Kevin Hall Blasts Sisters of Charity and Their South Carolina Hospitals for Supporting ObamaCare

From LifeSiteNews
By James Tillman

A former board member of the Sisters of Charity Foundation has blasted Providence Hospital and the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine in South Carolina, for having endorsed the pro-abortion health care reform bill that was opposed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and by countless pro-life organizations.

Instead of adopting the position of the USCCB that the bill lacked sufficient protections for conscience rights and the unborn, the religious order followed the lead of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), which threw the American Church into turmoil after it defied the bishops and supported the health bill just days before the final vote.

Kevin Hall, who resigned from the board after the religious order put its weight behind the bill, recently wrote of his dismay over the situation: "While the bishops and millions of ordinary Catholics - Democrat and Republican alike - were working hard to promote reform that protected the poor and protected the unborn and protected the consciences of health care workers, Providence and the Sisters of Charity ended up supporting a bill endorsed by the likes of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League.

“Such strange company should have been a clue to the sisters and Providence that their efforts were seriously misguided."

Providence Hospitals is a non-profit organization in the Midlands area of South Carolina, sponsored by the Sisters of Charity Health System. When the health care reform bill passed, Sisters of Charity Health System CEO and President, Sr. Judith Ann Karam, released a statement saying that "this is an important day for all Americans."

She continued: "This law will help extend quality health care coverage to 32 million Americans and contains important insurance market reforms."

"The measure offers real health care solutions while respecting the dignity of life."

Hall said that he only learned of the Sisters' position from that press release, because they had neglected to brief their board on their position. "That was, needless to say, disappointing," he told LifeSiteNews.com

He also explained that the Sisters' had essentially taken for granted that the Catholic Health Association's (CHA) position was correct without performing any sort of independent analysis. CHA President Sr. Carol Keehan had admitted that the bill was not "perfect" but thought that it was a "major first step" and a "historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans."

"As a Catholic, I find it crushing to see our hospitals, once uniquely Christian ministries, go the way of secular health care where financial and political considerations rule the day," wrote Hall. "Fortunately, Sister Keehan does not speak for most Catholics or for the Church. It is terribly disappointing that she does speak for Providence Hospital and the Sisters of Charity."

Sr. Karam responded to Hall's accusations, however, by saying that "we have long championed health care reform that expands coverage while protecting life from the moment of conception to death."

She continued: "Through our own analysis, we strongly believe, and are in accord with the Catholic Health Association and other health care providers, that this law would not provide federal funding for abortions and includes many safeguards to ensure this does not happen."

"To be very clear, our hospitals and our health system will never support legislation that allows federal funds for abortion."

Yet such an argument is unconvincing to Hall.

"As [the Sisters of Charity Foundation's] immediate past president," he wrote, "I fear that Providence and the sisters have done a grave disservice to the unborn, to the church and to parishioners everywhere."

"When the chips were down, Providence Hospital was not faithful to the bishops' leadership or the truth they professed on behalf of the church."

Mormon Blogger: 'The Chameleon-Like Qualities of Mitt Romney’s Conservatism'

By Gary Glenn

Connor Boyack of Lehi, Utah -- well-known religion and politics blogger , Brigham Young University graduate, active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and self-described former Mitt Romney supporter -- nails Romney's "chameleon-like qualities" on a broad array of issues, up to and including Romney's personal responsibility for the executive order that actually implemented so-called homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts:

"Governor Romney took it upon himself -- absent any authority or legal mandate -- to order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow them. For all his subsequent grandstanding -- criticizing the Court, participating in pro-traditional marriage rallies, and endorsing changes to the U.S. Constitution to require marriage be between a man and a woman -- Romney was either ignorant in regards to his duties as governor, or duplicitous in his actions. Being bound in no way (and having no authority) to issue such an executive order prior to legislative action, the first homosexual marriages -- and no doubt the impetus for other states to follow suit -- occurred due to Mitt Romney’s actions alone."

Many of these issues were discussed by multiple critics during the 2008 presidential election cycle, but Connor's critiques -- to the extent they become broadly known -- are something new: he threatens to dramatically multiply the damage to Romney's credibility precisely because, as a practicing member of the LDS Church, Connor is immune to Romney apologists' knee-jerk weapon of first (or at least eventual) resort: the false characterization of any and all criticism of Romney's public policy record as motivated by religious "bigotry."


Gary Glenn is a long-time conservative and pro-family activist who co-authored and helped lead the successful ballot campaign to enact Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment.

Pope Replaces George Bush as the Man Some People Love to Hate

". . . all these attacks are an attack on the same thing, namely Benedict and the church's defence of objective truth and morality, its belief that certain things are right or wrong in themselves regardless of opinion or circumstance."

From the Independent (Ireland)
By David Quinn

Joseph Ratzinger was elected as the successor to Pope John Paul II five years ago this week. Already a controversial figure, he has since gone on to become the hate figure du jour in certain circles, a sort of replacement bogeyman for George W Bush.

Those circles include aggressive secularists, angry ex-Catholics and some within the Catholic Church itself who still suffer from the delusion that the purpose of the Second Vatican Council was to turn the church into another form of failed liberal Protestantism.

Obviously, Benedict is in the news now because of the scandals and the ongoing, and mostly unfair, attempts to implicate him in the mismanagement of those scandals. But even without the scandals, Benedict was and is a hate figure for some.

Admittedly he has not always helped his own cause. For example, he would have been better off not quoting that Byzantine emperor's criticisms of Islam in his Regensburg address of September 2006.

He was also unwise to lift the excommunication order on Bishop Richard Williamson -- a Holocaust denier -- without, at a minimum, a full and proper explanation.

But in other respects he has been attacked without any proper justification. For example, in December 2008 he was widely condemned for comparing homosexuality with the destruction of the rainforests, except that he did no such thing. In that speech, he never even mentioned homosexuality.

A few weeks later, on his way to Africa, he defended the church's opposition to condom promotion in fighting the spread of HIV/Aids. He was excoriated for this and blamed for helping to cause the deaths of millions.

But none of his critics paid any attention to the actual scientific evidence, which shows that no condom promotion campaign aimed at general populations has ever succeeded in reducing the spread of HIV/Aids. What works, according to the evidence, are fidelity campaigns.

Attacks on Benedict, and on the Catholic Church generally, come from many directions. The church is attacked over its supposed attitude towards Protestants, Jews, Muslims and the other religions generally.

Benedict and the church are attacked over their attitude towards homosexuality and human sexuality generally. They are attacked over their defence of the right to life of the unborn, the elderly and the sick. They are attacked over their defence of marriage.

But in a way, all these attacks are an attack on the same thing, namely Benedict and the church's defence of objective truth and morality, its belief that certain things are right or wrong in themselves regardless of opinion or circumstance.

In an age of moral relativism, nothing is more offensive than the person who says, however calmly, that not all 'truths' are equal, that morality is not simply a matter of opinion, that religions are not all equally true or equally false, and that not all lifestyle choices are equal.

With regard to sex, for example, the church says that sex has an objective meaning and purpose and that one such purpose is procreation, which is intrinsically linked to heterosexuality.

This is connected to the defence of marriage. One reason the church says men and women should marry before they have sex is because it believes children have a right to be raised by their two married parents.

But many people, not least cohabiting couples, single parents and homosexuals find this offensive and it leads them into a denial that children have any need for, or right to, a married mother and father. The church cannot go down that road.

Nor can the church say all religions are equal because then it would have to deny that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. But this doesn't mean the church can't treat other religions with respect.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? Presumably we're all able to treat most of the people with whom we disagree with respect. Well, the church does the same, contrary to popular prejudice.

The paradox of relativism is that it claims to treat all points of view equally but in fact it damns and condemns those who deny relativism.

In other words, relativists defend their point of view as trenchantly and aggressively as the worst fundamentalists and will brook no opposition.

The Pope calls this ultra-aggressiveness the 'dictatorship of relativism'. The main reason these liberal fundamentalists spend so much of their time and energy attacking the Pope and the church is because they are the foremost defenders of objective truth and morality in the world today.

Destroy Benedict, damage or co-opt the church he leads, and you go a long way towards destroying opposition to liberal fundamentalism. This is a cataclysmic battle between those who believe in objective morality and those who think morality is relative. Joseph Ratzinger is smack bang in the middle of the hottest part of this battle.

Obama's National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants

Eastern Michigan University: Change Your Christian Beliefs or Leave Program

Legislators Question Expulsion of Christian Students

Lawmakers in Michigan are preparing to call on the carpet leaders of taxpayer-supported universities across the state after top officials at Eastern Michigan University expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.

Read the rest of this entry >>

More from Eyjafjallajokull

The Boston Globe has posted 35 extraordinary pictures of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano and its effects here.

As one of the Globe's readers commented: "I will never see photos like these again in my lifetime."

Task Force Pulls Out of Pentagon Prayer Event

From OneNewsNow
By Allie Martin

An official with the National Day of Prayer Task Force believes the strongest military force in the world has bowed to pressure from a small group of people who oppose prayer at the Pentagon.

John Bornschein was responding to news that the Pentagon has withdrawn an invitation for evangelist Franklin Graham to take part in an interfaith ceremony at the Pentagon.

Plans called for Graham to be part of an ecumenical service at the Pentagon during the National Day of Prayer event set for May 6, but after groups such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the Council on American Islamic Relations complained about statements Graham had previously made about Islam, the Army announced it had withdrawn its request for the evangelist to speak.

Bornschein, executive director of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, explains that although the prayer event is sponsored by the Army chaplains, the organization would help by providing resources and speakers. But when the announcement came that Graham had been disinvited, the task force pulled out of the Pentagon event.

"In 2003, this same issue arose. These groups that are not only attacking the National Day of Prayer as [unconstitutional] tried to take shots at every aspect of the day of prayer, whether it's contacting our governors [or] contacting the Pentagon," Bornschein explains.

He reports that "collectively, these are all very small groups. Even if they were all to join forces, they probably wouldn't fill an office space of 30 people. And yet they are taking advantage of an opportunity – the media – to [persuade] the largest, most powerful military force on the planet to not have a prayer event. And for whatever reason, they have actually conceded to that this year."

Other events sponsored by the task force will be held as scheduled at the Capitol.