders. They see themselves as impotent and unable to persuade their sheep to follow them. Their laxness in publicly excommunicating various politicians like Nancy Pelosi is an example of their avoidance of conflict, hoping to foster respect by tolerating evil.  They believe that government coercion will work better than Christ's love as exampled in the Church. (Admittedly, with recent scandals, which the bishops have been partly responsible for furthering, they are right that people do not universally see the Church as a great example of Christ's love.)

But the solution isn't to abdicate their responsibility to the government, which is what they have done, and why Rush Limbaugh and Paul Rahe say the bishops have sold their souls to the devil. The solution is for the bishop's to humbly re-embrace their leadership role as society's moral leaders and actively and publicly guide the work of solidarity and the distribution of goods. How should that be done? Certainly not through government taxation and coercion, which violates the principles of true charity and marginalizes an individual's accountability to live out the Golden Rule. But rather the bishops should lobby vigorously for laws that encourage individual responsibility, and that facilitate individual generosity and accountability. And then the bishops need to motivate the laity to live out the beauty of Christ's teachings to care for those in need around us. I think many people do this naturally. Certainly, many of the very rich in this country actively give away more of their wealth than they keep. It is the individual generosity of those who have abundance that builds educational institutions, and funds non-profits that do, literally, a world of good. Exempting such generosity from taxation (both of the giver and the receiver) is just one way that government fulfills the Church's request for human solidarity and distribution of goods. It is the individual, and small organizations led by individuals where bureaucracy is at a minimum, that the Church's principles that bring dignity to the human endeavor are most efficient and effective.

Monday, February 13, 2012

American Catholic Leadership Has Sold Its Soul to the State

Paul A. Rahe
Perhaps the most important half-hour in media, in some years, occurred this afternoon from about 1:45 PM to 2:15 PM (ET) on Rush Limbaugh's show. He read with gusto and salient comment, significant portions of an essay by Hillsdale College professor Paul R. Rahe titled "American Catholicism' Pact with the Devil". You can read the entire essay in all its brilliance at the link in the last sentence. Rahe (a Catholic) says with historical and current depth what I've been fond of saying: Abortion is a problem that is at the foot of the American bishops. Had they been doing their job as moral leaders and not being mute dogs, abortion would not be the law of the land and it would be rare.

Rahe points out that the current contraception debate is what the American Catholic Church leadership has fostered and it's come home to bite. Here are a few paragraphs from Rahe's piece that appears on the conservative website RICOCHET.

==== QUOTE ====

Cardinal Bernadin
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.

I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice – once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
====== END QUOTE =====

Post Script: Later in the day, after perusing the turmoil in the Catholic and public radio and blog-s-sphere) about Rahe's article, I listened to one Catholic radio show host attempt to tear down Rahe's essay with arguments that are best described as ad hominem, strawman, and equivocation/. This host criticize Rahe for being a blogger from nowhere, bitter, and inaccurate, and fallacious.  I carefully studied Rahe's essay, reading each paragraph 2-3 times, looking for fallacies (which I know something about), and concluded that Rahe's perspective was credible and accurate, objective, and redemptive in tone, to say nothing of his credentials as an historian. You'll notice the essay takes us back to the Magna Charta and moves forward through time, building a logical case for the bishop's failure to lead in recent memory, and giving over responsibility to the state, with advice and lessons for today and the future. Rahe also acknowledges that the bishops are doing a good job today. If  you want, however, to "read" Rahe with some biased emotion, subscribe to Rush Limbaugh and listen to today's program from about 1:45 to 2:15 PM ET. It was a rush.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Protestantism: No Moral Bark in the HHS Mandate Debate

Why the Protestant teaching of "Faith Alone" is Dangerous Ground.

Summary: Protestants can only argue the Constitutional side of the HHS Contraception Debate; they have no moral integrity to argue the moral side or what they have taught verbally, and practiced for decades

Here's the simple explanation of why Obama-Pelosi-Sebelius-and-Progressives (OPSP) think they are not violating Christian principles by mandating free contraception to all Americans.

They believe -- literally -- what Protestants have taught, that salvation is by FAITH ALONE (Sola Fide). While Protestants technically refer to Faith Alone in the concept of initial justification, it sounds to the ill-informed that it is the bedrock of Christian life -- that Christian principles are acts of the mind and not of the body.

Sola Fide became the banner cry of Protestants in objection to what they falsely believed was the teaching of Catholicism (that we are saved only through and by our works). Catholicism never taught that, but because of some misled bishops and at least one pope at the time of Luther and Calvin, the political emphasis was in the "works" direction. That caused Luther to rebel, something the Catholic Church does not fault him for. Calvin was a different sort. See footnote [1].

Now, most Protestants do not practice what they preach. They preach "Faith Alone" but they don't practice it. Out of their love for Christ they do good works. Plenty of them. They will argue that their "faith" informs their "life" or daily behavior.

This distinction between faith and works is an important distinction in the current political debate about OPSP's mandate for free contraception to all Americans.  The mandate's philosophy (and thus the philosophy of OPSP, is that Christianity is a "faith only" proposition. That is, it only exists in the mind. In other words, OPSP believe what Protestants have been saying out loud since the founding of the country: Our faith is what we do mentally, not what we do outwardly.

So, it is logical to OPSP that mandating a "work" should have no impact on the Christian "faith" -- because Christians are really just "faith alone" -- their religion is one of the mind -- it's just a psychological state -- a mental trick -- and it really has no effect on the physical realm -- or works.  To OPSP Christianity is a private matter -- what you do in your home or church -- and it should have no place in the physical, material realm. They ask, "Isn't that what faith alone means?"

But OPSP cannot say that to the "practicing" and "knowledgeable" Catholic [2], who have consistently taught that faith informs the works that we do. Catholicism has always taught that faith and works are inseparable -- two sides of the same coin. And that is why in the current debate it is Catholicism that leads the charge against the OPSP attack. Only the the Catholic Church has the moral integrity to do so. Protestants can only argue the Constitutional side of the issue; they have no moral integrity to argue the moral side or what they have taught verbally, and practiced for decades with regard to contraception, which leads logically to "faith alone" -- that religion is just a mental act (faith alone) and that contraception is morally okay.

See also my post on Humanae Vitae 17.

[Footnote 1] What upset Luther doesn't explain the other Protestant rebellions against the Church, e.g., Calvin's or Henry VIII's lust for power. Calvin's thirst was for spiritual control, Henry VIII's was for political control.

[Footnote 2] There are really very few "practicing" and "knowledgeable" American Catholics. Most have been Protestantized. Kathleen Sibelius, in fact, baptized a Catholic is now denied communion because of her political practice of supporting abortion and contraception. Catholic bloggers think Pelosi will soon be excommunicated since she has repeatedly fulfilled the canonical requirements of such an action over her support for abortion and contraception and other progressive, immoral policies. But, when the bishops get up the backbone to do what the Church requires, is another thing. 

Friday, February 10, 2012

Humanae Vitae (via the Holy Spirit) to the Rescue

The caption says: I TOLD YOU SO
AN OPEN LETTER TO MY PROTESTANT FAMILY WHO ARE CONVINCED CATHOLICISM IS WRONG AND ONLY THEIR CHURCH IS RIGHT.... even when they change churches because they don't like what their pastor was teaching.(*)

Dear Family,

I trust you are paying attention to this very important moral battle for the soul of our nation. You may be thinking that the Religious Liberty enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution is being trampled upon by Obama and his minions.

But there is a more important battle being waged. It is a battle for the souls of men and women, young and old, and those unborn as predicted by Pope Paul VI in 1968.


In 1968, the lone and very unpopular voice of Pope Paul VI wrote a REAFFIRMATION of Church teaching about artificial birth control and contraception in all its forms. The instrument was his Encyclical Letter OF HUMAN LIFE, (or in Latin the first words of the letter... Humanae Vitae.) No other Church agreed with the Pope, and EVERY other Church, especially those that had no respect for Catholicism) CHANGED their stance on birth control and allowed it. This was only one of many ways that moral relativism creeped into Christianity. But not so in Catholic teaching. Yes, many Catholics embraced Protestantism in practice. But the Church as a teaching institution protected by the promise of Christ in the Gospels,  never caved.

In 1968 Protestants and secularists laughed and ridiculed the Pope for his prophecies of the natural consequences that would beleaguer the world if artificial birth control was allowed. In section 17 of Humane Vitae he wrote (and I'm paraphrasing):

1. The road to infidelity in marriage will be opened wide.
2. There will be a general lowering of public morality.
3. Men would finally lose respect for the woman... and use "her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected an beloved companion."

Then the second paragraph of that section (17.2) reads this way, 44 years ago:

"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power (contraception) passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.... Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife."
At the time theologians (even Catholic theologians), physicians, sociologists, and all manner of other experts advised the pope to loosen the strings of the Church's teachings on contraception. But the Pope, being protected by the Holy Spirit (Christ's explicit promise) from promulgating doctrine in error, wrote Humane Vitae, and once again the Holy Spirit protected the Church from teaching error. (Mt 16:18-19, John 16:12-13, John 20:22-23)

And this past week we see it fulfilled, yet again.

And it is the only Church that has never reversed any teaching from the time of the Apostles. If you think it has changed, then you don't know the teachings of the Church but have listened to the misrepresentations of others who would marginalize the Church for their personal gain. 

This is why so many of us are Catholic. We'd rather be members of a Church that has proven its infallibility by NOT changing moral teachings, (even under intense pressure to do so), than to become moral relativists, like the rest of christian culture.... even the Orthodox. Truth does not change. Natural Law does not change. Christ does not change.    What is true is NOT up to us to decide.


* Ray Guarendi is right. There is a new atheism in the U.S. It comes from Christians who say, "There is a God. And he's just like me."

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Santorum, Bella, and Natural Law

Ivan Strenski, a progressive blogger questioned (in a nice way), Rick and Karen's Santorum decision to get pregnant late in life and bring Bella into the world. The original article by Ivan is HERE.  The first comment to the post was by "hsmom" who called Ivan's thinking "erroneous at best... and illogical." Hsmom's comments were good. But I felt the need to go further.

Ivan was being honest. He didn't understand how Santorum's "legalistic" behavior to Catholic teaching was good, because it brought such "suffering" into Bella's life. Ivan's logic is typical of many in the world. The only reality they understand is the one they can see and feel right before them at the moment.

Here are my two responses:

Ivan. Please consider:

A. Catholicism's teachings are based on 5,000 years of observing human history and how human experiences reveal what works and doesn't in the universe, i.e. natural law. The Catholic assumption is that life and the universe of reality is ultimately ordered, sophisticated, and benevolently intelligent. Although we cannot know everything, what we do know must be followed if we are to live a life approaching happiness, purpose and meaning. The doctrine is not arbitrary but is the faith's best interpretation of what is true, universally, for all human beings, regardless of our state in life.  Or, what is good, true and beautiful.

B.  Thus, Santorum, like other well-informed Catholics (and few Catholics are well-informed about their faith), is not being "legalistic" to an arbitrary rule, but rather a trust in 5,000 years of wisdom acquired by Judea-Christian understanding about what works in the long run, not just what we see before our eyes (c.f. Bella Santorum). There's a direct analogy to standing on the edge of a cliff and deciding to believe in the effects of gravity. If you trust what experience and scientists tell you, you'll step back from the cliff. That is not legalism in the pejorative sense. But it is following a rule (legalistically) that ensures your greater security. That is what the Church attempts to do under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

C. The problem with human kind is something called "sin" or (to put it in less theological terms) the willful, knowledgeable disobedience of a law of nature. Natural law exists in the physical as well as the psychological realms. Sin is like stepping off that cliff when you've been told that doing so is going to hurt. When pride tells us that we're going to do what we want and screw the theologians and historians and scientists.... then we or others get hurt.

D. Your assumption is that YOU know what is better for Bella, Rick, and their world, than what God (or Providence, or Natural Law) has ordained to occur in their life. And your solution to what you perceive is Rick's problem (a sick child that "suffers") requires that Rick and his wife step off a cliff that they have been clearly warned will cause them harm in ways that you and they cannot conceive. Rick and his wife trust in the wisdom of the ages, not just what they see before their eyes. Rick and his wife understand that they don't understand everything, and what they see is not necessarily what is true when confronted with all of reality, if they could see and understand it. You comments assume that what you see is all there is to understand. But I don't think that intellectually you really believe that.

E. Lastly, we don't want the innocent to suffer. But because our pride-filled propensity to sin (e.g. ignoring natural law when we know better) suffering is a part of the moral world in which we live. Blame pride and ego. But God in his mercy and grace brings meaning out of that suffering, even by the innocent. Christ, innocent in all ways, suffered and died a cruel death for the salvation (in the eternal afterlife) for all of us. Just as a soldier gives his life for his comrades; a willful suffering for the benefit of others. We have no idea how huge Bella's suffering may be, nor do we have any idea how huge and meaningful her suffering is. But to enact one of your solutions would be to bring suffering of a sinful sort, and such disobedience is always like walking off that cliff saying," I am smarter than gravity." This is where we trust God for the short time we are on this earth. For there is eternity to face. This is but a training ground for what is beyond.

Second comment to Ivan:


Not to belabor this, but perhaps this, too, is worthy of your consideration: Your solution to Bella's implied suffering, is that the Santorums should have contracepted, or aborted. On the "contracepted" see my earlier post. But on the "aborted" you imply that killing Bella in the womb would be less "suffering" (and therefore a good) than letting her live and "suffer."  (My earlier post hoped to argue that "suffering" is not a bad thing, ,but there's more to the argument that suffering can be good. See below.)  By extension, if you believe Bella in the womb is a human being, you must also believe that killing a sick child is better than letting her live. And by extension, the same would apply to all adults who are suffering. Would you now care to define "suffering" in terms of when it should prompt suicide or murder? Trusting in the Church's teachings will save you from these sort of dilemmas.

Is suffering good or bad?  Suffering is the result of sin... a bad thing, even when that suffering occurs to a "good" person. The suffering may not be the result of the person's weakness or sin, but rather is the result of humankind's sinful, weak, and imperfect condition... that is, our propensity as a group to ignore what we know (or sometimes don't know) about the nature of reality. This understanding applies to tsunamis as well as adultery, although it may take longer to explain the former than the latter. )  The suffering of a person who has sinned (ignored natural law) should inform the person about what not to do next time if she wants to be happier. On the other hand, suffering by the "innocent" is a call to their lives to pray and offer up their lives as a lesson in helping others to care for others. Thus, Bella is put into the Santorum's life as an "object lesson" that will draw the Santorums and all of us who "watch" the Santorums, how to care for others. Humanity is about caring for others. The dependent around us (like Bella) fulfill a great purpose in teaching those of us who are not so dependent, to care for others. Thus, we the healthy and proud, can be brought low and humbled (in a good way), because others need us to care for them. As human beings we need to learn to care for others. Life is about relationships. Bella teaches us all these great lessons. And by extension, we just might learn that God looks on us as we look on Bella--from God's perspective, we (the "normal") are far from healthy and we need a great deal of help. We are dependent on God's grace, if not his forgiveness, then just to breath and live. For the complexity and sophistication and intelligent benevolence of nature sustains us.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Success Down Under with American Media

One of Nineveh's Crossing consistent customers is Fr. Adrian Head from South Australia. Fr. Adrian pastors three parishes: St. Vincent de Paul in Cleve (pictured at right), Our Lady Star of the Sea in Cowell, and Sacred Heart in Kimba.

Fr. Adrian stays active as an evangelist, too. He's always ordering copies of several of our Catholic apologetic DVDs movies and related media to give away. No one gives the DVDs back to him, so he has to buy another. Recently he asked me to special order a Kindle Fire for him before they were on sale in Australia. It arrived safely.

Recently he wrote:
One day I will send you a list of the movie DVDs that I tend to buy. These are doing so much good here in this parish. I was talking to a loyal parishioner who with his wife visited their daughter in England and went around Europe and he said that the amount of religious practice there is often very low.....whereas our small parish of Cleve - including three other small towns - compares very favorably. I am lucky to be in such a lovely parish and I can see young ones and young marrieds growing spiritually with some help from me and from the valuable books and DVDs on the faith and spirituality. Something which has come into prominence in the world now is the Kindle and Audible and it is putting bookstores in Australia out of business, except those that offer assistance in downloading books onto the Kindle. Another thing that amazes me is the interest in Natural Family Planning among my parishioners, even the younger ones, and I am able to help this along with good materials, particularly from the WOOMB organisation that Drs John and Evelyn Billings began with such great success.

Friday, February 3, 2012

White House Misrepresents Its Own Contraceptive Mandate

The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1). In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.

The Forgotton Man - McNaughton Painting Video

Fr. John Riccardo on KNOWING JESUS

Here is Fr. John Riccardo's 35 min sermon before the weekday congregation at Kensington Community Church, the Protestant Church that produced the DVD, Common Ground that we distribute.

Father John Riccardo at Kensington 5/28/11 from Kensington on Vimeo.