Catholic

Latest news on catholic

Assisted Living - San Jose - Seniors - Licensed Residential Care Home (san jose west)

See www.assistedlivingsanjose.com to find out more about a wonderful, loving home providing assisted living and senior housing for seniors at All About Seniors and Kimberly's Elder Care. Imagine an intimate assisted living senior housing San Jose option as comfortable as home, but with professional caregivers on site 24/7 to prepare home-cooked meals from scratch, and take care of all the laundry, housekeeping, medications, and activities of daily living. This type of intimacy is only available in a private residential care home offering assisted living and senior housing San Jose. That’s why we invite you to call for a tour of our home. Our residents are assisted by a minimum of two staff on duty at all times. Our 3:1 client-to-caregiver ratio assures a concierge-level of personalized care that is more intimate than many larger assisted living facilities with ratios of 10 or 12:1. The cornerstone of our assisted living program for seniors and senior housing care is our dedicated staff. By allowing us to care for your loved one, you're assured your "Senior" is surrounded with love and support. Our assisted living and senior housing San Jose facilities have private bedrooms and baths, and accommodate non-ambulatory seniors with ramps and wheelchair exits. Our assisted living for seniors with dementia unit has 24-hour night staff and complete exit alarms. Unlike large corporate facilities, our assisted living houses are more like home because they actually are private homes in safe neighborhoods. And if you have a special request there are no layers of bureaucracy--you can tell Debra or Patrick directly. Should the assisted living home staff need extra assistance in offering senior housing, the owners can return to any assisted living home within five minutes because all the senior care homes are located in the same West San Jose/Campbell neighborhood where they live. The zip codes close to our home are: 95128 95117 95013 95070 95129 95117 95008 95124 95032 95030 95127 95035 94085 95118 95120 95123 95119 95138 95135 95121 95122 95037 95050 95131 95133 95125 95112 95110 We take pride in keeping our assisted living homes clean and cheerful with a cozy atmosphere reminiscent of a high-touch Bed-and-Breakfast. The assisted living homes are surrounded by lovely landscaped yards with sunny decks and shady patios. In a safe neighborhood with a secured perimeter and exit alarms, our assisted living homes have served the elderly for over 20 years. In addition to daily activities, we enjoy taking the seniors on outings and field trips and arranging in-home entertainment, parties and other activities in the assisted living facility. Basic services include: · Nutritious home-cooked meals and snacks (low fat, low salt diet) · Special diets upon physician's orders · All medications stored, dispensed and reordered by staff · Daily monitoring of residents' health and vital signs · Bathing · Dressing · Grooming · Incontinence Care · Mobility · Daily housekeeping and personal laundry service—all linens provided · Bimonthly in-house podiatrist service · Beautician service provided in-house · All faiths welcomed · Holy communion (Catholic) in home · 24-Hour Supervision · Transportation Arrangements · Daily group activities and exercise · In-home entertainment · Newspaper & magazine subscriptions · Cable TV · Shopping · Social Programs · Telephone · Toileting · Visually Impaired Assistance · Wellness Program Contact Us Today! We invite you to talk with our clients' families or read through our many thank-you cards! Please call Debra for more information or to schedule a tour at (408) 483-1030. We have no shared rooms—our private room rates range from $3500-$4500/month depending on level of care. If your senior needs financial or governmental assistance, we suggest calling the helpful advisers at the Santa Clara County Council on Aging (296-8290) who have assisted living counselors. All of our assisted living homes are licensed by the State of California, Department of Social Services. License#435294147, 435294219, and 435294206. Please call call Debra at 408 483-1030 to schedule a tour and visit us at www.assistedlivingsanjose.com Pictured Below: Owners Debra & Patrick

Nice Rooms in a Beautiful 3 bedroom home w/Lovely View of Bay! (San Leandro near Castro Valley) $518

Two Nice average size rooms to choose from. Nice and comfortable living room area, nice dining area, fully loaded kitchen:), huge front deck with an overwhelming view of the bay area, nice backyard for BBQ, parking, washer/dryer, digital cable, wireless internet and more. Nice swing on the deck with great view of the bay area. Safe neighborhood. The off white carpet is all over the house except the kitchen and bathrooms including laundry room Looking for someone who is respectful, easy to live with, knows how to keep a place CLEAN, enjoys some social activities, trustworthy, pays rent on time, no pets, no drugs whatsoever, NO smoking of any sort. Also knows how to enjoy privacy too:). Share with one single catholic guy, 35, small company owner and I try to keep the place presentable:)I like cooking sometimes, road trips and I work much from home:) RENT PLUS UTILITIES, washer/dryer, cable, wireless internet, water, garbage, etc. A package monthly will be worked out for everything.

Czech Catholic Church again seeks St Vitus Cathedral ownership

HUGE ROOM PRIVATE FULL BATHROOM OPEN HOUSE 9/1 AVAIALABLE NOW (FEMALE) (hayward / castro valley) $690 1bd

AVAILABLE NOW! SPACIOUS ROOM W/FULL BATHROOM. The room fits a king size bed and dresser and still has lots of extra space!!! Nice quiet neighborhood!! Room is separate from three other rooms and is located in an upper level. It has LOTS of storage space and a walk in closet. Full bathroom with shower. Access to living room(new paint,furniture),laundry, and backyard. Kitchen has all new appliances and paint. New washer and dryer in garage. Spacious backyard with plenty of studying or relaxing space. Close to Southland mall, Chabot College, Catholic church, bus stop, 880 freeway, and so much more. Looking for a female tenant(one person) who is clean, non-smoker/drug use, and respectful. No overnight guests or pets. If you want to have a roommate (female) the price will go up. OPEN HOUSE TODAY ALL DAY! CALL AHEAD TO LET US KNOW YOU ARE COMING SO THAT WE ARE AT THE HOUSE(510)329-6282!!!! Hablamos Espanol Ready to move in NOW! Minimum 6 mo. stay.

Catholic schools in India protest

Thousands of Catholic schools are shut across India in protest against continuing violence in the eastern state of Orissa.

Save our churches A congregation of 200 'is not viable'

Thriving churches are being closed down by the Catholic Church under plans to reduce costs and raise income from the land worshippers claim.

Misrepresenting Obama's audiobook, Hannity claimed Obama said, "White folks' greed runs a world in need"

On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama had "openly complained about 'white folks' greed.' " To illustrate the claim, Hannity then played audio in which Obama says, "White folks' greed runs a world in need." However, Hannity did not note that the sound bite came from the audiobook version of Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father (Crown, 1995), in a passage in which Obama recites lines from a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So, those words, which Hannity asserted "Obama himself has said," are a quote from Wright, a fact that Hannity has previously acknowledged. Hannity brought up the quote in a discussion of the Obama campaign's refutation of the claims in Jerome Corsi's debunked and discredited book The Obama Nation. The response includes evidence contradicting several "factual inaccuracies" in Corsi's book and outlines Corsi's connections to conspiracy theorists who claim, among other things, that the U.S. government is covering up the "true" cause of the World Trade Center collapse on 9-11. The response also details Corsi's anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic statements and describes him as a "discredited, fringe bigot." Hannity asserted: "[I]f I were Obama, I don't know if I'd be hurling around the word 'bigot,' given some of the things that Obama himself has said in the past. For example, if Corsi, the fringe bigot -- you know, what would you call a guy who openly complained about 'white folks' greed'?" Hannity then aired an audio clip of Obama saying, "White folks greed runs a world in need." Later in the broadcast, Hannity again commented that "I don't think [Obama] ought to be hurling around words like 'bigot,' given the things that he's said himself," and again aired the same audio clip. In neither instance did Hannity say that the audio clip is, in fact, Obama's quotation of Wright in his audiobook. From Page 292 of Dreams From My Father: The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel -- the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before her God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting titled Hope. "The painting depicts a harpist," Reverend Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountain. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation. "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ...That's the world! On which hope sits!" Hannity falsely characterized these words as Obama's despite having previously noted that they were Wright's. On the March 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity specifically referenced the quoted passage from Wright's "Audacity of Hope" sermon, noting that it was Wright's: "Now, there is some examination [of Obama's ties to Trinity United Church of Christ] going on, but there will be a full examination. What dates was he at the church? What sermons did he hear? Even the 'Audacity of Hope' speech or sermon had, you know, 'white greed' in there." From the March 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: Let me go to these numbers here, because they're pretty astounding here. DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic pollster): Sure. HANNITY: Rasmussen had a poll. SCHOEN: Yup. HANNITY: Fifty-six percent of Americans, now, as a result of this controversy are less likely to want to vote for Barack Obama. Pew poll, nearly 40 percent of people -- SCHOEN: Right. HANNITY: -- in that particular poll. Among Democrats, 17 percent of Democrats, Fox News poll -- SCHOEN: Right. HANNITY: -- think that he shares the views of his pastor, think that all those incendiary remarks. That's hemorrhaging and beyond. SCHOEN: Well, I made it clear to Alan that it is. Here's the real problem that the numbers underscore. Obama's running a campaign of unity, yet he has not distanced himself completely from a minister who is divisive. He said that Reverend Wright has apologized. The Reverend Wright has in no way apologized. HANNITY: That's right. SCHOEN: And until Obama makes it clear that he will have nothing to do with the Reverend Wright and completely repudiates him, these numbers will be a problem for him. HANNITY: And Michael Steele [GOPAC chairman], there's more to this, too, as I pointed out. Now, there is some examination going on, but there will be a full examination. What dates was he at the church? What sermons did he hear? Even the "Audacity of Hope" speech or sermon had, you know, "white greed" in there. STEELE: Right. From the August 15 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: Anyway, part of the Obama attack against Jerome Corsi includes the allegation he's a, quote, "fringed bigot," based on criticism of the Catholic Church that Corsi posted on some websites during the priest sex-abuse scandal. And by the way, I'm a Catholic. So, I understand that there were people that really went over the line. And I'm not doubting any of this. And I even heard Corsi's going on some radical talk shows. I think that's a mistake. But that doesn't take away from what is true or not true in the book. And if only the media would vet Obama the way they are Corsi, we might actually have a little knowledge about the candidate. But one has to wonder -- if I were Obama, I don't know if I'd be hurling around the word "bigot," given some of the things that Obama himself has said in the past. For example, if Corsi, the fringe bigot -- you know, what would you call a guy who openly complained about "white folks' greed"? OBAMA [audio clip]: White folks' greed runs a world in need. HANNITY: You know, what would you call somebody who declared that his grandmother, who raised him, was prejudiced just like a, quote, "typical white person"? [...] HANNITY: And then we got Jerome Corsi. I'm -- this is hilarious. I mean, they're all -- Kerry and all the Obama people are doing -- his book's number one on Amazon right now. Go check it out. And, you know -- and they're saying, "Oh, he's a fringe bigot." OK, but then we just went through a whole list of examples where Barack Obama I don't think ought to be hurling around words like "bigot," given the things that he's said himself. OBAMA [audio clip]: White folks' greed runs a world in need. HANNITY: Yeah. Or "the typical white person," talking about his own grandmother who raised him.

LA Times asserted Obama "probably can't erase the God gap," but ignored findings that he leads among Catholics and black Protestants

In an August 19 Los Angeles Times article, staff writer Mark Z. Barabak asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "probably can't erase the God gap," but cited as evidence Pew poll results for white voters, suggesting that the political views of white religious voters are representative of the political views of all religious voters; they are not, according to a Pew poll released August 13. Specifically, Barabak wrote in support of his claim of a "God gap" that "[a] recent Pew poll found Obama trailing [Sen. John] McCain among white evangelicals, mainline Protestants and non-Hispanic Catholics." But Barabak did not note that in that poll, Pew found that Obama leads McCain 88 percent to 6 percent among "Black Protestant[s]." Moreover, Barabak asserted that Obama "trail[ed] McCain among ... non-Hispanic Catholics," but Barabak did not note that Obama leads McCain among all Catholic voters, 47 percent to 42 percent. From the August 19 Los Angeles Times article: A big test will come this fall. Likely party standard-bearer Barack Obama has courted religious voters like no Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. A week after the primaries ended, the Illinois senator met privately with a group of conservative religious leaders, winning positive reviews. "We want people of faith to know that Barack Obama is a viable option and a candidate who's not ashamed to stand up and talk about his values," says Joshua DuBois, the campaign's director of religious affairs, whose staff has conducted more than 200 "faith town halls" for religious leaders and their followers. Obama probably can't erase the God gap, even if he seems more comfortable discussing his Christianity than the last two Democratic nominees or, for that matter, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. A recent Pew poll found Obama trailing McCain among white evangelicals, mainline Protestants and non-Hispanic Catholics. But McCain's support was below Bush's levels, and even small gains by Obama -- winning, say, just 1 in 3 white evangelicals -- could significantly reshape the electoral map, says Allen Hertzke, a University of Oklahoma expert on religion and politics. "Democrats have developed a keen awareness of the problem and they're seriously engaged in trying to narrow the gap," Hertzke says. "That in itself is a significant change from 2000 and 2004." But Daughtry is looking past November. "Obviously, you want to win elections," she says. But more important "is the extent to which we allow people of faith to be a vibrant, active part of the party. Because that is a longer-term benefit with greater implications ... than what one election may or may not yield."

Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

A VACCINE against cervical cancer will be given to schoolgirls without them receiving any safe sex advice as a result of a controversial deal struck between the Catholic Churc

"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

Sixteen years later, media still peddle Bob Casey myth For the past 16 years, news organizations have been repeating an obvious falsehood about the 1992 Democratic convention. According to countless news reports -- in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, ABC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on -- then-Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking role at the convention because he opposed abortion rights. That's false. And it's obviously false. Here's all you need to know in order to know with absolute certainty that Casey's views on abortion were not the reason he was not given a speaking role: that very same Democratic convention featured speeches by at least eight people who shared Casey's anti-choice position, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Sens. John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors. This is really, really simple: if there were eight speakers at the 1992 convention who were "pro-life," then it cannot logically be the case that Casey was excluded solely because of his position on abortion. Yet here's The New York Times, just last week: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies." No. That is not true. That cannot be true. It cannot be the case that he was not allowed to speak because of his views -- other people with the same views were allowed to speak. Forgive the repetition, but reporters at nearly every significant news organization in the country are inexplicably incapable of grasping this extraordinarily simple concept. And when Media Matters pointed out the error, did the Times run a correction? No. The Times apparently stands by its transparent falsehood. That is not a sign of a newspaper that gives a damn about the truth. Not that the Times is alone in its willingness to traffic in obvious falsehoods. The Associated Press joined in this week, embellishing the claim: "the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey ... was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views." ABC put it similarly: "Casey ... was denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights." Those reports contained a new twist to go along with the old falsehood: They assumed that absent Casey's views on abortion, he would have been entitled to a "prime" or "marquee" speaking spot at the convention. But there's simply no reason to think that is the case. Casey wasn't a nationally renowned orator like convention speakers Mario Cuomo, Ann Richards, and Zell Miller, or the governor of the host state like Cuomo, or a leader influential with a large party constituency like Jesse Jackson. Casey certainly wasn't a nobody -- he was the governor of Pennsylvania, and that's a significant thing. But it isn't something that would have entitled him to a speaking spot at the convention, much less a "marquee" spot. Not everybody gets to speak at a national party convention. And based on contemporaneous media coverage from the months preceding the Democratic convention, there simply wasn't a widespread assumption that Casey would speak -- or even speculation that he might. In fact, a review of the news reports available in the Nexis database that mention Casey's name within 20 words of the word "convention" for the several months preceding the party gathering suggests that the only person suggesting that Casey might speak was ... Bob Casey himself. It seems from the public record that Casey wasn't "denied" a speaking spot because of his views on abortion -- he was never really considered, and nobody was suggesting he would be a good choice to speak. (By contrast, there were scores of news reports about Democrats wanting Cuomo to speak at the convention before an announcement was made that he would do so.) People involved in planning the 1992 Democratic convention have long maintained that Casey was not given an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, who was to be nominated at the convention. That's what they said at the time, too. The Washington Post's first report on Casey's request for speaking time included a quote from the Democratic National Committee's press secretary: "anyone who is speaking at the convention will have endorsed Governor Clinton by the time of the convention and Governor Casey has not." It should be noted that it wasn't merely that Casey hadn't gotten around to endorsing Clinton. He was arguing that Clinton had only a "flyspeck" of support and that the party should consider nominating someone else at the convention. Of course, only those involved in the decisions about who would speak at the convention know for certain if Casey's refusal to endorse Clinton was the reason he wasn't given a speaking role. But we do know that as soon as Casey asked for one, the Democratic Party publicly indicated that his failure to endorse Clinton would prevent him from speaking. If the convention organizers were making a bluff, Casey could have called it by simply endorsing Clinton. He chose not to. Instead, he began denouncing the party for having a "radical, extreme position" in favor of abortion rights and claiming it was bowing to "the radical far left." Members of his own delegation were quoted saying he was "being a jerk" and said they were considering removing him as head of the delegation. It's also important to keep in mind that Casey didn't merely want to speak at the convention. He wanted to devote his entire speech to opposing the Democratic Party on a single issue. After the convention ended, Casey released the text of the speech he would have delivered had he been given the chance. The speech ran more than 1,000 words -- and not one of those words was "Clinton." Nor was the word "Gore" mentioned. Casey's speech did not include a single word of praise or support for the ticket being nominated at the convention he wanted to address. Instead, it accused the party of being "far out of the mainstream and on the extreme fringe" on abortion. That's what the entire speech was about: disagreeing with, and insulting, the Democratic Party on abortion. And yet the media pretend Casey's lack of a speaking role at the 1992 convention tells us something about the Democratic Party. OK, quick: Name a single example in modern history of a Republican who has not endorsed the GOP nominee being given time to give an address at the party's convention -- an address that does not support or even mention the nominee, but rather consists solely of arguing against and insulting the party's position on abortion. You can't name one, because it has never happened. Nor do I recall many speeches at recent Republican conventions arguing in favor of gay rights or against the Iraq war. Nobody points to that as evidence of the Republicans' intolerance of divergent viewpoints. And yet, ever since the 1992 convention, the news media have portrayed the lack of a speaking role for Casey as evidence of the Democratic Party's supposed intolerance of anti-choice politicians -- a portrayal gleefully encouraged by Republicans. As ABC reported this week: The 1992 snub has become a symbol over the years of the Democratic Party making support for abortion rights a litmus test. In 2004, Republicans contrasted the Casey snub with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY., two Republicans who support abortion rights, speaking to their convention. But unlike Casey, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger had endorsed their party's nominee. And neither Giuliani nor Schwarzenegger delivered a speech that consisted solely of disagreeing with the GOP's position on abortion. Instead, they delivered strong endorsements of George W. Bush. The situations aren't even remotely comparable. The Republicans' granting of convention speeches to Schwarzenegger and Giuliani isn't a contrast to the Democrats' not giving Casey a speech; it is instead a direct analog to John Breaux and Howell Heflin and other anti-choice Democrats who have spoken at Democratic conventions. The comparison of Giuliani to Casey would be laughable even if it were true that Casey's position on abortion kept him from a speaking role. But ABC pretended the bogus contrast was apt. If you spend a few minutes browsing through news articles available on Nexis, you won't have any trouble finding absurdities like this. Here's one particularly convoluted comparison, from a Buffalo News columnist writing in November 2004: Last summer's Republican conclave in New York City was a skin-deep showcase for The Big Tent. In August, Republicans paraded a squad of pro-choice speakers on prime time. They didn't talk about abortion rights there, certainly, but their prominence beckoned to the undecided. In the VIP box sat Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. Contrast these shallow bows to cross-culturalism to what happened to the party of inclusion a dozen years before in the same building. The forces of then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton barred Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey from making any address to the Democratic convention. Casey was the most influential anti-abortion voice in the nation. He passed the country's most stringent abortion controls and won re-election by more than a million votes. [...] Whatever one's views on abortion, it is undeniable now that the Republicans have handled their relationships with social-issue constituencies far more deftly than the Democrats have with theirs. Got that? The 2004 Republican convention featured pro-choice speakers who didn't talk about abortion rights. And that's supposed to be an inclusive, tolerant contrast to the 1992 Democratic convention at which eight anti-choice Democrats spoke. Why? Because Casey (supposedly) wasn't allowed to give a speech that would have been entirely about his opposition to abortion. The Republicans handled things more deftly than the Democrats by doing exactly what the Democrats did -- featuring speakers who disagree with them on abortion, but who didn't give speeches about the topic. Let's end where we began, by making this as simple as possible. Eight Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 Democratic convention. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Bob Casey was prevented from speaking at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights. The fact that Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and other pro-choice Republicans have spoken at recent Republican conventions does not in any way contrast with the way Casey was treated; their speeches were not devoted entirely to disagreeing with and insulting their party. Unlike the speech Casey wanted to give, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger devoted their convention addresses to supporting their party's nominee. Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and other pro-choice Republican convention speakers are, instead, directly analogous to the numerous anti-choice Democrats who have spoken at Democratic conventions in recent years. This really isn't complicated stuff. There's no excuse for news organizations getting it wrong. They're just falling for bogus spin, and they don't care enough to get things right.