“Catholic” Notre Dame University Rationalizes About Contraceptives in Insurance Coverage


Late last year,  the University of Notre Dame announced that its insurance plans for employees and participating students would be eligible to receive contraceptive drugs through a third-party administrator.  In light of this, university president  Father John Jenkins reiterated that Notre Dame still remained “unwavering in our fidelity to our Catholic mission.”  The reason for this action, he said, was that the school was respecting the other beliefs and practices of their Notre Dame community who made “conscientious decisions about the use of such drugs.”Without indicating which drugs were permitted, he claimed that no abortifacients would be provided.

Responsibility  for  Sins

If only it were as simple as Father Jenkins stated.  Paragraph 1868 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“Sin is a personal act.  Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them [emphasis retained]:

  • by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  • by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  • by protecting evil-doers.”2

The university’s position of having a third-party provide contraceptives under the provisions of its insurance plans runs afoul of two of these aspects.  The third applies in that the university had within its power to hinder the use of contraceptives.  Instead, it washed its hands a la Pontius Pilate and passed it off to a third-party provider.  Regarding the second point, while not openly approving the morality of contraceptive use, Notre Dame, by its actions gives tacit approval.  To find a similar example, this university would never give a third-party approval to provide for abortions on a limited basis just because some employees or students feel that rape or incest is a justifiable excuse for one.  —  Or would it?


Contraception  and  the  General  Role  of  the  Conscience

Paragraph 2399 of the Catechism addresses contraception with:

“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.  Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”2

Father Jenkins acknowledged “conscientious decisions” made by some of their community regarding the use of these drugs.  Nevertheless, the various contraceptives have differing degrees of immorality regardless of the individual’s level of conscience formation.  Regarding consciences and how we should respond to them:

“While it is taught that a man may follow his conscience even if it be erroneous, this does not make the conclusions of an erroneous conscience true or worthy of respect… And even if their erroneous consciences may lessen their culpability, Jesus does not leave them free of any role in their deformed consciences.  Thus, He adds, ‘They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me.’ (John 16:3)  So the Church’s response to an erroneous conscience should not be to affirm it or to pronounce it worthy of respect.  While we want to respect that some people are sincerely wrong and wish to treat them with dignity, we must continue to insist that those who have erroneous consciences are wrong.  We must teach both them and others what is true and why.”3

It’s appropriate that “Notre Dame” means Our Lady (Virgin Mary).  Because the traditional date of March 25 celebrating the Annunciation occurred during Holy Week this year, the U.S. bishops moved its 2018 commemoration to yesterday (April 9).  This annual solemnity reminds us that we Christians are grateful that Mary was totally open to life as God willed it.  May the University of Notre Dame do as its namesake by striving to promote openness to human life.


1 – “’Simple Contraceptives’ Added To Notre Dame Health Plan,” by Catholic News Agency as reported in the March 4, 2018 issue of National Catholic Register.

2 – The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty-fifth printing, November, 2013.

3 – “What Conscience Is and Is Not,” by Msgr. Charles Pope (dean and pastor in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.), same issue as in footnote #1.


Satan Likes to Control People (Strange, So Does Big Government!)

Evil’s dislike for Good is not restricted to the realm of the supernatural. The Earth has been a battleground since our most distant ancestors with consciences came into being.  For people of faith, these wars will continue until the Second Coming.  For skeptics, it could last until the sun becomes a red giant and overtakes the first three planets, including ours.  Either way, it will be a long struggle.

Many Good vs. Evil confrontations are obvious.  Organized crime, neighborhood gangs and Islamic jihadists are clear examples of those who attack innocent people.  However, the colliding political philosophies of small vs. big government are part of an overlooked venue.  Striving for big government unwittingly puts many on the side of the control freak who was bounced from Heaven; thus, creating Hell.

Respect  for  Human  Life  Creates  Two  Sides  of  the  Battle

A key principle around which sides are taken is respect for the dignity of human life.   Government intervention should be limited to doing for individuals what they have a right to do for themselves, but cannot.1  Assistance ought to be given where it is truly necessary.  Taxpayer funds should be available to provide the basics of life for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

But it must not also promote, unintentionally or otherwise, the breakup of the family as many of the War on Poverty programs have done over the last half-century.2

It also means that tax money should not arbitrarily fund some private startup industries just because they happen to be a favorite of someone in power (e.g. Solyndra).3   In addition, there are government intrusions which force communities to accept government subsidized housing.4

European  Union  Ruling  Class  is  Power  Happy

Overbearing control of government is seen in many ways.  Mandating that member nations take unreasonable security risks by the arbitrary and negligent opening of national borders was the main reason the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union in order to restore its rightful sovereignty.  The EU ruling elites also find ways to control the trivial as well as the big picture.  They determined which tea pots and toasters they considered environmentally acceptable and, therefore, permitted to be used in the home.

Trivializing  Human  Life  in  the  U.S.

The more massive the exercise of control, the more it aligns with Evil. (The word “evil” may have fallen out of favor with the self-proclaimed enlightened.  Nevertheless, that doesn’t make it cease to exist.)

In our country, the creeping vine of mega-government has long since crossed the line from Good to its hellish opposite.  Legalizing the killing of unborn babies under the ironic claim of “women’s health” has been more devastating to both mother and baby than the pro-death crowd is willing to admit.5

Trivializing human life has surreptitiously led to relegating its status to mere animal life in the lab. In vitro fertilization/ genetic modification and surrogate motherhood are just two examples of breeding human life to serve our wishes as we do thoroughbred horses or cattle.  Discarding unwanted human embryos used in stem cell experiments causes less anxiety for researchers than getting rid of weeds in their carefully manicured gardens.

Those of faith understand that we are to have humane dominion over animal life, but not dominion over human life. That belongs exclusively to the Author of Life Himself.

State  Elevating  Itself  Over  the  Church

The unwarranted intrusion of Big Government extends to trying to force religious orders and organizations to comply with the contraceptive/ abortifacient mandate of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).  For these in power, it’s not sufficient that our tax dollars are used for purposes which we have an inalienable right to object to.  Rather, the Obama Administration will not be satisfied unless we materially participate in the evil by giving our consent to a third party to carry out his control of human reproduction — which is not his to control in the first place. It’s the 21st century version of the Romans who threatened early Christians with severe consequences if they didn’t offer “just a little incense” to Roman idols in order to satisfy their political leaders.6

Broad  Range  of  Government  Dominance  Over  Citizens

Modern Big Government has reached new lows with a brazen insult to Natural Law. Citizens who understand the timeless irrevocable truth that a valid marriage can only exist between one man and one woman are being required to provide ceremonial items for same-sex “marriages.” While religious liberty must never be used to justify denying anyone the basics of life such as food, housing, medical care, employment, etc., it must not be dismissed in favor of the sham, known in politically correct circles as “tolerance” or “inclusiveness.”

These are only a few of the headlining points of concern. Requisite to the ultimate control (aka “possession”) of people involves intervention in the smaller details of daily life as well.  Mundane items such as kitchen utensils in the EU have already been mentioned.   It has also spread from the micro-managing of limiting the size of soft drinks in New York City to the insulting requiring of law-abiding citizens of Kentucky to have their urine tested annually – and at their expense – to ensure they are consuming specific prescriptions instead of selling them illegally.7

Where  Will  This  Lead?

The Prince of Darkness would be pleased with these displays of coercion.  The “religion” of secular humanism has set itself against the religion of eternal origins, mimicking the unsurpassed failure of the confrontation the Father of Lies had with the Creator before the universe existed.

God grants free will and proponents of small government defend it.  On the other hand, it drives Satan – and perpetrators of oppressing Big Government, crazy.  Being a control freak is an indication of a severe disorder.  Why would the Left want to have goals which parallel those of the infamous fallen angel?  Aiming for world domination now risks eternal disaster later.


1 – “In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.”  Paragraph 1894 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Twenty-fifth printing; November, 2013.

2 – “7 Ways the War on Poverty Destroyed Black Fatherhood,” by Nick Chiles, http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/12/24/ways-war-poverty-destroyed-black-fatherhood/, 12/24/2014.

3 – “Barack Obama Solyndra Scandal: 8 Facts About Green Energy Company Controversy,” by Alana Marie Burke, http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Solyndra-Scandal-Green-Energy/2015/01/29/id/621537/, 1/29/2015.

4 – “Under the new plan, residents from low-income neighborhoods would be placed all around Baltimore County, essentially integrating the poor among wealthier families.”
“Studies indicate doing cluster in one area is not successful,” said Tony Fugett, president of the Baltimore County NAACP. “The hope is that the units would be dispersed throughout the county.”

From “Low-income housing ordered to be integrated in Baltimore neighborhoods,” by Leland Vittert, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/05/low-income-housing-ordered-to-be-integrated-in-baltimore-neighborhoods.html, 4/5/2016.

5 – “How Abortion Hurts Women:  The Hard Proof,” by Erika Bachiochi, http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/how-abortion-hurts-women-the-hard-proof.html

6 – From a homily given by Fr. Joshua Lange when he was an assistant pastor at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Cold Spring, KY several years ago.  He was reassigned to a parish of his own in the summer of June 2012, http://www.stjosephcoldspring.com/Portals/stjoeschool/Documents/News/June172012FC.pdf

7 – “Urine tests required by new drug law can cost patients hundreds of dollars,” http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44379045.html, 9/27/2012.


Insulted Girlfriend and Advice Columnist are Oblivious to the Real Disrespect

The Tuesday April 7, 2015 edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer printed Carolyn Hax’s advice to a young woman who had been dating a guy for five years. She is currently living with him and they are planning to be married.

The Perceived Problem

She was upset because she had learned from a previous girlfriend of his that he had taken this woman on a first date “to a really expensive restaurant (one I have expressed an interest in, but that he always said cost too much). On our first date we went to a mediocre restaurant.”

This led her to write “I feel like crap since I found this out, like he thought she was better.”

Ms. Hax brought up the possibility that perhaps “he was in better financial shape back then, or dumber about how he spent his money.” She added he might have not taken her “seriously when scheduling that first date,” then later changed his mind about her. She tried to help “Second-Class Citizen” gain confidence by saying she shouldn’t need a fancy restaurant to feel good about herself.

The Real Problem

Sadly, this exchange completely missed the most serious issue in the couple’s relationship and one that most “liberated women” of today fail to realize. The lack of respect did not stem from the trivial issue of those first dates. Rather, it began when she accepted the deceptive and cleverly wrapped belief that truly modern women show their power and independence by allowing men to use their bodies without the proper commitment of lifelong fidelity due to a lady.1 Major contradiction.

The Solution

“Second-Class Citizen” and millions like her could prevent serious damage to their sense of self-worth by recalling the lesson from the famous dialogue attributed to either George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill, depending on the source:

“ Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?”
“My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it.”
“Would you sleep with me for a pound?”
“Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!”
“Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”2

The dignity of the human person dictates that no one is to be used by another. When a guy lives with a woman in all ways married except the vows, he is doing just that.

1 – Assuming that artificial contraceptives are used in most unmarried living arrangements, the decreasing respect for women was predicted in 1968: “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” By Pope Paul VI, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, section 17 under “Consequences of Artificial Methods,” http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

2 — http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/, 11/22/2009

White House Press Secretary’s Ironic Use of “Vital”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other closely-held for profit corporations1 who challenged the mandatory contraceptive provision of the Affordable Health Care Act because several of these chemicals are also abortifacients. Owners of these businesses will not have to forfeit the practice of their faiths simply because they started a company. It is a welcomed return of part of the inalienable right of religious freedom mentioned in our Constitution, but under attack by a non-believing Democratic agenda.

Of course, for every winning side, there’s a losing side. White House press secretary spoke on aspects of the Court’s decision, including this:

“As millions of women know firsthand, contraception is often vital to their health and well-being. That’s why the Affordable Care Act ensures that women have coverage for contraceptive care along with other preventative care like vaccines and cancer screenings.”2

The Washington Examiner article has already addressed the absurdity of comparing pregnancy to polio and measles as a disease to be prevented. But this is a good time to assert that the use of “vital” is way off base, too.

Yes, it is true that some women take contraceptives for unrelated medical conditions. However, pro-life women will also tell you that there are usually alternatives that not only respect life, but are also safer for the women who take them.

Back to the use of the word “vital.” It is an adjective with several segments to its meaning including: “concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life” and “characteristic of life or living beings.”3

So, something which prevents a life from its natural beginning or ends a life by blocking implantation, i.e. early stage abortion, is described as needed by your body in order to keep living? Sounds more like a Newspeak press conference.4

1 – “A closely held corporation is a corporation in which more than half of the shares are held by fewer than 5 individuals. Closely held corporations are private companies, and are not publicly held. In a closely held corporation, if one of the shareholders wants to sell some or all of his/her shares, the sale must take place with one of the other existing shareholders, since no sale of shares can take place.” By Jean Murray, http://www.biztaxlaw.about.com

2 – “Deconstructing the White House’s childish response to the Hobby Lobby decision,” by Ashe Schow, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com, 6/30/2014

3 – http://www.merriam-webster.com

4 — from the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four” … probably already banned by Common Core

By the Way: Moral Truths Have Never Been Subject to Referendum

Trying to understand Catholicism is difficult for many in the United States.  It has been worsened by two of generations of weakened catechesis producing many “Catholics” who are unable to explain basic concepts or who mistakenly believe that the expression of their faith must be confined to the church structures a la Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius.

As there are only so many hours in a day, one must be judicious in allotting time to clear up the widespread misconceptions.  Consequently, I will only be addressing a couple of points in an article I read in a recent newspaper.

Bloomberg View columnist Margaret Carlson was commenting on the U.S. Catholics bishops’ response to the recently announced “religious accommodation” regarding the much-debated HHS mandate, also known as Obamacare.1  My purpose here is not to delve into the doctrinal justifications for the bishops’ position of which she seems unaware.

Issue “A” :  Pro-Life  vs.  “Choice”

I will, however, address the two statements which stood out the most.  After she suggested that the bishops were probably looking to pick a fight with the President (make that three statements needing rebuttal, but the third will have to wait for another time) Ms. Carlson wrote: “In 2004, the bishops warned Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that he would be denied Communion for his pro-choice views.  By ostracizing political candidates, they like to enforce beliefs that their parishioners have rejected.”

This implication that the bishops are defending something archaic comes from the mistaken notion that moral truths can be voted out.  (This is one of several erroneous concepts in the Christian community having roots nearly 500 years old.  And you thought you were having trouble with weeds in your yard.)

“Thou shall not kill” was declared by God long before Christ established His Church early in the first century.  To the apostles and their successors, Jesus delegated the responsibility and authority to guide His Church until His return.  He did not confer upon them the authority to change His father’s Commandments.  Just because the “Catholic vote” went 50-48 for a presidential ticket which ignores this basic law of right-to-life does not make the 5th Commandment irrelevant, but it does make the “50%” voters essentially non-Catholic.2,3,4

Issue #2:   Purpose  and  Responsibilty  of  Sex

The other point of contention to be dealt with here arose from: “Of course, Catholics will use contraception.  They have been for decades.”  Several polls have attempted to calculate how many people claiming to be “Catholic” have ever used or routinely use contraception.  There is often confusion as to what the data really mean or which percentage is truly representative.  But in reality, it is immaterial whether a few or nearly all “Catholics” use contraceptives frequently.   Popularity has no authority to change a moral truth.

Moral relativism may be in fashion, but it has no justification.  If it did, we could dispense with that annoying 6th Commandment (you know, the one about sexual relations outside of a valid marriage are forbidden).  I’ll even add the conveniently forgotten statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  (More proof that “Catholic guilt” is Scriptually sound.)  Incidentally, some contraceptives cause early term abortions. Consequently, the 5th Commandment is involved here, too


The Catholic Church is not a social committee presided over by the pope and bishops who take periodic surveys to see what Commandments the faithful feel like following.  Its teachings have Scripture and Tradition backing them up.5  While society and technology change, moral truths do not… they cannot, or they wouldn’t be truths.  Whenever a pope, often in consultation with the bishops, makes a statement regarding a current issue, he is not revealing a “new” truth.  Rather, he is applying one with at least a 2000-year old track record to address an issue which didn’t exist at the time of Christ or of the apostles after the Ascension.

Murder has always been wrong, regardless of the euphemisms used to disguise the true nature of a particular mode of killing (“reproductive rights,” “choice,” etc.)  What constitutes a valid marriage and the inherent responsibilities of this vocation (including openness to children) have been the same since God revealed it in ancient times.  Sex is solely tied to marriage regardless of what our spiritual adolescence wishes were true.

Speaking of adolescence, the attainment of age 21, 40 or even 70 does not give us license to dismiss any of the Commandments.  Rationalizations become comfortable when Pride takes hold.  It is good to remember who is the chief promoter of Pride and how it led to his fall.

1 – as published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/9/2013
2 – voter breakdown from www.freerepublic.com
3 – The stance which pseudo-Catholics take regarding what constitutes a “Catholic” defies rational thinking.  If one does not believe in the foundational beliefs of any group, then one is not a member of that group.  This is logic, plain and simple, not being “judgmental.”  Rationalizing that a true “Catholic” can be in favor of allowing abortion and same-sex “marriage” is as contradictory as a person claiming to be “Christian,” who does not accept that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is both God and human.
4 – Technically, a Catholic could vote for someone who does not defend the unborn if he is not supporting the candidate because of that particular issue and the candidate is not using that belief to promote the evil and if there are no alternative candidates who are pro-life or if there are pro-lifers but they support other intrinsic evils.  Such was not the case last November.
5 – It is helpful to remember that Church Tradition existed before the New Testament came into being.  Re:  “Whoever listens to you listens to me.  Whoever rejects you, rejects me.  And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke  10:16)
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 19-20)

“The Pill” Has Increased Women Being Treated as Sex Objects

Papal  Prediction  Comes  True1

I can hear the choruses of “What?!” and “No way’s.”  Pill Practitioners have been declaring for 40+ years that chemical contraceptives have liberated couples, especially women.Unfortunately, the liberation was a mirage.

The emergence of these chemicals was hailed as one of the most significant events of the 20th century.  That is true, but not for the betterment of society as it has been publicized.  The secular world jumped for joy at the prospect of having the fun of sex while ignoring the duality inherent with marriage.3,5    It unwittingly equated human sexual relations with those of the animal world because we humans cannot control our reproductive inclinations any more than animals can apparently.

Instead of understanding sex as part of a committed marital relationship, it accelerated the notion that sex is merely a recreation – a recreation where men and women feel safer to have their fun and remain detached.  Worse yet, it has lowered the opinion of the human condition to the point where pregnancy is now considered a “disease” by our federal government.6

So, how does this societal change reduce the perceived value of women?  Now that many women feel freer to engage in non-committed relationships, they have received such a demotion.  In 2010, there were 7.5 million couples living together which was a 13% increase in just one year.  Also, in the U.S., 51% of adults over 18 were married, down from 57% in 2000.

The “13% increase” in couples living together represents a big increase in lack-of-commitment living arrangements which have a disturbing tendency to result in simple, litigation-free breakups.  The net result of these arrangements is women are more easily discarded – an attribute of a “sex object” – one of the things social awareness began protesting in the 1960’s.

The Pill was introduced with the claim it would free human sexuality from the bondage of natural consequences.  Instead it increased slavery to desires and lowered an already deficient respect for women.


1 –Pope Paul VI, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, section 17 under “Consequences of Artificial Methods,” wrote “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” (translation provided by www.vatican.va)
2 — “The pill has been responsible for a new revolution and has liberated women of our world. It has given them a new sexual freedom that has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand the women is able to have her own say in planning her family but on the other it has also made them more promiscuous.” (www.medindia.net, no posting date)  The article proceeds to list what it views are advantages, but strangely, does not expand on the aspect of promiscuity!
3 – “The spouses’ union achieves the two-fold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life.  These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.”
“The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation and fecundity4.”  (Paragraph 2363, Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)
4 – “Fecundity, derived from the word fecund, generally refers to the ability to reproduce. In demography, fecundity is the potential reproductive capacity of an individual or population.” (Wikipedia)
5 — Thus, the problem with sex outside of marriage is made obvious, but only, of course, for those who have an interest in the Ten Commandments.
6 – “…the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), has decided to re-define women’s health care yet again by mandating that … insurance providers give women a range of new “preventative services” free, no co-pay or deductible… These ‘preventative services’ will include birth control – all FDA-approved birth control, including proven abortion-causing drugs like ella and Plan B…  According to a Consensus Report released by the IOM on July 19, ‘The IOM defines preventative health services as measures – including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling – shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition.’ Under these conditions, insured women will have access to free birth control because pregnancy has been redefined as a ‘targeted disease.’”  (Kristan Hawkins, www.LifeNews.com, 8/5/2011)
7 – Carol Morello, www.WashingtonPost.com, 12/14/2011

2012 Election: Surprising Impact of Marital Status

For reasons still unclear to me, I decided to look at the demographics of the rubble left behind by the events of last November 6.  The following chart caught my attention:

Electorate (Marital Status): Barack Obama Mitt Romney

Unmarried Women                           67%               31%
Unmarried Men                                 56%               40%
Married Women                                46%               53%
Married Men                                      38%               60%

Of all of the demographic data, this one1 captured an atypical category and it surprised me at first.  Then, I had this sudden mental image of a former Georgetown student, now attorney, who was pushing for the federal government to provide free contraceptives (and abortifacient drugs).  But, I thought, that conclusion was too simplistic.  After all, many married people voted for the President, including an astonishing number of my (supposedly) fellow Catholics according to the statistics.  The reason had to go deeper than that.

Of course!  Obama is an ideological descendant of the Clinton years which believed in a distorted version of “it takes a village to raise a child.”  The original meaning referred to the benefits of close-community societies.  The President is attempting to implement the second generation Clinton version which achieves “marriage equality” by legitimizing same-sex so-called marriage.   With moral relativism in the White House, it’s “Spring Break” year ’round.

But this is a serious matter.  This is not the first time people have tried to rid themselves of hindrances like the Ten Commandments (or “Natural Law” for the non-believers in the reading audience).  No time to recount the number of societies which fell apart because in their “enlightenment” they forgot that the family unit headed by a husband and wife is the basic building block of civilization.  (I had promised myself to limit this article to 500 words max.)  The ignorance of history which has precipitated most human-caused disasters is at work once again.

A ray of hope appeared earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal.  The author pointed out that a liberal columnist wrote in December, “Children who live with their biological parents perform better in school, have lower rates of suicide…”And, a conservative had written in 2010, “Compared to children raised in an intact family, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically bused;… and drop out of high school.”3

Ms. Schachter exhorted Michelle Obama and her “Let’s Move” campaign, which promotes the well-being of American children, to include a “Let’s Marry” message.  This would be a step in the right direction.

However, the cynic in me sees a potential problem.  Would the First Lady risk alienating many of her husband’s supporters who are thrilled that the White House now stands for the philosophies of the movie “Animal House?”

(P.S.:  With this sentence, this article contains 497 words according to “Word’s” count.)

1 – Jack Watkins, www.addictinginfo.org, 11/8/2012
2 – Abby W. Schachter, Wall Street Journal, 1/15/2013, quoting Clarence Page of the Washington Post
3 – Ibid., quoting Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation