Kresta In The Afternoon

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Today on "Kresta in the Afternoon" - Sept. 4, 2012

Talking about the "things that matter most" on Sept. 4

4:00 – Kresta Comments: Some Things To Remember On The Topic of Sex Abuse

4:20 – Would You Date You?
Would You Date You? asks a pointed question, and then goes on to provide honest answers. Many singles have an unrealistic approach to dating, feeling shock and dismay when someone to whom they are attracted is not interested in them. Sadly, it never dawns on them that they might be the problem. Anthony Buono challenges his readers to look closely at themselves to discover areas that might be preventing them from having successful relationships. He explains the importance of self-knowledge in becoming comfortable with who we are meant to be, because anything less cannot be sustained over a lifetime.

4:40 – Navigating the Interior Life: Spiritual Direction and the Journey to God
What is spiritual direction and my spiritual direction? – What are my “blind spots” and how can I uncover them? – What keeps me from all the spiritual riches Christ has for me? – How can I better understand where I am in my spiritual progress? Dan Burke provides a straight forward framework for effective spiritual direction and an understanding of how to experience growth both within and outside of a spiritual direction relationship.

5:00 – Kresta Comments: Some Things To Remember On The Topic of Sex Abuse

5:20 – From Pro-Choice Atheist to Pro-Life Catholic
When she was 26, she had never once believed in God, not even as a child. She was a content atheist and thought it was simply obvious that God did not exist. She thought that religion and reason were incompatible, and was baffled by why anyone would believe in God. After a few years in the Bible Belt, she became vocally anti-Christian. Imagine the surprise to find her today, just a few years later, a practicing Catholic who loves her faith. Jennifer Fulwiler tells her story.

5:40 – Unbridled Grace: A True Story About the Power of Choice
A naïve doctor fresh out of school was just what the Russian Mafia sought for their fraudulent medical ring. As a surface Christian living a self-absorbed life, Dr. Michael Norman was the perfect hire for their web of evil after answering a two-line classified ad in the newspaper. Months later, it became difficult to distinguish the bad guys from the good guys as Dr. Norman's cooperation was cruelly turned against him by corrupt government officials well aware of his accidental ties to this criminal conspiracy. What follows is a frightening true story that could occur to any of us, and a powerful faith journey to redemption that is made possible only through our Christian faith and the bold use of our power of choice for God.

Media 'Fact Checkers' Always Seem To Favor Obama

(Investor's Business Daily) If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?

Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."

What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.

Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.

An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."

CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."

Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.

But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?

In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."

The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?

This isn't to say that journalists shouldn't check facts. Of course they should.

The problem is that the mainstream press is now abusing the "fact check" label, using it to more aggressively push a liberal agenda without feeling the need to provide any balance whatsoever. And, as the reaction to the Ryan speech shows, they are now blatantly using it to provide air support for Obama.

Is it any wonder that soon after Ryan's speech ended, the Obama campaign rushed out an ad using the media's "fact check" stories as its source?

Muslims From Abroad Are Thriving in Catholic Colleges

DAYTON, Ohio (NYT) — Arriving from Kuwait to attend college here, Mai Alhamad wondered how Americans would receive a Muslim, especially one whose head scarf broadcasts her religious identity.

At any of the countless secular universities she might have chosen, religion — at least in theory — would be beside the point. But she picked one that would seem to underline her status as a member of a religious minority. She enrolled at the University of Dayton, a Roman Catholic school, and she says it suits her well.

“Here, people are more religious, even if they’re not Muslim, and I am comfortable with that,” said Ms. Alhamad, an undergraduate in civil engineering, as several other Muslim women gathered in the student center nodded in agreement. “I’m more comfortable talking to a Christian than an atheist.”

A decade ago, the University of Dayton, with 11,000 undergraduate and graduate students, had just 12 from predominantly Muslim countries, all of them men, said Amy Anderson, the director of the school’s Center for International Programs. Last year, she said, there were 78, and about one-third of them were women.

The flow of students from the Muslim world into American colleges and universities has grown sharply in recent years, and women, though still far outnumbered by men, account for a rising share.

No definitive figures are available, but interviews with students and administrators at several Catholic institutions indicate an even faster rate of growth there, with the Muslim student population generally doubling over the past decade, and the number of Muslim women tripling or more.

At those schools, Muslim students, from the United States or abroad, say they prefer a place where talk of religious beliefs and adherence to a religious code are accepted and even encouraged, socially and academically. Correctly or not, many of them say they believe that they are more accepted than they would be at secular schools.

“I like the fact that there’s faith, even if it’s not my faith, and I feel my faith is respected,” said Maha Haroon, a pre-med undergraduate at Creighton University in Omaha, who was born in Pakistan and grew up in the United States. “I don’t have to leave my faith at home when I come to school.”

She and her twin sister, Zoha, said they chose Creighton based in part on features rooted in its religious identity, like community service requirements and theology classes that shed light on how different faiths approach ethical issues.

Many Muslim students, particularly women, say they based their college choices partly on the idea that Catholic schools would be less permissive than others in the United States, though the behavior they say they witness later can call that into question.

They like the prevalence of single-sex floors in dorms, and even single-sex dorms at some schools. “I thought it would be a better fit for me, more traditional, a little more conservative,” said Shameela Idrees, a Pakistani undergraduate in business at Marymount University in Arlington, Va., who at first lived in an all-women dorm.

Some of the women land at Catholic schools more or less accidentally — some are married and simply enroll where their husbands are going, while others are steered toward particular schools by their home countries’ governments.

But for others it is a conscious choice, based on recommendations from friends or relatives, or impressions gained from growing up in places, like Lebanon, with strong traditions of church schools.

Most of the schools say they do not specifically recruit Muslim students.

“There’s no conscious effort,” said the Rev. Kail Ellis, a priest and vice president for academic affairs at Villanova University, near Philadelphia. “It’s basically something that happened through word of mouth and reputation.”

Muslim students here cite the accommodations Dayton has made, like setting aside spaces for them to pray — a small room for daily use, and two larger ones for Fridays — and installing an ablution room for the traditional preprayer washing of hands and feet.

The university also helps students arrange celebrations of major religious holidays, and it contracts with a halal meat supplier for special events.

Manal Alsharekh, a Saudi Arabian graduate student in engineering at Dayton, said, “I was in another university before that did not respect us so much.”

Even so, the adjustment to an American school can be jarring, especially for women. They are a minority even within the minority of Muslim students. Many of them follow restrictions on interaction with nonrelatives, and the head coverings most of them wear make it impossible to blend in.

The degree of culture shock students experience varies as widely as the traditions they grew up in. Some eat the nonhalal meat served daily in school cafeterias, some eat it only after saying a blessing over it and others do not eat it at all.

In a gathering of foreign-born Muslim women here, traditional attire varied widely, from Ayse Cayli, a graduate student from Turkey who does not cover her head and wore shorts and a T-shirt, to Mrs. Alsharekh, who while in public wears a floor-length cloak over her clothes and a veil across most of her face. Most wear a hijab, or head covering, and stylish but fairly conservative Western clothes extending to the ankles and wrists, even in warm weather.

The prospect of walking into an identifiably Christian institution, often for the first time in their lives, can be intimidating.

“I was afraid they will not like me because I am Muslim, or they will want me to go to church,” said Falah Nasser Garoot, a male Saudi graduate student in business at Xavier University in Cincinnati. “At first, when I saw the crosses on the classroom walls, it was very strange for me.”

Fatema Albalooshi, a graduate student from Bahrain who is studying engineering at Dayton, said that when she first looked into the school, “I thought it was going to be compulsory to take Catholic courses.”

And for the women, especially, identifiable by their head scarves, there are always questions. “People stop and ask me questions, total strangers, about my head covering, they’re curious about how I dress,” said Hadil Issa, an undergraduate here who grew up in the Palestinian territories and the United States. The more covering they wear, the more women are asked if they get hot in the summer. Muslims are consulted on etiquette by students planning to visit the Middle East. And often, they are asked why they attend a Catholic school.

“I tell people the atmosphere is very warm and supportive,” Ms. Issa said. “I feel accepted here, and that’s what matters.”

Washington state Catholic bishop warned over anti-gay marriage campaign

OLYMPIA, Washington (Reuters) - Washington state regulators have warned a Roman Catholic bishop that his diocese risks running afoul of state campaign finance laws if he follows through with a planned fund-raising effort opposing same-sex marriage on the November ballot.

State law prohibits organizations, including churches, from raising money from individuals to give to political campaigns, said Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the state's Public Disclosure Commission.

"It's not because it's a church. It's because it's not a stand-alone individual," Anderson said on Thursday.

The commission was calling into question a recent letter from Bishop Joseph Tyson to Yakima-area pastors urging them to distribute donation envelopes to parishioners during the weekend of September 8-9.

The money would go to Preserve Marriage Washington, the campaign to defeat legalization of same-sex marriage on the state's November ballot.

The Democratic-controlled Washington Legislature voted this year to legalize same-sex marriage, and Governor Chris Gregoire, a Democrat and a Catholic, signed the measure into law during in February.

But the law was blocked from taking effect as scheduled in June when opponents submitted a petition for a repeal referendum on the November ballot. Referendum 74, subsequently certified as having collected enough signatures to qualify, asks voters to approve or reject the gay marriage bill enacted in February.

Tyson's letter instructs parish priests not to open the envelopes once they are turned back in, but to place them into a pre-addressed security envelope to be mailed directly to Preserve Marriage, according to local media reports.

"It's not our envelope," Tyson told local television station KIMA-TV. "We're not collecting the money, and we're not taking the money. Preserve Marriage Washington is doing that. We're going to follow the state law."

But Anderson said she was not swayed.

"That can't happen under our state law," she told Reuters. "It doesn't matter if they haven't looked at the contributions."

The commission has not heard directly from the diocese, but it sent Tyson a letter Thursday outlining the relevant campaign finance rules, Anderson said.

LETTER OF THE LAW

Under state law, only individuals are allowed to collect donations and give them to a political campaign, and in doing so must take down each donor's name, address, occupation and employer. If the donation is above $25, that information must then be made public by the campaign.

The diocese may pass out campaign donation envelopes to its parishioners, but it cannot collect them or act in any way as an intermediary, Anderson said. The church is free to create a political action committee to raise money, and could then transfer donations to other campaigns as it sees fit, she said.

Organizations found to have violated state campaign finance laws can be fined up to $10,000 for each transgression.

Several diocese officials reached by Reuters said they were not authorized to comment. Tyson did not immediately return telephone calls.

Wake Forest University divinity professor James Dunn said the diocese's fund-raising plans could also threaten its federal tax-exempt status as a non-political religious organization.

Handing out donation envelopes for a political campaign in church "is in blatant violation of the spirit of the law," Dunn said, adding that the Internal Revenue Service has not strictly enforced that law in recent years.

Six states and the District of Columbia already allow same-sex marriage, but majority support at the polls in November would make Washington the first state to legalize gay matrimony by popular vote.

Preserve Marriage Washington has raised more than $471,000 for its campaign against gay marriage, Public Disclosure Commission records show.

Same-sex marriage supporters under the Washington United for Marriage campaign have raised more than $6 million, including $2.5 million donated by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos.

Name-Calling: The Favored Weapon of Gay Marriage Supporters

by Donald DeMarco, Crisis Magazine

I grew up in an Italian neighborhood, so my first understanding of bigotry was that it referred to a very large tree (“Hey, dat’s a big-a tree!”). Now, many years later, I know that it really means supporting traditional marriage. Like President Obama, I have “evolved.” I have advanced on the semantic spectrum from being ethnicized to being politicized. Who needs Noah Webster?

William A. Jacobson is an Associate Clinical Professor at the Cornell University Law School. The sesquipedalian title of the statement he posted on July 29, 2012 encapsulates its essence: “Most important legacy of Obama’s gay marriage switch was freeing Dems to play the ‘bigot card’.” Now, according to Jacobson, Democrats are free to accuse anyone and everyone who supports the traditional understanding of marriage as bigoted. Those who thus stand accused would be nearly everyone in history together with the vast majority of the living. Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, and the Ku Klux Klan would all be tarred by the same brush. And, since the accusers are also being accused of the same abnormality, the number of bigots is now virtually equal to the number of rational bipeds. This sweeping accusation, simply from a logical point of view, should be most disheartening to those who fancy themselves democrats.

The problem of labeling defenders of traditional marriage as “bigots” has reached near epidemic proportions. Various websites from The Ruth Institute (Aug. 5, 2012) to the Huffington Post (May 11, 2012) report how common this practice has become. Meanwhile, in the London Telegraph, Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, finds that the accusers are projecting their own bigotry onto the innocent: “People who oppose gay marriage are being treated like homophobes and bigots by those who call for tolerance.” He goes on to suggest that it seems that it is the accusers themselves who personify the venom they spew at their innocent targets.

Jimmy Akin, writing for the National Catholic Register (July 26, 2012) illustrates how easy it is to be called a bigot. In his case, it was simply because he dared to say that being against same-sex marriage does not mean that one is against people who have a same-sex orientation. Is one also a “bigot” for opposing marriage between a mother and her daughter? “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Can there ever be harmony in the modern Tower of Babel? The word “babble,” denoting noise or a confusion of different sounds, has its roots in the Biblical story. The Humpty Dumpties of the world are babblers, not builders.

We wonder whether language is still serviceable. “Never,” Aldous Huxley once remarked, “have misused words—those hideously efficient tools of all the tyrants, warmongers, persecutors and heresy hunters—been so widely and disastrously influential.” What would he say if he were alive today to observe the way words are currently misused? He would need to amp up his rhetoric considerably, even though amplification and communication do not necessarily go hand in hand.

The word “bigot” is now routinely used, not to convey meaning, but as a kind of verbal slap in the face, as an expletive rather than as an argument. It signals the end of discourse and an invitation to violence. Demonizing supporters of marriage between a man and a woman does not change minds or hearts; it simply terminates dialogue and welcomes vandalism and warfare.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, that quintessential American essayist, went so far as to suggest that bad rhetoric made bad men. He may be in good company. In Matthew 12:36 we read: “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” According to Confucius, “If language is incorrect, then what is said is not meant. If what is said is not meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.” Former United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld had this to say: “To misuse words is to show contempt for man. It undermines the bridges and poisons the wells. It causes Man to regress down the long path of his evolution.”

We will be judged for our words, as well as for our deeds. On second thought, the politicization of words (and consequently, thoughts) truly is regressive, bringing Homo sapiens back to the time when grunts preceded words, and violence antedated rational communication.

Now where did I put my Webster’s dictionary?

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims

(Crisis Magazine) The Democrats have liked to promote themselves over the years as the party that has been at the vanguard of promoting such causes as civil rights and human rights generally. An impression has been cultivated that we owe advances in human rights to liberalism, which at least since the New Deal has been identified in the U.S. with the Democratic party. In this year’s platform, the Democrats are presenting themselves as opening the way to yet another new frontier in the civil and human rights struggle, as it endorses what it calls “marriage equality.” That is, it wants same-sex “marriage” to be the law of the land.

This, of course, is in line with the tendency of the Democratic party for the last generation—as it came to be dominated by an increasingly secular liberalism—to be at the vanguard of promoting such ersatz rights as abortion, sodomy, and sexual libertinism. This year, we continue to see the Democrats embrace a “no-exception” position on abortion—that is, no exceptions to the abortion liberty should be allowed (including “partial-birth” abortion)—and they will tolerate no opposition to it. So, the party continues its tradition since the Clinton era of allowing no pro-life dissent within its ranks. It would not permit the late Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania to give a speech against abortion at its 1992 Convention and this year it even refused to include language in its platform to the effect that it welcomes in its fold Democrats who are pro-life.

All these claimed civil and human rights are, of course, anathema to Catholic teaching. The party of the Catholic immigrants who played a crucial role in helping to fashion its majority status for several decades in the twentieth century is now a party, as seen in one platform after another and in the positions of most of its major office-holders, that is officially hostile to uncompromisable moral precepts of the Church.

If the Democrats are now the party of ersatz rights, what was the record of Democratic presidents and the Democratic Party historically on genuine human rights? Should they rightfully be credited with a legacy of upholding and advancing civil and human rights as the party and its apologists want us to believe?

I spent a memorable academic year (2008-09) as a visiting fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. Witherspoon has an informal association with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University; both are under the tutelage of the eminent Catholic scholar Robert George. One of the Madison Program’s guest lecturers that year was the presidential scholar Alvin S. Felzenberg of the University of Pennsylvania and George Washington University. It was remarks in his lecture about rating presidents that first got me thinking about this subject. One of the criteria that he thought necessary to consider in evaluating presidents was their effort to preserve and extend liberty. As he talked about different presidents, he observed—almost as an aside—that the record on this of Democratic presidents, even ones often considered “great” or “near-great,” was troublesome. His comments and my own further reflections about the actions and viewpoints of both Democratic presidents and party demonstrate a not-so-stellar historical legacy.

First, there was Andrew Jackson, whose presidency marked the beginning of the modern Democratic Party and was when that name was first used (it had previously been the “Democratic-Republican” party). Jackson and his compatriot and successor Martin Van Buren, ignoring a Supreme Court decision and for reasons of political interest, forcibly relocated the Cherokees and other Indian tribes from the southeastern U.S. This included the “Trail of Tears,” where many of the Indians died in the difficult journey westward. Next, was the Mexican War, which was prosecuted by Democrat James Knox Polk and fiercely objected to by a little-known Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln who was later to become the first Republican president. The war, which was probably undertaken for expansion in the throes of Manifest Destiny, resulted in the massacres of Mexican civilians in occupied territories, the growth of slavery in the Southwest, and illicit seizures of private lands in violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. As far as slavery was concerned, it was always the Democratic Party that was the major political defender of it, as it was later on of Jim Crow. We sometimes forget that the old segregated South was one-party Democratic until the end of the 1960s, and that the major opponents of federal civil rights laws were the powerful, entrenched southern Democrats in Congress.

Woodrow Wilson, the quintessential Democratic “progressive,” presided over probably the most severe restriction of civil liberties in American history during the course of World War I. Any dissent against American war policy was vigorously put down. Then, of course, there was the Japanese internment on the West Coast carried out by the twentieth century’s most famous Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt. FDR also refused to support federal anti-lynching legislation (which was mostly pushed by Republicans). Finally, we return to the fact that the Democrats have been the party of legal abortion. Not only have they been impervious to the facts that abortion represents an assault on the most basic human and civil right—to life—and is a clear example of a denial of rights to a whole group of persons, they have rabidly supported it.

This record demonstrates what Pope John Paul II cautioned about: When democratic republics disconnect themselves from truth they can become “thinly disguised totalitarianisms.” Perhaps these troublesome actions of earlier Democratic presidents resulted from pandering to the sentiments of electoral majorities; the current ersatz rights regime is a response to a trend-setting cultural elite.

To be sure, the Republican Party, although founded to further one of the greatest human rights crusades of modern times (ending slavery), has not been pure. It was not welcoming of the immigrants or supportive of the rights of labor (although the Democrats also overwhelmingly supported the ending of open immigration in 1924 and were no great friends of labor before the New Deal either). One also thinks of episodes such as the violent eviction of the “Bonus Army” of WWI veterans from Washington, D.C. under Herbert Hoover (even though the real culprit was probably General Douglas MacArthur, who ignored Hoover’s orders to stop his assault and his aide Dwight D. Eisenhower’s—the later Republican president—entreaties to step back).

Still, it has been the Democrats who for fifty years have touted themselves as the party of the people and of civil rights. We hear time and again that the Republicans and their allies, like the Tea Party, are hostile to civil rights. The left is quick to pin the label of “hypocrite” on their opponents, but doesn’t the history of America’s leftist political party readily qualify it for this very accusation?

Monday, September 3, 2012

New Study About Catholic Women and Contraception

Catholic Free Press, Accepting Abundance, Sept. 3, 2012

Mary Rice Hasson, J.D., a Fellow in the Catholic Studies Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C., and director of the Women, Faith, and Culture project together with Michele M. Hill of the Archdiocese of Baltimore have issued a preliminary report, What Catholic Women Think About Faith, Conscience, and Contraception, in which 824 church-going Catholic women ages 18-54 were surveyed.
While the data indicates that most Catholic women do not fully support the Church’s teachings on contraception, the results also do not show the sweeping rejection of Church teaching the media portrays either. This first report provides some useful insight.
The report shows that about one-third of church-going Catholic women incorrectly believe that couples have the right to decide for themselves the moral acceptability of contraception regardless of Church teaching. When Church teaching was explained, 44% were receptive to learning more. These results suggest the problem is in part catechetical, and that women want more instruction.
When the women were asked to list their primary sources for learning the teaching of the Church, an overwhelming 72% of all women named the homily at Mass. Yet when asked about ways they’d like to learn more about Church teaching, only 16% said from a homily. They mostly prefer to hear testimonies from couples about the health and relationship benefits.
Priests and parishioners potentially have a great deal of influence in the lives of Catholic women confused by a cultural mindset that divorces sex from procreation. Almost all (90%) of those surveyed said that faith was an important part of their daily lives. What do we do then?
Well, these results mirror my own experience. I did, and still do, highly value the advice from men of God, but my full conversion away from secular contraceptive mindset to full acceptance of Catholic teaching wasn’t based on one homily or one conversation about obedience. What opened my eyes and heart was the greater open-to-life attitude of my parish home, inspired by our priest who had an enthusiastic, fatherly love of children. I saw the words of the Catechism — that children are gifts — lived out and I understood, and embraced, the high importance of accepting these gifts and raising them in the Sacraments. And that is consistent with the conclusion of the report.
Priests and parishioners must present the teaching “frequently, positively, and without apology, from the pulpit and through Church ministries.” We can’t stop at catechesis, we need to discuss and demonstrate by example how to properly form the conscience too.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Dick Durbin: It's Not Fair To Ask Me About Our Platform

DNC Shows Off Pro-Abortion Extremism in Charlotte

Paul and Janna Ryan Go to Church

Alerts

Democratic Platform Endorses Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

And the Democratic party doesn't want to make abortions "rare."

Alerts

Obama Attacked Over Party Platform on Jerusalem

By Jared A. Favole, WSJ

Democrats Drop 'God' from Party Platform

Don’t believe what you’ve read about Cardinal Martini’s last interview

Democratic Convention Speakers List Includes No Pro-Lifers

Pro-Abortion Democrats Scream at 11-Year-Old Pro-Life Girl at Convention

Stupak Admits Obama Violated His Executive Order on Obamacare, Abortion

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Today on "Kresta in the Afternoon" - Sept. 4, 2012

Media 'Fact Checkers' Always Seem To Favor Obama

Muslims From Abroad Are Thriving in Catholic Colleges

Washington state Catholic bishop warned over anti-gay marriage campaign

Name-Calling: The Favored Weapon of Gay Marriage Supporters

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims

Monday, September 3, 2012

New Study About Catholic Women and Contraception

Buy Al's New Book!! Dangers to the Faith: Recognizing Catholicism's 21st Century Opponents

Facebook Badge

Archbishop Chaput: Building a Culture of Religious Freedom

Kresta in the Afternoon Podcast Archive (right click to download)

Subscribe to the Kresta Podcast

The Links That Matter Most

The Blogs That Matter Most

Blog Archive