Wow, talk about a rough week for the president.

First, the whole Benghazi cover-up is being dragged more and more into the light each day.  Then the news breaks that the IRS is targeting conservative groups.  Then, to round out the hat trick of scandals, the Justice Department is secretly listening in on the Associated Press.

Benghazi-gate, IRS-gate, AP-gate.  And it’s all hitting at once.  It’s like one big Gate-gate.

Welcome to the summer of hell, Mr. President.

Sensing that something pretty powerful must be behind such a perfect storm of presidential scandal, we bypassed our usual informants within the beltway and went straight to our sources in Heaven.

Sure enough, one high-level saint confirmed immediately what the source of President Obama’s troubles was:

“It all started last week.  We were in a board meeting at the time [yes, there are board meetings even in Heaven - ed.].  It was God, me, James, and John – you know, the usual suspects.  We were going over the purgatory numbers for last quarter and all of a sudden the door bursts open and in flies one of the seraphim.  Or maybe cherubim, I don’t know, hard to tell sometimes.  Anyway, he’s all out of breath and he’s got a look on his face like Nancy Pelosi just tried to quote Aquinas again.  Sheer horror.  So God looks at him like, WHAT?  The angel tells us:

President Obama just said ‘God Bless You’ to Planned Parenthood.

“At first we were all just dumbstruck.  James starts turning a lovely shade of pomegranate as he stares at the terrified messenger like he’s about to tear his wings off.  John is at a loss for words, just muttering, ‘Holy…holy…holy, holy, holy.’  I don’t even remember what was going through my head.  I don’t recall seeing God leave the room, but he was gone.  He does that.  You’ll have to ask someone else what happened next.”

So we caught up with another resident of Heaven who told us he may or may not have had a small role in what happened next.

“Yeah, as you know, we angels are messengers of God.  Sometimes because of the Annunciation people assume I always bring good news.  But that’s not always the case.  Right now, for example, I’m about to go tell the President of the United States that his summer is about to get really interesting, and not in a good way.  No, I’m not going to appear to him, but I’m gonna make it real clear that he shouldn’t be throwing around “God bless you’s” like that.  I mean seriously, to Planned Parenthood?!  The biggest abortion provider in the United States?  Does he honestly think God would be okay with that?  What does he expect?  It’s like standing up at a KKK gathering and saying, ‘Hey, great job, the Lord gets a real kick when you put those hoods on!,’ or it’s like addressing an SS rally and saying, ‘That’s fantastic, load more of God’s children into the cattle cars - he loves that!’

“So yeah, now I get to be the messenger who delivers God’s R.S.V.P. to Obama’s little invitation to bless Planned Parenthood.  In short, it’s ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ but it’s … going to hurt a little more than that.  We figured we would start with a few scandals to expose the depth of Obama’s corruption and insatiable will to power.  Just look at history – we do it all the time.  Do I enjoy it?  I’d be lying if I said I didn’t.  And categorically I can’t lie, so…yup, I love the smell of the Righteous Fury of God in the morning!”

So there you have it.  Maybe the president will learn a lesson:  Next time you address an institution of mass murder and ask God to show up, be careful.

He just might.

What a monster.

Quite different has been the reaction to Jason Collins, who recently made a splash as the first active player within the “big four” professional sports to come out as gay.  The same media types who succeeded in stigmatizing Tim Tebow to the point that his career may well be over were practically tripping over themselves to declare Jason Collins a hero.

It’s just another bellwether of the decline of Western civilization, and I won’t belabor the point.  In fact, what prompted me to even think of the comparison was this cartoon by Scott Stantis of the Chicago Tribune, which pretty much sums it up:

You can see more of Scott Stantis’ work here.

At the same time the IRS was ramping up its harassment of Tea Party groups in 2011, liberals were outraged and President Obama threatened to veto the debt ceiling legislation when Republicans tried to end public financing of Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills and incessant political advocacy. Even now, Planned Parenthood continues to receive public funding and also operates a 501(c)(4), presumably with private contributions, although accounting gimmicks make this separation highly dubious. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups whose stated mission is to educate citizens about the Bill of Rights and accept only private donations were held to a much higher level of scrutiny.

The contrast is spectacular and revealing: for modern liberalism, abortion is a public good but freedom of speech is not. Obama made this explicit when he told Planned Parenthood, “God bless you” and then went on to tell the graduates of Ohio State to reject the voices that warn that tyranny is just around the corner. If the revelations of the past few days have taught us anything, it is that the phrase “unaccountable bureaucrat” is not just a political cliché, and pace Obama’s assurances, there really is a petty tyrant that is always lurking around the corner of every page of ambiguous and ill-conceived legislation—and ObamaCare is by far the most heinous example.

President Obama claimed in a press conference yesterday that he had no knowledge of the IRS program, but this does not absolve him of responsibility. During his State of the Union address in 2010, President Obama made it clear that he was vehemently opposed to 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in political activity and urged Congress to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Perhaps, like the knights who killed Saint Thomas á Beckett after hearing Henry II wish for his death in a fit of rage, the IRS employees were just trying to please their boss.

“Paying the Tax,” by Pieter Brueghel the Younger, c.1620

This should give us pause when we consider the wide-ranging powers granted to the IRS under ObamaCare. Indeed, the landmark ruling of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius only upheld ObamaCare by interpreting its most onerous provisions as an exercise of the taxing power. Liberal pundits echo Obama’s claim that we have nothing to fear, but they said the same thing about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. In this light, the words of the Declaration of Independence reverberate through the centuries as a warning that is just as relevant today, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” The HHS contraceptive and abortifacient mandate is only a foretaste of what is to come.

In the age of Obama, we can no longer hope that the executive branch will exercise prudence and sound judgement in the enforcement of the law. Whenever the law allows for discretion, it also allows for abuse. As far as we know, this scandal is not the product of some Nixonian conspiracy, although the scope and longevity of the IRS program do not reflect well on Obama’s leadership if nobody ever thought to bring it to his attention. As the saying goes, “A fish rots from the head down.”

Most likely, these abuses are simply the result of an incompetent and ineffectual President who despises the citizens that elected him and takes no interest in the task of governing when it does not suit his latest initiative to remake American society. If we can take Obama at his word, the IRS employees were simply left to their own devices without proper oversight. It is only natural that they would follow the example of a President who never misses an opportunity to chastise his conservative opponents and to politicize every function of the government under his control. Sadly, in his peevish aloofness, Obama is the pettiest tyrant of them all.

—

Correction Note: the original version of this article referred to the debt ceiling debate as taking place in May 2012 when it was in fact the summer of 2011.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services tweeted this comment from the President of the United States:

President Obama: Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition. #ThanksObamacare

— Kathleen Sebelius (@Sebelius) May 10, 2013

Yes: Democrats believe that without a massive government program being a woman is a “pre-existing condition.” Womanhood is a disease you cannot shake. Femininity turns out to be a disability.

Talk about a war on women? This is an assault on womanhood itself: declaring being a woman tantamount to having cancer or a genetic disorder.

Absolutely disgusting, utterly patronizing, and wholly degrading.

The president better lookout if he doesn’t want to catch what *she* has…

The ear-catching line:

“…each act of aggravated murder he committed by terminating pregnancies…”

The Cuyahoga County prosecutor, Thomas McGinty, intends to pursue charges against Ariel Castro for each and every criminal action that evidence can show Castro may have committed over the ten years he held three women captive in Cleveland. The charges could number in the thousands, based on evidence and testimony

That includes multiple charges for felonious assault, rape, perhaps a separate kidnapping charge for each day of their captivity, and a whole host of things. But the most remarkable possible charge, given the way our laws handle such things, is the “aggravated murder” charge for starving and beating the women until they miscarried when he got them pregnant.

Notice the language of the alleged offense: “terminating pregnancies.” He didn’t say, “killing children,” or “aborting fetuses,” or anything that recognizes the humanity of the child in utero, but he still believes aggravated murder charges are a possibility.

Charges should certainly be pursued for the starvation and the assault that caused the miscarriages, but aggravated murder charges should only apply if the human entity killed had his or her own personal right to life. We don’t know the exact gestational age of the fetuses at the time of miscarriage, but if the fetus who was killed in the miscarriage could just as legally be aborted as carried to term, why pursue charges for murder? Mothers can unilaterally choose to “terminate the pregnancy,” why can’t fathers? Granted, fathers cannot starve and beat the woman they impregnated, but again, starving and beating someone don’t reach the level of “aggravated murder” unless someone died in the process.

FYI: I’m a child, not a choice.

And then we have this case. It is not clear if the mother wanted the child once she realized she was pregnant by a rapist, and the child clearly was not wanted by the rapist father. Perhaps the mother would have aborted the child had she been raped but was free to pursue an abortion—an option obviously unavailable to her here.

Either way, the only way logically to pursue aggravated murder charges for “terminating pregnancies” in this case is if the child in utero is acknowledged by law to have its own inherent right to life. I’m in favor of the law recognizing this fact, but our present laws are so confused on this foundational question.

The aggravated murder charge ought to be pursued for the same reason abortion ought not be legal in any case: because the law recognizes the inherent right to life of all human persons from the moment of conception, not because someone—whether the mother or a county prosecutor—who had the good fortune to escape the womb alive “chose.”

In two separate reports on NBC, Mitchell reported that “Republicans are taking direct aim at Hillary Clinton” in their quest to find out what led to the death of Stevens and four other Americans in Libya this past September 11.

Stevens’ nefarious Republican plot may just work as House Republicans seem willing to accept the fictitious tapestry of intrigue he wove before he died. They will soon hold hearings, and Gregory Hicks, the deputy mission chief in Libya at the time Stevens’ plan went into action, will play his part.

Hicks claims that he and everyone on the ground in Libya at the time “knew” it was a so-called “terrorist” attack immediately, and were “stunned” when Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who was drinking in the best intelligence available back in New York City, let us know it was actually not terrorism at all but a demonstration in reaction to a malicious video on YouTube that simply got out of hand.

According to Hicks, he fielded a call from Ambassador Stevens when the so-called attack got out of hand and he ordered military assistance to head to Benghazi. An order, he claims, that was “overruled.” Though a mere diplomat and not a military expert, he posits that commandos from the embassy in Libya or fighter jets in the area could have arrived in plenty of time to prevent the worst of the “attack.” Mitchell points out, however, that the commandos whose job when in theater is to always be ready to fight could not have gotten ready in time; that an embassy in a war-torn region had such sparse security that it could not spare four commandos to go save the ambassador’s life; and supersonic fighter jets based closer to Benghazi than Lincoln, Nebraska, is to Washington, D.C., would have taken five hours to arrive. So the refusal to send any assistance was entirely justifiable—after all, it was just a simple demonstration gone awry.

The moment of Christopher Stevens’ victory: at last, Hillary will be embarrassed.

Then there is the matter of the requests Stevens himself allegedly made for more security that some of these unstable Republicans are waving like a bloody, soot-stained shirt. This is more evidence of Stevens’ evil deep seated desire to embarrass Hillary Clinton, America’s favorite Democrat. Stevens, even though the additional security was not granted, chose to go to Benghazi at a time when a peaceful demonstration over a disgusting YouTube video might get out of hand. Had Stevens stayed back at the well-protected embassy in Tripoli (remember all those commandos defending the china?) then none of this would have happened. His decision to put himself in such a dangerous situation is clear evidence that he was, in Mitchell’s excellent phrasing, “a Republican taking direct aim at Hillary Clinton.” He calculated that he might die, and that his death would be an exquisite way to embarrass Hillary Clinton.

Clearly, this is a deep and committed plot on the part of unstable Republicans who have been led by the nose by that mastermind Republican, Christopher Stevens, whose example has emboldened his followers to pick up the torch and embarrass Hillary Clinton at all costs, even if it means their own death.

Thank Gaia the real menace behind this whole awful saga, the man who made that terrible YouTube video, is still safely behind bars, if only for giving Stevens, Hicks, and the other unstable Republicans a pretext under which to embarrass Hillary Clinton!

Parting question: CAN THE REPUBLIC SURVIVE IF HILLARY CLINTON IS EMBARRASSED?!

1. immigration (even unskilled) is not a drag on the overall economy,
2. if we accept the debatable premise that immigrants are a drag on the welfare system, then we should fix the welfare system instead of building a wall,
3. belief in the integrity of the law seems less at risk from illegal immigrants than it does from, say, legalized abortion,
4. immigration has not been shown to be (statistically) significantly related to crime rates,
5. having a burdensome route to legal immigration will likely encourage the types of illegal immigrants that we don’t want (i.e., risktakers, people with nothing to lose, etc.), and
6. we should spend more time and effort encouraging the adoption of proper institutions in foreign countries than in blocking emigrants from these foreign countries fleeing corruption.

But, try as I might, people still seem stuck on the “I like legal immigration, but not illegal immigration” idea. Implicit in this argument is the acceptance of current immigration law as valid or just. My point in writing all of these articles is not to provide an apology for people breaking the law to come here and refuse to assimilate. My point was to encourage asking the question “Are our current immigration laws wise or just?”

law books on a shelf by umjanedoan

Here’s yet another hypothetical: we’ve all seen cute little kids selling lemonade; we never think they are shady characters who should be forcibly removed from society. But what if we made selling lemonade illegal? Who would sell it? The law won’t reduce demand but it will push up prices with the added risk, thereby attracting profiteers who a) hold the law in contempt, b) probably aren’t very nice people, and c) are the types of people we would try to forcibly remove from society. Our strict immigration laws probably encourage the (illegal) immigration of more undesirable folks than if the laws were more lenient. Sure, more lenient laws would mean more immigrants, but it would mean more nicer immigrants and more immigrants who respect the law.

What if it were illegal for anyone in the U.S. to move to Texas? Would immigration to Texas cease? No. Would it affect which immigrants ended up in Texas? Undoubtedly. Do you think there would be a greater or smaller amount of nice immigrant families moving to Texas? A greater or smaller amount of dangerous people with nothing left to lose?

I find it odd to juxtapose the “immigrants are okay if they follow the law” logic with the pro-life position. The point that pro-life people (need to) make is that the legality of abortion does not provide it moral cover. We aren’t content that people just reduce their use of legal abortions; we would not consider it just to keep abortion legal even if we got the number of abortions to decrease significantly. We realize that the law of legal abortion itself needs to be changed. Can you imagine a Catholic saying “I’m all for legal abortions; I’m just against illegal abortions”? No, we know that abortion is objectively evil; the law impacts abortion by making it more or less prevalent.

Similarly (but of course not to the same degree), forcibly keeping immigrants out is, I would argue, (a lesser) evil. People should have the freedom to escape poverty and corruption, and morally we should be willing to help people doing just that. Sure, some bad apples will come in, but God creates all of us even knowing we will sin, some gravely and with final impenitence. The law impacts immigration by affecting who chooses to come.

Even though Jesus said “those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do,” the “get tough on immigrants” crowd seems to only want those who are well to enter our borders. If you are not convinced by the lengthy academic literature showing no significant connection between immigration and crime rates (hint: at least read the abstracts!) then you need to provide a moral reason for keeping immigrants out, most of whom won’t break any other law besides the one saying they can’t come here.

America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.

Nogales border fence By bunky’s pickle

I couldn’t help but mentally draw the connection between the “immigrants are criminals” idea and Prohibition. If our borders were more open, i.e., if it were less costly for people to move here, it would attract more “normal” types of immigrants. As it is, though, when our border is militarized, when getting into the U.S. is very costly and dangerous, then the types of people who will be attracted to entering will pretty much be the opposite of the people we want: people with no good options at home who are willing to engage in dangerous, risky behavior to come here. When we outlawed alcohol, violent criminals got us our alcohol; now that alcohol is legal, the providers of alcohol certainly are a more respectable group. Is it possible that our “get tough” political motivation on immigration policy, that illegals are criminals, is self-fulfilling in the sense that those are the ones who most try to come here given how difficult it is to come here legally? On the relationship between immigration and the drug war, see good commentary here.

“Illegals could be terrorists.” True, as could any native. But the statistical probability that a given immigrant, even an illegal one, will commit a terrorist act is extremely small. Do we deny everyone the American dream (or at least deny them from fleeing their own domestic nightmare) because of this extremely small probability? Do we shun our poor neighbors over so tiny a risk?

“They take our jerbs!” Commenter Paul says “The unskilled labor influx is actually a detraction for the local economy. An unskilled laborer who is illiterate or only semi-educated due to their former homeland is more likely to be hired even for entry-level positions like working at McDonald’s or pushing carts at Publix. The problem with this is that you have educated kids graduating from high school that can’t get a job because they’ve been filled with low skilled immigrants who have very little chance of upward mobility.”

I found this an odd argument for a couple of reasons. First, it would seem to be a good thing that we have educated our high schoolers sufficiently that they don’t have to work at McDonald’s or push carts at Publix. The preferable alternative, then, is to have our educated high schoolers performing jobs for which they are overqualified? Isn’t that the lament frequently offered about college education? Second, the economist in me, after hearing that high schoolers are having trouble finding work, again feels obligated to point out that lowering the minimum wage would do much to increase employment in this group.

As is obvious, I only present principles here; I am not adept (or long-suffering) enough to plow through actual legislation that is being considered, like Carson is. Certainly legislation can be written well or poorly; a more strict immigration policy that is written well and actually prevents criminals from coming in but allows normal, hardworking people to do so would be preferable to a poorly written policy that pushed open borders but did nothing to address the welfare handouts that immigrants supposedly seek (though in the video I posted previously, the point was made that illegals often don’t qualify for such things). Further, U.S. legislation can do next to nothing to change what largely drives most immigration: poor institutional quality in developing countries. When countries do not respect the rule of law, private property rights, the benefits of free trade, the importance of constitutionally limited government, etc., then of course people will want to leave. Do we turn them away at our border because their government rulers are kleptocrats? Is that the immigrant’s fault?

As is also obvious, I nor anyone else blogging for CV claim to speak officially for the Church. We are Catholics in good standing approaching timely issues through the mind of the Church but often providing various viewpoints on issues of prudence. Catholics in good conscience can arguably be on both sides of the immigration debate; my intention here and earlier is simply to highlight a viewpoint that is well-established amongst economists, seems to be favored amongst the U.S. Bishops, but is often ridiculed amongst conservatives.

For space, I had to cut one quote which I often cite as my favorite quote ever in the Register. Our reporter at the Republican National Convention asked Bob Dole what he thought of George W. Bush’s faith.

Said Dole: “I think Bush’s faith is authentic, and that will be useful to us.”  That says so much about the Republican establishment — but also about Bush.

In his interview with the Register, the future president’s was very much to-the-point: “I’m a pro-life candidate,” he said. “I’ve been a pro-life governor. I’m going to set the goal that all children born and unborn ought to be protected in law and welcomed to life. I will sign a ban on partial birth abortions. I will encourage adoptions.”

Thus began a stormy love affair with Catholics.

The rest of the article reminisces about some flashpoints from that first honeymoon year of Bush-Catholic story that I hadn’t thought about for a while:

• The Lepanto 2000 Rosary Crusade
• Marian Feast Days on the Recount Timeline
• The Day 6 Cardinal McCarrick Visit
• The February Catholic Do-Gooder Summit
• The JPII Center Ribbon Cutting

Then in 2001 the storms came in late August, as they so often do, and the cyclone hit in September. Anyway, it was good to reminisce about the old days. And it was good to share some of the love at the presidential pow-wow.

I counted at least four hatchet-burying moments in Dallas.

First: the “Bush as divider” hatchet.

Bush was often mocked for saying “I am a uniter, not a divider.” That never made much sense.

But the kind words of the former presidents suggest they knew he was a uniter all along — Bill Clinton discussed Bush’s calls “just to talk politics,” Obama described the letter from Bush he found on day one in the presidential desk, Carter described how Bush helped him out. And of course, Obama praised him for his reach-across-the-aisle effort to promote immigration reform.

Second: the “war-monger” hatchet.

The National Catholic Register, when I edited it, certainly took Bush to task for his Iraq war decision — but even Cardinal Ratzinger gave an implicit green light to the Afghanistan war. And isn’t it odd that behavior (Google Libya, Guantanamo and “Kill Teams” for starters) that would have been be called “war mongering” 10 years ago is given a pass when Obama does it?

But the presidents graciously praised Bush’s efforts in Africa. President Carter went a step further when he gave Bush credit for more peace in Sudan: “In January of 2005, there was a peace treaty between north and south Sudan that ended a war that had been going on for 20 years,” Carter said. “George W. Bush is responsible for that.”

Third: The “Big Oil polluter” hatchet was buried. Or it should have been.

Though he was caricatured as pro-oil and anti-tree, Bush’s personal commitment to environmentalism is real and significant. He lives in a radical conservationist dream house in Crawford, Texas, that even Snopes agrees compares favorably to Al Gore’s house.

The AP reports that the George W. Bush library is like a green home away from home for the Bushes. It is LEED-certified platinum: as green as you can get. Many materials in the building came from within 500 miles of the site; a cistern will gather rainwater to water the plants, etc.

Fourth: Maybe even the Katrina hatchet was just a little bit buried.

Bill Clinton spoke joked about getting cozy with the Bush family – and revealed that he worked with them on Katrina. “You know, starting with my work with President George H.W. Bush on the tsunami and the aftermath of Katrina, people began to joke that I was getting so close to the Bush family, I had become the black sheep son. My mother told me not to talk too long today and Barbara, I will not let you down.”

Each of these was a small thing, but it was nice. I always liked Bush. I like anyone who is willing to stand for life against sneering opponents and gain ground.

As Obama put it: “To know the man is to like the man.”

Archbishop Vigneron and Bishop Gumbleton may be less at odds than Bishop Gumbleton seems to think.  Vigneron’s statements that some individuals should not present themselves for Communion referred to those who publicly advocate for such things as same sex marriages, or any other serious matter, such as the legalization of abortion, not to the private individual who struggles with these matters in his or her conscience, as Gumbleton seems to have in mind.

Congressman Pelosi is an excellent example of a public figure who advocates for positions seriously in conflict with Church teaching. Were the Church to forbid her communion, that would not be a punitive act, though she and others may perceive it that way.  Archbishop Vigneron forbade communion to no one.  What he requested was that Catholics who behave as Pelosi does, not present themselves for communion.  He is calling Pelosi and others to take their faith seriously and to form their consciences in accord with Church teaching.  Undoubtedly Vigneron would agree that no one can know the state of Pelosi’s conscience.  Only God can. But it is Vigneron’s responsibility to ensure that the Catholic faithful are not mislead by the actions of prominent Catholics and thus he is correct to instruct them about the wrongness of Pelosi’s positions and how her objective actions are ones that compromise her eligibility to receive Communion.  Moreover, if in fact, she is culpable for not having formed her conscience correctly, reception of the Eucharist brings her no benefit and some harm, for unworthy reception of the Eucharist is in itself a serious sin.

The eighty-year old couple mentioned by Bishop Gumbleton who have a gay son is another case entirely.  Ties of affection such as theirs can easily cloud one’s judgment.  If they are struggling to accept Church teaching (as Gumbleton suggests) they may not be subjectively guilty for their failure to accept Church teaching.  Nonetheless, even for them Vigneron’s remarks should be helpful. Any Catholic who struggles to accept Church teaching on such clear issues as the impossibility of same sex marriages or of the immorality of abortion, should be striving prayerfully to accept that teaching. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church on matters of faith and morals.  Catholics should experience great interior turmoil when their views conflict with Church teaching.  They need to pray about their eligibility to receive Communion and keep asking God to enlighten their intellects so that they can accept Church teaching.  The fact that the couple wept because they worry about their eligibility to receive Communion indicates a great love for the Eucharist and, one hopes, for the Church as well.  If they were to understand the Church’s teaching fully, they would experience much peace about how much God loves them and their son, and they could receive the Eucharist without hesitation.

My own Catholic father did not accept the Church’s teaching on the need to go to confession.  Since he knew this conflicted with Church teaching, he did not receive the Eucharist for many decades although he faithfully attended Sunday liturgy and occasionally daily mass as well.  For those long years, I prayed for him and counseled him about the Church’s teaching and finally he returned to confession and Communion.  The fact that he abided by Church teaching in respect to eligibility for receiving Communion was extremely impressive to me. I believe he received powerful graces from that fidelity. Had he received Communion without going to confession, I don’t know how efficacious the graces of the Eucharist would have been or whether he would ever have reconciled himself to confession – and been able to enjoy the powerful graces of that sacrament.

I will pray for Bishop Gumbleton that he help the eighty-year old parents understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and the Church’s teaching on worthy reception of the Eucharist. And I pray that they will be able to return to Communion, joyfully praising the Lord, the Church, and Archbishop Vigneron.