Receiving Communion during a flu epidemic

Communion revised after swine-flu outbreak - Chicago Tribune

"Father",

You might be a little hasty in dismissing the health risk of sharing a common cup at Holy Communion.

Speaking of the situation from a purely medical point of view, suppose the wine is 12% alcohol, as You say. Are You infallibly certain that all flu viruses will be killed immediately upon contact with the wine?

Even if so, what effect does the wine inside the chalice have upon saliva on the outside of the chalice and the cloth used to wipe the chalice? Who would claim that the ceremonial wiping of the outside of the chalice reliably sterilizes the cup? Who would consent to undergo surgery with scalpels that had been used repeatedly, but had been merely "wiped dry" after each use?

Distributing Communion under the form of wine is purely optional, and the Church is dogmatically certain that the "entire Christ" -Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity- is received whether Communion is distributed under one or both forms.

Faithful Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the the Blessed Sacrament of Communion. But we don't need to believe -nor does the Church teach- that hygiene and common sense should be disregarded during an epidemic.

WHO raises pandemic Swine Flu alert level to PHASE 5

WHO raises pandemic flu alert level to PHASE 5

"GENEVA – The World Health Organization has raised its pandemic alert for swine flu to the second highest level, meaning that it believes a global outbreak of the disease is imminent.

WHO says the phase 5 alert means there is sustained human to human spread in at least two countries. It also signals that efforts to produce a vaccine will be ramped up.

WHO has confirmed human cases of swine flu in Mexico, the United States, Canada, Britain, Israel, New Zealand and Spain. Mexico and the U.S. have reported deaths."

Do You think that the U.S. federal government now might consider doing more than asking travelers from Mexico if they feel OK? If not, how many more people need to be infected, how many more need to die, before the federal government takes up its responsibility for securing our border against the clear and present danger of pandemic infection?

Would it be unreasonable to quarantine all individuals crossing from Mexico into the U.S. for a period of 24 hours, and to deny entry to all who exhibit suspicious symptoms?

Whoops! The CDC still calls it "Swine Flu"

CDC - Influenza (Flu) | Swine Flu and You

From the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

"What is swine flu? Swine Influenza (swine flu) is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza viruses that causes regular outbreaks in pigs. People do not normally get swine flu, but human infections can and do happen. Swine flu viruses have been reported to spread from person-to-person..."

U.S. officials want 'swine' out of flu name

U.S. officials want 'swine' out of flu name - Reuters AlertNet


So the feds are bristling at the name, "Swine Flu"? Well, what alternatives do we have?

"Swine Flu" -that's what it's been called for years. Why do the feds have a problem with it now? Afraid of offending swine?

"N1H1 virus" -doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, now, does it? And why would we use this naming method when many other viral diseases are not known by the technical names of the viruses? ..."Common cold", "Stomach flu", "Warts", etc.

"Mexico Flu" -that would be appropriate, since it clearly appears that Mexico is its source. We'll see if that gets the nod from the Defenders of Political Correctness.


Well, how about the "Napolitano Flu", named after the head of the federal department who should have but failed to combat the outbreak at its ports of entry by instituting careful screening of all travelers entering the U.S. from Mexico, and by heightening border control efforts at the Mexican border?

But it's understandable that Janet Napolitano hasn't acted more decisively to protect the U.S. against the Swine Flu. She's been very busy protecting the nation against a more ominous threat: returning military veterans and pro-life soccer moms.

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic - wcbstv.com

"Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public."

Who are these federal officials? And what's really going on here? This incident is so bizarre, so outrageous, that it makes me wonder if this was a carefully planned political attack on ...who?

Did the Department of Defense try to embarrass President Obama?

Did President Obama try to embarrass the Department of Defense and sour public opinion against the military? For what purpose? Is he preparing to make drastic cuts to the military and first wants to demonstrate that it badly needs cutting?

Or is the president simply trying to embarrass the FAA prior to a big shakeup? But why would this be necessary? The head of the FAA is already just an "Acting Director", ripe for replacement.

It's hard to figure out a theory that makes sense which does not heap embarrassment upon the president.

So was it just gross incompetence and a failure of communication in the Obama administration? That doesn't make sense either, for we're told that New York officials were informed... and obediently remained silent under the threat of the iron federal fist. Yet how could this not have leaked?

Could the event have been unplanned? Some conspiracy lovers are suggesting that Air Force One was taken for an unauthorized ride by a desperate pilot with some kind of message to send.

This is the sort of situation which could still bring some big surprises.

When should local authorities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities?

White House Apologizes for Air Force Flyover - NYTimes.com

In response to the FAA's secret mission to terrorize New Yorkers with a reenactment of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the mayor of New York city, Michael Bloomberg, said:

"Why the Defense Department wanted to do a photo-op right around the site of the World Trade Center catastrophe defies imagination. Poor judgment would be a nice ways to phrase it, but they did. I also think that once they had told us, we should have done a better job. Had I known about it, I would have called them right away and asked them not to. It is the federal government and they can do in the end what they please, but I would have tried to stop it. I don’t know there’s a lot else to say other than they shouldn’t have done it."

The mayor deserves credit for his willingness to frankly criticize federal authorities for this incident, and to acknowledge that his own administration could have done a better job in handling it.

But is it really true that the feds "can do in the end what they please"? Did federal law prevent local law enforcement or the mayor's office from revealing the flyover plan to the public?

The city, once notified by the FAA, should have firmly objected to the scheme. And if the feds refused to let common sense prevail, the city should have defied the feds and warned the public of the plan.

The federal government has constitutional and legal limits to its authority, and those limits should be insisted upon, especially when the good of the public is at stake.

U.S. government response to swine flu threat: lax and worrisome

US reaction to swine flu more muted than elsewhere - Breitbart

"EL PASO, Texas (AP) - U.S. airports and border agents waved people through Monday with little or no additional screening for Mexico's deadly swine flu - a far more muted reaction than the extreme caution elsewhere around the world... But the American reaction to swine flu, which has killed up to 149 people in Mexico and on Monday led the World Health Organization to raise its alert level, was mostly limited to steps that hospitals, schools and mask-wearing individuals took on their own."

In many countries passengers arriving from Mexico or the U.S. are being actively screened for fever or other symptoms. But in the U.S. people arriving from Mexico are being waved through "with little or no additional screening". Why such is the Department of Homeland Security so lax about preventing an influx of swine flu infection from the source of the infection: Mexico?

White House apologizes for low-flying plane - CNN.com

White House apologizes for low-flying plane - CNN.com

To:
Lynne Osmus, Acting Director of the Federal Aviation Administration

Dear Ms. Osmus,

The unannounced low altitude flyover by Air Force One and fighter jets in New York today was an absolutely outrageous action apparently sanctioned by the FAA. If this mission truly was necessary, the public should have been warned well in advance.

Carrying this out in an unannounced fashion caused great consternation to many New Yorkers and displayed exceptionally poor judgment and a reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public. I call upon You, as Acting Director of the FAA, to provide a full and public explanation and apology for this incident, and to explain what actions will be taken to restore the confidence of the American people in the FAA.

Regards,
John Robin

RIP, Buddy the Dog (2001-2009)

Buddy Robin, the golden retriever, suddenly suffered a fast and incurable cancer, and went where good dogs go on 26 April 2009. He was in good doggy spirits to the end. Buddy was born in 2001, the offspring of two proud golden retrievers, a 150 lb male and a 120 lb female.

Buddy, also know variously as "The Porker", "WienerBoy", and "Furface", (and occasionally -but not really- "Bad Dog"), leaves behind all his worldly possessions: his food dish, a well-chewed Nylabone, and his Binky.

Buddy was a great and noble dog and as much a companion, friend, and family member as a dog can be.

Do dogs go to heaven? Well, as a trustworthy priest and friend says, "if you need your pet in heaven for you to be happy, he'll be there."

White House recreates 9/11 attack to terrorize New Yorkers

In N.Y., Low-Flying Planes Panic Locals, Infuriate Lawmakers - washingtonpost.com

NEW YORK, April 27 -- A plane used as a backup for Air Force One and a fighter jet escort swooped low in the sky over New York Monday morning as part of a government photo-op, panicking workers, forcing evacuations and prompting an outcry from lawmakers.

The White House later issued a profuse apology over the incident.

The stupidity of this boggles the mind. Either this was an incredibly ill-conceived and crass blunder, or else the White House simply did not care what sort of visceral and negative reaction such a stunt would certainly provoke.

In either case, heads should roll: certainly at the White House, and perhaps at the FAA.

Storm over embryo 'bank' which could be used as a body repair kit

Storm over embryo 'bank' which could be used as a body repair kit - Mail Online

Using one human being -in this case an embryonic child- as a source of "spare parts" for the benefit of another human being is an inhuman barbarism. This is not a matter of personal choice, for the most basic duty of government is to prevent the violation of inalienable human rights. The first among these is the right to life.
In earlier centuries defenders of slavery in Britain and the U.S. argued that black persons were not persons, and therefore did not possess rights demanding protection.

The same vile argument is used today to justify the exploitation of embryonic human beings as fodder for every sort of abomination.

Bearing arms in Chicago

Townhall.com Blog

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment.


"WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday overturned the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban, issuing a decision that will allow the city's citizens to have working firearms in their homes. In the ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected city officials' arguments that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applied to state militias."
-FoxNews, 9 March 2007

Janet Napolitano blames Canada as source of 9/11 terrorists

Border comments spark diplomatic kerfuffle - CTV.ca

What? After the Department of Homeland Security issued its recent memo regarding right-wing extremists, I assumed that the 9/11 terrorists were all American, home-schooling, pro-life, Christian soccer moms. I guess this means that these home-schooling soccer moms actually were Canadian.

The Canadian news site, National Post, raises a very relevant question: "Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job?"

Is it wrong to mention Hitler?

Townhall.com::Blog

John and Cisco,

On Your radio show ("Big John and Cisco in the Morning", 560-WIND, Chicago) this morning You ridiculed a demonstrator at yesterday's Chicago "Tea Party" because he displayed an image of Barack Obama portrayed as Adolf Hitler. You marginalized him as a kook, or perhaps a disingenuous political plant working to discredit the Tea Party and conservative movement. Your reaction, I think, suggests You may not realize that for many conservatives (like myself), the threat posed by the Obama administration extends well beyond higher taxes.

In just a few months the Obama administration has begun to implement a vision that exalts the power of the state above the rights of individuals. This is evident in government efforts that:

- attack human life (1);
- threaten democratic rights (2);
- erode personal property rights (3);
- and more.

The outrage felt by many conservatives, just as in that first Boston Tea Party, has at least as much to do with oppressive government as with taxes, and this did not begin only with the election of Barack Obama. Conservatives increasingly realize that our Constitution and democracy are threatened, and that historically nations which overturn their founding principles are in danger of tyranny or collapse.

Statism does not develop in a single day, nor does it manifest itself without warning, with parades of goosestepping brownshirts, concentration camps, and a citizenry cowering in silent terror. Statists in our state and federal government today don't wear swastikas, and they don't execute their political opponents or send them to camps. But they do work systematically to expand government power into every aspect of life, funding statist programs, suffocating our liberties through taxation and onerous regulation, and reinterpreting civil and basic human rights until they are no longer rights but privileges which now may be taken away: and all with the populist purpose of helping the common man.

Is it inappropriate or irrelevant to recognize that these threats to freedom are not new to history? The progressive path to statism and tyranny is paved with noble purpose, and has been followed by other nations under leaders who became notorious because of the terrible results of their misguided vision. This is a path strewn with the wreckage of ruined nations and tragic lives. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others, more or less gradually built statist machines in which salvation was to be had through the state, and only through the state. Therefore the state became not the servant of society, but revealed itself an insatiable and merciless taskmaster.

More than a few Americans today recognize that our federal and state governments are tightening their hands around our necks. There are plenty of historical reasons for Americans to recognize the threat for what it is, and to rise up in peaceful but effective opposition.

Some may use images of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, or other well known tyrants to convey in harsh but vivid terms the dangers of state power unrestrained. Such political discourse may ruffle feathers among those too naive to think such things could ever happen here, or who consider themselves too polite to mention the possibility. Yet such discourse remains constitutionally protected "free speech", and true Americans ought to have enough respect for free speech to enthusiastically defend the right of citizens to air strong views without impugning their sincerity or sanity.

_________
(1) eg: funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, FOCA legislation, elimination of conscience protection for medical workers.
(2) movement toward "Fairness Doctrine"; demonization of those critical of government policy as "right wing extremists".
(3) through "bailing out" and nationalizing select private businesses; fomenting hostility of the middle class toward corporate executives and the wealthy; manipulating the housing and credit markets; onerous taxation; expensive government programs that distort the flow of capital.

Outspoken conservatives: enemies of the state?

Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times
Do You disapprove of the Obama administration's manipulation of the banking industry? Its aggressive expansion of federal control over ever the economy? Its enthusiastic federal funding of abortion and embryonic stem research? Its moves to punish conscientious objectors in the medical profession? Its "blame America first" variety of foreign policy? Its "attack the prosperous" attempt to incite hatred of the wealthy? Its imposition of gargantuan public debt upon us and our children and grandchildren? Or are You a military veteran?

Do You ever speak or write about these issues or any other matters in which You think the current administration should change its policies?

If so, Your government has branded You potential terrorist, a "right wing extremist", a dangerous element to be monitored, according to Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security. A DHS report of April 7, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", warns that the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."

As a nation moves aggressively toward expansion and exaltation of government power, safeguards of the rights of citizens, even those long established and taken for granted, can be overturned quite suddenly.

Pope warns of 'a desert of godlessness' in Good Friday address

Pope warns of 'a desert of godlessness' in Good Friday address - Daily Mail Online

I find that comments on internet news sites are often openly hostile, intolerant, and even vitriolic toward religious leaders, most particularly the Pope. They often attack what the writers perceive as the "intolerance" of Christianity. Ironically, it is Christianity that planted the seeds from which have blossomed for centuries the best and noblest features of Europe and the Americas. The social and cultural blessings of Christianity have vastly outweighed its aberrations.

The Pope is exactly on target. Radical secularism is attacking the Christian foundations of Europe and the Americas, and threatens to thrust western civilization into an age of darkness, filled with intolerance and hatred toward religious faith ...the "flowering" of what John Paul II aptly named the "Culture of Death".

Archbishop Nienstedt calls Obama ‘anti-Catholic,’ vows to pull support from Notre Dame

Archbishop Nienstedt calls Obama ‘anti-Catholic,’ vows to pull support from Notre Dame - Minnesota Independent

Bishops respond to Notre Dame

The bishops and laity have a right and a duty to speak clearly on matters of morals. The fact that the Church is populated only with sinners doesn't change that duty.

If You believe the obvious -that elective abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human life- then it's not enough simply to refrain from having an abortion. Any decent person who believes this self-evident truth will see clearly that a just society can not passively permit people to kill their children as if they were doing no more than pulling weeds from their lawn.

Elective abortion violates the most basic human right -the right to life- and those who defend the practice are guilty of defending an evil more egregious than human slavery.

Defenders of slavery in the U.S. in the 1800's often used the same logic and arguments used by defenders of abortion today. In both cases they're on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the truth.

Bishop Nienstedt, thanks for having the guts to speak the truth!

The Dawkins Delusion: "90% safe is better than 100% safe"

"The Dawkins Delusion: Benedict XVI is 'stupid, ignorant or dim'", Gerald Warner - Telegraph

What the Pope actually said about condoms on March 18, 2009:

"I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress." -Catholic News Agency

Like many others who have attacked the Pope over these remarks, Richard Dawkins apparently thinks it a bad thing to criticize the distribution of condoms in the fight against AIDS. After all, condoms often block transmission of the HIV, which causes AIDS. Dawkins claims that "the Pope is either stupid, ignorant or just dim".

But condoms, according to the United Nations, have only a 90% protection rate against HIV transmission. On the other hand, marital fidelity and abstinence from premarital sex has an essentially 100% success rate at preventing HIV transmission.

The Pope's critics may not wish to acknowledge that objective data demonstrates promiscuous condom users are at a much higher risk of HIV infection and AIDS than individuals who reserve sex to marriage. Their loud, indignant objections are not based on science, but upon other interests that influence their judgment.

Consequently Dawkins can't fathom how a 100% effective plan is better at stopping AIDS (and ennobling individuals) than the destructive and dehumanizing gamble of rubberized, promiscuous sex.

The State versus individual conscience: pressuring pharmacists to disregard ethical limits

Illinois can't force dispensing 'morning-after' pill - chicagotribune.com

Freedom2Care

Should the state really have power to force You to do things that violate Your conscience? The military accommodates -not punishes- soldiers who refuse to kill as "conscientious objectors". Should this principle not apply to the professions as well, so that individuals are not pressured to do what they believe is evil?

Imagine Yourself a doctor... Suppose Your hospital directs You to euthanize -kill- a patient, and You, having vowed as a doctor to heal and never to kill, know that euthanasia violates Your deepest convictions of conscience. Do You really want the state to pressure You to do what You believe is wrong, even murderous?

Practicing a profession does not and should not mean that You blindly subordinate Your conscience to every government dictate.

What if the state were to mandate that grade school teachers must regularly display pornographic movies to their students? Would You, as a teacher, consent to this? What individual, upon entering a profession, agrees to abandon personal ethics and refuses to exercise discerning judgment when pressured by colleagues, employers, and bureaucrats to do what is controversial or blatantly immoral? No, a person of good will and integrity does not consent to carry out actions that he believes are fundamentally wrong, and no just government attempts to force individuals to do so.

A nation that tries to compel its citizens to do evil is a nation with a dark, inhuman future.

People who want the state to have such coercive power have been seduced by statism and fascism, despotic forces making a renewed and frightening assault upon the United States. These forces and their supporters must be firmly opposed.

Statist senators work to silence the nation's conscience

Senate Rejects Amendment Protecting Abortion-Conscience Rights for Doctors

Illinois Senators Durbin and Burris have voted to deny medical workers the right to refuse performing acts that violate their conscience. They support a despotic vision of society in which citizens are threatened with legal penalties if they refuse to commit the abhorrent act of killing an unborn child or other acts which violate their basic beliefs and conscience.

Senators Durbin and Burris have brought disgrace and shame on themselves for this cowardly and evil prostitution of their own conscience for the sake of political power.

In particular, shame on the many Catholic senators who voted to reject the amendment:
Begich of Arkansas,
Cantwell of Washington,
Collins of Maine,
Dodd of Connecticut,
Durbin of Illinois,
Gillibrand of New York,
Harkin of Iowa,
Kaufman of Connecticut,
Kerry of Massachusetts,
Landrieu of Louisiana,
Leahy of Vermont,
McCaskill of Missouri,
Menendez of New Jersey,
Mikulski of Maryland,
Murray of Washington, and
Reed of Rhode Island.