Philip Lawler on Cardinal Egan's public rebuke of Giuliani

By emphasizing the gravity of support for the legalized killing of the unborn, the cardinal takes a strong stand in defense of human life. Since Giuliani is not currently a candidate for political office, the cardinal's statement cannot be misinterpreted as a partisan gesture. Rather, he is using an opportunity to instruct the faithful.

At the same time, the cardinal is protecting the Church from further scandal. And as a pastor he is showing his concern for Giuliani, who is endangering his own soul by receiving the Eucharist improperly. The cardinal's message should not be lost on countless other Catholics who are receiving Communion while in a state of serious sin; in that respect, too, his is a valuable pastoral statement.

In all these respects, Cardinal Egan's statement stands in stark contrast to the official silence from Washington's Archbishop Donald Wuerl after several prominent pro-abortion Catholics-- most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy-- received Communion during the papal Mass in that city. Although these prominent politicians had indicated beforehand that they planned to receive the Eucharist, the archbishop made no statement to discourage them or to indicate to the public that they would be receiving Communion in violation of Church law. A spokesman for the US bishops' conference issued only a lame statement: "People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.”

After the fact, Archbishop Wuerl had another opportunity to clarify Church teaching. He remained silent, and his silence appeared to give consent. Perceptive reporters like John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter and Bob Novak of the Washington Post concluded that the net effect of the papal visit had been to encourage the notion that "pro-choice" Catholics are eligible to receive Communion-- a notion that the future Pope Benedict himself very clearly rejected during his exchange with American bishops in 2004.

The public statement from Cardinal Egan, then, corrects the record and prevents the further dissemination of a very misleading and damaging perception about Catholic Church teaching and pastoral practice. For that reason, too, the cardinal deserves our thanks.

Lawler also speculates that there was a specific reason that Egan focused on Giuliani's stance on abortion (as opposed to his marital status, which would itself have barred him from communion):

By basing his argument on Giuliani's advocacy for abortion, Cardinal Egan has sharpened the contrast between his stand and the stand (or non-stand) taken by Archbishop Wuerl. If the cardinal had cited Giuliani's marital status as the factor that disqualified him, the argument would not have applied to Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy, all of whom are properly married (with annulments in place where appropriate) in the eyes of the Church.

As Lawler points out, Egan had already spokenw ith Giuliani privately, then reaching what he had referred to as "an understanding" that the ex-mayor would refrain from the Eucharist. Giuliani chose to violate that agreement, forcing Egan's hand:

When he was apprised of the cardinal's rebuke, Giuliani responded through a spokesman with a statement claiming that his Catholic faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential." But if he had really wanted to keep the matter confidential, he would have abided by his agreement from Cardinal Egan. Instead he received Communion at the very time when his action would receive the most widespread publicity. He richly deserved the cardinal's rebuke.

Cardinal Edward Egan steps up, rebukes Giuliani's reception of Eucharist

• Statement by Cardinal Edward M. Egan, Archdiocese of New York City:

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008
  

  The following is a statement issued by Edward Cardinal Egan:
  

  “ The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

  
  
• Roundup of news and commentary at American Papist (Thomas Peters).
  

• Readers might remember that back in gave an interview with NBC, in which -- asked about his opinions of the presidential candidates, declined to weigh in on their "pro-choice" stance:

  I'm not looking to involve myself in any political issues that are not moral issues, basically. For instance, I think that you can consider the abortion issue a political issue, but it's basically an issue of right and wrong. And I've certainly spoken on that very clearly. ... don't ever expect me to be involved in partisan politics. I think I'm a good friend of [Pataki, Giuliani, Hillary], whom you've mentioned or whom I've mentioned. And I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us."

  An "artful dodge" which prompted Fr. Neuhaus to respond:

  of course he was making a statement of momentous political consequence, in that he seemed to be saying, as far as he is concerned, that the Church has no problem with pro-abortion politicians. It is understandable that Catholics and others have drawn the conclusion that, for both Wuerl and Egan, bishops of the two most prominent sees in the country, rejecting the Church’s teaching on the human dignity of the unborn child is not a big deal.
  

  Note that the politicians in question in these instances are not struggling with the moral questions involved or trying to reconcile their position with the Church’s teaching. At least there is no public evidence of such struggle, nor any suggestion by the bishops that their longstanding and adamant support for the unlimited abortion license should be a matter of concern.

  Perhaps this can be taken as evidence that Egan is finally recognizing that -- when a prominent Catholic politician proclaims himself to be "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" in clear defiance of Church teaching, while relegating his faith to "a private matter" -- one cannot so easily separate proclamation of moral teaching from "partisan politics."
  

What are the "priorities" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?

Take it from their head, Cardinal George (speaking to Pope Benedict XVI:

The episcopal conference has recently identified the strengthening of marriage and of family life as one of five priorities for our common attention in the next several years. The other four are protecting the life and dignity of the human person at every stage of life’s journey; handing on the faith in the context of sacramental practice and the observance of Sunday worship; fostering vocations to ordained priesthood and consecrated life; and profiting from the cultural diversity of the church here, especially from the gifts of Hispanic Catholics.

(Hat tip: Bill Cork (Oak Leaves)What? -- No global warming? ;-)

Pope Benedict's telegrams to various Heads of State

From Zenit News, the text of several telegrams Benedict XVI wrote to officials from the countries he flew over during his flight from New York to Rome, including the President of the United States:

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States of America - Washington

At the conclusion of my visit to the United States and the United Nations Organization I offer heartfelt thanks to you and your fellow citizens for your kind reception and ready assistance during my stay and I renew my prayers that Almighty God will ever guide your Nation in the way of prosperity and peace. Upon all the beloved American people I cordially invoke an abundance of divine Blessings.

Benedictus pp. xvi

The rest of the telegrams are addressed to the heads of state of the United States, Canada, Ireland, France and Italy.

"No hard line on communion to pro-choice pols"? -- Think again.

John Allen Jr. asserts that "no hard line from pope on communion for pro-choice pols" (National Catholic Reporter's NCRcafe April 20, 2008):

At least three times during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States, a prominent pro-choice Catholic politician has received communion during a papal Mass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, both Democrats, took communion during the Mass on Thursday at Nationals Park in Washington, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, received communion in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Saturday.

In none of these cases did the politicians receive communion directly from the pope, but it nonetheless happened during a papal Mass, and it took no one by surprise. Pelosi, for example, announced her intention to take communion in response to a question I asked her during a conference call with reporters the day before the Thursday Mass.

While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary. The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life.

Several thoughts:

• Pope Benedict XVI made his wishes explicitly known on this matter in 2004 letter, "Worthiness to Receive Communion: General Principles":

  4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
  

  5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

  It simply doesn't get any clearer than that, does it?
  

• Pope Benedict XVI also took the opportunity to bring attention to the specific matter of Catholics and abortion in his address to U.S. Catholic Bishops, when he lamented:

  a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

  To mention this issue explicitly, above numerous others, as an example of the "growing separation of faith from life" is a good indication Benedict takes this seriously.
  

• According to John Allen, "While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary." I don't think Allen's "argument from silence" will hold up. After all, one might just as well infer from this that Pope Benedict is expecting the U.S. Bishops to assert some individual authority over "pro-choice" Catholic legislators in their dioceses and make their own decisions on this matter -- the Holy Father has given his recommendation. He doesn't need to hold their hand.
  

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Twice-divorced former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani took Communion at a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict on Saturday, breaching rules that bar those who remarry outside the Church from doing so.

As he left New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral with his third wife, Judith, the failed presidential candidate confirmed to Reuters that he took Communion from a priest.

Asked if he was uncomfortable with having broken the Church ban on the divorced and remarried taking Communion, Giuliani said, "No."

***
Despite his Catholic faith, Giuliani has espoused socially liberal political positions such as backing a woman's right to choose an abortion and supporting gay rights.

[More]

See also "Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass"

"Value of Each and Every Human Life" in Resolution Honoring Pope Deemed "Objectionable Language" by Senate Dems [UPDATED]

Pope resolution passes after "life" language removed:

While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."

The measure later cleared the Senate Thursday afternoon after the sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), dropped the reference to "human life" because some Democrats saw it as a reference to abortion. According to Republican aides, Brownback, a devout Catholic, did not want a high profile fight over the resolution, which was adopted on a voice vote. In fact, Brownback blackberried his staff from the Pope's mass at Nationals Park to direct them to drop the references to human life.

A copy of the original resolution can be found here. The new resolution, with the human life language and references to religious expression in public buildings removed, is here.

"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Three Senate Republican aides involved in the issue say that Boxer objected to the "life" language, which Democrats see as an implicit reference to the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. Senate Democratic leadership offices declined to comment but referred questions to Boxer's office, which has not responded to Politico's inquiries this morning.

[More]

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes in a couple of entries at The Corner:

A Senate aide adds that it was not just the life language that was an issue in the resolution in the Senate:

[Boxer's] spokesperson claims that the reference to the "naked public square" was about "religious expression on public buildings." This is a rather uninformed and cramped understanding of what that language means. I guess we can take comfort from this episode that leading liberal Democrats have zero understanding of what makes Catholics and religious people tick.

(emphasis added)

... This is what was ridiculously cut:

"that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties"

and

"Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life"

UPDATE
Paul at Thoughts of a Regular Guy writes:

... But it seems to me that there's a problem from the pro-abortion side: If it's "objectionable" to witness "to the value of each and every human life," then which human lives does Sen. Boxer wish to deny the value of?

If she denies the value of unborn human lives, desiring to maintain the right to kill them for any reason or no reason, then isn't Sen. Boxer admitting that the unborn, are, in fact, human lives?

Isn't this essentially an admission that what happens in abortion is, in fact, an outright denial of the value of human life?

Some are looking to place a portion of the blame on Sen. Brownback for "backing down" on the "objectionable language".

See also "Pope Too Controversial for Senate Democrats".


UPDATE #2 (21 April)
Excellent insight from Darwin Catholic:

... More deeply, though, I think this speeks to a chasm that runs through American politics. There is a not-so-small portion of the American citizenry for whom the idea that Pope Benedict and the Church he leads should have anything to say on issues such as human life, the source and nature of human freedom, etc. is not only incorrect, but also offensive. The Daily Kos is so consumed with hatred at the idea that the pope might mean anything for Americans and American civic discussion that in its coverage of the stalling of the Senate resolution, it refers to the pope only as "this pedophile enabler". And Senator Boxer sees the pope so exclusively through the lens of American partisan politics that she sees the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" as offensive.

It's clearly not the case that all those who tend to vote Democrat are radical secularists and abortion advocates. However, a large enough number of those who are radical secularists and/or abortion advocates are also passionate Democrats that any national-level Democratic candidate who wants to be successful at this time seems to feel it necessary to do nothing that will seriously offend that constituency -- and a certain amount to please them. (Thus the invariable realization by any Democratic politican who decides to run for national level office that any pro-life convictions he personally held were only "personal".)

This is what makes me deeply, deeply skeptical of the claim, by self-identified conservatives and Catholics such as Prof. Kmiec, that an Obama presidency would somehow bring in an era of self responsibility and respect for others that would help heal the abortion issue more than anything continued restrictions and conservative Supreme Court appointments could achieve. It's not that many on the liberal side of the political spectrum do not have passionate feelings about helping "the little guy" as they identify him, but those feelings are always couched in terms that make abortion, euthenasia, and a host of other, smaller (and thus far more widely accepted) assaults on human life not only credible, but merciful.

***
Boxer, and a not small portion of the base she represents, seems to see the pope and the Church he leads in strictly partisan terms. So rather than taking the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" to be something that everyone could agree to in a spirit of welcome (while in her mind holding to disagreement as to what the term "every human life" could be taken to mean) she sought to have it struck out, along with the suggestion that religious belief had a place in public conversation and as the root of our liberties.

Until someone seeks to root this kind of thinking out of the Democratic Party mainstream, I think serious Christians would be right to remain leary of a claimed opennes in that party to "people of faith". If positions and beliefs are to be held to mean anything, it would seem that one of the things that the Democratic Party would like to tell us is: However much you may agree with us on other issues, pro-lifers and Christians need not apply -- unless you want to leave your faith at the door and act like a good little secularist...

[More]

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Brian Saint-Paul reports at InsideCatholic:

Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry intend to receive Communion at a public, fully-televised Papal Mass? Recall the letter that then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the U.S. bishops on the subject of pro-abortion Catholic politicians just prior to the 2004 election.

Here's the relevant section:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4).

Given that these are the words of Benedict himself and hardly secret, it looks like Pelosi and Kerry are trying to make a statement. Tacky.

(emphasis added by Brian)

Deal Hudson responds:

Regarding the Mass at National's Stadium today this how pro-abort Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Kerry will receive Holy Communion.

These politicians have what are called "advance" work done. They will make sure they know who the priest will be assigned to their section -- this priest will be well aware of who is in the line coming for the Eucharist. These arrangements will be made through the Archdiocese of Washington.

There will be no doubt, no hesitation -- very likely a television camera will be trained on Pelosi, Kerry, et al as they take Communion, and millions of people will be watching.

It will not only be a "statement," as described by Brian, it will also be a public relations coup of the highest order for the Democratic Party, an end to the threat of Canon 915 .

Why? They will have received Communion at a Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI.

My Comments:
I'm not sure what I think of this. Politicization of the Eucharist during the papal visit (either by those pro-abortion politicos who present themselves for Communion to, perhaps, make a "statement" or by those who loudly object to their doing so) is unfortunate. I do know that I am particularly unconcerned about whether these politicians receiving Communion during a Papal Mass is a "public relations coup of the highest order for the Democrat Party". Who cares which party is benefited by such things? Partisan politics is completely irrelevant in such a matter.

I'm more concerned about whether public reception of Communion by those who publicly dissent from Church teaching provides an occasion for scandal to the faithful, and creates the impression that the Church's teachings are "optional" - that, as one commenter at InsideCatholic puts it, "one can [publicly] dissent from the Magisterium teaching on abortion and other issues, and still remain in good standing with the Church."


UPDATE
From The Hill:

Pelosi takes Communion at papal Mass

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she felt very comfortable taking Communion during the Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI, who has said supporters of abortion rights should not receive Communion.

“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass. “I feel very much a part of that.”

***
Staffers said Pelosi received Communion during the service, but not from the pope himself.

[More]

Pope Benedict XVI's Address at the White House Welcome Ceremony

Text of the address given by Pope Benedict XVI on the South Lawn of the White House, April 19th, 2008

Mr. President,

Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the elevation of the country's first Diocese – Baltimore – to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America's Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America's Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation", and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent "indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world's peoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God's bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – a world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!

Pope Benedict and President Bush pray "for the family as an institution"

The Prayer of the Pope and the President, Reuters. April 16, 2008:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pope Benedict and U.S. President George W. Bush and his wife Laura prayed together in the White House on Wednesday, the Vatican said.

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said that the "brief prayer" took place after the pope and Bush had finished their private talks in the Oval Office and Laura Bush joined them.

"There was a brief prayer for the family (as an institution)," Lombardi said.

Bush is a Methodist. Both he and the Roman Catholic pope have said that the traditional family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman, is under threat.

I wonder how many other Popes and U.S. Presidents have prayed together?

Down to the last minute ...

Wheat & Weeds has some pics of last minute preparations for the Washington Nationals Stadium Mass.

A Catholic President?

I am not a fan of these kinds of designations, but President Bush surely has made use of Catholic teachings and experts in proposing initiatives.  This WaPo article is a great summary of how Catholic thinking has impacted his presidency. Go read it.

Maybe, This Is Why Some So-Called Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Support Obama

A headline in today's Washington Post paints the ludicrous picture of two pro-life Democratic politicians endorsing Obama who is clearly pro-abortion. Yet, the illogic is not suprising: how could anyone who is pro-life support the national Democratic Party in the first place? Maybe, this video gives a possible answer as to how such politicians think such blatant deception can be fed to voters.

McCain as Burkean Conservative

That's "Burkean" in the sense of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the British parliamentarian (see link), who was, by the way (and maybe due to social and political necessity) an Anglican but had a Catholic family background. Burke is especially appreciated by us Americans for his support of the American Revolution against his own country.

Our links source at the Catholic Analysis blog sends this May 2008 Atlantic Monthly link (that will expire in three days for free viewing) to a short article in which the writer argues that McCain is a "truer" conservative in the tradition of conservative hero Edmund Burke than many of his critics on the right because McCain does not favor drastic and dramatic short-term policy changes but rather a process of gradual and balanced reform efforts. In fact, after reading the article, the Burkean style of gradual reform reminded me of the liturgical writings of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope. Ratzinger argued for organic, gradual change in the liturgy. Ratzinger recognized that liturgical change was inevitable and desirable in order for the Church to pursue her mission. Yet, he strenuously objected to drastic, quick changes imposed by elitist academic liturgists who overestimate their capacity to anticipate all the consequences of their schemes and all of the variables affected in their proposals. It's an interesting article--but then again that's what our links source specializes in favoring us with on the Catholic Analysis blog.

A Good Political Sign for McCain

Lately, I have been noticing a string of attacks by Democrats on John McCain. No surprise. The tracking polls show that McCain is extremely competitive and often actually ahead of either of the Democratic candidates. My guess is that any polling at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) shows something similar or worse from the Democrats' point of view and thus disturbing to them. Even more disturbing to the Democrats are the polls showing McCain very competitive in some states that are usually safely Democratic--for example, one poll showed McCain actually running ahead of Obama in New York state! My first hint of the Democratic anxiety over McCain was seeing the strange Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, starting to attack McCain's age. That's a dangerous thing to do: all of us, Lord willing, will become senior citizens--but none of us, in the normal course of events (I need to keep in mind certain medical procedures), will eventually become female like Hillary or become African-American like Obama, as the years pass. When you attack age, you are attacking everyone, especially in a society where people are living longer due to medical advances and are seeking to maintain fulfilling, productive lives as long as possible. McCain the presidential candidate is a living and inspiring example of that radical change in our expectations for what is possible as we all, without exception, grow older. The set of people who are growing older is the one demographic group that excludes no one at all. We are all getting older, even Obama. Some Democrats want you to think that McCain is a reprise of the older, war hero Bob Dole who lost to Bill Clinton in 1996. That's a big Democratic lie proven by their own, now open anxiety about McCain and their plans to attack him aggressively. They never bothered to do that with Bob Dole because they never feared him. They fear McCain.

Update: See this link for an example of this fear of McCain as expressed by a reliably liberal commentator.

Obama’s Catholic Advisory Council

(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez)

From CBNNews:

This afternoon, Barack Obama’s campaign will announce the formation of what they are calling their, “National Catholic Advisory Council.” More details to come on an afternoon conference call but Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer will be on that conference call.

A couple interesting notes: First of all, this Catholic Council seems to be set up not so much for the Democratic primary as it is for the General Election. Why? Obama has two high profile pro-lifers in prominent roles on this Council. Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer have taken flack from the Democratic Party in the past because they are not pro-choice. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to send a message. This is an “in your face” signal to voters of faith that Obama is a different kind of Democrat. They want Catholics and Evangelicals to know that while Obama may be pro-choice, the pro-life point of view is not going to be so easily discounted. Critics will call it deceptive. Supporters will call it an “olive branch”.

Also, let this be considered the opening salvo in the potential battle to come over faith voters. Obama will not concede this block. He’s not going to get the single issue life or marriage voters but get ready for the Obama campaign to make a major push for the Evangelical vote. John McCain already had some work ahead of him on getting out the faith vote. If Obama is the nominee, it gets even harder. McCain and the Republican National Committee will need to figure out a way to cast Obama as an out of control liberal so he doesn’t pull a certain percentage of the Evangelical vote away from McCain. This will be a key battleground area and in a close election it could make all the difference in the World.

John McCain has already set up his Catholic Advisory Committee. It's more than one hundred strong. Below is a quote from the Senator who leads it, Sam Brownback:

"John McCain has a common sense vision for America based on faith, freedom, and families," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of the National Catholics for McCain Committee. "Committed to the protection of innocent human life, he is a leader Catholics will be proud to support. John McCain knows from experience what it means when a society tramples on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status."

More here.

(emphasis added)

Here's more on the story from LifeNews.com.

Will the Pope "Interfere" in U.S. Elections? [UPDATED]

In addition to CPS colleague Christopher Blosser's coverage of Pope Benedict's apostolic journey to the U.S. at Benedict in America, you should definitely check out National Catholic Register Senior Writer Tim Drake's excellent and comprehensive coverage of the Holy Father's visit at Pope2008.com.

Yesterday Tim posted the following about concerns that Pope Benedict might try to influence the outcome of the U.S. Presidential Election:

An article at Afrik.com enters into the speculation surrounding the "political" nature that the Pope's visit might be spun into. One recoils at the headline - "Pope to Interfere in U.S. Politics." The Pope isn't going to interfere.

The article claims that by stressing the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life, that the Pope will be seen as supporting a particular candidate.

Some commentators have voiced the opinion that there are no "perfect" political candidates. Others have weighed in why their particular candidate is more aligned with Church teachings. To do so is to miss the higher reason for the Pope's visit. He does not come as a politician. He comes as the leader of the Catholic Church, with a message to give to the Church and to the U.S. about our higher calling. He comes to call us back to Jesus Christ and to the ideals upon which this country was founded.

We should be grateful that the Pope has chosen to come to the U.S. during an election year. One individual I spoke with worked for the Church under the leadership of President Gerald Ford. He told me that President Ford was pressuring Washington, D.C.'s then-Cardinal Baum to have Pope Paul VI visit the U.S. According to this source, the Vatican chose not to visit largely because it was an election year. Hence, Pope John Paul II didn't come until after President Jimmy Carter was elected.

If anyone tries to turn the Pope's visit for political advantage, I'm quite sure it won't be with the Holy Father's blessing. I've already blogged here that I hope none of the candidates try to score some cheap and cynical photo op out of his visit.

As for those concerned that the Pope's emphasis on the sanctity of life will disadvantage the prospects of your party's candidate, don't blame Benedict; blame your party and its candidates for their lousy record on life issues.


UPDATE
Also, be sure to check out Tim's complete coverage of political angles regarding the Pope's visit under the label "Politics and the Pope"

John McCain for School Vouchers--A Crucial Economic Issue

Here is an excerpt from his recent speech in Alexandria, Virginia (the entire speech is well worth reading). There is a lot of talk currently about the economy; but the Democrats refuse to "let our people go," those students, especially in the inner city, who are held captive to failing school systems because the Democrats bow down to the modern Pharaoh of the teachers' unions (what a terrible and distressing irony that Obama refuses to liberate those same inner city students). What a great engine for economic growth we would have if we were really serious, as John McCain is, to invest in the social capital of quality education for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much money their parents can pay for tuition. Here is the excerpt:

If a failing school won’t change, it shouldn’t be beyond the reach of students to change their schools. Parents should be able to send their children to the school that best suits their needs just as Cindy and I have been able to do, whether it is a public, private or parochial school. The result will not be the demise of the public school system in America, but competition that will help make public schools accountable and as successful as they should be in a country as great and prosperous as ours.

Teaching is among the most honorable professions any American can join. After our parents, few people influence our early life as profoundly as teachers. Theirs is an underpaid profession, dedicated to the service of others, which offers little in the way of the rewards that much of popular culture encourages us to crave – wealth and celebrity. But though it might lack much in the way of creature comforts and renown, teaching offers a reward far more valuable: the profound satisfaction that comes from knowing you have made a difference for the better in someone else’s life. Good teachers occupy a place in our memory that accords them a reverence we give few others. We should be wise enough to understand that those who work diligently and lovingly to educate the children we entrust to their care, deserve the gratitude and support many of us wish we had given those of our own teachers, who once made such a difference in our own lives.

We should reward the best of them with merit pay, and encourage teachers who have lost their focus on the children they teach to find another line of work. Schools should compete to be innovative, flexible and student-centered institutions, not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. They should be able to compete for dedicated, effective, character-building teachers, hire them and reward them. I believe we should encourage military veterans to enter the teaching profession, and I’ve advocated the Troops-to-Teachers Act. The sense of heightened responsibility and duty to a cause greater than themselves that veterans were taught in the discipline and code of conduct of the armed forces make many of them excellent candidates to impart those virtues to our children, and help them see the value of learning as a means to self-improvement and much nobler ends. There is no reason on earth that this great country should not possess the best education system in the world. We have let fear of uncertainty, and a view that education’s primary purpose is to protect jobs for teachers and administrators degrade our sense of the possible in America. There is no excuse for it.

Source link (emphasis added).