President Obama’s Faithful Helpers

President Obama’s decision to close the Vatican embassy—moving the ambassador and his staff into shared office space in the building housing the U. S. Embassy to Italy—is viewed by many, including several former ambassadors to the Vatican, as yet another attempt by the Obama administration to further marginalize the influence of the Holy See.

While the Obama administration cites security concerns in an email to the Daily Caller (after the September, 11, 2012 attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya) as the reason for the closure, James Nicholson, the ambassador to the Vatican from 2001 until 2005, described the move as a “massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties … an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican,” telling a writer for the National Catholic Reporter that the move is “turning the embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy.”

Nicholson’s sentiments were echoed by other former ambassadors to the Vatican including Francis Rooney, Mary Ann Glendon, Raymond Flynn and Thomas Melady.  And although current Ambassador Kenneth Hackett, a recent Obama appointee, defended the move by suggesting that other countries operate under a similar space-sharing arrangement, former Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon dismissed such a defense saying that the importance of the relationship between the U. S. and the Vatican “merits its own location and profile.”

The criticisms of the embassy closure have come from former ambassadors from both sides of the political aisle.  While Glendon, Nicholson, Rooney and Melady were appointed by Republican presidents, Raymond Flynn, one of the most vocal critics of the closure, was appointed by President Clinton.

In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Flyn said “it’s not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East who are our antagonists but it’s also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See…. There’s no diplomatic or political benefit to the United States.”

Part of a Pattern of Marginalizing Faithful Voices
The Obama administration has demonstrated hostility to the Catholic Church throughout his presidency—especially in his most recent removal of religious freedom protections through the Health and Human Services mandate on health care. The HHS mandate requires that all organizations—including Catholic colleges, universities, hospitals and social service organizations—provide insurance coverage that includes abortion inducing drugs like Ella and Plan B, contraceptives, and sterilization procedures.  This mandate requires Catholics to purchase insurance that the Catholic Church teaches is seriously immoral.  The HHS mandate forces Catholic employers to pay for and facilitate access to products and services that are in opposition to their deeply held moral and religious beliefs.

This latest insult to Catholics by President Obama is just the most recent attempt to weaken the influence of the Church on family and life issues. It is a strategy that has been effective for the President since the earliest days of his presidential campaign when he enlisted the help of progressive Catholic groups like the George Soros-supported Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister-organization, Catholics United, to successfully convince Catholic voters to focus on social justice issues like poverty as the way to reduce abortion rates without restricting abortion rights.  Refusing to hold politicians like President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius accountable for their votes in favor of partial birth abortion and taxpayer funded abortion here and abroad, the Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United encouraged Catholics to elect candidates who would address what they called the “root causes” of abortion.

Indeed, Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United wisely refrained from open support for abortion, declining to engage authentically in the contentious culture wars surrounding abortion by appearing to take the moral high ground in their messaging, while at the same time promoting pro-abortion policies and candidates like Kathleen Sebelius for cabinet positions.

These groups and their leaders have been well-rewarded for their support for the President.  In fact, liberation theologian, Miguel Diaz, President Obama’s choice to be ambassador to the Holy See in 2009, has served as “theological consultant to the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.”  (Currently part of his is vita posted on the College of St. Benedict website).  Sharing the progressive ideology of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Diaz was described in an article by Edward Pentin published in Catholic World Report on May 12, 2011 as approaching pro-life issues “pragmatically.”  When questioned about his support for pro-abortion politicians, Diaz told Catholic News Service that he believed Obama was “committed to working with people who defend life in the womb.”  And, when asked why he supported Kathleen Sebelius, Diaz responded that Sebelius worked to reduce the number of abortions as governor of Kansas—despite the fact that during her tenure she vetoed antiabortion legislation in 2003, 2005, 2006 and again in 2008, and vetoed a bill aimed at strengthening late-term abortion laws and preventing “coerced abortion.”

Ambassador Miguel Diaz: A Most Faithful Obama Helper
Despite his political work with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good throughout the Obama campaign, and his strong support for Kathleen Sebelius’s “pragmatic” policies on abortion, Diaz was not President Obama’s first choice for the Vatican ambassadorship in 2009.  According to the U K Telegraph, President Obama wanted to appoint Caroline Kennedy, the pro-abortion daughter of President John F. Kennedy, as ambassador.  But, Kennedy’s strong—and open—support for abortion would have made her unacceptable to the Holy See.  Diaz, has never publicly supported abortion—even though he has supported some of the most pro-abortion politicians in the country.

Beyond his affiliation with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Diaz has also been affiliated with Voice of the Faithful—a progressive organization that emerged in the wake of the clergy abuse scandal in 2002 with the goal of supporting victims, but has since expanded its goal to include major structural reform of the Church, including diminishing the authority of priests and bishops and empowering the laity.

Diaz & BenedictDiaz contributed to the Voice of the Faithful’s “Promise of Vatican II” Discussion Series by participating in a 45 minute DVD presentation entitled “Becoming a World Church.” In the video, Diaz draws upon the documents Lumen gentium and Gaudium et spes to argue for an empowered laity and a diminished role for Church hierarchy. For Diaz, as the Church moves closer to a “world Church” that embraces “popular Catholicism”—a religion that emerges from the people and the people’s experiences rather than from Scripture and the official teachings of the Church, the religion becomes more authentic because it emanates from oppressed people themselves.

In his co-authored book, From the Heart of Our People, Diaz and his contributors draw from the language of  Liberation Theology to argue for “popular Catholicism” as a form of religion itself—a “religion of those treated as subaltern by both society and Church in the  United States … it contains offers and transmits the theological contents and principles that ground a hermeneutic of the faith … the ultimate foundation of the people’s innermost being and common expression of the collective soul of the people.”  From this perspective, “popular” does not mean prevalent, but rather refers to the religious beliefs that emerge from the people themselves.

According to Maria Pilar Aquino’s chapter in Diaz’s co-authored book, popular Catholicism is a religion within which people construct a complex and dynamic vision of the world, connect their religious experience to other ecclesial traditions of life and thought, resist the avalanche of dominant religions and ideologies and confront historical reality’s present contradictions and future possibilities.”

As a proponent of popular Catholicism, Diaz, like his co-author Orlando Espin, maintain that theology is always cultural and any attempt to de-culturalize the theological and religious expressions of a community is sinful. For proponents of popular Catholicism, “those who privilege the ecclesiastical institution as the witness to true Catholicism” are always wrong.

Blessed Pope John Paul II recognized the danger of popular Catholicism more than thirty years ago and denounced the idea of the “people’s Church” in harsh terms—predicting that “The Church born of the people is a new invention that was both absurd and of perilous character … only with difficulty could it avoid being infiltrated by strangely ideological connotations.”

Having read his published work and heard his speeches, it is easy to understand why President Obama chose Miguel Diaz as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.  It is also easy to understand why the movement to close the U.S. Embassy began during Ambassador Diaz’s tenure.  He said so himself. On November 26, in a Catholic News Service interview, Diaz said that “he was closely involved in decision-making about moving the embassy and doesn’t believe there’s any element of downgrading the post.”  Diaz also added that “plans for the move have been in the works since the administration of President George W. Bush.”  If that were true, then the State Department’s official rationale for closing the embassy because of “security concerns” related to Benghazi would have to be untrue. The attack on the embassy in Bengazi occurred in 2012. Perhaps Diaz should help co-ordinate the “official reason” for the closure with the State Department.

Now that Diaz has moved on from his ambassadorship and returned to academia—accepting an endowed chair at the University of Dayton in Ohio—Catholic News Agency reported in January 18, 2013 that President Obama had attempted to find a replacement yet again from the Board of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to take Diaz’s place when he stepped down.  Catholic University’s Professor Stephen F. Schneck, was described by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter as “making the rounds” as a possible appointment for U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.  For President Obama, Schneck would have been a perfect choice because of his affiliation with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and for his willingness to openly criticize the bishops when he believes they have crossed the line into politics.

Indeed, in 2009 Schneck was one of 26 Catholic scholars who signed the statement, “Catholics for Sebelius,” supporting President Obama’s selection of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. A serial signer of these kinds of open statements, Schneck’s was also one of 24 signatures on a full-page ad published in the South Bend Tribune titled “Catholic Leaders and Theologians Welcome President Obama to Notre Dame.”  The ad was sponsored by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and was intended to criticize the bishops who were protesting the University of Notre Dame’s decision to award an honorary degree to the President.

Even though the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, archbishop of Denver at the time, said that “the work of Democratic Party affiliated groups like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue,” Schneck continues to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

For President Obama, Schneck would have been a perfect choice as ambassador to the Vatican because in addition to criticizing the Catholic bishops on life issues and religious liberty concerns, Schneck is always willing to attack Republicans for behavior that he views as “contrary” to Catholic teachings.  In 2011, when Speaker of the House John Boehner was invited to give the commencement address at the Catholic University of America, Schneck organized a protest—enlisting 78 faculty members from Catholic colleges and universities—to sign an open letter to the Speaker criticizing him for failing to protect the poor. Ignoring Boehner’s strong pro-life voting record, Schneck and his colleagues scolded the Speaker for the budget he shepherded to passage in the House of Representatives because they believe it gives tax cuts to the wealthy and removes protections for others.  Claiming that Boehner’s voting record is at variance from the Church’s “most ancient moral teachings to preference the needs of the poor,” Schneck has championed some of the strongest proponents of abortion—including President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.

While Schneck was not chosen for the ambassadorship to the Vatican, President Obama has appointed yet another “pragmatically” pro-life leader in Kenneth Hackett, the former head of Catholic Relief Services.  According to John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews.com, only four days after formally beginning his post as the new US ambassador to the Vatican, Ken Hackett, “took a swipe at pro-life Americans who criticized CRS for funding groups promoting abortion and contraception.”  Campaign records indicate that Hackett, who  received $300,00 per year as head of the poverty relief organization according to GuideStar filings—was a donor to the Obama presidential campaign.

In a National Catholic Reporter interview from October 25, 2013, Hackett describes his role as “representing the president and our government to members of the Roman Curia and to the Holy See generally on issues that are a priority for us, recognizing that the Holy See is truly global in its reach…there are many, many issues where the U.S. government finds not just common cause with the Vatican but a real convergence of priorities.”  When asked whether he was concerned about giving “cover” to an administration that some Catholics in the United States see as hostile, Hackett responded that he was “not troubled by that … when there are disagreements, we have to dialogue rather than throwing bricks at one another….”

Now, Hackett is providing cover for President Obama’s decision to downgrade the status of the embassy itself.  Claiming that the decision to close the embassy was more about security than anything else, Hackett was quoted in a November 20 article in National Catholic Reporter as saying that “the new site will give visitors the impression that the United States is serious about engaging the Vatican.”  Likewise, Miguel Diaz lauds the decision he helped to make—telling John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter that the criticisms of the closure of the embassy is coming from “representatives of Republican presidents” so it has a “partisan edge.”  Perhaps it is time for Diaz to read the strongly worded statement against the closure of the embassy from Ambassador Flynn—a Clinton appointee.

Editor’s note: Lead image pictures Pope Francis meeting the new U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Kenneth Hackett (CNS photo/L’Osservatore Romano). Photo in text pictures Ambassador Miguel Diaz presenting his credentials to Pope Benedict XVI.

Anne Hendershott

By

Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Veritas Center at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education; The Politics of Abortion; and The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books). She is also the co-author of Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are Revitalizing the Catholic Church (2013).

  • What’s the reference for that quote by Bl. John Paul about the dangers of a “Church born of the people”? That might come in handy.

    • Anne Hendershott

      In 1982 Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote a letter to the Nicaraguan bishops denouncing the “people’s Church” in especially harsh terms. The full text of the letter is described in Malachi Martin’s book The Jesuits on pages 55-56.

      • Nestorian

        Are you trying to claim or imply that the Somoza regime was good for the Nicaraguan people? Is this what Pope John Paul II was trying to claim or imply? If so, he was dead wrong.

        • Art Deco

          There was no “Somoza regime” in 1982. It had been run off the premises by a national insurrection which concluded in July 1979.

          The Sandinista regime had one consistent skill: suborning minority factions of various competing or antagonistic social groups. You had Vichy political parties, Vichy trade unions, and Vichy religious congregations as well.

  • lifeknight

    I noticed that the National Catholic Reporter is cited several times and not the National Catholic Register. The Reporter is the liberal media as opposed to the Register. At any rate, you get what you vote for! Remember that over 50% of American “Catholics” voted for the current president. For most, they KNEW Obama was a pro-abort who was willing and anxious to stifle the religious freedom of all Christians. How can we be shocked that the Vatican Embassy is no more? Perhaps those catacombs will come in handy in the near future!

    • Objectivetruth

      Obama is enemy number one for the Catholic Church. It’s time to end polite conversation with fellow Catholics who voted (twice) for Obama and let them know of the evil they’ve cooperated with. Sebelius even went as far as to declare in a memo from her desk at the HHS (I believe on Good Friday in April) that pregnancy is a “preventable disease.” Screwtape is hard at work with current “diabolic ventriloquy” that is being used by the Obama administration, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood surrounding abortion.

      Wake up, Catholics. It’s time for martyrdom. Christ does not necessarily want us to be successful, but as His Church Militant He wants us to go down fighting for Him.

      • AcceptingReality

        I’ve done that….let Catholics know they have co-operated with evil. It’s the right thing to do. But be prepared to be shunned. And when they do that, repay the shunning with prayers and kindness.

        • Objectivetruth

          I have been shunned. And Christ and the thousands of martyred saints were shunned, so we will be in glorious company! We at our baptismal promise are to preach the Good News!

          • Adam__Baum

            Funny thing about the Catholic Left. The Catholic is negotiable, the left is not. They’ll tolerate your divorce and remarriage, but you better be for hope and change. Curious sorts, they are.

            • Nestorian

              Please refrain from accusing the catholic Left of a negotiable faith when the same inclination to make the faith negotiable has been in abundant evidence among the Catholic Right in recent weeks in the wake of Pope Francis’s apostolic letter.

              • Art Deco

                Rubbish. The Catholic left in this country maintains a loyalty to the Democratic Party in spite of that organization’s dogmatic committment to policy prescriptions which are horrific and violate non-negotiable moral principles and coerce faithful Catholics. The Catholic right takes exception to sloppy formulations and non-binding episcopal opinion.

              • Adam__Baum

                Interesting how the left takes the Pope’s criticisms and neatly wraps it in their prescriptions, as if this letter has overturned the prohibition against strange gods, including the strangest the state.

            • Art Deco

              “Curious” is an anodyne way of putting it.

      • Don

        I agree but to a large extent, the pro-abortion Catholic forces are being empowered by bishops who are too close to the liberal left for other causes. Unless bishops start to come down with force of the pro-abortion Catholics members of the administration and Congress, this will be worse before it gets better.

        • Objectivetruth

          Then we only have to look to the great saint Catherine of Siena, who writing to the corrupt bishop of Florence, stating “I can smell your stench from here.”

          • Adam__Baum

            Sounds like that quote should be included in some letters to the cheerleader in Gotham.

            • Objectivetruth

              Hopefully he won’t swoop in and reply to my posting and refer to St. Catherine as “that pushy old Italian broad.”

              • Adam__Baum

                You must be talking about H111 and his ethnic prejudices.

                I’m still pondering the great art involved in coining the term “diabolic ventriloquy”.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Yup….

                • Objectivetruth

                  C.S. Lewis…..”Screwtape Letters.”

          • Deacon Ed Peitler

            It might be worthwhile for Crisis to actually do a piece taking St. Catherine’s letter as the catalyst for a discussion of the state of the episcopacy in the USA.

      • Adam__Baum

        Obama is just the phalanx of an entire political order that is hostile to the Church, the Family and the person.

        We’ve never been very good at knowing the enemy. Teddy Roosevelt was explicitly anti-Catholic, an imperial and venal demogogue, and how many people place him in a position of honor?

        Now the political order is institutionalized.

        It attacked the person with Roe v. Wade on one end of the spectrum, and the death panels that Bart Stupak (ironic name) helped give us the death panels that will usher us out at the end.

        The wreckage of the family is clear, and that campaign was briliantly multi-faceted and successful. Divorce, contraception and the welfare state have ensured the decomposition and exhaustion of the nuclear family, and enshrined “single mothers” as a normative form, equal in quality but more honorable than the nuclear family.

        Now it’s the Church’s turn. For years, the acquiesence of of clerics was obtained through a variety of grants and bequests. As a result, we have an Episcopacy that grovels at the feet of politicians, even as they notice the water they’ve been immersed is becoming uncomfortable.

        Once the intermediating institutions are gone, the individual stands alone against the state, and that’s a bit like being in Tim Samaras’ car last May (not making light of the man’s death, if you know the details, you know he was considered among the most cautious of the storm chasers, and the guy who was translating his knowledge not into film for the prurient interest, but sounder structures, yet the monster got him)

        I’d amend the last paragraph to say “wake up Cardinal”. That crimson attire is supposed to be a sign of your willingness to die. Just the use of the term “cheerleader” is a disturbing declaration of a glib lack of situational awareness.

        • Objectivetruth

          Agree. For me, Obama’s position on abortion and the sanctity of human life was clearly confirmed when he said “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby” if they became pregnant.

          • Adam__Baum

            Better they be “Julia”.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      98% of Catholic Americans in that election voted for evil. The only question was what they considered the lesser evil to be- the holocaust of abortion and euthanasia, or the economic usury against the poor and middle class.

      The only candidates for good, were marginalized into third parties, kicked out by big tent Dems and big tent GOP alike.

      • Adam__Baum

        In case there is anybody new wandering through here and reading Theodore for the first time and is tempted to believe that the peppering of his prose with terms like usury indicates technical competence and rigorous fidelity to orthodoxy, be advised that Theodore advised that one should imprudently eschew properly insuring one’s affairs in order to fund charitable giving, but revealed that he bungled the purchase of a time share.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Like you’ve never bungled anything, Adam.

          • Adam__Baum

            The issue isn’t your bungling, but the aftermath.
            We all bungle. Adults admit it, learn from it and move on.
            Most importantly, they’d blame others or whine incessantly.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              There was also bungling on the other side. Despite the foreclosure in 2002, for the past 11 years I’ve been receiving bills for maintenance fees. Since it was foreclosed upon and I no longer own the property, I refuse to pay. THAT is what hurts my credit- though the official amount I owe has stabilized (next year I’ll be charged for 2014 maintenance fees when 2007 maintenance fees get written off). I’ve tried writing to the Florida Better Business Bureau; I’ve gotten 2 out of three reporting agencies to stop taking reports from that resort entirely, and I’ve got a nice letter hidden away to show the judge should they ever take me to court over it.

              Fraud is fraud. You can’t protect yourself from it. If it isn’t a timeshare in Florida, then it’s the banks in New York or the credit card from South Dakota.

              I found this rather profanity-laden article on the subject:
              http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/

              Numbers 5 to 3 on that list I’d consider to be fraudulent capitalism, yet you tell me fraudulent capitalism doesn’t exist.

              • Adam__Baum

                Of course fraud exists, but that proposition neither supports your claim that your particular case is one of fraud or that capitalism is engenders fraud.
                When you assert “you can’t protect yourself from fraud”, you assert an absolute. Of course you can’t protect yourself from all fraud, no more than you can

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  I excuse fraud in nobody- in either government or business. Where fraud is able to exist is a systemic flaw; there aren’t enough double checks to prevent it.

                  I admit I screwed up. But there shouldn’t be a possibility for people to screw up.

                  The one lawyer I did consult early on, counseled me to never pay a penny on the maintenance fees- because doing so, admits that the contract is legal and binding! Taking them to court over it, would just cost me more in legal fees than I’d save. Pay one red cent, and you agree to the changed terms of the contract, and you’re on the hook for maintenance fees on a property you no longer own, in perpetuity! No way out.

                  I don’t expect you to agree with me that it is fraud- you do, after all, claim that all contracts are always legal and binding, and any attempt to regulate contracts is in fact an illegitimate intrusion into the marketplace. You are afraid to agree with me that it is possible for people to be destroyed by contracts written by the rich.

                  • Art Deco

                    I cannot figure why you did not just sell the bloody thing.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Because the value of timeshares in the secondary market is squat.

                      Theodore gets more value from cutting off his nose to spite his face, than from grabbing a tissue.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      I would have taken a loss on it. It did not sale at all.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      And once again, the focus on money. So, you’d rather spend 20 years furiously trying to convince the unconvincable that you are the victim of anything other than yourself, and impair your good name rather than just book the loss you TOOK ANYWAY and move on.

                      You kind of reminds me of the guy I knew who would drive 10 miles out of the way to save a nickel on gas and declare a small victory against OPEC.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      I would have taken a loss on it if I had found anybody interested at even one thin dime, just to be out from under the maintenance fees.

                      Given how they acted after the foreclosure, I’m not sure selling it would have changed anything at all, since their contract had unilateral clauses in it (as in “we reserve the right to change any term of this contract”, just like every financial contract I’ve ever seen). I can guarantee you the contract for your checking account has the same clause.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      It doesn’t matter if you see if contract in the world, you clearly don’t know how to interpret the language and you won’t get a lawyer.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      If you need to interpret the language in a contract, then it is because the party that drew up the contract is attempting fraud.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Then you give it away or get an attorney to negotiate an exit.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      “trust the lawyer to fix what lawyers have broken”. Yeah, right, pull the other one. All an attorney will do is charge me a ton of money and then do nothing.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      You will have an attorney, no matter what. It’ll either be a competent lawyer or you.

                      There’s reason they say he who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.

                      Anything in your quest to make yourself a victim.

                    • Art Deco

                      I have heard they sell poorly in the secondary market. I think that is peculiar inasmuch as people buy them in the primary market. Still, it would be worth your while just to sell it for a token sum to be rid of the trouble and the threat to your credit score.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Well if you think about it, a timeshare is a highly customized product, it can’t be moved, it’s for a specific time and you have to find a buy with an identical time and geographic preference. Customized or specialized products always sell at a deep discount.

                      If Theodore had spent 1/100 of the time and effort he’s expended trying to get the last word here on twenty years after the fact on getting a lawyer before he entered the contract, he might have avoided this mess. Had he consulted a lawyer as soon as it turned South, he might have kept his name unsullied.

                      Instead, he’ll continue to excrete in the wind, because he’s emotionally attached to this fantasy he created. His continual attempts to explain, defend and justify his actions actually point to addiction. As with all addicts, they must admit they are addicted and it’s destructive. This usually comes after they hit wrong bottom. He has made a claim of being being autistic and unproductive, repetitive behavior is part of that disorder.

                      Of course, I have a bit of OCD, so. I won’t quit either.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      Tried that, got taken $500 by a realtor who listed it and then it didn’t sell. Directly after that, I fell behind on the payments and they foreclosed.

                      And then proceeded to continue to bill me for maintenance fees on a property I no longer own.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      You never did own it. You had a limited right of occupancy, a “beneficial interest”. You’d have known that if you had legal counsel.
                      Do you realize every post makes you look more imprudent, less informed and sympathetic.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      Then they shouldn’t be billing me for maintenance fees.

                      The entire point of my story is that prudence is not possible, given a sufficiently determined con artist.

                    • Art Deco

                      The entire point of my story is that prudence is not possible, given a sufficiently determined con artist.

                      Determined? How determined if it was in the contract?

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      Yep, in the contract was the clause “The resort reserves the right to change the terms of this contract with appropriate notice”.

                      I’m now wiser- contracts like this is the reason I don’t have credit cards. People including such language in contracts have an intent to commit fraud.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Those things are separate, even if you don’t understand why. You think you should be relieved of the fees, their position is we don’t reward people for default.

                      Prudence is always possible. I always tell my clients, don’t buy things you don’t understand.

                      How thick must you be not to understand GET A LAWYER before you enter a contract.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      The real prudence is, don’t enter contracts because all contracts are fraud. ESPECIALLY those you need a lawyer to understand, because we live under the rule of corruption, not the rule of law. Your ” you need a lawyer to do any buying and selling in society” is proof of the fraud.

                    • Art Deco

                      A realtor of my acquaintance: “price is what sells a house”. You should have put it up on Ebay for a dollar.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    You never talk about government fraud, never. But post after post about the private sector. Silence is consent.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2013/12/an-example-of-unfettered-capitalism-new.html

                      Just this morning I posted something in my blog about Government Fraud. It’s just that I don’t see any big distinction between government fraud and business fraud, is all.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Post something here once in a while. Time is limited and I’ve seen nothing posted here to recommend your blog, now that I know it exists.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      I will when I see somebody here actually defend the government- as opposed to defending the right of businesses to do whatever they please.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    • flourgiggy

      I wondered the same thing myself — why the National Catholic Register??

    • balancechaos

      The Vatican Embassy is NOT “no more”. This embassy was simply moved to a more secure location closer to the Vatican. The move saves the taxpayer money and makes sense at every level. Politicizing this sensible decision is simply playing politics. The Vatican is very happy with its current relationship with the US. Vatican press office representative, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, is full of praise for Ken Hackett, the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, saying “at this critical time in history, he brings eminent credentials to represent the United States to the Vatican,” and that there is “a very good feeling right now” between the two countries.” If Obama were truly anti-Catholic, how could he have brought himself to say that he had been “hugely impressed” with Pope Francis, “not because of any particular issue” but because he seemed to be “thinking about how to embrace people as opposed to push them away … He seems somebody who lives out the teachings of Christ. Incredible humility, incredible sense of empathy to the least of these, to the poor … He’s also somebody who’s, I think, first and foremost, thinking about how to embrace people as opposed to push them away. How to find what’s good in them as opposed to condemn them.” I know some of you hate Obama, but let’s at least try to be honest.

    • This is why you are losing the argument. The President is not “Pro-abort.” The President does believe that a woman has a right of choice and that is the law of the land. “… the Vatican Embassy is no more” is sheer nonsense. The embassy is simply being moved to comparable (or better) quarters closer to the Vatican. Moreover, the move was initiated by Condi Rice who also happens to be pro-choice.

      Therefore, it’s perfectly obvious that Rice and Obama conspired to insult the Catholic Church. What other explanation could there possibly be?

      • Adam__Baum

        Prohibition and Segregation were the law of the land. That is such a noxious and stupid argument.

        There was no argument, just fiat, designed to appeal to trolling “Cranky Jewish queers” Your words, not mine.

      • lifeknight

        It is obvious by your word usage that you are pro-abortion. There is NO such thing as “choice” for the killing of innocent pre born children. Rice and Obama are pro aborts and anyone who believes differently is simply part of the Culture of Death.

    • tom mcmorrow

      The best counter-attack on this hatred towards the Judeo-Christian ethos is to lobby to free Jonathan Pollard, the Jewish-American spy. He’s served decades and any thoughtful Christian would agree he deserves freedom this Christmas.

      • lifeknight

        What does that have to do with ANYTHING posted? Interestingly enough, my husband went to Stanford with Mr. Pollard. Big deal. I don’t see how his freedom would impact the pro life arena. You get a big ??? Merry Christmas.

    • The Truth

      When you sleep with dogs you get flea’s. the church has been in bed with the Democratic Party for decades, now they’ll see what they’ll get for their patronage.

  • Paul Tran

    Those who start with rewriting Scripture will soon rewrite history.

    • Adam__Baum

      Railroaders have an expression: Rulebooks are written in blood. The compositions you refer to will use the same ink.

  • Art Deco

    I doubt the Ambassador to the Vatican has much to do all day, so conjoining the post to that of Ambassador to Italy seems sensible.

    Thanks for the heads up about the corruption of Catholic Relief Services. I had heard nothing about this.

    The pseudonymous “Diogenes” who wrote for the old Catholic World Report blog used to have a grossly funny feature where he would offer a brief description of an un-named official of some Catholic apostolate and then ask the reader to consider what this person should do if they have $500 or $1,000 lying around. The punch line was always to name the official, name his position, and link to the Federal Elections Commission posting to show that the funds went to John Kerry’s campaign.

    • Adam__Baum

      It is a sovereign nation, and it isn’t any more sensible than “conjoining” the Ambassadorships of any two other sovereign nations. I dount the Ambassador to most countries has much to do. The value of all Ambassadors is attested to by the dispatch of Caroline to Japan.

      I suppose if we called it disparate treatment discrimination that might speak the language of the left.

      If Mary Ann Glendon and Raymond Flynn, et al all object, one has to be suspicious of the message and the motives, but I think not to be suspicious of this regime at this point would suggest a certain somnolence.

      • Art Deco

        I think the average ambassador has about 30-odd people working under him, so they likely do have work to do. With regard to plumbs for contributors, I think they usually have a deputy from the career ranks who does the work and gets the Ambassador to sign and initial a la Radar O’Reilly betwixt and between ceremonial appearances. There is a retired foreign service officer who blogs under the nom de plume of “Diplomad 2.0” who might have some insights on that.

        Again, there are about 4,000 people employed at the Vatican and we did without an ambassador up until about 25 years ago. I cannot imagine it is more time consuming than being posted to a Caribbean island state with 100,000 people living on it (we do not need a different person accredited to San Marino, either).

        • Adam__Baum

          I have no objection to reducing the Ambassadorial corps (across the board), it seems supercillious in the age of instantaneous, encrypted electronic communication.

          Of course that’s not happening. It’s one nation being singled out, a snub and has nothing to do with administrative efficiency.

          I’ll take the witness of the people who did the job, and understand the subtleties of diplomatic messaging, as the most credible and authoritative guidance on the matter.

          • Guest

            No kidding. The Left will explain away all the can.

    • flourgiggy

      Since new Vatican Ambassador Kenneth Hackett was given the munificent sum of $300,000 per year to head Catholic Relief Services, I don’t think CRS needs our contributions.

      And with that type of princely income, he surely had more than “$500 or $1000 lying around” to donate to lots of questionable political campaigns.

      • Guest

        I am sure the salary was donated to the Church.

        • Adam__Baum

          “I am sure the salary was donated to the Church.”
          Right after the check was wriiten to “Obama 2012”

  • Pingback: Why Pope Francis is Time's "Person of the Year" - BigPulpit.com()

  • Pingback: President Obama’s Faithful Helpers | Catholic Canada()

  • hombre111

    The horror. The horror. A Church that is not shaped like a pyramid.

    • Art Deco

      The horror is that there are people of influence in the Church who are happily and readily suborned by the Regime. Read Andrew van der Bijl’s account of how that worked in Bulgaria ca. 1960.

      • hombre111

        I would gladly read Andrew V. but I have to go to St. Paul’s and hear confessions in Spanish, then to Holy Cross, to hear confessions in English and Spanish.

    • Adam__Baum

      Be careful. If the polical left stops too quickly, you might experience a cranial impaction.

  • Ms. Henderschott is being disingenuous. The adjacent buildings for the new embassy were purchased by the Bush administration for this purpose. While they are now in the same compound as the U.S. Embassy to Italy. It will have it’s own separate building and a separate entrance on a different street. The new building is actually a tenth of a mile closer to the Vatican than the old one. There will be no reduction in staff or activities.

    Just to be clear the current embassy is NOT in the Vatican.

    • Guest

      The former Ambassadors got it wrong but you have it correct? Is that it?

      • That’s an argument from ignorance. It’s baloney. You are conflating and confusing two different concepts.

        The first of these is the opinion of the former ambassadors. For various reasons, they have opposed moving the embassy. They are entitled to their opinion. I lack sufficient diplomatic erudition to agree or disagree.

        The second pertains to issues of fact. My comment only relates to those. None of the ambassadors have conflicts (that I am aware of) with my understanding of the facts pertaining to a) who initiated the move and; b) the physical provisions for the new chancery.

        The true FACTS do not support any notion of religious bias or some sinister conspiracy. The embassy is being moved to comparable quarters closer to the Vatican and the move was initiated by Condi Rice.

        • Guest

          To deny politics and ideology have no role in this is to deny reality.

    • Objectivetruth

      It’s optics. The closing of the embassy is a long list of insults, diminishments and attacks on the Catholic Church being perpetrated by the Obama administration.

      • Rich

        Right. And Obama QUOTING the pope twice in almost as many days…hes trying to get rid of Catholic influence.

        Its not optics. Its FACTS. Another article with spin has you all a tizzy here in your echo chamber. Anything to hate Obama! The beauty of it is that Bush started the process.

        • Guest

          He quotes the Pope because he wants people to think the Pope thinks as he does. Apparently the former Ambassadors are wrong and you are right. When were you Ambassador?

        • Objectivetruth

          Oh….and I guess Obama is not an opportunist willing to use the Pope and his words for his own advantage.

          I’m guessing, Rich, you’re not Catholic? It doesn’t seem you really have a clue about the Church and its teachings.

          “Anything to hate Obama!”…….he’s the most pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro contraception, anti religious freedom president ever. All hugely immoral and sinful acts deemed by the Catholic Church. Tell me Rich…..as a Catholic, what is there I should like about him?

          And didn’t you say you rarely visit this small, right wing Catholic site? Seems to me you’re spending a lot of time here…..

          • Rich

            Not a lot of time. Lunch hours I browse the web, hit Vox Nova, NCR, Commonweal, America…places that don’t have NEAR the anger, vitriol, and judgmental attitudes. I pop over here once or twice a week, but the Mandela article stuck in my craw as it is spun so far up your …well, its just sad that there needs to be so much negativity. I do realize my posts are trollish in nature, but the Pharisees were called a brood of vipers and white washed tombs. That needs to happen now and again as well. Call me an unappreciated prophetic voice.

            There, satisfy your idea that I “know nothing” about Catholic teaching?

            • Objectivetruth

              You are certainly judgemental in your postings, Rich.

              And Vox Nova, NCR, have all condemned Obama’s actions and policies as being anti Catholic. The postings I’ve seen on there are equally as mad and upset at what he’s doing.

              And you never answered my question. Obama has knowingly and willingly taken a major doo-doo on uncompomising moral teachings of the Church (abortion, contraception, religious freedom) over the past 5 years. As a Catholic, what is there that I should like about him? There is righteous anger, Rich.

              • Adam__Baum

                Yeah Rich is (expletive of your choice deleted) Mr. Rogers.

              • Rich

                It doesn’t matter if I am Catholic. You would say I am not. i have seen the judgmental quality of your posts.

                All the hand wringing and condescension you guys do here serves only yourselves. The echo chamber that is the Crisis Combox needs a few dissenters. But it wont matter. I have seen facts, facts as they are basically understood, ignored, twisted, or flat out denied. No point in replying other than to call out the brood of vipers for what they are.

                • Adam__Baum

                  There’s a difference between principled opposition and what you “offer”. Another poster emerges “ex nihilo” to sing a familiar song. So Rich work for OFA or Soros?

                • Objectivetruth

                  Check, not Catholic.

                  It’s great that as a non Catholic you can armchair quarterback, judge and attack the commentators who actually are Catholic and live the faith.

                  Why don’t you head across the street and tell your neighbors your here to judge, criticize and attack their marriage. That should go over well.

                  I’m assuming you’re not Muslim, so why don’t you go on their websites and let them know you’re there to judge and criticize them and how they live their faith.

                  That should go over well.

            • Guest

              You listed all the dissenters. Got it.

            • Adam__Baum

              Commonsqueal?

        • slainte

          “…Right. And Obama QUOTING the pope twice in almost as many days…hes trying to get rid of Catholic influence….”
          Politics….his Catholic base is pretty angry with him regarding the ongoing cancellation of health care policies.
          Obama needs Catholics to vote democrat in the upcoming 2014 mid-term election to save the hides of those democrat House Representatives and Senators who voted for the Affordable Care Act but who exempted themselves from its provisions.
          Making nice with the Pope aids his efforts.

          • Adam__Baum

            “Making nice with the Pope aids his efforts.”

            Even a man with the feminine carriage that Peggy Noonan described as “elegant” without the slightest compunction that no real man ever would consider “elegant” to be a compliment-surely has seen boxers shake hands, right before they attempt to separate each other from consciousness.

        • Adam__Baum

          Tell me when he starts quoting things he doesn’t like, starting with the various pronouncements on abortion and contraception.

          Any jack*ss can quote the Pope. Even one that can’t read “corpseman” or count the number of states.

        • Adam__Baum

          Anything to hate Obama?
          No, there’s precious little to like. Didn’t you get the memo. Party’s over now. Time for the hangover. Or are you still swaying with a lighter in Grant Park?

    • Anne Hendershott

      I never said that the current embassy was in the Vatican. Only that every previous ambassador has resisted any movement to close the freestanding Vatican embassy building until Diaz and Hackett–both Obama appointees

      • Adam__Baum

        Never let facts get in the way of a good rant, Anne. He knows physical location has nothing to do wth the essay, but diversion is always easier than refutation.

        • Do you have anything factual to add. Argumentum ad hominem suggests otherwise.

          • Adam__Baum

            Yeah, you are being disingenous in culling out a peripheral issue that isn’t the focus of the essay. Now go learn the meaning of Argumentum ad hominem.

      • What you DID suggest is that the Vatican Embassy was sharing office space with the Italy embassy. That is flat out incorrect. The new embassy will be a SEPARATE building with a separate address and a separate entrance. You are free to email the chancery yourself. The adjacent building(s) were purchased by the Bush administration for this very purpose.

        There may be good cause for former ambassadors to object but it has nothing to do with “Obama’s Faithful Helpers.” This has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare and there is no conspiracy to belittle the Catholic Church.

        I’ll remind you that we have only had an embassy to the Holy See since 1984. It has been controversial on both sides of the aisle.

        • Adam__Baum

          “Controversial” politispeak for unacceptable to us.

          It was controversial when the Congress was considering a Catholic Chaplain, Timothy O’Brien and former NFL receiver turned congresscritter Steve Largent objected, not for any other reason than his prejudice, but poorly concealed in an administrative fig leaf.

          • Irrelevant. It was controversial because we are providing a plenipotentiary to a religion in contrast to a sovereign state. The Vatican IS a sovereign state but, as such, would deserve a career foreign service officer and a few staffers. I am not entirely sure that our embassy does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.

            The point is that not everything you don’t like reflects the religious bias that you seem to perceive everywhere.

            • Adam__Baum

              ” I am not entirely sure that our embassy does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.”

              The point is that everything you don’t like doesn’t reflect the religious bias that you seem to perceive everywhere.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    The lack of respect for human life on both sides of the aisle has become downright frightening- it doesn’t seem to matter if it is Moloch or Mammon, clearly the American government seems to have forgotten about God as anything but a campaign slogan.

    • Adam__Baum

      Moral relativism alert.

      Nobody worships money more than you. You consider it’s presence a great comfort and powerful thing, and it’s absence a cause for mourning. You consider it the elixer of justice and you obsess about it. It is to life what saffron is to a spice rack in your muddled, envious tirades.

      I am so glad to have the good counsel of my grandmother who always warned “caskets don’t come with pockets”.

      When it comes to failing to adhere to Theodore’s noxious, disordered paranoid economic prescriptions, nothing is greater, it’s all a relative, even the mass slaughter of the defenseless unborn.

      Sorry if I don’t get quite as upset about a middle-aged man surprised by the terms of his time share contract to be quite as offensive as the summary slaughter of fifty million unborn.

      As an aside, the left is not funded by the last two coins of widows and orphans, but the largesse of men like Soros and Buffett, whose economic hegemony always seems to escape the radar screens of the perpetually indignant.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Then why do I keep investing in food instead of stocks?

        It’s absence of FOOD that I have a problem with, not absence of money.

        • Adam__Baum

          21 is a legal adult. You can drink, vote, drive, you know adult things.
          Did I do stupid stuff at 21, yeah, probably worse than you.
          Difference, I don’t dwell on them, blame others an attribute my own stupidity to a cabal of nefarity.
          I’m not sure what your choice of expenditure does to relieve of the obvious obsession with money, but you don’t “invest” in food, you hoard it, like the foolish King that stored it up.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Oh, and the slaughter of the unborn- is caused by usury.

        • Adam__Baum

          See, it’s always about money with you.

  • WRBaker

    Diaz is now at Dayton and Hackett came from CRS – both Obama supporters and apologists. One wonders if the Vatican doesn’t see them both as a studied insult to the Magisterium? It would have been better to have had non-Catholics as a ambassadors rather than CINOs, that way they would know what they heard wasn’t ecumenical instead of weasel-wording.

  • cestusdei

    Obama is the most anti-Catholic leader in US history and that is saying something.

    • Guest

      Supported by left wing Catholic dissenters.

      • Adam__Baum

        And some wolves in sheperd’s frocks.

        • Rich

          Lions and tigers and bears, O my!

          There are far worse things going on in the world than the “terrible” things Obama might be doing. Greed and selfishness dominate everywhere. EVERY party. Continuing to use politics as a way to further the gospel is your problem.

          This is your pope: “If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing,” he has said. “Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists­ — they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life.”

          • Guest

            And you think that means the Pope supports pro abortion pro sodomy pols that lead others astray and impose unjust laws? Really?

          • Adam__Baum

            One upon a time…

            There was a magic Presidency with no greed or selfishness in any of it’s members or staff. These wre politicians and staffers who were noble public servants, immune from temptation, incorrupt, wise and beneficient.

            The only sought power to act out sincere concern for the public welfare, even to the disregard of their own chances for re-election. They always told the truth, sat up straight and said “please”, “thank you” and “may I?”.

            And they did this in the face of a vast right wing consiracy that sought to grind down the poor into ground meat, which they would sell from their Koch Brothers Steak Houses, where the evil industrialists went to eat gluttonously, and pinch the behinds of underage waitresses.

            The End.
            Now that story time is over.

            Continuing to use politics as YOUR gospel is YOUR problem.

            • Guest

              If you want to get through to Rich put on some bell bottoms, get a felt banner, and moan about those big old meanie moralists who do not want their kids exposed to gay nonsense and baby killing. Get with it man. What matters, exclusively, is that some person some where is not getting your tax dollars.

              • Adam__Baum

                Sorry, I don’t have the build for bell-bottoms.

                • Guest

                  How about a keep on truckin T shirt? Or a what’s your bag button?

            • Rich

              I don’t know what it is you think I am thinking here.. but this little story of yours is YOURS. Not mine. You assume something, I guess.

              I have known a number of folks who have been in these comboxes over the years,and almost everytime we get together we laugh at how none of them come here anymore because the populace chases away ANY kind of thought. Its all lockstep, “my way or the highway” “repeat the words EXACTLY as they are written…” Fr. Z crap.

              Well, you “win”. I have no further need to even try.

              • lifeknight

                What the heck is your problem with Fr. Z? I have read some good things at his blog. If you are casting stones at orthodoxy, you need to rethink your posts here.

              • Adam__Baum

                Bye, (pause) Bye.

          • cestusdei

            Yes, far worse things like the killing of unborn children. Don’t you dare try to use the Pope to justify your sins.

          • poetcomic1

            I’ve always looked for an ‘exaggerated doctrinal security’ from the Living Church established by Jesus Christ. My bad.

  • BillinJax

    Until our Hierarchy is willing to become martyrs for the
    faith along with the Church Militant who have in recent years been growing in
    number in this obvious battle for the soul of America
    little can be accomplished.

    Yet how can we be surprised or challenge our universities
    who welcome the enemies of our faith to preach to our young people when Bishops
    allow a breed of prominent Catholics like Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, Durbin,
    Kerry, McCaskill and a host of others to continue to lead the parade of
    perversion with such scant admonishment as a near silent recommendation that
    they should not present themselves for Communion. Today we have to realize that
    politicians are no longer individual public servants of the people but
    parliamentary voting members of opposing social agendas in a clearly culturally
    divided nation. At the same time media with the explosion of technology has
    turned a less than well educated public into celebrity worshipers. Corrupt
    politicians are keenly aware of this taking every opportunity to use the media
    for photo ops connecting them with popular Hollywood
    and TV personalities.

    The shepherds of the faith bound in the Body of Christ have
    been commissioned and are required to lead and guide their flocks to holy
    perfection in the love of the Father and His will. The Catholics in name only
    noted above, with the passive silence of their shepherds; have over the last
    several decades been able to become the definers of church doctrine with public
    statements such as the church does not know when life begins by theologian
    Pelosi. HHS secretary Sebelius practically worships at the Altar of Abortion and Joe (we have to spend our way out of debt) Biden tells us that in order to serve his country justly he can not allow his faith to interfere with his decisions. That is a red flag to both the
    voters and his Bishop to ask him to find another profession if he intends to
    remain Catholic. But no, we now have Cardinals who have witnessed far greater
    disrespect for Christian values and personally mandating sanction against the
    Church by the highest ranking proponents of the Culture of Death being invited to
    celebrate along side them receiving praise and honor for their attendance and
    service to the country.

    It takes only common sense to know this is destructive
    behavior and definitely a lack of leadership if not heresy.

    • Adam__Baum

      “Until our Hierarchy is willing to become martyrs for the
      faith along with the Church Militant”

      Not likely.

      Hey Ho, Barack’s our man, if he can’t give us healthcare, no one can.

      (Heard in the Episcopal Offices of the New York Archdiocese, along with the rustling sound of pom poms).

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    We really don’t need to expose these creeps any longer. We just operate on the assumption that everything and everyone even remotely associated with Obama is as much a liar, abortion-loving, God hating creep. When i was the director of my diocese’s Catholic Charities, I tried to have as little to do with Catholic Relief Services and Ken Hackett as possible – and tried to do the same with their companions in crime Catholic Charities USA (both branches of the DNC, ACORN, and all the rest of those leftist outfits that masquerade as social justice devotees who prowl the streets of DC and its environs).

  • Anne Hendershott

    Some have asked for the source for the quote from Blessed John Paul II on the “People’s Church” – In 1982 Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote a letter to the Nicaraguan
    bishops denouncing the “people’s Church” in especially harsh terms. The
    full text of the letter is described in Malachi Martin’s book The
    Jesuits on pages 55-56. It was an angry letter – decrying the “people’s Church” – calling it absurd and of perilous character…”Only with difficulty could it avoid being infiltrated by strangely ideological connotations along the line of a certain political radicalization, for accomplishing determined aims.” These were strong words from John Paul II who usually spoke in conciliatory terms. but this was 1982 and it was related to the Sandinistas and Jesuits. The Jesuits had already stopped listening to the Vatican by that time.

  • uncle max

    obama’s gonna do what obama’s gonna do.

    This silly little man will soon be gone.

    • uncle max

      OMT – Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, etc.

      We are celebrating the birthday of Christ. What does he want for a present? The same thing he has always wanted, the same thing he demands.

      A contrite and humble heart.

  • Mike M

    Security Concerns? At the Vatican? Where were these concerns in Benghazi? Just another lie. Catholics elected Obama choosing him as their messiah. The closing of the Vatican embassy is just another deliberate poke in the eye to Catholics. As the young Obama voters are slowly realizing, Obama cares not a whit for his own supporters. When will the 50% plus Catholic Obama supporters realize that they have supported a war against their own Faith?

  • uncle max

    Obama is the enemy – OUR enemy. Of that there is no question. In the long run he is just a silly little man who through the power of his office has done much harm to the country, and it will take more than a little time to undo it. But it can be done. He has done one good thing in that he has made it unmistakably clear what a challenge we face.

    Pray for Sebelius, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, O’Malley, the Kennedys and the Cuomos, that they may have the grace of contrition.

    Jesus’ birthday is approaching, and he wants the same thing from each of us – a humble contrite heart. And he will settle for nothing less.

MENU