Bishops Call for 'Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty'

From National Catholic Register: 

Sunday, Oct. 14, begins the "Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty" proposed by the U.S. bishops. The novena ends on Monday, Oct. 22.

The Church celebrates October as the month of the holy Rosary, and it is an apt time for Rosary campaigns.

For months, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged a strong prayer effort for religious freedom. The USCCB has said October “seems an appropriate time to ask for Our Lady's intercession for these intentions.”

The novena is jointly offered by the USCCB's Committee on Pro-Life Activities and the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty.

In the novena booklet’s introduction, the bishops write:

"This year, believers have faced an unprecedented new threat. In the two centuries since the Bill of Rights was ratified, Americans had the assurance that the U.S. Constitution secured their God-given rights to religious liberty and freedom of conscience. But in 2011, a federal agency mandated that virtually all employers would be required to include sterilization, abortifacient drugs and contraceptives among the benefits covered in the health-care plans they offer employees."

The bishops’ novena comes with a short reflection that ties each day’s saint into the novena with specific intentions for that day regarding respecting life and religious freedom.

The reflections-intentions take only two minutes to read before praying the Rosary. Notably, some old and new American saints are included.

It is most important that we continue to pray that religious liberty is protected in America, one of our most important Constitutional and God-given rights, and that we elect the right candidates that will do this. 

A Spurious Accusation of Judicial Activism

Morning's Minion over at Vox Nova believes that a Virginia judge’s decision to strike down one provision, the primary provision which forces all consumers to buy a product is judicial activism. If the judge in the case had thrown out the entire health care law and not just one provision he would have been correct but Morning's Minion is wrong.  I will ask Morning's Minion one question: Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the authority or the right to force a citizen to buy a commodity?

  Morning's Minion claims that the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore was judicial activism when the truth is to the contrary.  Gore and his political team participated in political chicanery when they tried to force the vote counters to participate in some form of mental telepathy to figure out the impossible - a voter’s intent on a hanging chad and insure his victory.  Gore kept on losing, coming in second in districts, and he is the one who was the obstructionist and avoiding the reality that he had lost the presidential election.  But, after Gore gave his concession speech, changed his mind, he was in fact the person who initiated the courts into the mix and advocated for judicial activism.  If it wasn’t for Gore avoiding reality the courts would have never been involved in the first place.  George Will points out that the “U.S. high court reminded Florida's court to respect the real "states' rights" at issue - the rights of state legislatures: The Constitution gives them plenary power to establish procedures for presidential elections. Florida's Supreme Court felt emancipated from law.”


In fact Gore requested that the number of days to recount ballots be extended and the Supreme Court ended up rewriting the law to extend the deadline for certification and the court stated: "The will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle." But under representative government, the will of the people is expressed in statutes. Adherence to statutes - even adherence stigmatized as "hyper-technical" - is known as the rule of law.


“In the end, seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices (and three of the seven Florida justices) agreed on this: The standardless recount ordered by the Florida court - different rules in different counties regarding different kinds of chads and different ways of discerning voter intent - violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”

Circumventing the Constitution and rule of law in the United States -- as with the immigration debate the religious Left has proven that they disregard the rule of law.

Is Chris Coons a Threat to Our Constitutional Rights and Religious Liberties?

Please keep in mind how the media has potrayed Christine O'Donnell in an effort to discredit her as some radical whose beliefs are outside mainstream America.  After reading this article I am asking you to please tell me which candidate better understands the Constitution?  Please tell me who seems more radical in their beliefs and in imposing their views on others?

"Once again, the question of evolution was brought up in the race between the Senate candidates of Delaware, Chris Coons and Christine O’Donnell. The recurring theme of science education and religion is a bewildering campaign topic that has prompted some observers to ask, “So why is Christine O’Donnell spending more time on religion than on taxes?”



It was actually atheist Bill Maher who made religion a trending election topic in the first place. To figure out who revived it, I decided to look past the all-too familiar sophomoric laugh track clip and see what was really going on in that recent debate.

About ten minutes into the debate (which can be viewed in its entirety on the Widener Law school website), the doomful diversion was pitched in the crossfire round by none other than the Democratic candidate himself:


COONS: I have a different view of the Constitution, as does the vast majority of the American public, and many current legal scholars. But the larger point Ms. O’Donnell, really, is that you’re not coming clean with the Delaware voters about what your real views are. As we saw in the CNN debate, you repeatedly ran away from answering clear, concise questions, whether from the moderators, from me, from students - to be clear about what your views are on a range of very important issues on which you would have to pass as a U.S. Senator. To say, for example, that it’s really a question of local control whether a school district teaches science or teaches religious doctrine misses the basic question. As a repeated candidate for the United States Senate you have made public statements on everything from choice, individual liberty, evolution and others that I do think our voters deserve to hear a clear answer from you on…


O’DONNELL: Great, let me clarify your remarks. Mr. Loudell’s question was about marriage, not necessarily about the so called “right to privacy”. Now you say that you have a different view of the Constitution. I would agree with you that you do have a different constitution, because in the CNN debate you stated that there were three constitutions, and you don’t need to go to any kind of Ivy League school to know that we have but one Constitution - and in all of my remarks it is said that that one Constitution is the Constitution that I will defend. I’ve made my positions very clear. Everybody knows where I stand on issues. But even where I stand on certain social issues, I will defend our constitutional right to disagree, and I have made that very clear. Our Constitution is not in opposition to my personal beliefs, and it’s not in opposition to someone who might have a different position on these social issues than I do. Our Constitution protects our freedom to disagree." CONTINUED

Hope for the End!

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com