Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Stein should reimburse MI for recount folly

I hope when/if the Presidential election recount in Michigan is complete, that Jill Stein will reimburse Michigan counties the approximate $12 million this bogus, outrageous recount will cost them. Money that could and should be used for police, fire, roads and other necessities will instead be used to feed the bizarre leftist attempt to block the inevitable that the left just cannot face: that Donald Trump will become President of the United States on January 20, 2017.

Of course, Stein has no intention of reimbursing our state of the astonishing expense she is forcing on us. Of course Stein has no chance of winning the state of Michigan even with a recount - that is unless it turns out 99% of the votes were counted incorrectly and actually were meant for her.

What I find most appalling is that, during her anemic campaign, Stein couldn't even raise enough money to air a commercial ad. But in the few days after the election she managed to raise over $6 million to help launch a recount? Gee, I wonder who might be behind her tactics and helping her raise these amazingly huge funds.

By the way, since when does a federal judge have the jurisdiction to interfere with a state's election policy and procedure? Since there is no way Stein could have possibly won the state of MI even with some allegedly faulty vote counts, she has no business perpetrating this disgraceful injustice on our state. It was bad enough a federal judge was even brought into this, but it is beyond comprehension that he would have allowed the recount to go forward given the fact that Stein is in no way an aggrieved party in the issue.

I love how the left went nuts when Trump insinuated he would have to wait to see how the election turned out to see if he would accept the outcome. Hillary Clinton, in response, went on a self-righteous rampage about the importance of respecting our election process and standing by its validity. Where is she now in denouncing Stein, who had absolutely no chance of winning anything, yet is literally taking millions of dollars from Michigan county governments, money that could have been used for things so much more useful than her giant egotistical need to disrupt our nation?

Michigan lawmakers are now considering legislation to discourage futile recount efforts by candidates who lose their election bids by an incontestable amount, forcing the candidate to foot the bill for the recount. What sweet justice it would be to see Stein have to pay us back for this folly. Am not holding my breath at this point, though.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Once again, the "party of love" shows its venomous hate

In the name of "Love Trumps Hate", childish "adults" are blocking traffic, smashing windows, and publicly threatening and mocking elected officials and their wives. This is the "get a sticker just for breathing" generation come home to roost. 

When you don't keep score at children's sporting events, when you get a trophy just for being on a team, when you're allowed to throw tantrums at grocery stores because your parents are not allowed to spank you, you then grow up thinking that the way to deal with disappointment is to act like a spoiled child. Of course, however, these adult children believe it is all in the name of love. What I want to know is, if this is love, what on earth would hate look like in their eyes?

Following Donald Trump's presidential victory, high school students put on a skit, with teacher approval, depicting the assassination of Trump. Protesters across America took to the streets blocking workers from getting to their jobs while they beat the life out of innocent citizens, smashed windows, and burned Trump in effigy. Teachers in California proposed a curriculum depicting Trump as a racist, sexist bigot, while others disappointed with the presidential election have outright called for Trump's death.

Meanwhile, Brandon Victor Dixon, an actor in the Broadway smash hit 'Hamilton' publicly called out Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was in attendance at a recent performance of the show. In an attempt to educate Pence about values and law and rights, Dixon's comments lead to raucous boos by others present aimed at Pence, who was merely politely sitting in his seat. 

“We, sir," Dixon called out from the stage, "we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”

It's too bad Dixon doesn't seem to know that it is the Republicans who want to uphold those rights he claims to value so deeply. It's too bad that Dixon doesn't seem to know it is the Democrats who want to trounce on our freedoms of things like speech and self-defense. It's unfortunate that Dixon seems not to know that it is the Democrats who endanger our parents and our children in their sick support of euthanasia, abortion, and health-rationing ObamaCare. It's too bad the actor seems to have no idea that it is the Democrats who want open borders at the expense of security and safety for every citizen. And it's too bad that Dixon seems to be uninformed of the fact that it is the Democrats who hold the shameful history of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, and voter suppression, and that it is the Republicans who fought against these atrocities every step of the way.

Dixon's knowledge level seems to be as top-notch as the vapid model who hosted the "American Music Awards" Sunday night and felt the need to do an astonishingly disrespectful imitation of soon-to-be First Lady Melania Trump. What credentials this immature girl has to speak in such a public forum in the first place is beyond me. But more than that, what right does she have to mock anyone, let alone a legal immigrant who became a US citizen - an accomplishment the model should respect considering the fact that both her parents are immigrants?

It is unfathomable to witness the ignorant hatred of the left who then still have the audacity to claim, with a straight face, that they are the people of love.

So the left's cherished candidate didn't win. It's time to grow up and accept the outcome of the freedoms the left claims to hold so dear. If there were any actual leadership from the left, that leader would step up and tell these children-adults that vandalism, public mockery, depictions of and threats of assassination, and overall disrespect are not the ways to deal with disappointment. If nobody does step up to take the lead on proper behavior, the left will only continue to lose elections and power. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Electoral College not to blame for Clinton loss

I received a group email from a LinkedIn contact today asking me to sign a petition to have the electors of the Electoral College make Hillary Clinton president when they meet on Dec. 19 because, after all, she won the popular vote.

Yes, it's true Hillary received more votes overall than President-elect Donald Trump. But most of that is because Hillary won the states of New York and California, both of which have enormous populations (and, it's no secret, are very blue states). Trump won key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Fewer votes by population, perhaps, but a larger total of electoral votes. And that is a good thing, because it underscores that we are a Federal Republic, not a democracy. 

If we were a pure democracy that elected presidents based on popular vote only, those who live in smaller, less populated states would essentially have no say in a national election since the more populous states like New York and California could easily sway the election simply by their large numbers of voters. Candidates would focus all their attention only on those large states that could garner them the most votes, while ignoring the rest of the country. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to have our national elections decided largely by California and New York only.

For those blaming the Electoral College for Hillary's loss, think again. When you look at the country map after the election, it's a sea of red, punctuated by blue, heavily populated urban areas. What the Electoral College does is balance the influence of big and small states. The Founding Fathers did not want mob rule or "popular vote" elections for president. That would ensure the big states would elect the president. It is the same argument for having two houses of Congress: one voting by population, the House, and one voting by state with all states equal, the Senate. 

Think about it this way. If the Cleveland Indians won three games in the World Series by a 20-0 score in each game, and the Chicago Cubs won four games 1-0, by "popular vote" standards, the Indians should have been World Series champs. But it's not about how many runs you score, it's how many games you win that counts. With the Electoral College, the rural Kentucky voter has just as much chance of helping his preferred candidate win the state of Kentucky as the wealthy liberal Manhattan voter has of helping his preferred candidate win New York. And isn't it liberals who claim they are for all people, especially the "little guy"? Then they should celebrate the Electoral College for giving everyone equal power in the national election system.

Rest assured, Republicans have also questioned the Electoral College when it hasn't suited them. Nobody likes to lose, but if we were to base our elections just on where most people live, then we all lose because we are no longer a nation grounded in equality in one of the truest senses of the word: that everyone's vote counts. Why would we ever want to change that - unless we're all willing to move to places like California or New York. I'm happy where I am, thanks. 

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Trumping evil - hope wins!

Despite the media and the entire left's bloodthirsty quest to sabotage the Donald Trump campaign, Trump's supporters prevailed to take our country back last night. Thanks be to God! Among many other things, Trump's victory snatched from the jaws of evil the likelihood of continued corruption and abuse of power, division & class warfare, recklessly open borders, the loss of America's sovereignty, a stacked, leftist Supreme Court, and the ungodly, unbarricaded pursuit of abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy.

There is not much to say right now except that evil was largely "Trumped" last night.  Of course, not all evil. Colorado, for instance, passed its assisted suicide ballot measure, and we do have to hold President-elect Donald Trump and all Republicans to their word to make America great again by reducing evils like ISIS, taxpayer-funded abortion, and the like. 

But the bottom line is that, with the election of Donald Trump, we still have work to do, but we have been given a chance, a safer context within which to do the work we must continue to do to ensure that conservative principles, values and common sense can once again lead America in the right direction. In other words, last night we were given the thing that President Obama promised, but failed to deliver: we were given hope.

Thank you to everyone who helped make this happen!

Monday, November 7, 2016

Vote: If for no other reason, for life itself

This is it.  Tomorrow either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be elected President of the United States.  No one else can win.

We know that Hillary Clinton should never be President. She is still proud of voting in favor of partial-birth abortion and she wants to use our tax dollars to pay for more and more of them.

Regardless of your party, there is no issue more important than life itself.

So please, please make sure you and everyone you know vote. And vote for Donald Trump who will appoint pro-life judges and support pro-life laws and religious liberty. Put aside your disdain for his personality and comments. This is not about us personally. It's not about how we feel, and it's not about making a statement against crassness. This is our one and only chance to stop Hillary and her incredible commitment to anti-life policies. Our only chance.
Please also vote pro-life in US House and Senate races. Pro-abortion Democrats should never control the US Senate or US House. 
Here is a comparison of the candidates on life.  Please share it and this message with all your contacts.

May God bless and protect the unborn, the elderly, and the USA.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Why pro-lifers should vote for Trump*

Hi Everyone,

*This is another share from a pro-lifer who is not a big fan of Donald Trump, but who realizes what is at stake. Like her, I am not demanding what anyone do. I'm merely asking people to please consider the willingness to sacrifice our personal feelings and opinions for the greater good. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.

The following is written by Kristan Hawkins:

No presidential election in recent memory has presented two candidates who were more disliked, even by their own parties. Indeed, not only active party members, but also a significant majority of ordinary, grassroots Americans – especially millennials – really don’t like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
The fact remains that one of these candidates will become the President-elect in less than two weeks; President Hillary or President Donald will be inaugurated come January 20th. So, does our distaste for these Worst Ever candidates mean that we leave the presidential ballot bubbles unmarked or that we vote for a third-party candidate who doesn’t stand a chance of winning?
The bottom line is this: As those who want to see abortion abolished in our lifetime, what is our moral obligation when voting for President?
It’s our privilege and responsibility as American citizens that requires us to vote. And like many decisions I’ve had to make as an adult, I’m going to have to choose between two bad options.
And I believe that choice on November 8th is simple. We have to vote for the candidate who will advance our mission of ending abortion.
However, it’s not a mere pro-life vs. pro-choice decision. For me and many others it will be an anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion decision. This is an important distinction. While being anti-abortion and pro-life often go hand and hand, that’s sadly not an option this time around.
As the Institute for Pro-Life Advancement, a project of Students for Life of America, polling revealed earlier this year the term “pro-life” is muddled. Most Americans our age believe abortion is wrong and should be illegal but don’t label themselves as pro-life. And the term means something different to everyone. Some believe pro-life is simply about opposing abortion and others think it encompasses other issues like the death penalty, foreign policy, education, etc. Others think it’s just a political term used to describe old, white guys who yell at women at abortion facilities. To me, pro-life is about working to end all abortions and work towards positive cultural changes to help women achieve their dreams while raising children.
Is Donald Trump the pro-life candidate? For my definition of “pro-life,” no he is not. I don’t think he fits that label.
However, his unprecedented, public pledges that no other “pro-life” candidate has ever made so clearly to defund Planned Parenthood if they continue to commit abortions, ensure the Hyde Amendment becomes law of the land, ban painful 20-week plus abortions, and only appoint justices who promise to overturn Roe and Doe, make him anti-abortion.
It’s a huge victory in and of itself that Donald Trump proudly states that he is anti-abortion. In every other recent presidential election, abortion has always been an issue that the Republican candidate dances around and avoids speaking about directly. Consultants and campaign staffers have always cautioned against a direct, firm, or outspoken anti-abortion message, proclaiming it to be political suicide. Trump’s clear anti-abortion promises are a victory that we can celebrate because we have made being pro-life and anti-abortion so popular that not only a majority of peers agree with us on the issue, but presidential candidates have to talk about it before they run for office. And even better, it benefits them to side with us even if they might not be as convicted as we are.
I think his public promises are the best guarantee we will get that he will fulfill them. He can’t walk back his promise to appoint pro-life Supreme Court Justices – those people who will literally decide if the laws on abortion go back to the states in our lifetime – on live TV. To break such a significant campaign promise would be political suicide for a politician. If you don’t believe me, just ask President George H. Bush about breaking his no-new taxes pledge.
Presidents have a lot of power, more than just setting the direction of the Supreme Court. Executive orders, the ability to order the Department of Justice to block enforcement of laws that are passed, and the preference to appoint Cabinet members and tens of thousands of their support staff are all reasons why Hillary Clinton and her $30 million Planned Parenthood army should be starring in your nightmares.
I’m not trying to bully or guilt-trip you in your decision on your Presidential vote this year. However, I just can’t tiptoe around when so much is at stake, when literally millions of little lives are hanging in the balance. I’m risking your offense to be true to my own conscience.
Staying home and not voting or voting for a candidate who has no legitimate way to win the Presidency is a failure to do what we must do as the pro-life and anti-abortion generation. While our mission to transform our nation starts with culture and those most targeted by the abortion industry, we can’t forget that what happens in Washington will heavily influence the effect of our efforts, and how many babies will die and mothers will be betrayed until we are ultimately successful in making abortion an unthinkable choice.
So, I’m voting for Donald Trump not because he is pro-life, but because he’s anti-abortion. For me, that’s the best decision I can make in this election.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Another awesome homily on voting from the Catholic perspective

This has to be one of the best homilies about the upcoming election I have heard - and I've heard some wonderful ones. 
This homily, delivered by Fr. John Lankeit of the Archdiocese of Phoenix, needs to be shared with everyone and anyone who is voting in this coming election in the USA. Either read it below or watch it here.  Either way, please share this with everyone you know.
1 27th Sunday OT (Year C) – October 2, 2016 HAB 1:2-3; 2:2-4; PS 95:1-2, 6-7, 8-9; 2 TM 1:6-8, 13-14; LK 17:5-10
Fr. John Lankeit:
"The Devil is a divider who will use almost any tactic to separate Christians from Christ...except for one. He doesn’t typically come right out and say, “Deny Jesus Christ!” because he knows that someone who loves Jesus would immediately reject the suggestion. 
So, he tends to use more subtle means and subtle words. But more on that later... For now, let’s deal with something closer to home, and very much in the forefront of many people’s minds: the 2016 presidential election. 
But let’s do so from a Catholic perspective. Let’s consider the intersection of the practice of our Catholic faith and the exercise of our civic duty, especially when it comes to voting. Let’s first acknowledge that there has never been a political party in the United States that is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching on every issue. 
That does not mean, however, that we are therefore automatically free to vote for either major party, because one party can be much further from Catholic principles on the most important issues than the other party. 
As a result of that, we are often faced with the task of discerning which party and which policies are most in line with Catholic teaching, and which ones aren’t. So many issues are subject to the prudential judgment of Catholic voters. 
What does that mean? It means that Catholics can legitimately disagree, for example, on the best way to address issues such as racial injustice, education, the economy, immigration and healthcare and still remain in good standing in the Church. There are other issues, however, which touch on matters of intrinsic evil—actions that can never, at any time, under any circumstances be committed, promoted or even enabled by a faithful Catholic. 
But setting aside issues of intrinsic evil for now, let’s consider some of the more common issues for which Catholics can legitimately exercise prudential judgment. One such issue is Affirmative Action. This program aims to eliminate perceived disadvantages that minorities face when competing, for example, for admission to college. 
In our nation, one party favors Affirmative Action to bring justice and balance in our multiracial society. The other party holds that it penalizes high achievers by giving limited spots in the college classroom to less qualified 2 candidates, while denying more qualified students access. 
One party sees affirmative action as a matter of justice...while the other party sees it as injustice. But, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a black person if that black person created a hardship for them getting the education they desired. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate? 
Another issue that falls under the category of prudential judgment is immigration. One of the major political parties seeks to allow immigration with very little restriction. The other party is concerned that unrestricted immigration leads to, among other things, non-citizens taking jobs that could be worked by citizens. 
One party favors open borders—the other favors “law and order”. Now, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a Hispanic person if the presence of that Hispanic person made it more difficult to pursue one’s career of choice. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate? 
Thank God we don’t have a candidate from either party who says that they condone such policies. Nobody in their right mind would say such a thing—that we could kill blacks or Hispanics—or anyone else—just for the sake of protecting personal economic or educational interests. Nobody would say it, but, as you’ll see in a moment... 
There is a candidate, in this 2016 race for president, who along with that candidate’s political party does, in fact, sanction the killing of blacks and Hispanics in the situations previously described...under one...particular...condition: That the black person or the Hispanic person is still in his or her mother’s womb. 
Now, this candidate and party certainly won’t say it that way, not publicly anyway. Instead, they use words like “choice” or “reproductive rights” or “women’s health” or other sanitized statements in order to cover up what abortion is and what abortion does. 
Now, before we go any further in discussing the extremely sensitive issue of abortion... I want to say a word to any woman in this congregation here today—or among those watching or listening on TV or radio—who has chosen abortion: God’s mercy is bigger than your sin and your pain. In ten years of priesthood, I have often been blessed to welcome a woman back to the merciful embrace of God the Father after she has admitted to, and repented of, her abortion in the Sacrament of Confession. 
A priest in such a situation has the privilege of assuring the woman that she has never lost the love of God the Father, nor her dignity as his beloved daughter, no matter what she did. And so I say to these women today: You do not have to hide from God any longer. I know it’s exhausting to pretend that your pain is not real, that your loss is not immense and that your choice was not devastating. But when you experience God’s loving mercy even after the abortion, you will really come to know and experience that God’s love in forgiving our most serious sins is even greater than His love in creating us. Your Father has been waiting for you for a very long time. It’s time for you to come home! 
So, now, having shared that important word with grieving mothers let’s return to the subject of our duty as Catholics in the public square. When we consider that a woman can walk into Planned Parenthood and have her baby put to death because she doesn’t want to jeopardize her education or career, we must acknowledge that the shocking scenarios described previously are not only possible...not only real...but also among the most common reasons for abortion in America. 
Even the word “abortion” has been drained of its meaning—we treat it like nothing more than a term that starts a heated debate rather than a procedure that stops a heartbeat. Many want to treat abortion as merely one issue among many—but that requires that a person pretend not to know what abortion is and what abortion does. 
So let’s stop beating around the bush with regard to the current presidential race: Do you know which candidate and party in this election promotes abortion and even promises to expand its availability here at home as well as abroad? Do you know that this candidate and party intend to make you and me pay for other people’s abortions with our tax dollars—something that has always been illegal? Are you aware that this candidate and party, which until recently, said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” no longer even bothers to say that it should be rare—but rather, that it must be available any time, any place, even up to the last moment that the fully formed, full-term baby remains in the womb? 
If you do not know which candidate and party I’m referring to, then you should not even consider voting until you do know! Ignorance in this area is unacceptable, because ignorance in this area costs millions of babies their lives and jeopardizes the souls of many Catholics voters. 
On the other hand, if you DO know which candidate and party want to promote and expand abortion, and you still intend to enable them to continue their war on the unborn with the help of your vote, then it is my duty as a priest to tell you that your soul will be in grave danger, especially if you present yourself for Holy Communion after casting such a vote with the full knowledge of what you’re doing. 
Every election season, when a priest addresses such topics from the pulpit, a certain portion of the population complains that he’s preaching politics: “A priest has no business discussing politics in church!” That’s what some people say. But what does God say to the priest whom He has designated to be spiritual father for the people entrusted to his care? The same thing he said to the Prophet Ezekiel: “...I have made [you] a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his [sin], but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his [sin], but you will have saved your life. (Ez 33:7-9) 
Another of the Devil’s tactics is to encourage us to make excuses for our participation in really bad things by appealing to other good things that we support, which we try to convince ourselves somehow “cancel out” the grave evil we enable. 
Take capital punishment, for example. If you bring up abortion, some people will say, “I’m against capital punishment...and if you’re against abortion, then you should be against capital punishment!” Fair enough. What is the biggest objection to capital punishment? That innocent people might be mistakenly put to death. And it must be acknowledged that innocent people very well could be unjustly executed due to the many flaws in our legal system. And this very reason for opposing capital punishment is precisely the reason that Catholics must never willingly support or even enable abortion with their vote. Because, while some innocent people have no doubt been put to death mistakenly through capital punishment, in abortion an innocent person is always put to death, and never by mistake. It’s always chosen...always intended.
If a person is against capital punishment, then, they necessarily must be against abortion because the intention of abortion is to knowingly and deliberately kill an innocent boy or girl—each and every time. 
What about war? People who vigorously oppose the wars in the Middle East, for example, often quote statistics on the great number of innocent people accidently killed in the crossfire. “Collateral damage”—the innocent people killed in war—is, perhaps the greatest tragedy of war. But if a person opposes the accidental killing of innocent people in war, while enabling the intentional killing of the most innocent human beings on the planet with their vote—well...this is hypocrisy of the most extreme kind. 
If a person opposes war because of the accidental, unintended deaths of innocent people, they necessarily must oppose abortion because the killing in abortion is neither accidental nor unintended, but always directly willed. 
Sometimes we hear the stupendously deceptive claim that a candidate or party will reduce abortions by improving economic or social conditions, while simultaneously promoting abortion as a right worth protecting. But let’s face facts: Abortion is not caused by economics or social conditions. Economic and social factors are, no doubt, circumstances that affect a mother’s decision in some cases, but they are not causes. After all, if eliminating abortion were merely a matter of economics, or access to healthcare, or other socioeconomic factors, then why do wealthy mothers also abort their babies? 
There are plenty of Catholics who, quite rightly, have criticized bishops and priests in recent years for not having spoken out more forcefully against the sexual abuse of children by priests. Why, then, do many of these same Catholics want to silence bishops and priests who speak out forcefully against killing innocent children? Why is opposing sexual abuse of children a matter of justice, but opposing the murder of children a matter of “preaching politics”? 
Regardless of the resistance, a priest must follow the example of Peter and John in the Acts of the Apostles when it comes to preaching difficult truths. To those who sought to silence their proclamation of the Gospel these Apostles boldly responded: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for [I] cannot but speak of what [I] have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19- 20) 
A priest is not only protected by the 1st Amendment (at least for now). He is also bound by the 5th Commandment—Thou Shalt Not Kill. If a priest doesn’t speak up for those most vulnerable in our society, and if the Catholic faithful don’t actively protect the most vulnerable in our society by refusing to enable their deliberate destruction with their vote, then such Catholics are condoning the killing by their cowardice. And what did St. Paul say to Timothy about cowardice in today’s 2nd Reading?  God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord...but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God. (2 Tim 1:7-8) 
Part of every Catholic’s share in the hardship for the Gospel is that we must repent of our actions that are offensive to God and destructive to our brothers and sisters. And we must oppose the threats to innocent life that are most real and most urgent. Make no mistake! There is no single issue that threatens innocent human life more directly, consistently and urgently than the deliberate killing of baby boys and baby girls in their mother’s womb. No issue! In the time since this homily started, at least 30 children have been deliberately executed in the womb in the United States—and that’s just the ones that are reported. 
Let me sum up with some very challenging words: “We have a serious obligation to protect human life, and especially the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. Whoever fails to do this, when otherwise able to do so, commits a serious sin of omission. They jeopardize their own spiritual well-being and they are a source of scandal for others. Should they be Catholics, they should not receive Holy Communion.” (Catholics in the Public Square, 4th Ed., p. 25)
Now, I hope you realize that it takes a lot of courage for a priest to communicate such challenging words as these—reminding his people that some actions are so gravely sinful that they render a Catholic unworthy to receive Holy Communion until there is complete repentance. A priest who is more concerned about the state of his people’s souls than they are themselves, deserves the esteem of his people for his willingness to speak such difficult truth to them with genuine love—to put the welfare of his people’s souls ahead of his own reputation, popularity or comfort. 
Such a priest should receive respect, admiration and support, rather than their resistance or criticism. So please pray for, thank and encourage the spiritual father that God has appointed for you and who loves you enough to tell you the truth. Because the priest who said these particular your bishop...and mine."