Free Republic

The key point, I think, from the Rorate Caeli editorial:

The Bishop "apologizes" for the "loss of life" (no mention of the word abortion here...). If the Bishop bears no responsibility for the abortion, he has nothing for which to apologize; if he bears any responsibility for the abortion, an apology is clearly not enough...

See comments toward bottom on Bishop Trautman heading the liturgy committee--If you're not aware of His Excellecy's views on the liturgy, this is a travesty for anyone hoping to see a quick death to the kumbayah, let's all hold hands liturgical styles still en vogue with the liturgical establishment. His Excellency has openly stated that "Liturgicam Authenticam" (the Vatican document on liturgical translations approved by the Holy Father focusing on the need for correct and reverent translations) is a "shame". http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=1162&issueID=347

He is known for opposing any efforts to reform the reform, considering them a "step backwards." In short, for those of you who want to see more reverence, awe, and fidelity to the text in the liturgy, this is among the worst possible choices. How the US bishops would appoint a bishop who openly opposes the Vatican on liturgical matters as president of their liturgical committee is beyond me--Where are the orthodox bishops on this??!!

Please flood your bishop's office with complaints about this selection and let them know that the time for the do-it-yourself-liturgy is over.

I dispatched a letter to my senator. here is what I wrote: (feel free to borrow if you would like)

Dear Senator,
My wife and I are among the many folks reported widely by the media that turned out on Tuesday to support George W. Bush primarily because of his stands on "moral issues." We supported the President because of our strong feelings on traditional marriage, stem-cell research, cloning and, most of all, abortion.
That being said, we were deeply distressed to read the following comments by Sen. Specter reported today in the AP:
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely . . . The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
Senator, polls showed that the president's great surge of support came from people like ourselves who want to see the judiciary reformed and judges placed on the Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. This means, of course, that no judge appointed to the Supreme Court should uphold Roe vs. Wade.
Over the new term, I understand the need for bipartisanship and unity. But please do not allow that to prevent the nomination of judges who will reverse Roe vs Wade. If Senator Specter is going to push candidates that are "broadly acceptable" (code language for not willing to overturn Roe), then he should not be the chair of the committee. We hope and pray that the same mistakes will not be made as they were under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, when pro-Roe, activist judges were appointed by Republican presidents. Be assured of our support and prayers during the up-coming session.