Thursday, September 1, 2011

Catholic Standard's Fluffy-Puff Piece On Hilda Solis - A Gross Disservice To All Concerned

It's on page 10 of today's paper edition of the Catholic Standard and online here.  Current Labor Secretary Hilda Solis claims that "her parents' example of faith and hard work shapes her public service".   She has an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in her office, along with a Crucifix and other religious decorations.  In addition to the example of her parents, she also cites Caear Chavez and Frances Perkins (Secretary of Labor under FDR).

The article mentions that she was a congresswoman from California and that while serving in that capacity she attended Mass at St Joseph Church on Capitol Hill.  The Standard mentions nothing more of her career as a congresswoman or the positions she espoused and votes she cast.  The Catholic Standard excels at lobbing "soft-ball questions" at those to whom the chancery and USCCB would kiss up, but I digress!  The fact is, while she claims that her faith motivates her, her voting record tells a different story.  The following is some research that the Catholic Standard should have done -assuming it takes its journalistic responsibilities seriously.

Now think.  She's a Democratic congresswoman from California.  Knowing that, her voting record on abortion, as reported by On The Issues, reveals Ms Solis to be another flaming pro-abortion supporter.  To wit:
  • She voted repeatedly to support embryonic stem cell research.
  • Like her boss, she voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
  • She voted for all manners of abortion funding.
  • She was endorsed by Emily's List and has a 100% rating from NARAL.
I trust no one would really think that the Messiah Most Miserable would nominate to his cabinet a Catholic who took the moral teachings of her church seriously.  She's Catholic in same vein as the other CINO cabinet member, Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary.

Moreover, in 2004 she was one of several CINO pro-abortion congresspeople who sent a letter to Cardinal McCarrick almost insisting that he not deny them Holy Communion because they promote abortion.  Women for Faith and Family has that letter archived on their site.  It did originally appear on the official website of Rosa DeLauro but that has since been taken down.  I do have two side comments to make about that letter:
  1. By now they must realize that they need not have bothered to write that letter, as His Eminence never did have any intention of obeying Canon 915, as subsequent behavior has so amply demonstrated.
  2. Look down the list of signers.  In light of the Obamacare passage of March 2010, does one name stand out?  Bart Stupak!  He never was "pro-life".  Don't the events of March 2010 make sense now?
Instead of singing her praises, the Catholic Standard should be holding her out as an ideal recipient for the medicine of Canon 915.  She is not the exemplary Catholic as the Standard article implies.  Mind you, I don't pretend to be the judge of her heart.  However, her actions as a congresswoman have been an abysmal disgrace to her church, as well as a danger to her own immortal soul. 

One wonders just what favor the chancery might be trying to curry from Ms. Solis.  Else, why would the Standard content itself with such a simplistic, shallow piece of happy-pap-crap in place of a news article.  In just 30 minutes I did research that the Standard should have done.  I now report it, but the Standard should have done so too - if it's interested in being a real journalistic enterprise.  My fellow blogger reported last week that big changes were afoot at the Standard.  Now all can see yet another piece of evidence why I look askance at these changes.


  1. Great research, Janet! Thanks for doing the work the Standard should have done.

  2. Thanks! As you yourself well know, that's why we're here - to fill in these gaps, whether they're intentional or unintentional. In this case, I think it's the former.

  3. Roxanne Martino & Hilda Solis - the first fruits of The DREAM Act. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

  4. Where does this come from? I've no reason to believe that either of those two women - or their parents - came into the US illegally. Moreover, I cannot see how they would be called "first fruits" of proposed legislation that in most places is not even law yet. In places where it is (California), that happened long after these two women completed formal education.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.