Murphy v. Religious Freedom

As per a June 1 statement from Archbishop Timothy Broglio, in which he cited #s 2357, 2358, & 2359 of the Catechism: "The Archdiocese for the Military Services—the only jurisdiction charged with the pastoral care of all Catholics in the military, VA Administration, and at the service of the Federal Government outside of the boundaries of the United States, which is also charged with endorsing Roman Catholic priests urges the Congress not to repeal the current policy for the Armed Forces."This issue has received exceedingly superficial treatment in the media; little has been said about the impact of policy change on religious liberty. In an October 22nd interview, Archbishop Broglio spoke of an unanticipated and chilling impact on the freedom to proclaim and teach the Truth: "'As Catholics,' he warned, 'we must be attentive to the protection of our freedom of religion'-- neither subordinating it to the idea of tolerance, nor trading it for the mere 'freedom of worship.' If members of the Church do not defend this freedom in the public square, he said, 'we may well lose it.'"

As per this past Friday's Courier Times, it is clear that Patrick Murphy, in his closing days as a U.S. Congressman, has chosen to disregard Archbishop Broglio. Now, Patrick is a very young man. As an older (& hopefully more mature) man, he will have to look back at his four years on the public stage and see his repeated betrayals of the natural law and the Faith which he professes. In these closing weeks, he has the opportunity to correct course and make public amends.

Were (a) pastor(s) to turn a blind eye to Patrick Murphy's continued betrayals and not urge public repentance, wouldn't that constitute an incredible lack of pastoral solicitude - true pastoral negligence? Where is the true concern for Patrick's eternal salvation?

Great victories in th 8th, but it should have been a clean sweep!

CS_ T editorial

A Time to Say Welcome Back & a Time to Say Good-Bye

The Inquirer is calling a winner!

Welcome back Congressman-Elect Mike Fitzpatrick!

We wish you well Patrick Murphy, but we've seen more than enough. As Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman would say - It's Time to Say Good-Bye. Come back to politics, when you truly embrace Catholic teaching.

John Galloway - pro-life, pro-conscience, pro-family

Individuals represented in the U.S. Congress’ 8th Congressional district are also represented in the Pennsylvania House & the Pennsylvania Senate. The 140th district of the Pennsylvania House is fortunate to be able to vote for St. Joseph the Worker parishioner, Rep John Galloway - the Democrat candidate. Of Pennsylvania House candidates (from the 8th Congressional District) who responded to the Catholic Standard & Times, only Rep John Galloway (140th) consistently answered in manners consistent with Catholic positions on the sanctity of human life, conscience protection, & marriage/family.

Rep Galloway's opponent is Jane Burger, a Holy Trinity parishioner. Since she is a Republican, some people are mistakenly thinking that she is embracing pro life positions. Here's a sample of how both responded to te Catholic Standard & Times:

Ms. Burger answered (D) to question # 4: "I oppose legalized abortion, except when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." John Galloway took the Catholic position (B) in his answer: "I oppose legalized abortion in all circumstances."

Question # 8 inquired about "requiring employers to provide employee benefits to which they are morally opposed." While John Galloway took a Catholic position in defense of conscience, Ms. Burger indicated that employers should be required to provide contraceptive coverage (Much of what passes for "contraceptive" has abortifacient potential.).

Question # 11 asks about positions on "legislation that forces health care providers to provide, pay for, or refer for services contray to their conscience for moral or religious reasons." While John Galloway took a position in defense of conscience protection for health care workers, Ms. Burger unbelievably warns that this is a "Dangerous precedent" which "Could easily expand to other areas. Grocery workers won't ring up pork because their religion won't allow them to eat it?" Health care workers should particularly be alarmed by Ms. Burger's response.

John Galloway's responses are consistent with Catholic teaching & the natural law on the sanctity of human life, conscience protection, & marriage/family. Democrat John Galloway's responses are infinitely more consistent with those of fellow Pro Life, Pro Family Mike Fitzpatrick, than Republican Jane Burger!