Kathleen Sibelius (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Back in 2011, Kathleen Sibelius protested that her decision to block the over-the-counter sale of Plan B to girls 16 and younger, “[wasn't] about politics,” but that was before the election. Now that President Obama is safely re-elected, she has no reason to fight for something that she doesn’t really believe in. The Obama Administration’s priority has always been to promote expanded access to abortion almost from his first day in office, although the euphemism of choice these days is always about protecting “women’s health.” Who could oppose that?

In the first place, a 15 year-old girl is not a woman. Girls cannot drive a car without adult supervision, if at all. Girls cannot purchase liquor or tobacco. Girls cannot vote or serve in the military. In most states, girls cannot consent to marriage. Such restrictions are not like the misogynist Sharia laws in Iran and Saudi Arabia. In all of these things, we have rightly decided as a society that at 15 years of age, a girl is still not ready for these dangerous and

This episode brought to you by Plan B. She’s never too young to start learning about birth control. (CTW Photo)

consequential activities—and neither is a boy of the same age. Nobody at the age of 15 is ready to make life-altering decisions.

Secondly, it is not healthy to teach young girls that they are mere objects for sexual gratification. It is not healthy to provide a young girl with poison and tell her that she has the right to choose whether another person within her lives or dies. It is not healthy to tell girls that there are no consequences for a life of licentiousness and debauchery, and that if they “accidentally” get pregnant (as if having sex is an accident!) they can “take care of it” after the fact, no questions asked, and that Plan B is no more harmful than a packet of breath mints or a roll of toilet paper. No, this is not about women’s health.

“Women’s Health” is neither about women nor healthy. Discuss. (NBC Photo)

Feminists have been fighting this war for so long now that they have forgotten what they are even fighting for. In the early days of the feminist project, there was an attempt at serious reflection on our views concerning the proper role of women in society, but instead of finding some happy medium between the pit and the pedestal, we have cast women into the gutter and left them to fend for themselves. Women, and now even girls, are expected to fight on equal terms with men, and nowhere is this more true than in the bedroom. Young boys and girls are expected to have adventurous liasons with many partners from a young age while marriage is something to be postponed until later, if ever.

The normalization of adultery in our society has many consequences. Proponents of gay marriage argue of their sexual attraction, “It’s who I am.” In a bizarre sign of the times, girls in high school now aspire to star in pornographic films, justifying their decision by saying, “It’s my life.” In the four decades since Roe v. Wade was decided, more that 55 million babies have been killed by three little words, “It’s my body.” For all the self-regarding language though, when we define ourselves by our sexual predilections–by our attraction to the other, the external–we are in fact denying the self. The human body is not merely some biological receptacle, but each of us also has a unique soul that yearns to be reunited with our creator.

Christ and the Woman of Samaria by Giovanni Lanfranco, c. 1625-8

None of this is new though. In one of the most powerful passages in all of sacred scripture, Jesus tells the woman at the well, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst.” In this powerful story of salvation, Jesus describes our addiction to sin. In our sex-obsessed society which is really not so different from the decadent Romans in the time of Christ, we constantly thirst for more gratification of our carnal desires, be we can never be satisfied. It is only when we accept that procreation in the bonds of marriage is a sacred part of God’s divine plan that this thirst can finally be quenched.

The great miracle of the Samaritan woman is that she is so spectacularly unchaste and yet in her encounter with Christ, she is able to overcome these desires and finally obtain lasting peace. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus speaks often to women, offering them true health in both body and soul. Like the woman at the well, all of us are fallen creatures subject to many sinful desires, but the story of our salvation does not end there. Choosing to turn away from sin is only the beginning. Protecting the youngest and most innocent among us from the commoditization of human flesh that is promoted by the Obama Administration is as good a place as any to start.

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.

This is especially true of men entrusted with great power. In the case of President Obama and soon-to-be Pope Emeritus Benedict, the contrast of the two men’s fortunes is especially instructive. Whereas the latter is descending the proverbial staircase with grace and self-control, the former is desperately clambering up from the bottom in a futile struggle to the top. The two men could not be more different.

As the heir to the Chair of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI possessed not only tremendous temporal power but indeed the keys to heaven itself. In the frailty and weakness of his old age, he knew that he could not adequately shepherd the souls of billions toward the gates of the eternal kingdom and so he has relinquished everything to better serve his people and his God in meditation and prayer.

In so doing, he demonstrates the greatest power of all, which is the willingness to give it up.

Meanwhile, faced with tough decisions to reduce government spending due to cuts that were enacted by his own party in the Senate, Obama’s naked display of raw power is as embarrassing as it is ugly. An elder journalist has received threats from the White House staff and the Secretary of Defense is reducing our naval presence in the most troubled part of the world, for instance.

Both men entered into their respective offices with great hope and adulation, but there the similarities end. In Rome yesterday, tens of thousands crowded into St. Peter’s Square to wish Benedict a fond farewell and express their continued joy and hope for the future of the Church.

On the other hand, any illusion that Obama still believes his 2008 campaign mantra of “Hope and Change” surely has been dispelled by the events of the past week. Hope has hardly made a comeback in Washington since the election.

Double-helix staircase at Chateaux de Chambord, Loir-et-Cher, France which allows one to ascend without meeting someone coming down

King George III was reputed to have said of George Washington’s retirement as Commander-in-Chief, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” The same could be said of Benedict today. Meanwhile, Obama’s abilities as a leader were never equal to his ambitions and his pique in response to his failures is like the madness of George III instead of the grace and humility of George Washington or the outgoing Supreme Pontiff. Whereas Pope Emeritus Benedict is laying his life at the foot of the cross in obedience to a higher power, President Obama’s second term is shaping up to be a reprise of the worst abuses of the Nixon administration.

Napoleon Bonaparte, who was well-acquainted with earthly power, is supposed to have said, “Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.” Obama seems to share in this mentality, for he is desperate to avoid the obscurity which seems inevitable as his influence wanes. However, Benedict knows better, for he remembers well the words spoken at his inauguration–and which will be spoken again at the inauguration of his successor, “sic transit gloria mundi.”

All power is for naught. In the final accounting, only grace and obedience to God will be of any value.

===

Joshua Bowman (@prolixpatriot) joined in full communion with the Catholic Church in 2010 after many years in the spiritual wilderness. He recently moved from his beloved native Virginia to Columbus, Ohio with his growing family and writes on religion, politics, history, and geographical curiosities in these pages and on his personal blog, The Prolix Patriot.

We’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples and do more to encourage fatherhood – because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.

Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity – broad, shared, and built on a thriving middle class – that has always been the source of our progress at home.

Insofar as the president deserves praise, not only for what he said on Tuesday night but for what he has said about fatherhood over the past several years, it’s interesting to hear him speak candidly about strong families on the national stage. Quite simply because the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch on gay marriage and birth control in recent years necessarily results in fatherless households and abortion.

Indeed, while President Obama has been more than willing to express his support for responsible fatherhood, he has done more to undermine the institution of marriage than any other chief executive.

This is all rather confusing because in 2009 the president established a task force whose goal was to encourage stronger families and safer communities. He has also given a number of heart-stirring speeches regarding his own experience as a father, including this one, which kicked off the president’s Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative in June 2010.

As study after study shows, America’s greatest weapon against childhood poverty is a married mother and father. I think the president knows this, but he’s too politically cautious to turn it into a national issue. I pray he changes his mind, and his policies, over the next four years. Because as important as it is for the president to talk about being a responsible father, words alone won’t reduce the number of absentee dads and fatherless children by any significant amount. President Obama must do more to encourage responsible fatherhood.

Hey: I'm still a pig.

Yesterday President Obama, owner of the largest deficits in American history, sought to avoid the damaging political optics of the upcoming, automatic, deeply problematic “sequestration” cuts by instructing us all, “We can’t just cut our way to prosperity.” Rather, he insists on a “balanced mix of spending cuts and more tax reform” (read: higher taxes on more people and spending cuts that are as so much lipstick on a pig).

Two points:

1) How the heck would he know? When was the last time he honestly tried spending cuts as a means to spur economic growth? The engine that drives our economy—small business—is pleading for the government to get out of the way, shrink, stop growing, stop interfering, stop “investing,” i.e., try spending cuts. But they might as well be speaking Greek to this most profligate of presidents.

2) The sequestration cuts Obama derides these days were his idea. Back during the first debt ceiling face-off the sequestration cuts were proposed by the White House to force the sides to come to an agreement some time down the road—the cuts were intended to be so awful that both sides would have to compromise in their budgets. The score since then? The GOP in the House has passed budgets (plural) and sent them to the Senate, where they died for want of attention—they were left on a table to die like a baby that survived an abortion. The Democrat-led Senate hasn’t passed  budget in something like four years now, and the President’s budgets (routinely late, when he proposes one) can’t even get a majority of Democrats to vote for them… who is actually trying to solve the problem here?

But that aside, at least one government agency (one that, not insignificantly, is forced to compete on the free market with private enterprises) says that it must cut costs in order to right its fiscal ship. The U.S. Postal Service has announced that it is ending Saturday mail delivery, a move that will save $2 billion every year.

Now, $2 billion per year only recoups two-tenths of one percent of the annual $1 trillion deficits this President insists upon, so it isn’t like this savings will save the republic.

And it’s not that the Postal Service has now become the sine qua non of fiscal responsibility, but hey, any glimmer of hope for sanity in government spending is, well, a glimmer.

Most Reverend Timothy Broglio, archbishop of the Military Services, USA, with a group of military chaplain candidates in statuary hall in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception after his installation in 2008. Yours truly on the far right.

I was a Navy chaplain candidate for three years while I was in seminary and had a fair number of opportunities to meet and work with chaplains and their flock on military installations while I held my commission. Truly a special service and an incredible way to serve God by serving those who serve us all—helping them to retain their Center, sometimes in the midst of the worst conditions and situations humanity can contrive.

Thanks to former Congressman Todd Akin, the National Defense Authorization Act passed on December 21 and signed on January 2 by President Obama protects military chaplains from having to perform any ceremonies or rites that violate their conscience.

Like same-sex “marriages.”

Akin introduced language that reads:

The Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.

But in a “signing statement,” a practice presidents use to thwart the true intent of the law—and a practice then-Senator Obama decried when President Bush used it—President Obama referred to this language as “unnecessary and ill-advised.”

Obama wrote:

The military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members…The secretary of defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct.

That part, “do not permit or condone discriminatory actions” in the directive to the secretary of defense is the sticky part. We already know that President Obama considers an imagined “right” to contraceptives and abortifacients greater than an individual’s right of conscience. He also ended the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and has endorsed same-sex “marriage.” In a statement to supporters he assured all, “My administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members,” and that this provision “will not alter that.” His notion of what is offensively “discriminatory” clearly differs from that of a faithful Catholic chaplain, and certainly from the intent of those who wrote this law.

At present military chaplains are permitted to perform same sex “marriages” on military bases. This likely means that Catholic chaplains, while not required to perform the ceremony, is required to help make accommodation for a same-sex couple to have their ceremony.

I do not know what sort of “implementing regulations” the secretary of defense can promulgate that will at one and the same time follow the plain letter of this law and not “permit or condone discriminatory actions” according to the President’s understanding of “discriminatory.” I can see litigation coming of this as soon as a confused Catholic service member demands that the Catholic chaplain perform the same-sex ceremony, perhaps because there is no other chaplain around who would willingly accommodate.

Fortunately, there already is some case law in favor of the good guys. In 1996 a Catholic Air Force Reserve chaplain, Father Vincent Rigdon, sued the Clinton administration. They had forbidden him and all Catholic chaplains from following the directives of the U.S. bishops to ask all Catholics to write Congress in support of the partial-birth abortion ban they had passed, asking them to override President Clinton’s veto. Father Rigdon, joined in the lawsuit by a Jewish chaplain, the Muslim American Military Association, and a Catholic Navy chaplain, won.

Judge Stanley Sporkin of the D.C. Circuit Court noted that chaplains have “rank without a command.” They can order a private to pray a rosary, but the private’s noncompliance does not result in disciplinary action.

Sporkin wrote, “What we have here is the government’s attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains’ free-exercise and free-speech rights, as well as those of their congregants.”

Hopefully, should the Obama administration’s directives lean more toward preventing “discriminatory actions” than respecting freedom of conscience, the courts will see clearly once again.

And unlike “double down”, which often made sense in light of the point the candidate was trying to make, “fiscal cliff” is not an accurate description of reality. Here’s what it is—on January 1, if the Congress and the White House cannot agree on a deficit reduction plan, an automatic package of tax increases and spending cuts go into effect.

What some call a fiscal cliff others might call real deficit reduction in an era of divided government.

The notable tax increase is a boost in the top marginal income tax rate for 35 to 39 percent—in effect, the repeal of the Bush tax cut and restoration of Clinton-era marginal rates. The spending cuts are an across-the-board cut in spending in all programs, save Social Security and veterans benefits, which are exempt. Whether you like each individual idea or hate it, when you consider it as a package, does it really merit a term like “fiscal cliff” that implies the end of civilization awaits?

I’d say this sounds like a reasonable compromise. When it comes to the tax rates, Obama won the election and his view on this topic was no secret. Whether it’s the solution I would come up with or the GOP would come up with is really not relevant right now.

But on the flip side, the Republicans hold an expanded majority in the House of Representatives—unlike Obama, who won a smaller share of the vote in 2012 than he did in his genuine mandate year of 2008, House Republicans won more seats in 2012 than they did in their own genuine tidal wave year of 2010. The views of GOP House members on tax and spending policy are no more a secret than Obama’s and since the House is where all tax and spending bills must originate, they too have a right to a 50/50 solution. And an across-the-board spending reduction is a good place to start.

There is fear that the tax increases and spending cuts will trigger another recession, but what’s the alternative? At what point does our focus on the short-term take a back-seat to our real long-term deficit reduction needs? And the fact remains that even this “fiscal cliff” is rather modest.

The mix of taxes and spending cuts wouldn’t be exactly what I would propose. It wouldn’t be what President Obama or House Republicans would do if either party had won a governing majority. What it will do is reduce the deficit. That’s why I’m rooting for gridlock these next seven weeks and forcing the enactment of this package.

Or maybe I should say I’m doubling down on the idea of going over the fiscal cliff. That’s language our leaders could understand.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York

President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family.

However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.

I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers

Let’s break this down so we don’t miss anything about the context or gravity of the situation:

1. This meeting was prompted because the White House decided to curtail and violate the religious freedom of the Catholic Church and individual Catholics.

2. The White House refused to consult with Catholic bishops while originally formulating and issuing this mandate. President Obama misled Cardinal Dolan when he promised the Cardinal he would be happy with the White House’s final decision.

3. The White House has continually lied about and misrepresented the opinion and position of the U.S. Bishops in this process (claiming, for instance, that they were always against Obamacare and that Catholic Charities USA supported their false accomodation). They have continued to act in bad faith.

4. The White House has also chosen to ally itself with liberal, left-wing Catholic dissenters like Sr. Carol Keehan throughout this process, thereby snubbing the U.S. Bishops and all faithful Catholics.

(Are you still there? Because now it gets really good….)

5. After all of this, when the White House finally gets around to inviting staff authorized by the USCCB to negotiate on behalf of them, the White House says what to them?! First, they issue an ultimatum saying all compromise is off the table. So what on earth are they supposed to talk about if the White House refuses from the outset to compromise in any way, shape, or form? The cynical answer is the White House, once again, simply wanted to establish the appearance of dialogue while offering zero substance.

6. Then, the White House proceeds to lecture the USCCB staff about how to interpret Catholic teaching! Can you imagine anything more offensive? Telling Catholics how to be Catholic? They show them a copy of the America editorial as if a) the staff has not already read it and b) the U.S. Bishops give a fig what the editors of America think.

7. Let’s read Cardinal Dolan’s line again:

The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

In other words, what we have here is NOT a failure to communicate. What we have here is an Administration and White House officials who believe they know Catholic teaching better than us. And who have the hubris to lecture us about what our faith teaches.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

As a study in ideology and power, the anecdote [of the White House meeting described above] is chilling, compounded by all the recent claims by Democrats and liberals that Catholics who actually abide by their faith are opposed to modernity. Such prejudice is supposedly defunct in contemporary America, except when it’s practiced against religion.

And not just any religion – Catholic religion.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t take kindly to my elected leaders lecturing me about what my faith teaches. Talk about the height of hypocrisy. Talk about an offense that cries out to the ballot box to be answered definitely.

Genesis 3:1-71

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?2And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. 4And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. 5For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. 6And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

Why would Eve allow her self to be sucked into a conversation with a snake?  We all know why the serpent was there, to attempt to separate Adam and Eve from God.  But, why didn’t Eve ask this Serpent about his authority on the subject? Why didn’t she ask, ‘Did you create this garden? Did you create my husband? Did you create me?’  Talk to the hand mister…

Of course we know all know how it turns out, one dysfunctional family after another. Thank You Father for sending your Son to redeem our brokenness.

I have been processing this whole HHS mandate ordeal, and I just could not shake the familiarity of the whole thing. Now, of course, all of us women recognize that this administration seeks to divide this country. We are very intuitive creatures; God made us this way. It is part of our intelligent make up to question what is presented to us, even if it is on a silver platter and free. This mandate’s purpose is blatant, this administration doesn’t even hold back in concealing it. The President smugly presents it. It is so obvious. It is their modus operandi. Are we going to take this administration at it’s mandate or are we going to put down our defensiveness and ask, “Waite a minute, are you trying to divide me against my faith? Are you trying to divide me against my Constitution, my first amendment rights, my country?  Are you trying to separate me from my employment, and employer?  Are you trying to divide me against my sisters and mother? Are you trying divide women against each other?”

Call me silly, but I trust my faith, and first amendment rights over any mandate.  Through the Grace of God, I can be faithful to something greater than my empty ambitions.  So I will cling to:

Ephesians 10:¹⁴Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth…

Secularism says, “Did the Church really say you’re not equal to a man?  Here is the cure honey, to make you equal, it’s a wonderful thing we call contraception!”  Waite a minute, are you implying that I am not equal to a man, are you saying I am only equal if I sterilize my self first? Am I unclean? Secularism, do you seek to “cure” my fertility? Or maybe you seek to demean me, make me feel that I am unequal, then change my biological make up to suit your demands of me.

Women should demand from the Church, “What is the reason for your instruction against contraception?”.  Women really want to know the truth. What? You have never heard of Theology of the Body? Read the book, listen to the CDs, go to Youtube, do whatever it takes! And get ready to live! Learn how your body works, don’t rely on secularism and it’s wide and easy road to freedom. It’s the truth that sets you free.

Women know, as difficult as Church teaching is, it is rooted in love.  We know this mandate is not. We women know when we are being used for political division. We can see it coming a mile away. So, Ms. Sebelius and Mr. President, talk to the hand!

An Introduction to the Theology of the Body: \”The Playboy and The Pope\”