In this page, we’ll attempt to correct the errors and shortcomings of both  the official Archdiocesan periodical and the Catholic Business Network’s bi-monthly publication.  It will be updated as errors and omissions become known.  Remember – if you learn of anything, please advise us!



The front-page lead article of the August 6, 2009 edition has the ridiculous title that is in quotes above.  One can say it is both ironic and silly.  Why?  On that same day, the Senate voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.  There is no doubt in the minds of any thinking persons (including pro-abortion supporters!) that she will misuse her authority to ensconce in our culture the legalized murders of unborn children.  The three senators celebrated on the front page – Susan Collins, George Voinovich and Joe Lieberman – all voted for Sotomayor’s confirmation.  In other words, they literally threw millions of unborn children under the bus.  Yet these three are being celebrated as children’s heroes on the front page of an ostensibly Catholic publication?


Let’s look at a related article in the online edition.  This version adds some other senators: Diane Feinstein, Robert Byrd and John Ensign.  There is also this comment from Archbishop Wuerl:  "This legislation has put the District's most at-risk children first ... It is our hope that Congress quickly passes SOAR. It is difficult to envision what advantage anyone could find that would outweigh the futures and hopes of the young people in this city." Last year 879 of the 1,700 Opportunity Scholars attended Catholic schools in the District of Columbia (from the article).


What about the District’s most “at-risk children”, namely the ones who are daily aborted within the District alone?  Senator Lieberman is quoted as saying that the bill is "not a liberal or conservative program - it's a program that puts children first."  Would that all children would be put first.  However, with the exception of Senator Ensign, all of the senators named above foster and foment the murders of millions of children vis-à-vis abortion.  We see that over half the recipients of this aid attended Catholic schools.  Is that why the Archdiocese licks the boots of those who promote death?  Notice throughout this issue of the Standard that this scholarship program appears to be the main topic of coverage.  The education of children is certainly laudable, but not at the price of the deaths of innocent babies.  Moreover, what kind of “education” do these scholarship recipients receive when they see such unabashed adulation of pro-abortion politicians?


Speaking of “boot-licking”, go to the “Current Announcements” page to see how Support Our Aging Religious is prostituting itself; this was announced in the same issue of the Standard.




But of course this must be correct!  After all, this came straight from the Catholic News Services, courtesy of the Catholic Standard!  Right?   Right?


At the bottom of page 11 of the July 9 2009 issue, we are treated to this astonishing revelation from a professor of a Jesuit university (aha!  Doesn’t it figure?).  The author of this CNS piece then “informs” us that “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated billions of dollars for health and development programs worldwide, as well as for education and housing programs in the United States.”


Well, let’s look at some of these “health and development programs”, shall we?


In this link, we read how the “wonderful” foundation cited above contributed millions to United Nations population-control capers.  We also read from whom he received his propensity to giving to false charities.  Apparently, Dear Old Dad “was head of the Planned Parenthood.”  Doesn’t that explain a lot?   We also read here how Bill Gates contributed to the legalization of embryonic stem cell research in California.  Now go to this link, scroll to the May 25th item (second one down) and read how he plans to reduce the world’s population by 11%.


Why does the so-called “Catholic” News Service dignify the rantings of that Jesuit professor who calls Gates the “poster child” for a papal encyclical?  A close read of Caritas in Veritate makes plain that reverence for human life is foundational to any real social justice.  The philosophy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the very antithesis of any true charity.


Because of its incessant habit of presenting sheer nonsense as though it were Catholic truth, we will redub the “Catholic News Services” as the Crackpot News Service.  The Catholic Standard (and other diocesan papers) would do well to sever their relationships with the Crackpot News Service.




Before we delve into the topic above, we wish to publicize a 70-year old news story that just came to our attention.  Here goes.


1939 – Berlin

Prime Minister Adolph Hitler told a roundtable of religious leaders that “there will always be solid differences regarding the Jewish Problem, but that shouldn’t prevent the seeking of common ground to reduce the extermination of Jews.”  Der Fuehrer has established a task force to seek such common ground.  The religious leaders exulted at the good news.  “Oh, how wondrous!” they exclaimed.  “Instead of over 6 million Jews to be exterminated, we’ll only have 1.5 million of them so murdered!  The Chief Rabbis will be overjoyed!  Oh, yip-yip-yippeeee!” they shouted, as they bowed down to lick Der Fuehrer’s boots.


Doesn’t that sound like a farce?  Of course it is!  However, if you take the above farce and change a few details, such as substitute Obama for Hitler, Washington for Berlin 1939 for July 2, 2009 and – of course – unborn children for Jews, you see what was published on page 5 of the July 9th edition of the Catholic Standard.  Read it here.  The real farce is the cockeyed notion that we can find “common ground” with stark evil.


The USCCB continues to remain clueless, sad to say.  Its president, Francis Cardinal George, reportedly whined to Obama, "You've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue. So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."  Your Eminences and Your Excellencies, wake up!  Obama has been up front regarding his lust for baby-killing; to his dubious credit, he has not sent “wrong signals”!  Rather, you have insisted on interpreting his intentions through your own rarified, rose-colored glasses.  “We’ll see”, you say?  What more do you need to see?  He voted four times against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.  He has rescinded the Mexico City Policy.  He has placed Kathleen Sebelius over the HHS.  He has nominated a NARAL/NOW darling to the Supreme Court.  Isn’t it clear that Obama is rabidly pro-abortion?  Now we must ask about this “hope for his election.”  What was the source of this hope, given his clearly-stated positions?  Did this misplaced “hope” seduce you to vote for him this past November?




Not only are we dealing with the Catholic News Service as being a less-than-Catholic news source, but now we see in this piece some malfeasance of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.  Some background might be necessary to illustrate the latter’s loss of credibility.  Recall several months ago, when in Brazil, Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho pronounced excommunication on those who procured an abortion for a young girl.  L’Osservatore Romano published an article by another “bishop” who criticized Sobrinho for, well, acting like a true bishop.  More recently, the Vatican newspaper asserted that Obama’s first 100 days "have not confirmed fears of radical changes" on abortion policy.  We know that is sheer nonsense.  We can point to the rescinding of the Mexico policy, millions of dollars going to the UN Population Fund, the danger to the conscience clause. 


The Standard article in question can be found here.   It’s really a CNS article, and echoes L’Osservatore Romano as it waxes lyrical about the “new beginning in relations between the US and the Arab world” as it “marked a break with the past” to use diplomacy, etc, etc.  One wonders if this break with the past involves the cessation of using children as suicide bombers, the renunciation of the 9/11 attacks, extension of civil rights to Arab Christians and the complete repudiation of that diabolical concept known as “jihad”. 


An official with the Islamic Cultural Center of Italy stated that “Obama has touched the right chords in the hearts of Muslims..”  Well, he may have that right, and this affinity between Obama and the Muslims is not the result of this Cairo address only.  When Obama was in Turkey on April 6, the Messianic Teleprompter instructed him to let loose with “America is not a Christian, Jewish or Muslim nation” (quote abbreviated).  That point may well be arguable for current conditions, where the laws of this country now countenance 3500 baby-murders daily, gay lifestyles, bashing of Christians, etc.  However, only a fool would opine that Christianity was not at the heart of our nation’s founding.


But wait!  Did the Messianic Teleprompter have a short circuit?  Maybe so, for it contradicted itself in Germany on June 2nd.  Obama declared that because of the number of Muslims in this country,  America could be considered “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”  Permit us to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements.  Assuming that they’re true (which they’re not), that means that America is not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, but then again, might be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.  Do you have your brains wrapped around that?


Let’s not forget one other detail.  All during the campaign, Obama bristled at the mere mention of his middle name, Hussein.  In fact, the politically correct wonks all declared it to be racist to use the name that no one other than his parents bestowed upon him.  In the Muslim countries, he emphasized his Muslim middle name.  Hmmm….


Now could these little facts, conveniently omitted by the CNS article, have helped to touch all those right chords in Muslim hearts?   Now what do they do to your hearts?   Is that the kind of “peace” towards which we should be stepping?


If L’Osservatore Romano does not soon rediscover its Catholic mission, it might find itself lining the floors of bird cages!




The Standard’s June 11, 2009 issue, page 3, blew around a lot of hot air about the Catholic school policies that are about to be unleashed upon the Archdiocese of Washington within the next few months.  For more on this, go to our “Current Announcements” page and scroll to “Archdiocesan Parochial Education in Possible Peril”. 


Mark Zimmerman, the current editor of the Standard, wrote this particular piece.  In the third paragraph down, he states that the process commenced in October 2007 with a convocation.  Futhermore, he says that “since that day, thousands of parents, educators, priests and parishioners have been invited to participate in planning new policies for Catholic schools..”   Thousands??   Ladies and gentlemen, it’s POLL TIME!  Please let us know whether or not you were one of those chosen “thousands” who were invited to participate in this effort at webmaster@restore-dc-catholicism.com.  If indeed you were invited, it doesn’t matter if you accepted the invitation, it doesn’t matter what your general opinion was (although you’re most welcome to elaborate).  We just want to know how many (if any) actually received such an invitation versus those who didn’t.  If indeed “thousands were invited”, odds are that there is at least one person in the readership of this website who received such an invitation.  After two weeks or so, we will publish the numbers.


Moving on through this article, we read that some of these policies are more complex than others.  We also read that some policies may impact other existing policies that may need to be modified or changed to be consistent.  Ladies and gentlemen, is that clear – as mud, that is?  Moreover, guidelines and benchmarks will be developed for each policy area.  My!  Isn’t that lovely?  Understand, too, that “these policies…represent the best effort to strengthen and sustain Catholic education in our schools into the future.” 


We’re sure this tome about the policies answers all questions about the future of Catholic education in this archdiocese.  Just one teeny, weensy little question remains.  Pray tell, what are these wonderful policies??  Well, go back to our “Current Announcements” article.  At the bottom, we link to two files; each contains one half of the draft of the policies.  For those of you who were of the chosen “thousands”, we hope these look familiar – but we wouldn’t be surprised if that is not the case!




The Standard really should cancel its contract with the (so-called) “Catholic” News Service.  The pap pieces that pass for information are colossal wastes of newsprint.  On page 3 of the June 4th 2009 issue, they announce the nomination of Miguel Diaz for ambassador to the Vatican.  This is the 3rd or 4th nomination that Obama has put forth; all the others were rejected by the Vatican, for which we heartily congratulate the Holy Father.


So what else does the Standard tell us about Diaz?  He’s Latino (would they make a big deal about nationality if he was Anglo?) and he is a theologian.  They quote Abbot Klassen of St John’s University as saying about Diaz, “He is a strong proponent of the necessity of the Church to become deeply and broadly multicultural, to recognize and appreciate the role that culture plays in a living faith.”  Whoa!!  This might be a proverbial “tipping of the hand”!! 


Now consider this.  The Roman Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ Himself, is over 2000 years old.  Holy Mother Church has been found in countless countries throughout the world.  She has outlasted them all, and will continue to do so, for “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against her.  Since when must the Church become multi-cultural?  Moreover, who dictates the “role that culture plays in a living faith”?  Might we be hearing echoes of the Messiah Most Miserable, trying to remake the Church into his own disgusting image and likeness?  Scroll down this page to the article just below this, where we unpack the gobblygook that passed for Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dumb…uh, we mean, Notre Dame!  (ahem!)  Specifically, look at the second paragraph.  Recall how he said “we must bring our values to align with demands of a new age”?  When he’s consistent, he’s consistent!  He seems to want to jettison the Teaching Magisterium, the Deposit of Faith, to replace them with his own warped philosophies.


Now is he pro-life?  Well, according to an unnamed White House source, he is “clearly pro-life.”  Well, by golly!  If the White House says so, it must be so!  Whew!  We’re glad that is settled!  Right?   Right???  Welll….maybe not!  Recall the events surrounding the nomination of rabidly pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of HHS.  A gaggle of very confused CINO leaders and theologians signed a statement supporting her nomination.  Read it here.  Look at the fifth signature!  Yep!  That’s our ambassador-nominee!  That’s what the White House describes as “clearly pro-life”; however, we’re not shocked by such cognitive dissonance anymore.


If the Vatican is wise, they’ll reject this nomination, too.




This appeared in the May 21, 2009 edition of the Catholc Substandard.  Yes, this tripe was written by the Catholic News Service (or so they call themselves), but the Standard chose to run with this bile  There were a whole host of other accounts that they could have chosen; why did they chose this quasi-heresy?


Let’s look at some of the most blatant nonsense – not all of it, lest we be here forever!  First, Obama starts by saying that “we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age.”  Pardon our French, but he has it precisely ass-backwards.  Our values as Catholics are based upon the Magisterium and thus based on the will of God.  That means that they are immutable.  Ladies and gentlemen, what Obama just spewed forth is the heresy known as situational ethics.


He goes on, “no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone.”  Here we have religious indifferentism.  Ladies and gentlemen, we are Roman Catholics.  We have the Sacraments and the full deposit of faith.  That’s a fact, despite the obfuscation of this Messiah Most Mawkish.


The above are quotes.  This is a statement of the CNS author; “Obama listed war, gay rights and embryonic stem-cell research among difficult issues that demand dialogue..”  Here he/she seems to be in agreement with Obama, which makes us wonder how this author retains his/her job at a Catholic agency.  No, these issues don’t demand “dialogue”.  Holy Mother Church and natural law have both spoken plainly.  What these issues demand is submission to God’s will as stated in Church tradition.


Now the Presidential Teleprompter must have had a momentary power surge, for there was this admission of misdeed.  “Obama said he had learned to choose careful language on the issue during his race for the Senate in Illinois, when a pro-life doctor complained that his Web site referred to abortion opponents as "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." Obama had the words removed.”  Well, that’s nice; he had the words pulled.  But how, oh how, did they come to be on that web page in the first place?


Moving on, we read “Noting he was not raised in a particularly religious household, he said he was "brought to Christ" by the witness of co-workers in service on the south side of Chicago and Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Obama acknowledged Catholic parishes helping fund an organization called the Developing Communities Project.”  Obviously he felt it necessary to do homage to his buddies at ACORN.  Of course we wouldn’t expect CNS to pick up on that!


Those of you readers who utilize news sources other than the mainstream media know that over 300,000 Catholics petitioned Notre Dame to be faithful to the USCCB statement on “Catholics in Political Life”.  Read here how Father Jenkins stuck his thumb in the eyes of every American bishop.


Might there be a reason for Father Jenkin’s obvious malevolence?  Well, certainly his conscience and his pride have been stung by the protests and public witness these past several weeks.  But might there be other reasons?  Yep!  It turns out that Father sits on the Board of Directors of Millennium Promise, an organization that promotes contraception and abortion in Africa.  Our colleagues at CatholicCitizens.org provide this account.  Now some of us thought that we would try to contact Notre Dame’s board of directors to see if we could elicit their help in getting the invitation to Obama rescinded.  My!  Weren’t we just the silly little geese!  It turns out that a goodly percentage of that board is somehow in the back pocket of the Obama cartel.  Read this from Pewsitter.  They probably just giggled and snickered as they had their secretaries blow off our phone calls.  Well, we now know that alumni donations have dropped by at least $14 million at the time of this writing.  That cannot make for prolonged joviality – unless they apply for some multi-billion dollar bailout, courtesy of our tax dollars.


As we stated, a goodly number of pro-lifers went to Notre Dame over the past few weeks; some were arrested.  We cannot help but note the backwards priorities in how these Catholics (including some priests!) were horribly treated, versus the obeisance and downright boot-licking that was bestowed upon the Messiah Most Miserable.  The saga is still far from over.  Notre Dame should be stripped of its status as a Catholic institution. Father Jenkins should be removed – or at least his priestly faculties should be suspended.  Both lie in the purview of the South Bend Bishop D’Arcy.  Moreover, two men still remain in jail (update – all are out now, although legal/criminal proceedings are on the horizon).  Please visit these sites:



and from the Center for Bioethical Reform - http://abortionno.org/pdf/A0905Web.pdf


We will keep you informed of developments as we learn them.  If you learn of anything, please contact us at alerts@restore-dc-catholicism.com.




If you need Lenten mortification, you're in luck - provided you received the March issue of Our Parish Times!  Therein lays many opportunities for weeping and mourning - and letter-writing!


Chuck Short starts us on our lenten misery.  We can count on him for such help in this area.  This month's screed deals with "economic justice".  He bemoans the plight of the family racked by economic hardship - with no mention of the even more fundamental hardships of contraception, abortion, divorce, cohabitation, etc.  He states that "a new administration and Congress must steer our nation to safe harbor."  Well, Messiah Obama, Pope Pelosi and cabal are steering this nation right off a moral precipice with their abortion promotion (they're also doing a bang-up job of exacerbating the economic problems with their stinkulus bill and other spending extravaganzas).


Moving on through the paper..


On page 7, Tom Sherman of St Raphael writes a ridiculous piece about Lobby Night in Annapolis.  (Perhaps that's because the topic itself is inherently ridiculous)  He goes on and on about AIDS, homelessness, hunger, death penalty.  He points out that "the primary advocacy issue" is the death penalty.  Now what was NOT mentioned?  We scoured that article several times; we found no mention of abortion, marriage protection and such.  We prepared this flyer to illustrate how the death penalty issue doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to abortion.  The Maryland Catholic Conference, and Mr. Sherman, would do well to study it and the facts therein.


On page 18, entitled "Senior Resources", why are we treated to a picture of a woman sitting in a lotus position, obviously engaged in transcendental meditation?  We can take some small comfort in that the NIH and not the Church is promoting this nonsense (albeit with our tax dollars).  An exploration of the NIH website reveals usage of reiki, tai-chi, qi-gong.  Ladies and gentlemen, to dabble in these New Age practices is to flirt with inimical spiritual forces.  A Catholic paper should be warning us of these dangers, not encouraging dalliances with them.  Read a bit of these dangers here.


We are pleased to note the various references to pro-life activities in the parish.  Since this is the issue of Our Parish Times immediately following the January March for Life, we would have expected them.  Hopefully future issues will continue to spread pro-life messages, along with fidelity to the Magisterium.  That means that we hope they will omit the liberal and New Age trash that was peppered throughout this issue.




This particular waste of newsprint is found in the October edition of Our Parish Times, page 14.  Msgr John Enzler, pastor of Blessed Sacrament on Western Avenue, wrote a column that directly contradicts what many bishops are correctly saying about true Catholic priorities for the 2008 Presidential elections.  Read it here.  We emailed to him this letter to explain why his column was erroneous and would most likely lead uninformed Catholics to confusion about the election.  In that email letter, we noted some urls to websites that detail some clear thinking by some of the US bishops.  Since that letter is a pdf, you won’t be able to click on those links, so we’ll put them below, in the order in which they appear in our letter.  Click on these to read some decent teaching.






Please spread word of this site around, to educate voters of the true electoral picture.  Please also use the Wisdom on Windshields flyer freely (discussed in “national news”).  Educate any erring Church personnel.  Time is short now.  Alert us also.




Several articles caught our attention in the Oct 9, 2008 issue.  We are getting close to the national elections.  One would have to be catatonic not to realize that this election will set the moral direction for our nation for years to come.  Deidre McQuade’s piece, “Abortion Is Always Opposed to the Authentic Good of Persons” is actually quite good.  We commend her for forthrightly stating that “Abortion is a pivotal issue as we approach the upcoming elections” and “all issues do not carry the same moral weight.”


On the opposite page from that article is one by Nancy Frazier O’Brien entitled “Candidates’ Stands on Life Cover More Than Abortion.”  Oh, my!  Doesn’t that have a “seamless garment” stench to it?  Not surprisingly, it comes from the Catholic News Service.  You might recall several years ago the piece of cow-pie that they put out entitled, “Apart from Abortion, Lieberman’s Views Are Compatible with Church”, or something to that effect.  The week following that putridity, the editor of the Standard issued an apology after he was deluged with understandable anger from the readership.  Regrettably, this piece is not too much better.  In all fairness to Ms. O’Brien, she does point out that both presidential candidates favor embryonic stem cell research.  Make no mistake about it; embryonic stem cell research does fall into the category of “intrinsic evil.”  Were it not for the candidates’ differing positions on other non-negotiable issues, this one issue would make both unworthy of the vote of the serious, faithful Catholic.


However, Ms. O’Brien goes on to place the issue of capital punishment on an equal par with abortion.  Ladies and gentlemen, capital punishment is by no means an intrinsic evil.  The late Pope John Paul II clearly stated such in Evangelium Vitae.  The article ends with the discussion on capital punishment.  Therefore, what do you think the average reader will remember?  Because of the ending note, the reader will only recall that Obama and McCain have similar views on capital punishment.  Can this be deliberate?  The possibility does exist now, doesn’t it?  At best, Ms. O’Brien might benefit from a discussion with Ms. McQuade, who wrote the vastly superior article, one that more accurately echoes the Magisterium.




We will give credit where it’s due.  We appreciate their reporting, in the Oct 3rd issue, of the 40 Days for Life prayer that is currently underway at the 16th Street Planned Parenthood.  This prayer ministry is part and parcel of a nationwide effort to bring prayer and ministry in front of the death centers.  We thank and congratulate the Standard for this reporting.





James P. Gleason, the first elected Montgomery County Executive, passed away on September 14, 2008.  There were write-ups in both the Washington Post and the Gaithersburg Gazette the week after his death.  They mention, with praise, his political and civic accomplishments.  What neither of them mentions is his faithful pro-life activism in the later years of his life.  This web-mistress had the honor of praying the Rosary alongside of him at the now-closed Hillcrest Women’s Surgi-center on Georgia Avenue in DC.  He regularly came right up till its long-awaited closing.  The only hint of his pro-life convictions that appeared in the Post was the request that memorial donations be sent to Birthright of Wheaton.


Truth be told, we would not have expected either the Post or the Gazette to mention Mr. Gleason’s pro-life convictions.  We would have expected that, though, from the Catholic Standard.  Frankly, we were surprised that there was no mention of Mr. Gleason’s passing whatsoever in the September 18th edition of the Standard.  We found this amazing in light of the fact that Mr. Gleason was a politically prominent Catholic.  The Standard certainly carried on and on regarding the recent death of Tim Russert.  Some might argue that it was too soon to publish anything before going to print.  However, they glommed immediately onto Mr. Russert’s death.  Moreover, in this same issue appeared Hurricane Ike damage photos that were dated September 14th, the date of Mr. Gleason’s death.  Truly it’s a sad commentary when sectarian and pro-abortion newspapers do a better job of reporting than does our official local Catholic publication.


So why is there this curious discrepancy between the silence regarding Mr. Gleason’s death, and the excessive waling and teeth-gnashing that occurred upon Mr. Russert’s death?  Why?  Could it be because Mr. Gleason, unlike so many other Catholic politicians upon whom the Standard fawns, was a Republican?  Could it be because Mr. Gleason’s faithful witness to the dignity of life puts to shame the conduct of too many prominent Catholics, particularly those Catholics in public office and in the Church structure itself?  These are questions that deserve serious answers.


We pray for the repose of Mr. Gleason’s soul, and for consolation for his family.  Furthermore, we ask Mr. Gleason for his continued prayers, from his new vantage point, that the babies and mothers be spared the ravages of abortion and that both our Church and country return to sanity.


Update  In the September 25th issue, there was a half-page article paying some tribute to Mr. Gleason.  While we’re glad the Standard mentioned something, the discrepancy in their treatment of the two men is still rather astounding.  Mr. Gleason received only a half-page of one of the back pages.  In stark contrast, the mourning and lamentation for Mr. Russert covered almost 2 ½ entire issues.  Moreover, there were only the slightest hints of Mr. Gleason’s pro-life service: one phrase of one sentence, and the mention of Birthright as the recipient for memorial contributions.   Why??





By now you’ve heard of the latest Catholic Charities debacle, this one in nearby Richmond, VA (If not, go to the “national news” section of this site).  This one truly scrapes the bottom of the barrel, for they have been found to be party to an abortion in January of 2008.  Given the depth of moral depravity in this instance, we might have hoped to have seen some mention of it in the Catholic Standard.  Alas, such did not happen (in the June 26th edition).  We’ve no reason to hope, given past performance, that any will happen.  We find this to be patently dishonest and downright stupid.  Surely the Standard staff has to know that the Washington Times put it on one of their front pages.  In a word, whom do they think they’re fooling?  Meanwhile, we see all kinds of happy-happy anecdotes about kids and priests getting awards.  However, aside from the bios of the newly-ordained deacons, there really is nothing of substance.


One colossal waste of space has been all the coverage devoted to Tim Russert’s passing.  Of course we pray for the repose of his soul and for his bereaved family.  I’ll say, though, that during that same time, the father of friends of mine passed away after a long illness.  He and his family raised eight children and was a faithful Catholic.  How much coverage in the Standard did his death garner?  The same amount as did the Richmond situation – zilch, nada!  Yet what was the difference between the two men?  It’s painfully obvious, and painful because it reveals the priorities of the Standard and the archdiocese that pulls its puppet strings.  Russert was rich, famous and influential; the other gentleman was not.


The June 19th issue of the Standard was almost entirely devoted to the bewailing of Russert’s death.  I cannot recall a single page that didn’t mention him at least once.  I suppose the June 26th issue was an improvement, since only half the pages therein had Russert articles.  Now it is known that Russert, in the past, did work for the campaigns of both Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo – both pro-abortion Democrats.  Did he ever renounce his promotion of pro-abortion politics, however indirect such promotion might have been?  We certainly hope so.  Moreover, we hope that the Standard made due-diligence inquiries into the same: although we strongly doubt it. 


Our point, though, is not to speculate on whether or not Russert was faithful to the Majesterium with regards to life issues.  Rather, we deplore the Standard’s (and the archdiocese of Washington’s) rather unsavory proclivities in fawning over powerful and prominent people simply because they are powerful and prominent.  Such does not seem to reflect true Catholic standards (pun NOT intended!).


UPDATE!  Rocks are being overturned, and details are being unearthed.  Yes, he did more than just work for Moynihan and Cuomo.  According to the Wanderer (July 3rd edition), he took  their flagging primary campaigns and propelled them to victory.  How, you may ask?  By encouraging them to embrace the pro-abortion position.  You can read it here, but you’ll have to subscribe to the online edition to read it (the article is called “An Insider’s Take on Tim Russert”).  Now why is this important, now that the man is dead?  Two reasons: if this is true, and it probably is, he has advocated abortion and may well have died in mortal sin.  We don’t know that for certain, but there is cause for concern, and need for much prayer.  Second, in keeping with their dubious tradition of celebrating the rich and famous Catholic (regardless of virtue, or lack thereof), the Archdiocese of Washington has established (drum roll, please!) the “Tim Russert Memorial Fund”!  Ostensibly it’s a scholarship fund of sorts, aimed no doubt at those celebrities who continue to wax lyrical about Russert.  Why, what better way to express their admiration for their colleague by dropping a few thousand into this worthy fund?


Seriously, the archdiocese must be challenged on this.  It is simply not appropriate to establish any memorial of any sort for someone who may well have advanced the culture of death.  Christopher Manion of the Wanderer did excellent research.  However, it was the duty of the archdiocese to do their homework before establishing this memorial.


ANOTHER UPDATE  With all the sad saga and sorry excuses that seem to be popping up like kudzu regarding the Richmond/DiLorenzo scandal (see the “national news” section of this site), we’d think that the Catholic Standard would see fit to mention it at least once.  Well, now the July 3rd issue has arrived, and still there is not one word about it.  The writers/editors at the Standard continue to emulate the Three Monkeys.  However, there is progress in one aspect.  The lament regarding Tim Russert’s death is waning!  This time, we only saw the back page devoted to the rehash.  Perhaps by the time next week rolls around, it will be all out of their system, and they can let the poor man rest in peace.





Harry Forbes, the USCCB movie reviewer who made a laughingstock of himself after giving favorable reviews to the poison contained in the movies “Brokeback Mountain” and the “Harry Potter” series, has done it again in the March 6, 2008 edition of the Standard.  The object of misplaced adulation is “The Other Boleyn Girl”.  Ostensibly, it’s a tale about King Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and her sister.  We will not bore you with the unedifying details of the movie; your own knowledge of Church history in England will suffice.  Forbes calls this “good old-fashioned historical drama”.  Well, it’s more like modern, sordid, daytime soap operas!  To quote, “the film contains royal bedroom intrigue with nongraphic sexual encounters including rape, incest reference, adultery, divorce, light sexual banter and innuendo and discreetly filmed beheadings.  It is acceptable for older teens.” 


We kid you not!  The review actually makes those statements – in that order!  It is not acceptable for anybody (How on earth does one talk about “discreetly filmed beheadings”??!?!?).  Oh, by the way – he fails to mention in any way the resultant apostasy of England and the resultant persecution of Catholics (We don’t think those persecutions were discreet at all!), but we suppose insults to the Faith are no big deal to Mr. Forbes.  At any rate, he gives the trash a rating of A-III-adults.  Is it time to make them ashamed enough to rate that junk more appropriately?  That was accomplished with the Brokeback Mountain review!




Walter J. Burghardt, S.J., passed away February 16, 2008.  His eulogy appeared in the Standard.  In it, he was praised up and down and right and left for his social justice advocacy.  There was mentioned, very briefly (very VERY briefly) his public dissent against Humanae Vitae.  He was quoted as saying that was a difficult decision for him, that it “cost him dearly.”  What screams the loudest is what was NOT said.  No mention was made of any recantation, any repentance on his part for disobedience to Pope Paul VI.  We of Faithful Catholics of MD/DC hope that he did indeed repent; else he may have found that his dissent cost him even more dearly than he originally believed.  May God have mercy!  As for the Catholic Standard, we wonder why they gloss over this dissent, a dissent that more than besmirches all the other good that Father may have done.  Again, the Standard should have implored the prayers of all for this man’s repose, but it should never have sung his praises.




Montgomery County Councilwoman Marilyn Praisner passed away on February 1, 2008.  The Standard’s questionable eulogy (page 18 of the Feb 14th edition) starts with a headline describing her as “woman who lived her faith as public servant”.   We find one of her final votes to be quite at variance with Catholic moral teaching.  In November 2007, the Montgomery County Council unanimously passed Bill 23-07, the Transgender Identity Bill.  Among other things, this bill would allow cross-dressers the legal right to use public facilities that are designated for the “gender of choice” at any given moment.  This webmistress is aware of three occasions when women went into ladies’ restrooms and found therein men in drag.  All facilities – churches and schools included – would be forced to accommodate perversion.  No exceptions are allowed.  Many good people are spending countless hours trying to bring this bill to referendum – and to undo Ms. Praisner’s fine public service!  (Note: to aid in restoring some semblance of sanity, please visit www.notmyshower.net to see how you can assist!)


So why on earth does Mary McGinnity (Director of the Archdiocesan Social Concerns Office) think that Ms. Praisner’s public service was inspired by her faith (as stated in the Standard)?   Does Ms McGinnity not realize that what Ms. Praisner did was to facilitate mortal sin?  Whatever else Ms. Praisner’s support of that bill may be, it was not based on inspiration by the Catholic faith.


Additionally we ask why the Catholic Standard sees fit to sing Ms. Praisner’s praises?  Yes, the woman has passed away, and by all means we should pray for the repose of her immortal soul.  But in no way should she be lionized in a Catholic publication!




On the front page of the December 17th edition of the Washington Times, the planned closing of Holy Redeemer School in northwest DC, and the ensuing controversy, was detailed.  In the issues of the Catholic Standard preceding and following the Times article, not one peep was uttered about the closing.  Now whatever one might think of the particulars of this issue, all can agree that this matter constitutes significant archdiocesan news and deserved mention in the official archdiocesan news organ.  Now why the cover-up?  Is the Standard embarked on some futile crusade to paint a false, “smiley-face” image of the archdiocese?  In doing so, the Standard is only reinforcing in the minds of intelligent Catholics the notion that it is merely a mouthpiece of the chancery and not a true journalistic effort.  It may even be committing sins of omission against the Eighth Commandment.


One thing the Standard did mention in its December 21, 2006 issue is that the Archdiocese of Washington is paying out the paltry sum of $1.3 million dollars in sex abuse settlements.  Currently the article is on their website at www.cathstan.org, but should it mysteriously disappear from that website, you can see it here.  Of particular note is Archbishop Wuerl’s statement, "the funds are from insurance reserves; no funds have or will come from the archdiocese's operating funds, Archbishop's Appeal, Forward in Faith or parishes."  He fails to mention that those same insurance reserves originated from insurance premiums, paid by the archdiocese, that ultimately had their source in the dollars that faithful Catholics have been putting into the collection baskets.  Of course no mention is made of the most likely probability that now these insurance premiums are going to skyrocket owing to this payout (and maybe more to come).  Again – why the spin?


Not long after the sex abuse scandals broke out, the archdiocese began a series of panel discussions to (ahem!) “explain” what was happening to the parishioners.  The first one was held at St. Raphael’s in Rockville.  This session was attended by many people, many from outside that parish – including this webmistress.  Clearly it was an attempt to spin the focus away from the gross sins of 1) homosexual behavior in the clergy and 2) the sins of cover-ups on the part of the hierarchy.  One of the “spin doctrines” was that stated by Archbishop Wuerl a few weeks ago – verbatim!  When one considers that Archbishop Wuerl was not yet on the Washington scene at the time of this panel discussion, we can see clearly “the party line” that was being put forth, probably with orders from “on-high” – maybe the USCCB?


The Catholics in attendance at this session were very alert and articulate.  They did an excellent job in refuting this propaganda, and others like it.  Clearly, this archdiocesan-picked panel of “experts” was not prepared for honest challenge.  This “first session” of panel discussions, to the best of my knowledge, was also the last.  Gee – makes you wonder why, doesn’t it?


Interesting “aside” to consider – wouldn’t the $1.3 million have been put to excellent use to help the beleaguered Holy Redeemer School?


Open Letter to Father Peter Daly and Mark Zimmerman


These comments regard Father Daly’s column in the April 13th edition of the Catholic Standard.  This particular issue was devoted to the questions surrounding illegal immigration into the United States.  Clearly this is an issue involving great controversy.  On the one hand, we wish only the good of those immigrating to this country.  On the other hand, we recognize that sovereign states have not only the right but the obligation to control their borders, if they are to fulfill their binding responsibilities to their citizens.  How these equally-valid objectives are to be balanced is a question upon which good people may, and do, disagree.  The key concept here is that while people disagree, they are still good.  They do not deserve to be disparaged or vilified.  Regrettably, in this regard, Father Daly and the Catholic Standard have failed the Minutemen both in justice and charity.


It certainly is acceptable that Father Daly disagrees with the Minutemen.  However, it must be taken into consideration that the Minutemen are simply decent people who are addressing the issue as they deem best; the means they are exercising are perfectly legitimate.  Father Daly had no moral right to label them as a “xenophobic group” and no basis for claiming that they “know nothing about history, culture, religion, justice and economics.”  Who does Father Daly think he is to sit in judgment of their faith and intelligence?  Father Daly, in using such slanderous language against good people, disgraced his Roman collar.  He owes the Minutemen a public apology.


Equally inexcusable was the decision by the editorial staff of the Catholic Standard to let that sort of diatribe appear in a Catholic newspaper.  For the life of us, we cannot fathom what induced the Standard to allow what is arguably “hate speech” to be published.  Indeed, we suspect that they would never allow such language to be used against a Catholic politician who supports abortion; indeed, over the years, several of them have been favorably portrayed in the Standard.  Additionally, we believe that the editors of the Catholic Standard would never allow any derogatory remarks against gay priest-abusers to be published on their pages.  Why then, did Mr. Zimmerman et al allow the Minutemen to be verbally savaged in the pages of the Standard?  The editors and management of the Catholic Standard showed deplorable lack of professional and moral judgment in allowing Father Daly’s article to be published as it was.


The entirety of this article is being mailed/emailed to Father Daly and Mark Zimmerman at St. John Vianney and the Catholic Standard respectively.  It also appears on this website  (www.Restore-DC-Catholicism.com) because we know it will never be published (at least not in its entirety) in the  Catholic Standard.  Indeed, ever since many good people wrote to protest the Cardinal’s decision to allow pro-abortion Catholics to receive Communion, the “letters to the editor” have all but disappeared.  Any responses received (or lack thereof) from these two gentlemen will likewise be published on this site.


To all other recipients: please feel free to copy and distribute this; we ask, though that you do so in its entirety and to make plain the source of this article.  Additionally, you may wish to contact both of them yourselves about this matter. 


Father Daly’s address is:

            St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Church  (He is the pastor)

            105 Vianney Lane

            Prince Frederick, MD  20678

            Ph: 410-535-0223

            Fax: 410-535-4422

            Email: none, to the best of our knowledge


Mark Zimmerman can be reached at:

            Catholic Standard

            145 Taylor Street, NE

            Washington, DC  20017

            Ph: 202-281-2410

            Fax: 202-281-2408

            Email: mark@cathstan.org


STRANGE SILENCE ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH On page 4 of the March 9, 2006 issue of the Standard is an article regarding the so-called “Statement of Principles” signed by a bunch of pro-abortion “Catholic” Democrats from the U.S. House of Representatives.  Having been quite occupied by the struggle in the Maryland Senate over SB144 (regarding embryonic stem cell research), this webmaster was somewhat flummoxed over the apparent priorities of the Standard staff.  The Standard devoted almost a full page to the bloviation about these disobedient Catholics, yet made no mention whatsoever about the efforts to keep embryonic stem cell research at bay in Maryland.  We saw no reason for that – until we recalled the letter that we wrote to Cardinal McCarrick in September of 2004.  In the 12th point of our letter, we questioned Cardinal McCarrick how he could be comfortable with embryonic stem cell research as performed by Georgetown University.  Then in the 14th point, we voiced our disappointment in His Eminence regarding his apparent suppression of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction regarding the Eucharist and dissident Catholics.  With that in mind, we now understand the thinking (or lack thereof) behind the priorities of this issue.  We also deplore them.