Catholics in the Public Square

"A Respite from Politically-Oriented Blogging"

2009-11-28T18:52:00.004-05:00

As you may have noticed, 'Catholics in the Public Square' has been quiet of late. There are a number of reasons:

What started out as a collective blogging project has, over the years and for various reasons, diminished in size, frequency and membership. (By no means am I faulting other contributors: we each have our respective blogs and priorities in life).

For me, personally, blogging in general has taken a back seat to other affairs -- parenting and other family matters; increasing responsibilities at work; reading and other passions. And in what little time I do have to blog, it is preferably on less political matters -- and more often than not at venues such as: First Things, American Catholic, the Benedict (fan club) Blog or my own personal blog, Against The Grain.

Also, specifically in terms of "politically-oriented" Catholic blogs -- there are so many these days with doing such good work and possessing such great potential, that the visibility (and perhaps worth) of this own one has diminished. I refer here to the following excellent examples, which I recommend wholeheartedly and are worth visiting daily:

Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate by our own contributor Jay Anderson, which is predominantly focused on political matters.
The American Principles Project, founded by Robert P. George with organization blog headed by Thomas Peters.
CatholicVote.com with a blog headed by Joshua Mercer and company.
The American Catholic, a Catholic blogging collective who I have the honor of being a part of.
Creative Minority Report by Patrick and Matthew Archbold. ("Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and ... espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large." --Joseph Ratzinger)

Five years is a long time for a blog. Looking back, I'm pleased to see what Catholics in the Public Square has accomplished -- no small thanks in part to my fellow contributors (past and present); our readers and those who took the time to comment as well.

Perhaps I will resume contributing to this project in the future -- for now, at least, I hope you will understand my need for a respite.

God bless and good night,

Christopher Blosser

Who got to Stupak?

2009-10-29T00:55:00.002-04:00

Catholic pro-life Rep Bart Stupak (D-MI) has stated he will vote for a health care bill which includes funding for abortion. I hate what politics does to people like him.

Two Letters.

2009-08-30T01:06:00.001-04:00

I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith I have tried to right my path. I want you to know Your Holiness that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination, and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty, and fought to end war. Those are the issues that have motivated me and been the focus of my work as a United States Senator.
I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I am committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field, and I'll continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.

Excerpt, Letter of Senator Edward Kennedy to Pope Benedict XVI, which President Obama delivered to the Pontiff in July, 2009.

* * *

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old. [...]
I share in the confidence of those who feel that America is willing to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society's problems -- an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.
When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.

Excerpt, Letter of Senator Edward Kennedy to Thomas E. Denelly, August 1971.

Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009

2009-08-25T23:32:00.000-04:00

Edward M. Kennedy, R.I.P.

Robert D. Novak 1931-2009

2009-08-18T20:54:00.007-04:00

Catholic convert and political commentator Robert Novak passes away Catholic News Agency.
Our Friend, Bob Novak and "A Prince of Darkness Heads toward the Light ", by Deal Hudson InsideCatholic.com
Robert Novak, RIP: "Faith, Freedom and Free Enterprise", by Larry Kudlow. National Review

Update Jay Anderson has a roundup of reflections from around the 'net.

Catholic college faces lawsuit over refusal to provide contraception

2009-08-16T14:16:00.002-04:00

The president of a small Catholic college said Friday he would rather close the school's doors than violate the church's teachings on contraception -- Ben Conery of the Washington Times has the story:

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that Belmont Abbey College violated discrimination laws because the school's employee health insurance plan does not cover contraception, according to a letter the EEOC sent to the school.
"I hope it would never get this far," college President William K. Thierfelder told The Washington Times, "but if it came down to it we would close the college before we ever provided that."
The factual conclusion reached by the EEOC could be a precursor to the commission filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the college. (More).

Further details from LifeSiteNews:

Eight BAC faculty members filed a complaint against the college for removing coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception from their employee health insurance, supplied by Wellpath. The faculty first complained to the North Carolina Department of Insurance that BAC was required to cover contraception under state law because it did not qualify for the religious employer exemption. Both the state department and Wellpath, however, disagreed with the complainants.
"If you ever came on this campus, the first thing you see is the Basilica of Mary Help of Christians," said Thierfelder. "That basilica is connected to a monastery. That monastery is connected to the main administration building."
The group of complainants, who joined forces with the National Women's Law Center, then made a gender discrimination complaint to the EEOC, which in March informed the Abbey that it had closed the issue. Two months later, the EEOC reversed its decision.
"By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives," wrote Reuben Daniels Jr., the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director in the determination. "By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

College president William Thierfelder is insistent that the school maintain its fidelity to Catholic teaching:

"[I]t is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible."

U.S. Bishops launch website in support of 'truly universal' health care

2009-08-15T23:07:00.003-04:00

U.S. bishops launch website on health care reform (Catholic News Agency):

As the American health care debate continues, the U.S. Catholic bishops have launched a webpage to promote support for a “truly universal” health policy that respects human dignity.

The page on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) -- http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/ -- includes letters for bishops to Congress, videos, facts and statistics, frequently asked questions, and links for contacting members of Congress.

Related

Cardinal Rigali tells Congress health bill "unacceptable" without changes Catholic Key August 11, 2009.
Section 1233 authors are major proponents of euthanasia, assisted suicide, by Jill Stanek. August 12, 2009. (Further analysis here).

Americans United for Life launches 'Keep Abortion Out of Health Care' website

2009-08-03T23:38:00.000-04:00

Americans United for Life issued a condemnation of the House Committee's vote defeating an amendment that would have ensured that taxpayers would not be forced to pay for abortion under the House’s health care bill:

House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a longtime beneficiary of Planned Parenthood donations who has a 100% favorable voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice America, engineered a series of late-night shenanigans to kill the pro-life amendment by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
First, Waxman voted for the amendment, which would have prohibited the federal government from requiring any insurance plan — including the “public option” — to provide coverage for abortion (with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother). Then, just minutes after the amendment passed 31-27, Waxman took advantage of a House rule that allows supporters to bring an amendment back for consideration later. This time, Waxman managed to strong-arm others on the committee to join him in defeating the amendment, 30-29.

The organization has also launched a new website: Keep Abortion Out of Health Care, asserting that legislation on health care reform be evaluated on the following principles

1. Health care reform must expressly exclude mandates of any kind for abortion. In addition, health care reform must not alter prohibitions on federal funding of abortion contained in the Hyde amendment or other provisions of law.
2. Health care reform must provide broad protection for the freedom of conscience of all Americans, whether or not they are health care providers or religious entities. No person or entity should be compelled to act contrary to their conscience in the payment for, provision of, or performance of health care.
3. Health care reform must not contain provisions that mandate or encourage the withdrawal or curtailment of effective life-sustaining treatment to the terminally ill, the chronically ill, or the permanently disabled.

Cardinal Rigali Urges Support for Pro-Life Amendments to Health Care Reform Bill

2009-07-30T23:18:00.001-04:00

Cardinal Rigali Urges House Committee to Support Pro-Life Amendments to Health Care Reform Bill United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. July 30, 2009:

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote on July 29 to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to amend “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200) to retain longstanding government policies on abortion and conscience rights.
Cardinal Rigali reiterated criteria for “genuine health care reform” set forth by Bishop William Murphy, Chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy, in his letter to Congress on July 17. He described health care as “a basic right belonging to all human beings, from conception to natural death” and said that “the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.”
The Cardinal enumerated several problems with the bill as introduced: It would be used to mandate abortion coverage in private health plans, expand abortion funding, override state laws that limit or regulate abortion, and endanger existing laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers.
“Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding,” he wrote. “In this sense we urge you to make this legislation ‘abortion neutral’ by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.”

Related

Why Catholics Will Not Get Abortion Out of the Health Care Bill, by Deal W. Hudson. InsideCatholic.com August 3, 2009.

2009-07-29T01:05:00.002-04:00

NY Catholic Nurse Forced To Participate in Abortion Describes Ordeal LifeSiteNews. July 28, 2009. Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital who was forced to participate in the abortion of a late-term unborn child under the threat of losing her job and nursing license, has given a candid interview to the New York Post.
Bishop: 'yes' to universal health care; 'no' to abortion funding , by Thomas c. Fox. National Catholic Reporter July 17, 2009. Bishop Murphy of Rockville, NY warned against the inclusion of abortion coverage in any reform plan, saying that Americans should not be forced to pay for the destruction of human life through government funding or mandatory coverage.
Catholic Politicians Continue to Advance Abortion Lobby Agenda Pewsitter, July 19, 2009. While pro-life legislators in the House and Senate are working overtime battling attempts to broaden abortion policy in both appropriation bills and the healthcare reform bill, some Catholic politicians are leading efforts to advance the abortion lobby agenda making abortion universally accessible and funded by taxpayer dollars. (See also: Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions Jay Anderson, Pro Ecclesia July 20, 2009.

Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

2009-07-15T11:45:00.005-04:00

(Hat tip: The Catholic Key Blog)

Chris and I have both been somewhat critical lately of the writing of America Magazine contributor Michael Sean Winters, so I think we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Winters for writing something particularly praiseworthy:

To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Well done!

President Obama selects rural Catholic doctor, Regina Benjamin, for Surgeon General

2009-07-13T22:42:00.001-04:00

Rocco Palmo has the details.

Pope Benedict XVI meets President Barack Obama

2009-07-11T01:41:00.005-04:00

Official press release the the Vatican published today after Benedict XVI received U.S. President Barack Obama in audience:
his afternoon, Friday 10 July 2009, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received in Audience the President of the United States of America, His Excellency Mr. Barack H. Obama. Prior to the Audience, the President met His Eminence Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, and also His Excellency Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.
In the course of their cordial exchanges the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interests of all and which constitute a great challenge for the future of every nation and for the true progress of peoples, such as the defence and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience.
Reference was also made to immigration with particular attention to the matter of reuniting families.
The meeting focused as well upon matters of international politics, especially in light of the outcome of the G8 Summit. The conversation also dealt with the peace process in the Middle East, on which there was general agreement, and with other regional situations. Certain current issues were then considered, such as dialogue between cultures and religions, the global economic crisis and its ethical implications, food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, and the problem of drug trafficking. Finally, the importance of educating young people everywhere in the value of tolerance was highlighted.

Pope Benedict XVI speaks with U.S. President Barack Obama (R) during their meeting in the pontiff's private library at the Vatican July 10, 2009. Source: Reuters

In addition to giving Obama a copy of his latest encyclical, the pope also presented a copy of the Vatican document on biomedical ethics, "Dignitas Personae" ("The Dignity of a Person") (Catholic News Agency):
When presenting the gifts after their 35-minute closed-door meeting, the pope gave Obama a signed, white leather-bound copy of the encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate" ("Charity in Truth"), then indicated the light-green soft-cover instruction on bioethics issued last December by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
"Oh, what we discussed earlier," said Obama, referring to their closed-door discussions. "I will have some reading to do on the plane."
Obama was given the instruction to help him better understand the church's position on bioethics, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, papal secretary, told journalists in the pool covering the visit.
Carl Olson notes:"Some observers, I'm betting, will emphasize that since President Obama is not a Catholic, the gift of Dignitas Personae means little or nothing. That argument, however, is implicitly addressed in the opening of the document". Dignitatis Humanae addresses itself "to the Catholic faithful and to ALL who seek the truth,"
[drawing] upon the light both of reason and of faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is good in human activity, as well as in various cultural and religious traditions which not infrequently demonstrate a great reverence for life.
Michael Denton (For the Greater Glory):
Kmiec, who has stood up a lot for Obama's embryo stuff, has to be exceptionally embarrassed. That the pope felt the need to hand Obama his document on bioethics says a lot about the claim that Obama & the Vatican are close on these moral issues.
I would also say that seems to put an end to the notion that somehow American bishops & Catholics are over-acting to Obama and the Vatican is preserving a sane pro-Obama stance. I think it's clear that Benedict has some serious problems with Obama's positions.
"Pope presses Obama on pledge to reduce abortions", John Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter):
When President Barack Obama came calling on Pope Benedict XVI today, the two men enjoyed a “truly cordial” encounter, according to a Vatican spokesperson, but at the same time there was no diplomatic silence from the pontiff about their differences over abortion and other “life issues.”
Not only did Benedict press his pro-life case with his words to the president, but he even found a way to make the point with his gift, offering the president a copy of a recent Vatican document on bioethics. According to a Vatican spokesperson, the pope drew a repetition from Obama of his vow to bring down the actual abortion rate.
According to the Catholic News Agency, "when President Barack Obama stepped into the pope's private library in the Vatican July 10, he became only the 12th U.S. president to do so."

Michael Sean Winters still doesn't get it. (Obama, Benedict and Notre Dame, revisited)

2009-06-26T22:55:00.005-04:00

From the National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters replies to my prior post:

[Quoting my prior post]:
"The pope regularly receives heads of state all the time. It is simply one of the many things the Vatican does. To do so, even to exchange personal gifts as a matter of courtesy, does not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state."
But, Obama was also head of state when he went to Notre Dame. Indeed, inviting the sitting president to give the commencement is "one of the things the university does" and Fr. Jenkins made it quite clear that the conferral of the honorary degree upon the President did "not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state."

Fr. Jenkins stated in his commencement address, Notre Dame honored Obama "for the qualities and accomplishments the American people admired in him when they elected him."

However, as a good number of bishops and 367,000 Catholics wish to point out, the very act of bestowing an honorary law degree conveyed a rather conflicted message. In the words of Stephen Barr:

How can an institution that purports to be Catholic honor as a “doctor of law”—literally a “teacher of law”—a President who has made it very clear by word and deed that he intends to remove from the laws of this nation anything that defends unborn human life?

Michael Sean Winters continues:

If President Obama's views are so radical, perhaps the pope should set aside the tradition of receiving the president. After all, the pope could have simply said he was starting his vacation early. But, conservative Catholics can't really attack the pope for refusing to see Obama, can they? At least they can’t question the pope’s "Catholic identity" the way they did that of Notre Dame.

Sorry, but I don't see why Catholics would have any reason to protest. Fr. Z. reminds us, popes meet with the good and criminals alike. John Paul II met with Fidel Castro and Yassir Arafat. Paul VI met with Idi Amin Dada. What they don't do is bestow a formal honor on them.

Moreover, As Carl Olson points out:

Benedict XVI and President Obama, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, will discuss "their shared belief in the dignity of all people." Regardless of the spin (does "all people", for Obama, include the unborn? I think not.), it's fair to say this meeting with involve some sort of actual dialogue -- the sort of dialogue that didn't take place at Notre Dame, despite the spin (see a pattern here?) aggressively and shamelessly put into play by Fr. Jenkins and others.

Obama to visit the Vatican; the triumphant vindication of Michael Sean Winters?

2009-06-25T00:23:00.008-04:00

From America magazine, Michael Sean Winters on the President's prospective audience with the Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI will receive President Barack Obama in audience at the Vatican on July 10. Let the gnashing of teeth begin.
Admit it, wasn’t your first impulse to call Dr. Mary Ann Glendon and ask, "If you were still the ambassador, would you show up or would you boycott?" The Cardinal Newman Society, which spent the better part of the spring telling the world that no Catholic could in good conscience share the stage with President Obama, perhaps now they will start issuing press releases entitled "Pope Creates Scandal" or "Outrage at the Vatican." The Catholic News Agency, which featured the headline "Vatican announces Pope’s vacation without confirmation of Obama visit" just a few weeks ago, has nary a mention of the visit on its website this morning. Cat got your tongue?
Obama’s Catholic critics need to re-calibrate their message and it is difficult to see how they will compete with the pictures of Obama in the frescoed halls of the Vatican, his beautiful wife and children in tow, shaking hands with the Holy Father. Actually, in addition to shaking hands, it is traditional that the Pope will present a gift to the President. Does that count as an "honor" of the kind forbidden by the bishops’ document "Catholics in Political Life"? Notre Dame, of course, has a tradition of conferring an honorary degree upon every new president that pre-dates presidential visits to the Holy See.

Michael Sean Winters -- intemperate snark or astonishingly thick-headed? Either way, America magazine could do a lot better.

The Pope regularly receives heads of state all the time. It is simply one of the many things the Vatican does. To do so, even to exchange personal gifts as a matter of courtesy, does not imply endorsement of any or all of the policies espoused by that particular head of state.

Were the Pope to present Obama with a gift, it would no more indicate his approval of Obama's support for unrestricted abortion or federally-funded embryonic stem cell research than the exchange of gifts with President Bush in 2008 indicated an endorsement of the questionable policies of his own administration.

Mr. Winters might argue the same point with Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama, but this is actually quite different.

The USCCB has stated quite clearly that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

In the words of Bishop John M. D’Arcy -- to whom the USCCB recently affirmed their collective support -- in Notre Dame's conferral of honors upon the President, "we have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born."

If Michael Sean Winters believes as I do, or as Cardinal William Keeler asserted, that Roe v. Wade

invented a constitutional concept that had never been envisioned; in doing so, they contravened two of our nation's most precious values: the recognition of a God-given, inalienable right to life, and the promise of equal protection under law.

Then surely it is not beyond him to grasp just how scandalous it may be to Catholics to witness the conferral of a law degree on a President who boasted his "100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America" and declared his furvent support of the decision.

And no, Michael -- the Catholic Bishops did not speak "only with their absence" at the commencement -- unless you're willing to ignore the statements of 77 Catholic bishops and 367,000 Catholics voicing their protest.

Update!

Mr. Winters responds to my post ... predictably, with more obfuscation. See my response here.

Obama sends President Bush's Council on Bioethics packing; what does the future hold?

2009-06-19T21:32:00.003-04:00

After disbanding the [President Bush's] Council on Bioethics, what kind of advisory body will Obama put together? -- Elenor K. Schoen (Catholic World Report):

According to Bush’s executive order, the President’s Council was created to “advise the president on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology.” The New York Times reported that White House press officer Reid Cherlin said President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a “new mandate” which “offers practical policy options.”
Judging from Obama’s preliminary policies, the future reincarnation of the bioethics council will no doubt be decidedly different. Whether the new bioethics commission will function mainly as a mouthpiece for the president, or as an independent advisory board, will be made more apparent in Obama’s choices in picking a chair and members, and in creating its mandate for serving under him during his first presidential term.

See also Joe Carter's Lament for a Bioethics Council (First Things' "First Thoughts" June 18, 2009).

Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers

2009-06-17T22:46:00.001-04:00

(Hat tip: Catholic Online)

LifeSiteNews reports:

June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.

Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCU’s board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded “that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw” their 2004 policy, according to the newsletter.

The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life,” which reads in part:

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.

***
“Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values?” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.

“The more than 367,000 people who signed The Cardinal Newman Society’s online petition and the scores of American bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama clearly recognize that such actions by Catholic colleges are scandalous.”

The ACCU leadership suggests moreover “that juridical expressions of bishops’ or universities’ responsibilities should be kept to a minimum” in order to maintain a good relationship between the bishops and educators.

Reilly surmised that, in other words, Catholic colleges and universities would prefer that there are no clear rules to govern their conduct. He also pointed out that the statement implies that the educators believe that the bishops, and not college leaders, are responsible for tensions arising from scandalous activities on Catholic campuses.

“Catholic colleges and universities would like all of the privileges of being Catholic, but none of the responsibilities of being high-profile witnesses for the fullness of the Catholic faith,” Reilly said.

Allowing for the possibility that the bishops might not agree to simply eliminate the 2004 ban, but might instead draft a new policy concerning Catholic honors and platforms, the ACCU’s directors proposed that the policy “should acknowledge more clearly the differing roles of campus authorities and bishops.” Reilly said that this phrase appears to be an attempt to get bishops to refrain from commenting on internal decisions at lay-controlled Catholic institutions.

In May, ACCU President Richard Yanikoski told the South Bend Tribune that he saw a “degree of ambiguity” in the bishops’ 2004 policy. He claimed that the Church’s canon lawyers disagree whether the policy applies to speakers or honorees who are not Catholic, regardless of whether those individuals oppose Catholic teaching. Several bishops strongly rejected that same argument when it was made by Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., to defend his decision to honor President Obama.

(emphasis added)

Meanwhile, Archbishop Burke is working in the opposite direction to prevent a repeat of the Notre Dame scandal:

VATICAN CITY, June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Raymond Burke, the highest ranking American prelate in the Vatican has given an interview in a Catholic magazine, in which he says that Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Barack Obama was not only “profoundly shocking,” but also underscores a grave situation requiring action to ensure the incident is never repeated.

Burke is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of appeal in the Church next to the Pope, and an outspoken advocate for life and family values. He has made headlines repeatedly for his insistence that ministers of communion should deny the sacrament to publicly and obstinantely pro-abortion individuals, especially politicians. He told the Catholic periodical, Inside the Vatican, that a number of lessons must be taken from Notre Dame’s high-profile conferral of an honorary doctorate on Obama, the most aggressive pro-abortion president in American history.

Burke said that the “betrayal of the Catholic identity of Notre Dame University” grew out of the danger of “pursuing a kind of prestige in the secular world, which leads to a betrayal of the sacred aspect of its work, namely the fidelity to Christ and His teaching.”

“So I think everybody now realizes the gravity of the situation. Also I believe that the whole situation has sensitized more people with regard to the gravity of the practice of procured abortion in our nation, that is, they realize even more how far we have gone away from God’s will for human life,” continued Burke.

“That the premiere Catholic university in the United States would give an honorary doctorate of law to one of the most aggressive pro-abortion politicians in our history is profoundly shocking.”

“Now, we cannot forget what has happened at Notre Dame,” said Burke. “We need to take the measures that are necessary so that this is not repeated in other places. If it could happen at Notre Dame, where else could it happen?”

[More]

(emphasis added)

Michael Liccione on "Patching up the Seamless Garment"

2009-06-13T22:01:00.003-04:00

"Patching up the Seamless Garment", by Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae) June 12, 2009:

Since the late 1990s, the US bishops have on the whole been abandoning the seamless-garment approach. With increasing clarity, they have insisted on assigning greater weight to combating certain practices called "intrinsic evils" by the Magisterium, such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, than on promoting certain social goods, such as universal health care and humane immigration policy, which reasonable Catholics can differ about how and how much to promote. That shift of emphasis is only logical given the clear content of Church teaching. But President Obama's having won the election with almost 54% of the Catholic vote has re-energized Catholic progressives to patch up a seamless garment that's become rather tattered. If only to vary my intellectual exercise routine, I had been hoping to hear fresh arguments from them. But the patching process exhibits precisely the same shoddy reasoning so long characteristic of the Catholic left. Herein I shall discuss two examples. ... [More]

Alexia Kelley -- A solid Catholic appointee from President Obama?

2009-06-09T10:13:00.004-04:00

"Abortion rights activists" are in a tizzy because of President Obama's appointment of an "anti-abortion pro-Obama Catholic" Alexia Kelly to the senior position of Health and Human Services Department's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

Suspicion was aroused because Kelly is co-founder of the Soros-funded organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good -- which according to their FAQ:

... believes in the sanctity of all human life—from conception until natural death. Our Catholic faith and the Catholic social tradition affirm that all life is sacred, and that every person has essential worth and dignity. Therefore, we support a consistent culture of life that includes protections for unborn children; implementation of social, economic and material supports for pregnant women and vulnerable families; and protections for children from abuse, poverty, and neglect.

Francis Kissling, retired founder of the heterodox "Catholics for Free Choice", fears the worst:

[W]hy the post, which includes oversight of the department's faith-based grant-making in family planning, HIV and AIDS and in small-scale research into the effect of religion and spirituality on early sexual behavior, has gone to someone who both believes abortion should be illegal and opposes contraception[?]

In 2004, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published Voting the Common Good: a Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics, infamous for enlisting none other than Pope Benedict XVI -- by way of selective and abusive quotation -- to answer affirmatively the question: "Is it okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate?”.

Denver Archbishop Archbishop Charles Chaput (among others) harshly criticized CACG for having

done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.

Indeed, feel free to correct me on this, but Kelly's organization professes to be committed to "a consistent ethic of life" but in reality appears not the least bit interested in supporting any legislation that might place legal restrictions on abortion. Such that, as Rich Leonardi (Ten Reasons) points, out, "they take a position at odds with the landmark USCCB conference document 'Living the Gospel of Life'":

"Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. ... But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community" ("Living the Gospel of Life," n. 23)

Kelly herself is chiefly known for serving as director of religious outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and Senator Obama's campaign in 2008; for adopting a 'seamless garment' approach to abortion, placing it alongside issues which she presumes are of equal weight ("unjust war, the dignity of the human person, the growing gap between rich and poor, and global warming") and most recently, running defense for Obama's selection of Kathleen Sebelius as director of Health and Human Services. (This despite the fact that Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Sebelis' own bishop, has asked her to refrain from communion due to her support of abortion).

So: regarding liberal fears that Obama's latest Catholic might actually live up to and reflect her Catholic principles regarding "the sanctity of all human life—from conception until natural death" -- call me skeptical.

But I would so like to be proven wrong.

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

2009-06-08T15:51:00.001-04:00

Tom Peters has issued a challenge to certain left-leaning Catholics "in the interest of dialogue":

I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

Tom then goes on to quote L'Osservatore Romano (which the Catholic left has recently taken to treating with magesterial authority) against them:

"Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence.

Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See."

(emphasis added)

So, will the Catholic left now be willing to abandon the claim that the Bishops are acting out of partisan interests or in a partisan manner now that L'OR has put that little calumny to rest?

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Late-term abortionist George Tiller shot and killed

2009-05-31T17:35:00.004-04:00

Late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.:

Tiller, 67, was one of the few U.S. physicians who still performed late-term abortions. He survived a 1993 shooting outside his Wichita clinic.
He was fatally shot shortly after 10 a.m. Sunday at Reformation Lutheran Church, Wichita police said.
Sunday afternoon, authorities took a man into custody near Kansas City after stopping a car that matched a description of the killer's getaway vehicle, according to sheriff's deputies in Johnson County, Kansas. No charges had been filed.

NRO's Robert P. George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

Responses

Robert P. George establishes the 'American Principles Project'

2009-05-30T17:47:00.000-04:00

Dr. Robert P. George has founded a new conservative political organization entitled the American Principles Project.

According to a profile of the group by U.S. News' Dan Gilgoff, "the key difference between this group and others cropping up to chart a course forward for the GOP is that the American Principles Projects counts opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage among its top priorities," and will also hold Republicans accountable to follow in practice the principles they affirm in speech:

The message of the 2006 and 2008 elections is not that the American people want to be governed by the ultraliberal and statist ideology of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; rather it is that Americans will not tolerate Republicans and "conservatives" who refuse to honor in practice the principles they purport to affirm—Republicans and "conservatives" who expand government, spend our tax dollars wantonly, do nothing about out-of-control judges who undermine democracy, and sit idly by as marriage is redefined and further weakened.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard also provides details on the founding:

The idea behind George's leap in politics is twofold. First, he would publicize scholarship by academic intellectuals that buttresses the conservative case on issues from family breakdown to the "the sexualizing of children" and bring it to the attention of conservative politicians and activists. He calls this the "mobilization of scholarship." The aim is to change the view of Republican elites that social issues in particular are lowbrow, emotional, and to be avoided.

Second, George wants to elevate issues that reflect conservative popular sentiment--again, notably social issues--and give them a prominent role in
the national political debate. Cannon says Republicans and conservatives have missed numerous opportunities to play up social issues, citing the failure to raise strong objections to President Obama's selection of David Ogden, a lawyer who defended pornographers, as his deputy attorney general.

"The very best scholarship has been underutilized" by conservatives, George says. "There's a lot of excellent scholarship out there. But it's not known. Conservative politicians don't refer to it. They haven't been good, as liberals have been, in using intellectual work."

From the American Principles Project's 'mission statement':

The United States of America does not need new principles. It needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are timeless principles: truths that we hold, in Jefferson's immortal words, to be, "self-evident." They are, moreover, universal principles, not the historically contingent beliefs or customs of a particular sect or clan or tribe. They are rooted in the nature of man as a being who, by virtue of his God-given dignity and rationality, owns the right to participate in the great project of self-government as a free and equal citizen. Whatever others may say, we at the American Principles Project and all who join with us reaffirm the truth that each and every member of the human family is, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Serving the APP as its Communications Director will be the industrious Thomas Peters (American Papist.

"Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues?" -- A discussion with Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon

2009-05-28T21:28:00.005-04:00

(From Catholic University):

A public exchange of views was convened on the topic, “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” today at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, Thursday, May 28, 2009.
Discussing their respective views was Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law.
Moderating the exchange was Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former United States Ambassador to the Holy See. The event explored different perspectives on current governmental policy regarding such issues as abortion and embryonic stem cell research and its impact on societal attitudes regarding the respect for human life.

You can watch the video on CUA's website here; or on C-Span here.

The event was 'Twittered' by Thomas Peters (American Papist) in attendance.

An article adapted from George's opening remarks is available from The Public Discourse.

President Obama names theologian Miguel H. Diaz U.S. ambassador to the Vatican

2009-05-28T01:17:00.007-04:00

In the same week of his nomination of a Hispanic Catholic for the Supreme Court of the United States, President Obama has finally named Havana-born 45 year old Miguel H. Diaz, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Eric Gorski (Associated Press) reports:

In an interview with Catholic News Service at Obama's inauguration, Diaz said he was looking forward "to moving beyond the politics of fear to the politics of hope." He said Obama was "committed to working" with people who defend "life in the womb" and deeply respects people who hold positions he does not agree with.
"Wherever we can, we should advance life at all stages," Diaz said.
Reached at his home Wednesday, Diaz read a brief statement expressing gratitude for the opportunity and saying, "I wish to be a diplomatic bridge between our nation and the Holy See, and if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I will continue the work of my predecessors and build on 25 years of excellent relations with the Holy See."
[...]
The son of a waiter and a data-entry operator, Diaz was the first person in his family to attend college. He taught religious studies and theology at Barry University, the University of Dayton and Notre Dame. From 2001 to 2003, he was academic dean at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Fla.
Diaz is fluent in English, Spanish and Italian. He is past president of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States, and a father of four.

Mr. Diaz has postponed responding to inquiries on his specific positions on issues until his confirmation hearing. However, Gorski notes as a possible sticking point his support for the controversial nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services.

Related

Miguel Diaz' Faculty Webpage Saint John's University (MN)
Fr. James Martin SJ, describes Diaz as "a professor of theology with terrific credentials (St. Thomas, Notre Dame, Collegeville) and a Rahner scholar to boot".
Abbot John Klassen of St. John's College heralds him as “a skilled Trinitarian theologian who is passionate both as a teacher and a scholar":
“He is a strong proponent of the necessity of the Church to become deeply and broadly multi-cultural, to recognize and appreciate the role that culture plays in a living faith. Born in Havana, Cuba, he is a leading Hispanic theologian in United States.”
From the National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters gushes:
Diaz is a pro-life Democrat so his mere presence at the Vatican will disprove the contention of some conservatives that there is no such thing as a pro-life Catholic [Democrat?]. If he can articulate the President's commitment to reducing the abortion rate, those in the Vatican who appear disposed to like the President will have more ammunition when Deal Hudson, George Weigel and Co. attack L'Osservatore Romano for their pro-Obama line.
In addition to his serving as President of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States, Diaz is an active member of the Catholic Theological Society of America and on the speakers bureau of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
Dr. Díaz’s publications include: From the Heart of our People (co-edited with O. Espín) and On Being Human: U.S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives.

President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor

2009-05-27T00:34:00.003-04:00

President Barack Obama has nominated federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; if she is confirmed, the New York native of Puerto Rican descent would become the first Hispanic to serve on the high court (Catholic News Service).

A roundup of some reaction, from the Catholic blogging community and elsewhere.

"Coming soon to a sound-byte near you!" - From Powerline, a list of Sotomayor "talking points" we're likely to hear in the coming days and weeks.
Sotomayor would be sixth Catholic justice a roundup from the Boston Globe's Michael Paulson:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.
Undoubtedly, Sotomayor's Catholic-ness will be the subject of some debate. Just how Catholic is she? ...
Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis) muses Am I engaging in wishful thinking, or do I see some possible hope in this nomination?:
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".
Feddie (Southern Appeal) wonders, Whither Catholic bashing? and thinks she's the "best of the worst":
My take on the appointment? She’s the best of the worst. Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly be a reliably liberal vote on the hot-button social issues, but she’s not going to play a leading role in shaping the jurisprudence of the Court (like Judge Diane Wood almost certainly would have done). She’s a political pick, plain and simple. I think the GOP would be wise not to waste too much political capital (assuming it has any left) on opposing this appointment. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and strongly opposing her will only further alienate Hispanic voters. This is not to say that I don’t think we should expose her for the penumbra lover and radical that she is. Indeed, I am all for it. But the bottom line for me is that the folks waiting on President Obama’s on-deck circle are far, far worse. Think of it like a professional wrestling match: Let’s get in a few blows, and then let Obama have his pick. There are hills to die on, and this seat isn’t one of them (especially given the dems’ fillibuster-proof advantage in the Senate).
Jay Anderson agrees, and takes issue with the knee-jerk reaction some elements of the pro-life movement:
Granted, I am of the opinion that, absent very extreme circumstances, a President is entitled to the Supreme Court nominees of his choice ... especially with his first pick, so I recognize that I'm probably more tolerant of this pick than your average pro-lifer may be.

That said, I'm thoroughly disgusted by the reaction of pro-life groups and many other conservatives to this nomination. They've wasted no time before engaging in knee-jerk condemnation of Judge Sotomayor without, I'd wager, spending more than a minimal amount of time reviewing her record. As I noted in an update to my previous post, "I'm beginning to think that certain pro-life organizations already had their anti-nominee press releases ready to go this morning when Obama made his Supreme Court announcement, and that they just filled in the blank once they learned the name."
Paul Zummo (CrankyCon) responds:
I don’t necessarily agree that Republicans and conservatives should quietly let her take her seat. We’re not going to defeat her, and in no way should we attempt a filibuster. But I don’t think we should let her pass unanimously. The Supreme Court has been an issue that has helped more than hurt the GOP, and it would be folly to give up the moral high ground. It would be difficult to make the case three years hence that Obama’s Supreme Court picks were too radical if you happened to have voted for them. There’s a lot of concern about being portrayed as anti-Hispanic by opposing her, but as Annakin said at the end of Return of the Jedi, it’s too late for that.
So be tough dring the confirmation hearings. Ask her difficult questions, and certainly vote against confirmation if you think she should not be on the Supreme Court. Just don’t raise too much of a fuss in doing all that.
Michael Goldfarb's advice is similar to that from my legal-minded colleagues -- we could have had much worse, and it would behoove conservatives not to make :
If there is an upside here for conservatives, Yoo has zeroed in on it: Sotomayor is not going to be a rallying point for the left, and she is not going to persuade anyone on the right. She will, presumably, be a reliable liberal vote -- nothing more, nothing less. Conservatives could have done much worse, but we're getting a liberal Harriet Miers instead of a liberal Alito. The real danger for conservatives is that Sotomayor becomes a Hispanic icon who's seen as being unfairly maligned by Republicans. That could further alienate Hispanics from the party and do lasting damage to the conservative revolution in ways that Sotomayor herself never could.
"Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right." -- POLITICO

Update

There is a Sotomayor quote floating around:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
and when I heard it I admit I was troubled at first -- but Rod Dreher (CrunchyCon) places it in proper context.

Memorial Day 2009

2009-05-25T13:24:00.002-04:00

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, let thy protection be upon all those who are in the service of our country; guard them from all harm and danger of body and soul; sustain and comfort those as home, especially in their hours of loneliness, anxiety, and sorrow; prepare the dying for death and the living for your service; give success to our arms on land and sea and in the air; and grant unto us and all nations a speedy, just and lasting peace. Amen.

-- Prayer in Time of War

What does President Obama mean when he asks us to 'work through" our conflicts?

2009-05-20T10:16:00.002-04:00

For consideration: an excerpt from President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

I've been thinking about the President's words.

A soldier and a lawyer may disagree over this or that aspect of U.S. foreign policy. (Measures taken "to protect the country from harm" are presumably acceptable to the extent that they are in conformity with what is typically referred to as the just war tradition or in secular terms the "laws of war.") There is little disputing that both can be motivated by a patriotic love of their country.

Responding to the horrors of HIV / AIDS, the evangelical pastor might counsel abstinence; the gay activist the distribution of condoms. That both are motivated by a desire to curb an epidemic is understandable; howbeit so long as they differ over the sanctity of marriage and the purpose of sexuality, we can expect little chance for "unity."

Lastly, we can emphathize with the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes and their desire to relieve pain and suffering. What is this, but the natural instinct of every parent?

And yet, I really have to wonder what does Obama's "common effort" really amount to?

Is he so naive as to expect that our empathy for the other's situation will compel us to muzzle our moral protest against the evil of utilitarian experimentation upon human embroyos?

The willfull murder of a child in the womb? or smothering the last breath out of the result of a botched abortion?

What does our President mean when from the pulpit of Notre Dame he asks us to "work through" such conflicts?

What does this actually amount to, except "can't we all just get along" -- in spite of, or at the expense of, our principles and convictions?

Our President wants us to be "firm in our principles" -- but it seems to me that he has not seriously grappled with the implications of the Church's teaching that

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

Archbishop Chaput on Jenkins, Obama and Notre Dame

2009-05-19T02:43:00.001-04:00

"Archbishop Chaput on Notre Dame and the issues that remain" - Statement of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. May 18, 2009:

"I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world."
~ Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C., May 17, 2009

Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.
Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.
We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness. Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history: Roe v. Wade.

In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.
There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.
These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.

The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.
Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. Notre Dame’s leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame’s critics are right. The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be “Catholic” actually live the faith with courage and consistency. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good.

President Barack Obama and the Scandal of Notre Dame

2009-05-19T00:01:00.005-04:00

This past Sunday, President Barack Obama gave a commencement address at Notre Dame University, and was awarded with an honorary law degree. The United States Catholic Bishops have previously stated, as a matter of policy, that:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

According to a list compiled by Thomas Peters (American Papist), 76 Catholic Bishops have formally published statements on President Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, and the conferring of an honorary degree.

The consensus among those objecting is that the conferral of honors upon one whose political career is distinguished by a zealous desire to repeal every restriction upon abortion and embryonic stem cell research (the latter at the taxpayer's expense) is in specific violation of this policy, and speaks of rank hypocrisy for an institution that professes to be "Catholic."

Texts

A roundup of (pre and post event) reactions

"Pro"

As reported by John Thavis of the Catholic News Service, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said U.S. President Barack Obama sought common ground on the divisive issue of abortion in his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame.:
"The search for a common ground: This seems to be the path chosen by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in facing the delicate question of abortion," the newspaper said.
It said Obama had set aside the "strident tone" of the 2008 political campaign on the abortion issue.
"Yesterday Obama confirmed what he expressed at his 100-day press conference at the White House, when he said that enacting a new law on abortion was not a priority of his administration," it said.
(The author of the editorial is unknown; to echo Thomas Peters: "who is writing this stuff?")
The entirely predictable Thomas Reese, SJ crowes: He Came, He Spoke, He Conquered (Washington Post May 18, 2009:
President Obama's reception at Notre Dame showed once again that a new generation of Americans, including Catholics, is looking for a different kind of leader, not one who speaks down to his audience, demands strict loyalty and demonizes opponents, but one who addresses complexity with honesty, acknowledges disagreements and tries to bring people together for the common good.

"Con"

Duped at Notre Dame: Barack Obama says he wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, while doing everything in his power to advance it, by Paul Kengor (Weekly Standard May 18, 2009)
Notre Madame et le President, by Anthony Esolen (Touchstone's "Mere Comments"):
Well, the long-awaited commencement chez Notre Madame is past, God be thanked, with the father of the college and the father of our country fairly falling into one another's arms in an ecstasy of mutual admiration and relief. I'll leave it to the right people to express their feelings of betrayal -- I mean the Catholics who have spent many years praying in front of abortuaries, passing out literature on abortion to their students in Catholic schools, donating time and goods and money to homes for unwed mothers, and fighting the patient and frustrating political fight one fence-sitting politician at a time.
Instead I'd like to focus on the moral aphasia of our times. ...
"A House Divided", by Ralph McInerny (The Catholic Thing):
There were two commencement ceremonies at Notre Dame on Sunday. One was the media event in which alleged prestige trumped the truth that you cannot honor a man, president or not, whose policies are unabashedly pro-abortion without honoring abortion.
The other took place at the grotto and on the west mall, untelevised, in the shadow of Rockne Memorial, at which the Mass and prayers, principally the rosary, were offered in reparation for the administration’s unconscionable sleeping with the enemy.
Take time to read Joseph Bottum's At the Gates of Notre Dame (First Things June / July 2000):
We all knew this fight was coming. The Catholic Church and the Catholic colleges have been heading toward a crash since at least 1990, when John Paul II issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, his apostolic constitution for Catholic institutions of higher education. And now, at last, the battle is public—brought to fever pitch by Notre Dame’s bestowing of an honorary law degree on a prominent supporter of legalized abortion.
As it happens, that supporter of abortion is also the president of the United States, which is unfortunate in a number of ways—beginning with the fact that the office of the president, regardless of who holds it, deserves respect and honor from American citizens of every political persuasion. ... [More]
(An abridged version appears in the Weekly Standard's God and Obama at Notre Dame).
Over 360,000 Catholics have signed a petition to Notre Dame President Fr. Jenkins, dencouncing the bestowal of honors "on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage."
Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan opens her article, The Pope's Stand on the Obama Notre Dame Controversy by laying her journalistic bias on the table:
"At the rate things are going, Pope Benedict XVI may find his next trip to the U.S. dogged by airplanes overhead trailing banners with images of aborted fetuses."
The Telegraph's Damien Thompson calls it A shabby piece of journalism:
This grotesque purple flourish serves as the introduction to a thoroughly biased article by Amy Sullivan which dismisses the unprecedented Catholic opposition to Obama's commencement address as the work of, wouldn't you just know it, "a small but vocal group of conservative Catholics".
"Small but vocal group" is the the media's code for a protest that offends them. You rarely see small but vocal groups of liberals described thus.
George Weigel asks What "Church" does Noter Dame belong to?" (Denver Catholic Register)

Weigel also responds to Obama's speech in (National Review May 18, 2009):
What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.
Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review): Notre Dame Says ‘Yes We Can’,
and adds to the cloud of moral confusion on the human-rights issue of our lifetimes.
Deal Hudson @ Inside Catholic concludes that Notre Dame Becomes a Symbol of Catholic Dissent
New Yorker and Notre Dame law grad Anna Franzonello prayed yesterday rather than attend President Obama's commencement speech because of his pro-abortion stance. (New York Post May 18, 2009)

Discussions around St. Blog's Parish:

, by DarwinCatholic (American Catholic)
"Obama at Notre Dame", Amy Welborn (Via Media)
Obama Calls for "Conscience Clause" Rights While His Administration Destroys Existing Conscience Clause Rights, by Wesley Smith (Secondhand Smoke)
Michael Denton (For the Greater Glory) fisks the speeches at Notre Dame.

American Papist on the Notre Dame Scandal

2009-05-07T17:39:00.003-04:00

Thomas Peters (aka "American Papist") has his finger on the pulse of the Notre Dame scandal involving their honor of President Barack Obama with a law degree -- to which over 70 bishops of the Catholic Church have voiced their disapproval.

Check his website for continued updates.

How Joe Biden Celebrated Planned Parenthood v. Casey

2009-05-05T14:23:00.002-04:00

See "Joe Biden is One Sick Pro-Abort" at Catholics Against Joe Biden.

Justin Cardinal Rigali calls out Doug Kmiec on a falsehood.

2009-04-29T22:58:00.002-04:00

When Doug Kmiec published a column entitled “New ethically sensitive stem-cell guidance from the Obama administration,” Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, replied with a rebuttal. Details at The Catholic Key.

Mary Ann Glendon refuses Notre Dame's Laetare Medal

2009-04-27T10:43:00.004-04:00

Mary Ann Glendon has declined the Laetare Medal, the annual award from Notre Dame, which she was to receive this spring at the university's graduation ceremonies.

At 9:30 this morning, April 27, 2009, Mary Ann Glendon faxed to the university's president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., and published online at First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/04/27/declining-notre-dame-a-letter-from-mary-ann-glendon/) a letter explaining her decision to refuse the medal.

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Updates

Fr. Jenkins has issued the following response:
“We are, of course, disappointed that Professor Glendon has made this decision. It is our intention to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving recipient, and we will make that announcement as soon as possible.”
(Could he be that dense? or obstinate? both?)
Good read: Glendon, Notre Dame and Abortion Politics, by Father Raymond J. de Souza (National Catholic Register)

Catholic Democrats of Ohio vs. the Catholic Bishops

2009-04-24T13:21:00.004-04:00

Rich Leonardi (Ten Reasons) posts some particularly damning evidence as to where the Catholic Democrats of Ohio's loyalties reside on the matter of Notre Dame's honoring Barack Obama with a law degree:

In the event you are unsure which word in the group name "Catholic Democrats" is more important, the release below should provide some clarity

Updates / Responses

A lesson in how groups work to politicize the Notre Shame controversy, by Fr. Z. (What Does the Prayer Really Say?)
Party Over Faith, by Paul Zummo (CrankyCon)

Bishop D'Arcy Publicly Corrects President Jenkins' "Flawed Justification for His Actions"

2009-04-22T20:57:00.001-04:00

“I consider it now settled,” writes Bishop D’Arcy, “that the USCCB document, ‘Catholics in Public Life,’ does indeed apply in this matter.”

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement “Catholics in Political Life” (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” — “Catholics in Political Life,” USCCB.

2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and lawgiver in his diocese. — Canon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1.

3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.

4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and lawgiver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the president. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in sacred Scripture and the tradition. (“Lumen Gentium,” 20; and “Christus Dominus,” 2.) I reminded him that it is also central to the university’s relationship to the church. (“Ex corde ecclesiae,” 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)

5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the widespread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.

In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the president on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.

6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend
John M. D’Arcy

(emphasis added)

UPDATE
Tom Peters provides analysis at American Papist.

UPDATE #2 (23 April 2009)
Additional analysis by Fr. Z. (Hat tip: Don McClarey at The American Catholic)

George Neumayr on Sebelius - "A New Front in the Church’s Civil War"

2009-04-21T00:20:00.003-04:00

Modern liberal Catholics chuckle at the history of casuistry in the Church even as they contribute grimly absurd new examples to it. They use tortured reasoning not to discuss the properties of angels but to cloud the records of abortion proponents.

How many dissenting, not very angelic Catholic politicians can dance with modernists’ approval at the head of a pro-abortion administration? An astonishing number, it turns out, and the list is growing. Kathleen Sebelius is the latest Catholic appointment to seize upon their strained sophistries.

No sooner had President Barack Obama nominated the governor of Kansas to head up the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) than “26 Catholic leaders, scholars, and theologians” started up a petition and website to support her.

The website is riddled with deceptions. The first one is the group’s self-description as pro-life and “faithful” to Catholicism. It isn’t. Most of its members—such as Lisa Sowle Cahill and Margaret O’Brien Steinfels—wish to liberalize magisterial teaching and falsely regard the Church’s pro-life stance as a sectarian claim (with which they happen to agree) and not a truth accessible to the reason of all.

Read the whole thing.

Robert P. George vs. Doug Kmiec - "12 Questions"

2009-04-13T10:13:00.001-04:00

(Via Moral Accountability):

In the aftermath of their exchange regarding President Obama’s position on the funding of embryo destructive research involving human cloning, Douglas Kmiec (Pepperdine Law School) posed twelve questions to Robert P. George (Princeton University) regarding the policies, ethics, and science surrounding life issues, and embryo destructive research in particular.

Blair Criticizes Pope's "Entrenched Attitudes" on Homosexuality; Former PM Hopes for "Rethinking", "Evolving", and "Sensible Reformation of Attitudes"

2009-04-08T07:18:00.006-04:00

(Hat tip: Patrick Archbold at Creative Minority Report)

Ruth Gledhill writes in The Times:

Tony Blair tells the Pope: you're wrong on homosexuality

Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.

Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.

Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”

***
“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.

He also thought that in Islam there would eventually be a change of heart. “I believe that, ultimately, people will find their way to a sensible reformation of attitudes.”

***
While some converts become more conservative than those born to Roman Catholicism, the interview with Attitude’s Johann Hari shows that Mr Blair has allied himself firmly with the Church’s liberal wing.

[More]

(emphasis added)

President Obama Names Pope-Basher to Faith-Based Initiative Board

2009-04-08T06:57:00.002-04:00

From Cybercast News Service:

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has named to the federal government’s faith-based initiative a gay-rights activist who, last month, described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Harry Knox, who is a newly appointed member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.

In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008.

Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope.

"The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives.”

[More]

(emphasis added)

Chicago Tribune's Calumny against Cardinal Francis George

2009-04-06T23:12:00.001-04:00

"A Calumny against the Cardinal", says George Weigel:

It would be difficult to imagine a more mindless misrepresentation of the right relationship of church and state in these United States than that proffered by the Chicago Tribune on April 3, in a vicious editorial and accompanying op-ed column attacking the local Catholic archbishop, Cardinal Francis George.

Catholic Senators vote AGAINST conscience protection law

2009-04-04T12:23:00.001-04:00

Catholic News Agency reports that a majority of Catholic Senators rejected a conscience protection law proposed by Senator Tom Colburn that would protect health care workers who object to abortions from participating in the procedure:

Conscience protection has become a topic of debate after President Obama announced that he was reviewing the law and could possible eliminate it. Colburn’s amendment states, "To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions."
The amendment was voted down by a margin of 41-56, in which a majority of Catholic Senators voted against the amendment 9-16. The failure to pass this legislation now leaves the door open for the Obama Administration to rescind the law by executive order and force health workers to compromise their moral convictions. ...
16 Catholic Senators still voted against the protection of these "human rights" including: Begich (D-AK), Dodd (D-CT), Kaufman (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Landrieu (D- LA), Collins (R-ME), Mikulski (D-MD), Kerry (D-MA), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Cantwell (D-WA), Murray (D-WA).
The nine Catholic Senators that voted for the amendment were; Murkowski (R-AK), Martinez (R-FL), Risch (R-ID), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Vitter (R-LA), Johanns(R-NE), Voinovich (R-OH), and Casey (D-PA).

Catholic World Report's Notre Dame Roundup

2009-04-04T12:10:00.000-04:00

Catholic World Report's Catherine Harmon has a roundup of the myriad of protests to Notre Dame's honoring President Barack Obama, including the statements of sixteen bishops and archbishops of the United States.

Pro-Life News Roundup

2009-04-01T23:02:00.002-04:00

Bishop Gerald A. Gettelfinger of Evansville said he will not attend an April right-to-life dinner where Republican Chairman Michael Steele is scheduled to speak because he objects to comments he made about abortion. (Catholic Chronicle March 30, 2009.
Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has signed a bill into law banning the use of some state funds for embryonic stem cell research:
The move puts the DNC chairman at odds with President Obama, who signed an executive order earlier this month reversing the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells.
Kaine approved the Virginia bill on Monday, according to the governor's office, the same day he enacted legislation that would permit "Choose Life" license plates in the commonwealth — an act that angered state and national abortion rights advocates.
Good for him.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed the Woman's Right To Know Act, permitting women to see an ultrasound or hear a fetal heartbeat before receiving an abortion and requiring abortion clinics to offer information about fetal development. (The Wichita Eagle March 29, 2009.
The fourth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death by court-ordered dehydration was observed by Priests for Life and Terri's Foundation with a Memorial Mass, celebrated by Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, President of Human Life International.
Four More Bishops Make Thirteen Opposed to Notre Dame Obama Invitation LifeSiteNews.com April 1, 2009.

Doug Kmiec debates George Weigel over Notre Dame

2009-03-30T00:50:00.004-04:00

... in the Chicago Tribune:

"Notre Dame's common ground", by Doug Kmiec.
"The university's egregious error", by George Weigel.

I have to say, Kmiec suprises me in the lengths he will go to spin Obama's position on abortion:

... the Catholic Church is the foremost defender of unborn life, and properly, uncompromising about it. Obama is more pragmatic, accommodating other religious and scientific views that see the origin point of life differently.

The last time I checked, there was little scientific dispute about what happens upon fertilization. The result of conception is a human life (how could it be anything other?)

Weigel in rebuttal:

It is important to remember, however, that the Catholic defense of the right to life is not a matter of arcane or esoteric Catholic doctrine: You don't have to believe in the primacy of the pope, in seven sacraments, in Mary's assumption into heaven, in the divine and human natures of Christ—you don't even have to believe in God—to take seriously the Catholic claim that innocent human life has an inalienable dignity and value that demands the protection of the laws. For that claim is not a uniquely Catholic claim; it reflects a first principle of justice that anyone can grasp, irrespective of their religious convictions or lack thereof.

Obama and Notre Dame

2009-03-26T23:50:00.007-04:00

Deconstructing Notre Dame Spokesman's Comments on the Obama speech and honorary doctorate, by Dr. Francis Beckwith (Return to Rome). March 25, 2009.
The Notre Dame Commencement, by Fr. James V. Schall. Catholic World Report:
I cannot think of a single act—one so simple, so innocent, so effective—that serves to do exactly what he needs to have done, namely, plunge an arrow into the heart of Catholicism’s opposition to him, what there is of it.
Notre Dame's Faustian Bargain, by Stephen Barr. First Things March 24, 2009:
How can an institution that purports to be Catholic honor as a “doctor of law”—literally a “teacher of law”—a President who has made it very clear by word and deed that he intends to remove from the laws of this nation anything that defends unborn human life?
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ has weighed in, describing [ND President] Fr. Jenkins' invitation to Obama a "public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States"; praying "that you come to see the grave mistake of your decision, and the way it undercuts the Church's proclamation of the Gospel of Life in our day."
Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute pens an open letter to Rev. Jenkins: "Father, I have no degree or awards from Notre Dame to return to you to indicate how strongly I feel about this scandalous decision. So here is what I have decided to do ..."
Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin has issued a statement on Notre Dame, concluding that
In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.
Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has also responded:
... Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.
More than ~~170,000~~ 200,000 individuals have signed the Cardinal Newman Society's petition opposing Notre Dame's decision.

President Fr. John Jenkins responds to critics; Bishop John M. D'Arcy: "Notre Dame must ask itself if it has chosen prestige over truth."

2009-03-24T23:53:00.013-04:00

Notre Dame University president Fr. John Jenkins responded to criticism regarding the announcement of President Barack Obama as the 2009 Commencement speaker:
"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins said.
These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue.
"We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him because we care so much about those issues, and we hope . . . for this to be the basis of an engagement with him," Jenkins said.
"You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them . . . show respect for them and listen to them," he said.
President Obama is "an inspiring leader who has taken leadership of the country facing many challenges: two wars, a really troubled economy, he has issues with health care, immigration, education reform, and he has addressed those with intelligence, courage and honesty," Jenkins said.
One problem -- you're not engaging the President in "dialogue"; rather, you're a Catholic institution bestowing an honorary law degree on a man who has zealously defended Roe vs. Wade. (The blog Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex has more).
From National Review, a symposium: A Moral Exemplar? - Should the University of Notre Dame honor our most anti-life president? with contributions by Rick Garnett, George Weigel, James V. Schall, SJ, Ralph McInerny, Fr. George Rutler (among others).
Bishop John M. D'Arcy has issued a statement saying that he won't be attending Notre Dame's commencement exercises:
This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.
My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.
I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.
I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.
Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.
Catholic News Service's Chaz Muth reports that despite criticism, University of Notre Dame officials were standing firm on their choice of President Barack Obama as commencement speaker.
More than 100,000 individuals have signed the Cardinal Newman Society's petition opposing Notre Dame's decision.
Timely reading from Fr. James V. Schall:

George vs. Kmiec

2009-03-24T00:25:00.001-04:00

Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec spar over email on the question: Does President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research allow federally funded human cloning? - George in the affirmative; Kmiec disagrees. The debate hinges on President Obama's statement that he opposed "reproductive cloning. According to George, this is meant as a loophole:

A ban on "reproductive cloning" is a ban on implanting a human embryo produced by cloning and permitting the embryonic human to develop into infancy. That is why pro-life critics of the ban on "reproductive cloning," including the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, refer to the legislation proposing the ban as the "clone and kill bill." That description is literally true. The bill forbids not the practice of somatic cell nuclear transfer or any other cloning technique, but allowing the cloned human being to survive. ...
What President Obama supports and has now opened the door to funding is human cloning—somatic cell nuclear transfer to create human embryos. What he opposes is permitting human embryos to be implanted if they were created by somatic cell nuclear transfer.

President Obama invited to give commencement address at Notre Dame; Catholics respond to the scandal

2009-03-23T00:27:00.005-04:00

President Obama will be giving three commencement speeches this May -- one of which is at the Catholic[?] University of Notre Dame.

The Cardinal Newman Society (justifiably) has launched a website and petition in protest:

This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.
Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.
The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”

Taking issue with the decision, some students at Notre Dame have issued a challenge to Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame:

There has been overreaction on both sides, and it is important to keep the discussion civil - Uninviting Pres. Obama would be a disrespectful move, and having students turn their back on his speech, as some have called for, would be an immature gesture. As the preeminent Catholic university in America, we have an obligation to respect the office of the President of the United States, and his visit to our beloved campus can serve as the impetus for increased discussion about the role of Catholicism in the public square.
But the University should also use Pres. Obama's visit as an opportunity to reiterate its commitment to the teachings of the Church and the sanctity of life. We ask that you consider making a public statement, if not at the Commencement exercises themselves then in a highly visible public forum, distancing yourself and the University from his views, making it clear that the University disagrees in no uncertain terms with his views on the unborn, which stand in contrast to that of the Church's stance of protecting the most defenseless and voiceless among us. Awarding him an honorary degree without making clear that the University disapproves of his stance on issues regarding the sanctity of human life would be a disrespect to those students who, like ourselves, chose to attend this University based not only on its status as one of the country's premier institutions of higher learning, but a school that takes pride in its Catholic foundation and identity.

M.Z., blogging at Vox Nova, sniffs in dismissal:

To the perpetually offended: grow up already. Really.

Personally, I'd like to call to mind the admonition of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' in Catholics in Political Life:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Cardinal George meets with President Obama; urges Catholics to rally for conscience protection for pro-life health care workers

2009-03-18T02:02:00.001-04:00

President Barack Obama met for half an hour on Tuesday, March 17 with Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George, reports the Catholic News Service:

"The president and Cardinal George discussed a wide range of issues, including important opportunities for the government and the Catholic Church to continue their long-standing partnership to tackle some of the nation's most pressing challenges," said the White House statement. "The president thanked Cardinal George for his leadership and for the contributions of the Catholic Church in America and around the world."
The statement from the USCCB said: "The meeting was private. Cardinal George and President Obama discussed the Catholic Church in the United States and its relation to the new administration. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes.
"At the conclusion, Cardinal George expressed his gratitude for the meeting and his hopes that it will foster fruitful dialogue for the sake of the common good," the USCCB statement added.
Mercy Sister Mary Ann Walsh, USCCB director of media relations, said she expected no further information about the meeting to be released.

We may not be privy to what transpired in the meeting between Obama and Cardinal George; however, I would imagine it might be related to matters of conscience:

Cardinal Francis George is urging Catholics in the United States to tell the Obama Administration to retain Health and Human Services regulations governing conscience protections for health care workers.
This is vital to keep the government from "moving our country from democracy to despotism," said Cardinal George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He delivered the message via video available on the Web at http://www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoCRwMqVzQ.
Those who want to protect conscience rights can speak out through an action alert at http://www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection.
"Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government oppression. No government should come between an individual person and God--that's what America is supposed to be about," Cardinal Francis George said. "This is the true common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion--including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves."
"I ask you please to lLet the government know that you want conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health care services so necessary for a good society," he said.
Cardinal Francis George taped the message after the Obama Administration announced in early March that it was rescinding the regulations which guarantee that health workers cannot be forced to provide services that violate their consciences, including abortions.

[Source: USCCB]

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke: Sebelius' appointment "greatest disappointment because she has publicly and repeatedly betrayed her Catholic faith"

2009-03-14T14:07:00.003-04:00

Top Vatican Official Slams Choice of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services March 13, 2009:

The head of the Roman Catholic Church's highest office overseeing Church law has slammed the nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), calling the nomination "the source of greatest embarrassment" to the Catholic Church.
In an interview with Thomas J. McKenna, president of Catholic Action for Faith and Family, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, strongly supported the means by which the Governor has been disciplined by her bishop because of her public support for abortion. ...
When asked for his opinion on the nomination of Governor Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services he said, "As a Roman Catholic, her appointment is the source of the greatest embarrassment because she has publicly and repeatedly betrayed her Catholic faith."
"What is more, she has obstinately remained in her moral error after being admonished by, at least, three of her Bishops … Her position on the question of procured abortion is the source of the greatest scandal to Catholics and to all who uphold the natural moral law."
"No matter how good Governor Sebelius' record regarding other human life concerns may be, if she is not committed to the safeguarding of human life from its very inception, she should not be entrusted with the questions of health and human services for our nation" he continued.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted: "President Obama is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research"

2009-03-14T14:04:00.001-04:00

The Bishop of Phoenix in Arizona has written a straight-talking column responding to President Barack Obama's executive order providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research LifeSitenews.com reports:

"This means that American taxpayers will now be paying for the killing of human beings at a very early stage in their lives (as embryos), so that scientific research can make use of them for experiments that may or may not yield positive results," writes Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in his diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Sun.
Unwilling to sugar-coat the reality with polite euphemisms, Bishop Olmsted says, "We U.S. taxpayers will now be forced to pay, whether we wish to or not, for the killing of our youngest brothers and sisters on the dubious hypothesis that their murders might, in the future, benefit others."
"What President Obama is doing is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research," he said.

Read the full text of Bishop Olmsted's column: "What should science trump?" in the Catholic Sun March 10, 2009.

Steele Disappoints.

2009-03-13T02:27:00.003-04:00

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele embarassed himself yet again this week with a disappointing interview with men's magazine GQ:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

As Ben Smith reports from Politico, Steele backtracked and sought to clarify what he meant:

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.
I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a “choice” before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.
But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

As Ed Morrisey (HotAir.com) notes, ""The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other. They are mutually exclusive. And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days."

Patrick Archbold (Creative Minority Report) exclaims "Steele Must Go":

"I'm done. Michael Steele cannot lead the Republican Party. I don't want a leader who attacks conservative leaders. I don't want a leader who smiles and agrees when Republicans are called Nazis. I don't want a leader who waffles on abortion every time he's asked about it. That's not good enough. If this party wants the support of pro-lifers then Michael Steele must go."

Frankly, it's difficult to tell WHAT Steele actually thinks, given his tendency to play up to whatever audience he's got.

As Paul Zummo quips: "If the guy is going to have to issue a press release after every interview he gives, that's reason enough to give him the boot".

Can't help but agree. Sorely disappointed.

Obama overturns Bush administration's limition on embryonic stem stell research; REVOKES funding for ethical research into 'pluripotent' stem cells

2009-03-09T22:54:00.015-04:00

Today, President Obama lifted the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem cell research:

The president on Monday signaled a clear shift in tone from the Bush administration on a broad range of scientific issues.
Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.
Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

House Republicans have rallied in opposition to the order, including Catholic House Republican Leader John Boehner:

"This decision runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans. For a third time in his young presidency, the President has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us. I fully support stem cell research, but I draw the line at taxpayer-funded research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and millions of Americans feel similarly. As we move forward, I am hopeful that the President will re-evaluate this and other controversial decisions that put government at odds with the sanctity of human life. Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist. Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda. Instead of asking taxpayers to pay for efforts that destroy life, Congress and the Administration should support bipartisan solutions like Rep. Randy Forbes' Patients First Act, which would promote stem cell research that is actually getting results."

and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"The administration's announcement on embryonic stem cell research represents a troubling shift in U.S. policy. With this announcement, the government is, for the first time, incentivizing the creation and destruction of human embryos at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. I support biomedical research and I believe the administration would be far better served by directing taxpayer funds to research on non-embryonic stem cells, which is both effective and ethical."

Joined by "Snowflake families" (children, who were formerly stored embryos and their parents), Representative Chris H. Smith stated that:

President Obama has chosen to turn back the clock, and starting today, will force taxpayers to subsidize the unethical, the unworkable over what works, and hype and hyperbole over hope. ...
Assertions that leftover embroyos are better off dead so that their stem cells can be derived is dehumanizing and cheapens human life. There is no such thing as leftover human life. Ask the snowflake children -- cryogenically frozen embroyos who were adopted -- their lives are precious and priceless.

(Click here to read Rep. Smith's full statement on Obama's stem cell order).

In 2005, Rep. Smith introduced the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005 to provide for the collection and maintenance of human [umbelical] cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research.

The Democrats for Life also issued a forceful denunciation of Obama's decision:

DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.

* * *
Update! As First Things' Wesley J. Smith points out, "We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn’t all he did today. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.":

The Administration didn’t publicize this part of the President’s nasty work, but the now dead 2007 Bush order explicitly required funding for “alternative methods” of stem cell research—such as the new induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC), a process that changes skin or other cells such as hair follicles into pluripotent stem cells without making or destroying embryos. IPSCs offer so much promise—and all without the ethical contentiousness of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these alternative methods are one of the few areas in which people who are pro-life and pro-choice, conservative and liberal, pro and anti-ESCR can agree upon, the very type of policy that this president said he wanted to pursue.

Relevant Reading

Only a week ago it was reported by the Washington Post that "Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, boosting hopes that such cells could sidestep the moral and political quagmire that has hindered the development of a new generation of cures."
Executive Order on Embryonic Stem Cells 'A Sad Victory of Politics over Science and Ethics,' Says Cardinal Rigali United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. March 9, 2009.
Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics, by Ryan T. Anderson. Weekly Standard March 9, 2009.
Obama’s False Choice: What the president could stand to learn from his predecessor on science policy, by Yuval Levin. National Review March 9, 2009.
Stem Cells: A Political History, by Joseph Bottum and Ryan T. Anderson. First Things November 2008.
The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research: Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it, by Robert P. George and Eric Cohen. Wall Street Journal March 10, 2009.

Archbishop Naumann challenges Sebelius' appointment, record on abortion

2009-03-06T19:33:00.000-05:00

Valerie Schmalz, OSV contributing editor: What precipitated writing Gov. Sebelius last May to tell her not to receive Communion?

Archbishop Joseph Naumann: I had actually written the August before that, in 2007, asking her not to present herself for Communion and I did not make that public. But then she violated that in March, and so in May I had written her again and made that public. Since then to my knowledge she has not presented herself for Communion.

OSV: She violated it by going to Communion in March (2008)?

Archbishop Naumann: Yep.

OSV: What does the appointment of Gov. Sebelius to HHS mean in terms of her policies? There are a whole bunch of people, like Doug Kmiec and others, who are saying when she was governor abortion dropped by 10 percent. This letter (from Catholics for Sebelius) says, “She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.”

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion. At one time, she struck from the budget a pregnancy maintenance initiative that gave state funding to crisis pregnancy centers. Only when the legislature passed it by such an overwhelming margin that it was highly probable she would have been overridden, she allowed it to stay in the budget.
She’s on Emily’s List. During her last campaign she identified herself as one whose always been a leader in protecting a woman’s right [to abortion] and one who has tried to keep abortion safe legal and rare. Clinton I think perhaps was the one who originally developed that language and of course it's never safe for the child. What she did in the state of Kansas in terms of vetoing efforts to try to better regulate abortion clinics, certainly didn’t show a real concern for the safety of women either. And you perhaps know, although Kansas has some of the most restrictive laws on late-term abortion, no thanks to the governor, we’re kind of a center for late-term abortions because those laws are generally not enforced. And as the legislature has tried to do things to try to make them be enforced, again she has blocked those with vetoes.
She accepted money early in her political career from Dr. [George] Tiller who is a notorious abortionist in Wichita, and after that became politically not very convenient for her to do, Dr. Tiller formed a [political action committee] in which she was the principal beneficiary along with other equally staunch abortion-supporting politicians, and he put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her elected and re-elected. So I really think they may support Gov. Sebelius for this appointment, but they certainly can’t support her because she’s faithful in living the teaching of the Church on the life issues.

Excerpted from Our Sunday Visitor's interview with Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, who counts among his flock Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

Documenting Kathleen Sebelius' legislative record on abortion and ties to the abortion industry

2009-03-03T09:56:00.002-05:00

Operation Rescue has compiled a compiled a fact sheet on Sebelius' ties to the abortion industry, chief among them her prominent friendship with late-term abortionist George R. Tiller, who is currently facing 19 criminal counts of having committed illegal late-term abortions (a frequent contributor to Sebelius' political campaigns).

Americans United for Life has also compiled an analysis of Sebelius' legislative record on abortion and finds that, "on balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position in influence American healthcare policy for years to come."

Liberal Catholics defend Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius

2009-03-03T09:51:00.002-05:00

The National Catholic Reporter runs an article boasting that a group of 26 Catholic leaders, scholars and theologians Mar. 1 publicly expressed support for the nomination of Governor Sebelius as the next HHS secretary. The text of the statement, released by Catholics United, criticizes "conservative Catholics" "who would use Gov. Sebelius’ faith to attack her. As Catholics, we find such partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive."

One wonders whether their criticism would extend to Sebelius' own Bishop, who has admonished her to refrain from communion

"until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion"?

Not suprisingly, among the signees are such familiar names as Christopher Korzen (Executive director of Catholics United); Fr. Thomas Reese (former editor of the Jesuit perodical America); and ... fervent apologist for all things Obama, Doug Kmiec.

Carl Olson provides details on the signees, including Ambassador Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, Professor Lisa Sowle Cahill, and Kari J. Lundgren.

Obama's picks Kathleen Sebelius for SHHS; "an insult to Catholics"

2009-03-01T12:17:00.004-05:00

The White House confirmed that President Obama has selected Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Catholics Online's Deacon Keith Fournier puts it aptly: President Obama's selection of Kathleen Sebelius is an insult to Catholics across America -- particularly after Obama's repeal of the Mexico City Policy in January and the recent news that he is set to undo the Bush administration's "conscience rule" for health workers granting protection to those who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.

As Deacon Fournier also notes:

It appears that the release of news was timed to occur on the same day that “Catholics United”, a group which works in concert with “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good”, launched its new web site entitled “Catholics for Sebelius”. On that advocacy site this group stretches accuracy beyond anything they have done before. They argue that this Governor who has been told by her Bishop, Joseph Naumann, to refrain from presenting herself for Holy Communion until she takes “the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion” is an acceptable choice for Catholics.

Related

Fact Check: Gov. Sebelius Disingenuous with Abortion Remarks DFW Catholics. February 28, 2009.
Archbishop Naumann's Pastoral Discipline of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius Catholics in the Public Square May 31, 2008.
In April 2008, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill on Monday that would regulate abortion procedures in the state that is infamous for its high number of late-term abortions.
In April 2007, Governor Sebelius hosted a dinner in the Governor’s Mansion for late-term abortionist George Tiller and the staff of his clinic in April of 2007.

Obama Administration moves to overturn Bush's 'Conscience rule'

2009-02-27T22:13:00.001-05:00

The Washington Post brings word that the Bush Administration's 'conscience' rule on abortions will likely be rescinded by the Obama administration:

The administration's plans, revealed quietly with a terse posting on a federal Web site, unleashed a flood of heated reaction, with supporters praising the proposal as a crucial victory for women's health and reproductive rights, and opponents condemning it as a devastating setback for freedom of religion. [...]
Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.

"We recognize we are not going to be able to agree on every issue," said an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process has just begun. "But there remains a substantive area of common ground, and we continue to believe we can make progress and will make progress." [...]
The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities that do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

Pregnancy = Involuntary Servitude

2009-02-27T22:04:00.001-05:00

Carl Olson (Insight Scoop) provides an extensive and detailed analysis of President Obama's nominee for the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Dawn Johnsen -- a woman who reportedly once analogized pregnancy to involuntary servitude.

Bishop Martino repeats criticism of Senator Casey regarding his vote against the Mexico City Policy

2009-02-27T08:23:00.004-05:00

Patrick Archbold (Creative Minority Report on the notifications of the bishop of Scranton Pennsylvania, Joseph F. Martino, to Sen. Robert P. Casey regarding his vote against the Mexico City Policy and promotion of contraception:

Bob Casey of Pennsylvania ran for Senator as a pro-life candidate; a fact which clearly made his defeat of pro-life Senator Rick Santorum more likely.

But recently, many believe Senator Bob Casey has not lived up to the rhetoric of candidate Casey when it comes to being pro-life. Casey failed to vote against President Obama's change of the Mexico City policy which allowed the United States to fund groups that perform abortions overseas. Casey, in fact, went so far as to argue that giving the groups money was somewhat pro-life in that it could reduce the number of abortions by promoting contraception.

Bishop Martino obviously did not agree, according to the diocesan website. In a letter earlier this month Bishop Martino condemned Sen. Casey’s vote and urged him to reverse it.
“Your vote against the Mexico City Policy will mean the deaths of thousands of unborn children. This is an offense against life and a denial of our Catholic teaching on the dignity of every human being. This action is worthy of condemnation by all moral men and women...Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy,” says the Bishop.
And now Bishop Martino has sent a second letter to Senator Casey urging him to reverse his vote; this time with even stronger language ...

Nice to know Vice President Biden made it to Mass yesterday

2009-02-26T13:12:00.004-05:00

Hope and pray he takes the message of Ash Wednesday to heart.

David Schrader

President Obama calls Archbishop Dolan

2009-02-24T10:15:00.001-05:00

No joke. Archbishop Dolan at first thought it was, but it really was the President. Nice move.

David Schrader

Will Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius be our next HHS Secretary?

2009-02-23T12:03:00.000-05:00

When groups like Catholics United are upset you know that she is a top contender.

I may not know the answer to that but, I do know that Archbishop Naumann was correct in telling the governor to stop receiving communion for her “30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion."

Saint Thomas More, patron of politicians, pray for Governor Sebelius!

David Schrader

Professor Kmiec is upset...

2009-02-23T11:43:00.001-05:00

…boo hoo.

David Schrader

PS. Should we stop caring what Professor Kmiec thinks or writes? I’m getting close.

Board Chair of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good heralded for her fundraising, and "getting out the Catholic vote", for Obama

2009-02-21T03:25:00.001-05:00

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good proclaims itself to be

"a non-partisan, non-profit, 501c3 organization dedicated to promoting the fullness of the Catholic Social Tradition in the public square. Founded in 2004, our mission is to provide information to Catholics about Church social teaching as it relates to public participation in our society, and to advance the prophetic voice of the Catholic social tradition.

According to The Catholic Key, it turns out that Catholics in Alliance completely beholden to Obama:

Elizabeth Frawley Bagley is the board chair of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. As reported here earlier, Bagley is anything but nonpartisan. In fact, she has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC and scores of pro-abortion Democrat politicians including Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Claire McCaskill, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She personally raised at least $350,000 for the Obama campaign and was a member of his national finance team according to an interview in the Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror.
The former Ambassador to Portugal and Clinton State Department official is wife of RJ Reynolds tobacco heir and former DNC Finance Chair, Smith Bagley. ...
[O]ne day after the election, on November 5, Bagley sat for an interview on the internet broadcast Paltalk News. Host Gary Baumgarten introduced Bagley as the person "who was responsible for getting out the Catholic vote for Obama," - a claim she did not deny. In his synopsis of the show, Baumgarten also describes Bagley as "an official of the Barack Obama campaign."

Speaker Pelosi gets a lesson from Pope Benedict

2009-02-18T16:02:00.000-05:00

Take note Vice President Biden, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski, Rep. DeLauro, Governor Sebelius, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Schwarzenegger and all Catholic politicians and voters who enable the abortion regime.

Statement from the Holy See after Speaker Pelosi's audience with the Holy Father:

Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.

Nancy got schooled folks.

Read more from USAToday.com and George Weigel

David Schrader

PS. Of course, Speaker Pelosi's statement did not refer to this aspect of their meeting.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will meet with Pope Benedict XVI

2009-02-17T10:51:00.000-05:00

“Ardent Catholic” Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, will receive an audience with Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow. Because of her role as a Head of State (she is 3rd in line to the presidency) the Vatican will treat this as an official meeting.

Although numerous reports have been published either confirming or denying that Pope Benedict would receive Pelosi in an audience, the Holy See’s Press Office confirmed to CNA on Monday at noon Rome time, that the Holy Father will receive the U.S. representative on Wednesday at midday.

The press office made clear that the Pope will meet with Pelosi in his capacity as a head of state since the Speaker of the House is the third in line to lead the U.S., should the president and vice president be unable to do so.

The idea of providing Pelosi with a photo-op has disturbed a significant number of U.S. Catholics and pro-life activists.

In August 2008, Pelosi attempted to offer a justification for why Catholics could support abortion and remain in good standing with the Church by giving a convoluted explanation based on misquotes of Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on "Meet the Press."

Pelosi's pretention at reinterpreting Catholic moral and theological teaching elicited strong criticism from more than 20 U.S. cardinals, archbishops and bishops.

More recently, Nancy Pelosi was strongly criticized for defending the insertion of millions in spending on contraceptives into the stimulus bill. Pelosi, who says she is an "ardent Catholic," told ABC's This Week that the money spent on family planning services would "reduce costs." Source: CNA

No word on a private audience. I would think the Speaker will avoid such a meeting and the smack-down she would likely receive. Sorry, smack-down might not be the most charitable word to use. What do we call it when our bishops and/or the Holy Father tell Catholic politicians who enable the abortion regime they are wrong? Regardless, this is most likely about a photo-op for the Speaker. My hope and prayer is for the Holy Father to help begin her conversion.

See also LifeNews.com, RedState, and Deal Hudson

David Schrader

P.S. I wonder if Vice President Biden is piqued about the Speaker getting her picture with the Holy Father before he does.

John Boehner on House Democrat's passing of 1,100 page trillion dollar spending bill

2009-02-11T17:44:00.000-05:00

House Republican Leader (and Catholic) John Boehner (R-OH) gives a powerful speech on the House floor, shortly before House Democrats push through a 1,100 page trillion-dollor spending bill with less than 24 hours of public review time:

here I have, 1,100 pages, not one member of this body has read. Not one. There may be a staffer in the appropriations committee that read all of this last night. I don’t know how you can read 1,100 pages between midnight and now. Not one member’s read this. What happened to the promise that we’re going to let the American people see what’s in this bill 48 hours? No - we don’t have time to do that. We owe it to the American people to get this bill right. We owe to American families, we owe it to small businesses and we owe it to ourselves to get this right so we can, in fact, help our economy.

Here's the transcript.

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

2009-02-11T16:20:00.003-05:00

Surprise, surprise:

Washington DC, Feb 11, 2009 / 04:09 am (CNA).- Until recently, a Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good study of abortion data claimed that increased spending on welfare programs results in substantial reductions in state abortion rates but many pro-life laws do not. However, the study’s results have been revised following the discovery that incorrect abortion data was used and after criticism from a professor that the group’s conclusions did not follow from the data.

In August 2008, the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good announced the release of a study on the effects of public policy on abortion rates over a 20-year period. The group had commissioned Joseph Wright, who is a political science professor at Penn State University, and Michael Bailey, who is a professor of American government at Georgetown University, to conduct the study.

“The study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that benefits for pregnant women and mothers, employment, economic assistance to low-income families, quality child care for working mothers and removal of state caps on the number of children eligible for economic assistance in low-income families has reduced abortions,” the group reported in an August 28 press release. “In contrast, permitting Medicaid payments for abortions increased the abortion rate.”

The old version of the report was removed from the site in November 2008 after critics pointed out problems with the study.

***
The feedback of Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, was acknowledged in the new version of the report. Writing at the web site MoralAccountability.com, New said that the authors of the study discovered that they had used incorrect abortion data for the years following 1997.

***
“The new version provides evidence that welfare policy has no more than a marginal effect on the incidence of abortion,” he argued. “In fact, the new regression results indicate that none of the three welfare policies which the authors previously argued were effective tools for reducing the incidence of abortion have a substantial abortion reducing effect.”

***
He also criticized the report’s finding that parental involvement laws and other state laws restricting abortion have little impact on overall abortion rates.

“Since parental involvement laws only directly affect minors, Wright should have mentioned that analyzing their effects on the overall abortion rate is not a methodologically sound way to gauge their actual impact,” New wrote.

The argument that informed consent laws are ineffective, New claimed, fails to acknowledge the “substantial differences” in the effects of informed consent laws that have been enacted and those that have been nullified. By the report’s criteria, New argued, the results provide evidence that informed consent laws are effective.

***
However, Professor New also pointed out that events in the political arena were impacted by the first study.

In an essay at MoralAccountability.com, New accused Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good of misleading the public and referred to “plenty of peer reviewed studies” which find that public funding restrictions and parental involvement laws reduce the incident of abortion.

He claimed the study had a “substantial impact” on the pro-life debate in the 2008 Presidential election and gave “intellectual legitimacy” to those such as Doug Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi who argued that pro-life voters should vote for Democrats to advance the pro-life cause.

In a Tuesday e-mail to CNA, Prof. New said that the research produced by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems unwilling to acknowledge the “positive effect of pro-life laws such as parental involvement and informed consent laws.”

CNA asked New to speculate why welfare spending generally does not decrease the abortion rate.

He suggested that welfare “undermines societal mores against premarital sex” by enabling women to have more children out of wedlock. Welfare may result in more unplanned pregnancies and possibly more abortions, New said.

“Regardless of how generous welfare benefits are, women facing crisis pregnancies can find financial and medical resources at one of the thousands of crisis pregnancy centers across the country,” he added.

New noted the finding in both the current and previous versions of the group’s report that shows higher female employment is correlated with higher abortion rates.

***
New also mentioned a 2002 study which showed that Medicaid recipients have a higher incidence of abortion in states where Medicaid funds the procedure.

“In states that provide Medicaid funding for abortions, women with Medicaid coverage had an abortion rate more than four times as high as women without such coverage (89 vs. 21 per 1,000),” New summarized. “In contrast, in states that do not cover abortion services for women on Medicaid, the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was only twice that of women without Medicaid coverage (35 vs. 16 per 1,000).”

While the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good study reports an increase in abortion rates in states where abortions are funded by Medicaid, New charged: “they do not give this finding much attention in the write-up.”

“Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good continues to miss opportunities with their abortion research,” New told CNA.

“I think that they would be more effective if they would be more willing to publicly acknowledge the positive impact of pro-life legislation and try to constructively work with pro-life groups to promote social policies that will further reduce abortion rates. Instead Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems primarily interested in providing moral, political, and theological cover for supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats who support ‘abortion rights.’”

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

UPDATED (12 February 2009)
Regular Guy Paul has something to say about the lies and those who chose to believe them:

It was a lie. The left told a convenient lie, and the Catholic left opted to accept it. As I said at the time, they knew it was a lie.

***
They would rather claim to believe lies than vote against abortion. And, having won, they offer nary a keystroke to argue against abortion. They claimed to believe this study. They claimed that Obama's pro-abortion promises were just pandering. They claim to be pro-life. They, like "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good," are liars. They don't oppose abortion. They've made a negotiated peace on a non-negotiable issue. As I've called them before, they are turncoats in the culture war.

W. James Antle, III on Doug Kmiec's " misinformation offensive for Barack Obama"

2009-02-02T22:40:00.002-05:00

Catholic Michael Steele New GOP Chairman

2009-01-30T17:03:00.002-05:00

The Washington Post reports:

The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as its first African American chairman today in Washington, a decision that came after an excruciating series of ballots that displayed a level of drama rarely seen in national politics.

On the sixth and final ballot Steele bested South Carolina Republican party Chairman Katon Dawson 91 to 77.

"It's time for something completely different and we are going to bring it to them," Steele said after his victory. "This is our opportunity. I cannot do this by myself." (Watch the full speech.)

Steele acknowledged that the GOP has an "image problem" but cast his election as a "new moment" for the Republican Party.

***
It was -- interestingly -- former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell who ultimately swung the race to Steele when he dropped out before the fifth ballot and endorsed the former lieutenant governor. The move was somewhat unexpected as Blackwell had staked out the turf as the most socially conservative candidate in the field while Steele had had to beat back rumors that he was not sufficiently conservative.

[More]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy

2009-01-26T11:18:00.002-05:00

Matthew Archbold reports:

Your favorite grandmother Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of millions of dollars being spent on birth control in Obama's new economic "stimulus" package by claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So that's what you are folks. You are a cost to the state and federal government. You are not a product of love, an immortal being with a soul. You are the product of a cost/benefit analysis.

Here's the exact exchange on ABC's THIS WEEK. (H/T Drudge)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
Now this just might explain why Obama and Pelosi are so vehemently pro-abortion. It's because they're so worried about the economy.

[More]

UPDATE
Video (Hat tip: American Papist):

Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life and U.S. Catholic Bishops respond to Obama's repeal of the Mexico City Policy

2009-01-24T17:46:00.004-05:00

The Associated Press reports that the Vatican has responded to Obama's repeal of the Bush Administration's "Mexico City Policy", ending a ban on federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them:

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, urged Obama to listen to all voices in America without "the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death."
Fisichella said in an interview published Saturday in Corriere della Sera that "if this is one of President Obama's first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we're heading quickly toward disappointment."
Obama signed an executive order that ended the ban on Friday, reversing the policy of the Bush administration.
"This deals a harsh blow not only to us Catholics but to all the people across the world who fight against the slaughter of innocents that is carried out with the abortion," another top official with the Academy for Life, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, told the ANSA news agency.
"Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst," he was quoted as saying Saturday.

See also: President Obama's Reversal of Mexico City Policy 'Very Disappointing,'
Says Pro-Life Committee Chair Justin Rigali United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. January 23, 2009.

Update

The Vatican Slams Obama over Abortion, by Jeff Israely. Time January 26, 2009.

New website calls Christian supporters of Obama to "Moral Accountability"

2009-01-24T17:06:00.001-05:00

A new website: MoralAccountability.com. This is their mission statement:

In the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, a small group of Catholic and Evangelical Protestant intellectuals and activists, while saying that they personally support legal protection for the unborn and oppose the redefinition of marriage, promoted the candidacy of Barack Obama, who made no secret of his intention to wipe out the entire range of laws restricting or discouraging abortion and embryo-destructive research, or of his opposition to all state and federal initiatives (such as California Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act) to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These men and women assured their fellow Christians and other social conservatives that Obama’s economic policies would reduce the incidence of abortion, and they promised that Obama was being honest when he said that he was opposed to “same-sex marriage.”

Despite these assurances, we fear that the Obama administration will swiftly begin an assault on pro-life laws and pro-marriage policies. During his campaign for the presidency, Obama promised that his very first presidential act would be to push through the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would require federal and state funding for abortion and, in the gleeful words of the National Organization for Women, “wipe out hundreds of anti-abortion laws” across the United States. Even if he and his allies in Congress are unable to win sufficient support for this extreme measure to enact it as a package, they will no doubt seek to push through its various elements one by one. Bills will be introduced, for example, to override laws requiring parental consent or at least notification for abortions performed on minor girls—laws that demonstrably save thousands of lives every year—and laws mandating the provision of factual information about fetal development and the risks of abortion to women contemplating the procedure.

Barack Obama has also promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state marriages that are contrary to their public policy of treating marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Despite his statement to voters that he favors preserving the definition of marriage as a male-female union, Obama actively opposed California’s Proposition 8, a measure—passed despite his opposition by the people of California—that preserves the traditional definition of marriage.

The Moral Accountability Project trusts that those self-identified pro-life and pro-marriage Catholics and Evangelicals who helped to put Barack Obama into a position to accomplish his goals were sincere in their admiration for him. We are willing to believe that they genuinely hope that he will go back on his pledges to attack pro-life laws and repeal pro-marriage policies. Still, actions have consequences, and the actions of these intellectuals and activists will have consequences that are all too easy to predict. With each assault of the Obama administration on laws and policies upholding the sanctity of human life and the dignity of marriage, we will ask all Catholics and Evangelicals, including those who supported Obama, to join us in resisting these assaults. That is what we will do at www.moralaccountability.com.

Our project is offered in a constructive spirit, not one of vilification. Our goal is to help ensure that never again will good intentions conspire with shoddy reasoning and wishful thinking to compromise the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our community and to undermine the institution of marriage. And so in a sincere spirit of friendship, we invite those Catholics and Evangelicals who joined with Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and similar organizations in supporting Obama to join us now in repelling the attacks that will be launched against life and marriage in this administration.

With the revocation of the Mexico City Policy forbidding the use of U.S. taxpayer funds to promote abortion abroad, with the repeal of the Hyde Amendment protecting U.S. taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions, with the demolition of laws requiring parental involvement and informed consent, with the promotion of “therapeutic” cloning and the expansion of embryo-destructive research, with the abolition of conscience and religious liberty protections for pro-life physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, and with the fulfillment of Obama’s other promises to the abortion and embryo-research industries, the death toll is sure to mount. In solidarity with the victims, we will document it as best we can, and we will demand moral accountability.

Robert P. George, Princeton University
Hadley Arkes, Amherst College
Francis Beckwith, Baylor University
Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame
Robert Lowry Clinton, Southern Illinois University
Anthony Esolen, Providence College
Matthew Franck, Radford University
John Breen, Loyola University of Chicago
Patrick Lee, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Michael New, University of Alabama
Michael Paulsen, University of St. Thomas
Ronald Rychlak, University of Mississippi
Colleen Sheehan, Villanova University
Gregory Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law
James Stoner, Louisiana State University
Micah Watson, Union University

Obama overturns the Mexico City Policy

2009-01-23T11:00:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, a number of websites had reported that Obama's first executive order would be the reversal of the Mexico City policy, in keeping with precedents set by prior Democratic Presidents. CNN News had previously reported that:

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.
The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

The same news being echoed by FoxNews.com and LifeSiteNews.com. (Yours truly jumped the gun in reporting this news as well, thus meriting the harsh censure of a blogger at Vox Nova impassioned by a concern for journalistic accuracy).

Fortunately, this does not (yet) appear to be the case, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network:

The Brody File has learned that President Obama WILL NOT issue an executive order today that would have reversed a Bush administration policy which bans federal money by non-governmental agencies that provide abortions overseas. It’s called the Mexico City Policy. Go to the end of this blog to read more from White House Producer Laura Kraus on this policy.
A source with knowledge of the situation says the fact that Obama will not issue this executive order today (on the same day of the huge March for Life rally in DC) sends a strong signal to religious leaders across the political spectrum that President Obama wants to set a different tone in Washington.
President Reagan first implemented the policy but President Clinton reversed it on this day of January 22, 1993. January 22nd is the annual March for Life rally. President Bush then reversed Clinton’s executive order on this on January 22, 2001.

Catholics in the Public Square will keep you posted as events develop.

Update

Amid protests, Obama backs 'right to choose' on Roe anniversary CNN.com. January 23, 2009:
President Obama affirmed his support for a woman's "right to choose" on Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that led to the legalization of abortion, as thousands of anti-abortion activists descended on the National Mall to challenge his position.
Roe v. Wade "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," Obama said in a statement.
Obama bides time on abortion measure Politico claims:
[H]e’s planning to do it Friday – and aides suggest he’s choosing a different kind of symbolism, to show that he’s not always going to do the usual Washington thing, even though his staunch supporters in the abortion rights community were pressing him to do it quickly.
According to the Wall Street Post, Obama postponed the order out of sensitivity:
By holding off on the policy change, the president hoped to divorce the question of family-planning funding from the frenzied and highly charged emotions surrounding the Roe anniversary, according to two people familiar with his thinking.
That's a respectful move, said the Rev. Joel Hunter, pastor of Northland Church, outside Orlando, Fla., an abortion opponent who has tried to expand the evangelical agenda.
"I really do appreciate their sensitivity to this day and this issue," he said. "To do it [the policy change] on a day that pro-life people see as a day of grief, and a day of a really hurtful decision, would be, I think, very insensitive. And that's not who I think President Obama is or would mean to be."
How touching! -- We have a sensitive President!
On Friday, January 23rd, Reuters reported that "U.S. President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on Friday on U.S. government funding for clinics or groups which provide abortion services or counseling for the procedure overseas".

Pope Benedict XVI congratulates President Barack Obama; Cardinal George proposes "an agenda for dialogue and action"

2009-01-20T22:19:00.008-05:00

Text of Pope Benedict XVI's telegram to the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C.

On the occasion of your inauguration as the Forty-fourth president of the United States of America I offer cordial good wishes, together with the assurance of my prayers that the Almighty God will grant you unfailing wisdom and strength in the exercise of your high responsibilities.

Under your leadership may the American people continue to find in their impressive religious and political heritage the spiritual values and ethical principles needed to cooperate in the building of a truly just and free society, marked by respect for the dignity, equality and rights of each of its members, especially the poor, the outcast and those who have no voice.

At a time when so many of our brothers and sisters throughout the world yearn for liberation from the scourge of poverty, hunger and violence, I pray that you will be confirmed in your resolve to promote understanding, cooperation and peace among the nations, so that all may share in the banquet of life which God wills to set for the whole human family (cf. Isaiah 25:6-7). Upon you and your family, and upon all the American people, I willingly invoke the Lord's blessings of joy and peace.

* * *

In addition, here is the text of the message Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. episcopal conference, sent to President Barack Obama last week, proposing "an agenda for dialogue and action" and "to offer a constructive and principled contribution to national discussion over the values and policies that will shape our nation's future."

In Celebration of our First African-American President

2009-01-19T18:44:00.002-05:00

Farewell (and a heartfelt thanks) to President George W. Bush

2009-01-16T23:29:00.007-05:00

George Weigel would like to thank President Bush. "For what, you ask? For many things that ought to count for Catholics":

I should like to praise him for his steadfast support of the pro-life cause, domestically and internationally. Thanks to President Bush, we have two more Supreme Court justices who likely know that Roe vs. Wade was terrible constitutional judging, and dozens more federal district court and appellate court judges with similar convictions. Thanks to President Bush, the U.S. government drew an important moral line in stem cell research, even as the administration accelerated bioethically sound research strategies that have produced real results. Internationally, the Bush administration stood firm against the Gadarene rush to use international law to declare abortion an international human right and a necessary component of the emancipation of women; as one senior Vatican official put it to me, a year ago, “We know we’re never going to have another American administration as supportive of our core issues as the Bush administration has been.”
I should like to praise the President for his work to rid Africa of the plagues of AIDS and malaria and to relieve the suffering of those afflicted with those awful diseases. George W. Bush may be an object of ridicule in certain U.S. zip codes; he is the subject of veneration among those in the “bottom billion” whose lives his policies have saved or enhanced.
I should like to thank the President for offering Pope Benedict XVI such a warm welcome on the South Lawn of the White House on April 15, 2008 — a welcome that ought to have put paid, once and for all, to the notion that there is something incompatible between robust Catholic faith and a mature gratitude for the political miracle of American democracy.
I should like to thank President Bush for his personal decency, manifest in his (unpublicized) personal attention to our wounded and to the families of the fallen; in his refusal to become bitter in the face of outrageous slander; and in his calm amidst tribulations that most of us can’t imagine. I should like to thank him for his unapologetic confession of Christian faith, and for his testimony to the importance that prayer plays in his life. And I should like to thank him for not giving a hoot about the mockery that such a witness draws from a secularized mass media, from American high culture, from cranks like Michael Moore, and from Euro-secularist snobs who spent eight years sneering at the evangelical cowboy in the White House while their continent was dying from spiritual boredom.

Related

President Bush's Farewell Address to the Nation January 15, 2009.
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009, A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America. January 15, 2009.
The blogger at Wheat & Weeds covers a list of President Bush's pro-life accomplishments during his two terms. Be sure to read as well her roundup: George Bush and the Least of These:
I will always love and admire Bush because as the Leader of the Free World he never missed an opportunity to stand with "the least of these." Can you think of anyone more forgotten and less important in the eyes of our culture than the unborn, African AIDS & malaria patients, Afghan women, Sunni & Shiite Muslims, immigrants, dissidents of tyrannical nations, the wounded and grieving parents of fallen soldiers? Nobody really cares about any of those folks --the media can't even be bothered to report their plight when it doesn't suit their own purposes to do so. Not so George Bush. Here's a little pictorial reminder of the man's perpetual commitment to the dignity of the human person. ...

The Martyrdom of Doug Kmiec

2009-01-14T21:46:00.002-05:00

In a recent issue of Commonweal, Doug Kmiec has issued an extensive -- how to describe it? -- paeon to his own martyrdom at the hands of the "right wing [Catholic] blogosphere":

A longtime Republican who served in the Reagan administration, I nonetheless endorsed Obama last spring. Ever since, I’ve been subjected to unrelenting personal attacks launched from right-wing Catholic keyboards-blogs (and bloggers) so coarse and uncivil they make the insults of talk radio sound like actual journalism. Further, the lack of civility that rules the right-wing Catholic blogosphere has infected mainstream Catholic journalism as well. ...
Of course, bloggers deny there is anything “personal” in such attacks. My online tormentors like to claim that their beef with me is my alleged abandonment of the prolife cause or willful misstatement of church teaching. Neither charge is true. I remain unabashedly prolife and I have never consciously misstated the doctrine of the church; indeed, I’ve publicly said that were the Holy Father to tell me I had contradicted the magisterium on any given page of my Obama book, I would tear out that page.
No, the real problem with the blogospheric reaction to Obama lay in the responses themselves, which all too often mixed the smallest dollop of substance into a big steaming stew of personal contempt. As the vilification of Catholic Obama supporters progressed over the months, it became something of a bloggers’ sport to conjure up ridiculous explanations for what was wrongly described as my “apostasy.” ...
Noting my continued good health, the editors of Commonweal invited this essay which I submit even as I acknowledge the wisdom of Sr. Pius’s eighth-grade counsel: “Douglas, just offer it up!”

And so on and so forth. Never mind the fact that the "blogosphere" can be rather harsh, (Kmiec, it seems, was not acquainted with the crassness of commentbox conversation, much less the notion that people might react adversely to political turncoats, particularly during a presidential election) -- what is notable is that Kmiec never actually bothers to engage those who respectfully mounted substantial criticisms of his position.

In An open letter to Doug Kmiec (on behalf of the “right-wing Catholic blogosphere”), Thomas Peters (American Catholic) offers his response:

... what Kmiec has in essence done is to complain about any instance of uncharity in the blogosphere. Considering how easy it is to publish a blog, it is almost like criticizing free speech. Kmiec is asking that we shut down (or criticize heavily) an open room of vocal Catholics because of a few hecklers.
Kmiec’s choice to only call out the hecklers has allowed him to avoid other legitimate, constructive criticisms of his position. Here he has perfected the art of misdirection by turning the debate away from the issues onto the personal hurt he feels he has received.
For someone who “never thought it was mainly about [him]”, Kmiec spends most of the time talking about himself, long after he apparently gave up pursuing an open debate in a public forum (or any even playing field). Instead he has chosen to portray himself as some sort of martyr in his Catholic support for Obama.
This is exceedingly strange to me, because a universal trait of martyrs is that they do not complain about or bring attention to the fact that they are martyrs.

See also "Catholic bloggers respond to Kmiec criticism" Catholic News Agency. January 14, 2009.

Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009

2009-01-08T14:08:00.008-05:00

From Jody Bottum:

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus slipped away today, January 8, shortly before 10 o’clock, at the age of seventy-two. He never recovered from the weakness that sent him to the hospital the day after Christmas, caused by a series of side effects from the cancer he was suffering. He lost consciousness Tuesday evening after a collapse in his heart rate, and the next day, in the company of friends, he died.
My tears are not for him—for he knew, all his life, that his Redeemer lives, and he has now been gathered by the Lord in whom he trusted.
I weep, rather for all the rest of us. As a priest, as a writer, as a public leader in so many struggles, and as a friend, no one can take his place. The fabric of life has been torn by his death, and it will not be repaired, for those of us who knew him, until that time when everything is mended and all our tears are wiped away.

Funeral Arrangements

A Funeral Mass was celebrated for Father Richard John Neuhaus at the Church of the Immaculate Conception—414 E. 14th Street, New York City—on Tuesday, January 13, 2009.

A Christian wake service in the form of a Vigil for the Deceased was celebrated at the Church of the Immaculate Conception on Monday evening, January 12.
In lieu of flowers, donations are requested for Fr. Neuhaus’ work, the Institute on Religion and Public Life, online at this page or by mail to:
Institute on Religion and Public Life
156 Fifth Avenue
Suite 400
New York, NY 10010

“When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my won. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of “justification by faith alone,” although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways - these and all other gifts received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will…look to Christ and Christ alone.”

Richard John Neuhaus. Death on a Friday Afternoon

Notices

Statement of President George W. Bush
Statement of House Republican Leader John Boehner
Richard John Neuhaus dies of cancer, by Victor Morton and Julia Duin. Washington Times January 8, 2009.
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus dead at age 72, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter.
Father Neuhaus, iconic U.S. theologian, is dead at 72, by Laurie Goodstein. International Herald Tribune
Father Richard John Neuhaus Mourned, Celebrated by Cardinal Newman Society Catholic.org

Reflections

"Born Towards Dying" originally published in the February 2000 issue of First Things.
"A Second Brother Dies", by Michael Novak. National Catholic Reporter
Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009: A gaping hole in the public square, by Joseph Bottum. The Weekly Standard
"Death on a Thursday Morning" The Editors @ National Review (allusion to Neuhaus' Death on a Friday Morning).
Richard John Neuhaus, 1936 - 2009, by Rev. George W. Rutler. InsideCatholic.com.
Remembering Father Richard John Neuhaus, by Fr. Robert Sirico. The Acton Institute.
Richard John Neuhaus, RIP, by Ross Douhat. The Atlantic.
Richard John Neuhaus, intellectual, provocateur, blogging pioneer, dead at 72, by Gary Stern. Blogging Religiously (LoHud.com)
Alan Jacobs, The American Scene
Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review
A Priest in Full, by Brian C. Anderson. City Journal
Peter Wehner, National Review
Kevin Schmiesing, The Acton Institute
Like The Star of Bethlehem, Dies After Leading So Many to Christ Top pro-life leaders pay tribute to memory of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus: remembrances by Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International; Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Spokesman for the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada; Judie Brown, President of American Life League; Joseph Scheidler, President of the Pro-Life Action League and Jim Hughes, President Campaign Life Coalition, VP International Right to Life.
Father Richard John Neuhaus: A Man Animated by His Faith , by Raymond Arroyo. Wall Street Journal
Father Richard John Neuhaus: Remembering the theologian, by Michael Sean Winters. Slate. January 9, 2009.
Father Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009 Fr. Raymond J. de Souza, National Catholic Register.
In Memoriam: Our Friend, Richard John Neuhaus, by the writers of The Catholic Thing (Robert Royal, Ralph McInerny, Brad Miner, Michael Novak, Austin Ruse, Mary Eberstadt, William Saunders, James Schall, S.J., Michael Uhlmann and Hadley Arkes).
Richard J. Neuhaus: Remembrances by Anthony Sacramone, former managing editor of First Things.
Richard John Neuhaus: Witness to Truth, by Jordan Hylden. A First Things junior fellow remembers the man whose life was spent 'witnessing to the truth.' January 9, 2009.
In Defense of Death, by David Brooks. New York Times January 12, 2009.
Richard John Neuhaus, 1936–2009: An Honorable Christian Soldier, by George Weigel. Newsweek January 19, 2009.
EWTN's "The World Over" tribute to Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus with Raymond Arroyo. George Weigel, Michael Novak, and Joseph Bottum spend the hour reminiscing about RJN's life and legacy.
Movement Man, by Matthew Boudway. (Former editor of First Things). Commonweal January 16, 2009 / Volume CXXXVI, Number 1.
Nigeria: A Tribute to Father Neuhaus, by Sonnie Ekwowusi. AllAfrica.com. 20 January 2009.
Essay: Where is the rabbi like Richard John Neuhaus?, by David Klinghoffer. Jerusalem Post January 20, 2009.
First Things First:
The life and legacy of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus National Review Online Q&A with Robert P. George. January 23, 2008.
The Radical Conservative: Richard John Neuhaus helped inspire a generation of evangelicals to participate boldly in the public square, by Timothy George. Christianity Today March 11, 2009.

* * *

The story of the modern social conservative movement is all about activism and politics, petitions and court cases, but Father Neuhaus’s great testament was about something grander: through those he inspired, through his writings, through his organizing, and through something as simple as connecting people over lunch who may share nothing in terms of what they can eat on the table but share greatly in what is unseen, Father Neuhaus fundamentally changed religious life in America forever.
This is not an exaggeration. Nor by any means is it a dismissal of anyone else’s influence - but ultimately, the changes most other conservative thought leaders have helped achieve in the twentieth century were made at the hands of other men, elected to office. Father Neuhaus did not merely inspire the intellectual undergirding of change: with God’s help, he fashioned it himself, through hard work, a gift for eloquence, and always a wry smile at the end.
The world Father Neuhaus leaves is one where evangelicals and Catholics are more united than they are divided - where the old ethnic politics and arguments have faded, and where we worship and work together in harmony. My mother, never anything but a Protestant, upon learning of this Catholic convert priest’s passing, wrote to say she paused on learning the news to sing Faure’s Pie Jesu for him. I can think of nothing more fitting.

-- From Ben Domenech, RedState.com

* * *

His conviction that abortion was the great crime of the age and his disgust with the American system’s failure to expunge the crime led to the most controversial act of his editorship, the publication of a symposium entitled “The End of Democracy?” in which he and other participants flirted with the notion that the United States had lost its legitimacy. COMMENTARY’s editors responded in part with a symposium entitled “On the Future of Conservatism,” in which various contributors argued heatedly against what they perceived to be an unacceptable radicalization of conservative discourse.
The breach was never fully healed, and yet, through it all, there was Richard, a man of great personal good cheer and bonhomie, always in possession of a terrific piece of gossip he always knew exactly when and how to drop in order to cause the biggest commotion, who somehow found the time to crank out thousands of words a month while jetting back and forth from Rome, engaging in plots and subplots and side bets. He was an exemplar of the truism that a righteous man need not be or conduct himself as though he were holier-than-thou. But in the end, his work was his life, and whether he was ministering to fatherless youths in Brooklyn or offering his considered and always highly informed opinion on the matter of stem-cell research, Richard John Neuhaus did what he did and said what he said for the betterment of humankind and for the greater glory of God.

John Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine

(More tributes are being collected by Steve Dillard @ Southern Appeal)

Catholic Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) will chair the DNC

2009-01-05T14:34:00.000-05:00

Though Governor Kaine has been touted as “pro-life” by some, others disagree with the label.

Newsweek profiles Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

2008-12-20T01:06:00.003-05:00

Newsweek profiles Bobby Jindal -- Lousiana governor, rising GOP star (and Catholic convert):

Together, Jindal's adaptive instincts and intellectual drive fueled his conversion to Catholicism. At 12, an evangelical friend named Kent gave him a paperback Bible for Christmas. Raised in a "strong Hindu culture," Jindal considered himself "anti-Christian" and stashed it in a closet. But a crush, Kathy, soon convinced him to read the book "from cover to cover." Jindal gradually warmed to the Scriptures, and while watching a Passion film at Kent's church, he was suddenly "convicted" of his "sinfulness and [his] need for a savior." Most conversion narratives end there. But Jindal's doesn't. Ever the A student, he studied Kent's Bible "by flashlight" and even "learned bits of Latin, Greek and Hebrew." After a long stretch of soul searching, Jindal concluded that Protestantism lacked "scriptural cogency" and decided to become a strict Catholic instead. ("Bobby said he trusted God to put his own house in order," recalls Ahsanuddin.) Although critics have questioned the governor's motives—Hindu activist Ramesh Rao recently wrote that "Jindal knew well that [conversion] was the only way, as an Indian-American Hindu, he could achieve his political ambitions"—his deeply Catholic views, including a "100 percent" opposition to abortion "with no exceptions" for rape, incest or health of the mother, undoubtedly anger more voters than they attract. "If I wanted the aesthetics without the inconvenient morality," he wrote in 1998, "I could become Episcopalian."
Nowhere is Jindal's commitment to Christianity more evident than in the 15 essays, Obama-esque in their self-scrutiny, that he published in the New Oxford Review and other Catholic journals between 1991 and 1998. In the most controversial, he details an amateur exorcism he witnessed at Brown. One day, a friend—called Susan in his 1994 account—confessed that she'd started seeing "visions" and smelling sulfur when doctors discovered a cancerous lump on her scalp; soon after, she fell to the floor at a prayer meeting and started "thrashing about." As Susan screamed "Bobby," the group pinned her down and chanted, "Satan, I command you to leave this woman." But Jindal was too terrified to "confront the demon." Eventually, the struggle subsided; Susan claimed she felt "healed." A short time later, surgeons removed the bump—and, according to Jindal, "found no traces of cancerous cells." The account has already raised eyebrows among skeptics who find it difficult to reconcile the governor's Brown biology degree with a belief in demonic possession—liberal bloggers, for example, now call Jindal "the Exorcist"—but he seems unfazed. "It's important to share your spiritual experiences with people who might benefit," he says. "There are a lot of things in this life that we won't understand, and that's OK. How do you explain the Sacraments? How do you explain the Resurrection? Those are hard concepts. So I didn't try to interpret it or declare what happened, because I don't know."

Meet Rep.-Elect Joseph Cao, LA-02

2008-12-07T00:27:00.008-05:00

Anh "Joseph" Cao defeated 9 term Congressman William Jefferson yesterday in Louisana's Second Congressional District 50%/47%. Rep.-elect Cao was an underdog in the race against Rep. Jefferson in this heavily Democratic district. But given the demographic changes in New Orleans and Louisana since Katrina, Rep. Jefferson's legal troubles, and the election postponed until yesterday (due to Gustav) Cao pulled the upset.

Cao is a former Jesuit who studied for the priesthood. He studied Philosophy at Loyola Univ. and today is a attorney in New Orleans. He is also a member of the National Advisory Council to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. His full bio is here. Go read it. This is the kind of Catholic we need in Congress.

Cao is a faithful Catholic who opposes abortion. (“I am very anti-abortion.”) He may have a difficult time holding onto this seat in 2010. I believe he will need a strong constiuent service to win re-election. He will have my prayers and I hope yours as well.

Vatican official: approval of Doug Kmiec to U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican "will never happen"

2008-11-27T12:14:00.001-05:00

An official from the Vatican's Secretary of State department has reacted to the recent suggestion that Pepperdine professor Douglas Kmiec should become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican by saying, "it will never happen.", Catholic News Agency reports:

The official noted that prominent American Catholics at the Vatican -such as Cardinal James Francis Stafford or Archbishop Raymond Burke- look at Kmiec as a "traitor," and "their opinion will certainly count heavily."
But most importantly, the official said, is that the Holy See will not risk alienating vital U.S. Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus or the American branch of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher, "whose role in the life of the universal Church is decisive, and who have already expressed publicly their disappointment with Kmiec's role in the recent elections."

Sean Michael Winters of America Magazine had previously recommended Kmiec as the "perfect candidate" for the position:

He is a lifelong pro-life legal scholar who served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Departments of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He was Dean of the Catholic University Law School and now teaches law at Pepperdine. His published works evidence a find legal mind and thorough familiarity with the natural law tradition that has been the dominant lens for Catholic social thought. Kmiec would be well known to prominent American churchmen in the Eternal City and a jewel in the crown of the intellectual milieu that surrounds the Holy See.

Winters is recipient of the less-than-coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology, named for the Notre Dame theologian who memorably announced that Joseph Ratzinger couldn’t possibly be elected pope, less than 24 hours before Ratzinger was elected", on account of his prediction that Pope Benedict, during his U.S. visit, would spurn President Bush by "[denouncing] the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq before the U.N. General Assembly".

Catholic Campaign for Human Development - Tarnished by ACORN or Still Rotten Itself?

2008-11-26T00:15:00.001-05:00

A "whack-job" with a sign protesting the second collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development sets Vox Nova's Morning's Minion on a tirade against Fr. Neuhaus and evangelicals:

After a moment of confusion, it suddenly dawned on me what this was about. And then I became rather angry. Yes, it was just one “whack-job”, but I was still angry. And then I thought of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’s partially-successful attempt to align Catholics with the emergent right-wing evangelical movement, and realized that it had come to this. Catholics, including Neuhaus, were lambasting an anti-poverty program because it simply did not fit with the the ideological talking points of the hour.

As Fr. Neuhaus points out, "Ten years ago, CHD was exposed as using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to fund organizations that frequently were actively working against the Church’s mission, especially in their support of pro-abortion activities and politicians."

Pointing to the CCHD's stated principles, including that it "will not consider organizations which promote or support abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, or any other affront to human life and dignity,” Morning's Minion dismisses Neuhaus' concerns:

This is important as many of the critics (including Neuhaus) claim it is funding pro-abortion activities. (Yet again, the mis-use of the abortion agenda as a Trojan horse to further a distinctly less noble cause– will this ever end?)

Unfortunately, Neuhaus' claim is true -- CCHD has a disappointing history of, contrary to its stated principles, providing extensive funding for questionable political groups with agendas morally at odds with Catholic teaching.

For a historical look at some of the problems with the CCHD, see A Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development by The Wanderer, or the following:

Too close for comfort: CCHD, sex and abortion, by Patrick Reilly. Human Events November 20, 1998.
Assessing the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, by Patrick Reilly. Human Events November 20, 1998.
Catholic campaign for human development: Still entranced by leftist activism, despite growing unrest, by Kathryn Jean Lopez. Human Events November 10, 2000.

The question is whether the CCHD has adequately reformed and distanced itself from past behavior? -- As Fr. Neuhaus suggests, its financial support for the national "community organizer" / voter-registration group ACORN (7.3 million over the past decade; $1,037,000 in 2007) -- an organization which played an influential role in the rise of Barack Obama, local chapters of which are under criminal investigation in several states, and whose funding has been subsequently halted by the CCHD itself due to an ongoing investigation of embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, that was covered up, and flaunts a double standard on minimumum wage and refusing the right to organize by its own members -- may be cause for parishioners to take a closer look at other groups the CCHD has been funding.

For more see The Capital Research Center's investigation: "ACORN: Who Funds the Weather Underground's Little Brother?" (Foundation Watch November 2008) or In a Rotten Nutshell: Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know about ACORN (Labor Watch November 2008).

* * *

Despite the controversies surrounding the CCHD, John Allen, Jr. reports that many Bishops turned out for a reception hosted by the CCHD during the USCCB's conference in Baltimore:

Several bishops said privately that they turned out for the CCHD reception in large part to show support, especially in the lead-in to the annual collection later this month. (To be fair, invitations distributed for the event promised “heavy hors d’oeuvres” and an “open bar,” which may also have had something to do with it.)

The Obamas Don't Need School Vouchers

2008-11-22T07:34:00.003-05:00

But, if you are living in a terrible public school district, as many Americans are, you may need vouchers so your kids can hope to get out of poverty. Today's N.Y. Times announces that the Obama's have chosen the cream of the elite schools in the D.C. area for their two young daughters at a price tag of over $29,000 per year. Here is the link. It's blatant social injustice to want what's best for your own kids but to refuse school vouchers to other kids. It's also rank hypocrisy: the change that wasn't. The elitism that always is.

Obama chooses Tom Daschle for Health & Human Services; Described as "Pro-Life Nightmare"

2008-11-20T23:32:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama has chosen Tom Daschle as the new Secretary for Health and Human Services. Catholic Online calls him a "Pro-Life Nightmare". Catholic News Agency reports that Daschle's record of supporting anti-life initiatives is extensive enough that his bishop previously asked him to stop calling himself a Catholic.:

Although Bishop Robert Carlson had been in conversation with Daschle for years about his voting record and beliefs about moral issues, including a public argument over partial-birth abortion in 1997, it wasn’t until April of 2003 that things began to escalate. At that point Bishop Carlson sent a letter to Tom Daschle telling him that he should removed all references to being a member of the Catholic Church from his congressional biography and campaign documents, Bottum reports.
Daschle responded to the letter from the floor of the Senate in Washington by accusing Bishop Carlson of acting in a way "more identified with the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership."

See Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent (Weekly Standard April 17, 2003) for details.

NARAL, however, has mixed feelings about the appointment:

Daschle's record on reproductive and sexual health and rights is a mixed one. NARAL Pro-Choice America rated him 50% for his support for the (non-medically termed) Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill that allows a perpetrator to be prosecuted for two crimes in a violent crime against a pregnant woman. Daschle, also, however, opposes the ban on abortion procedures in military hospitals and supports expanding funding embryonic stem cell research.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, believes Daschle will be an effective representative for reproductive health access and rights issues in the White House, telling RH Reality Check, “Sen. Daschle will bring thoughtful progressive leadership to the Department of Health and Human Services. We appreciate his recent efforts to help defeat two abortion bans in South Dakota. We had a good working relationship with him during his tenure as Senate leader and look forward to continuing that relationship as he assumes this pivotal role in the Obama administration."

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

2008-11-17T23:38:00.004-05:00

President-elect Barack Obama,

As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.

Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another

One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.

One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.

Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”

As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.

There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.

One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.

It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.

If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.

Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).

Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.

Deal W. Hudson
Marjorie Campbell
Rev. James A. Nowack
Susan DeBoisblanc
Joshua D. Brumfield
Michael J. Iafrate
Matthew Talbot
Henry C Karlson III
Adam P Verslype
Michael J. Deem
Natalie Mixa
Anthony M. Annett
Veronica Greenwell
Robert C. Koerpel

Christopher Blosser
Mark J. Coughlan
Craig D. Baker
Megan Stout
Ashley M. Brumfield
Natalie Navarro
Paul Mitchell
Josiah Neeley
Katerina M. Deem
Henry Newman
Mickey Jackson
Thomas Greenwell PhD
Nate Wildermuth

Originally posted by Henry Karlson at Vox Nova

(Please visit Vox Nova for new signees to this letter).

Cardinal Sean O'Malley on the irony of an Obama victory

2008-11-12T01:23:00.001-05:00

"When I was in high school, I joined the NAACP and did voter registration in black neighborhoods when I wasn't old enough to vote myself, and I was there at Resurrection City after Martin Luther King was murdered, and living in the mud with thousands of people on the lawn of the Lincoln Memorial and having off-duty redneck policemen throwing canisters of tear gas at us and shouting obscenities," O'Malley, now the cardinal-archbishop of Boston, said in an interview yesterday, his eyes welling with tears.
"So, to me, the election of an Afro-American is like the Berlin Wall falling. I mean, for my generation, I suppose young people today can't appreciate that, but to me it is something very big."
"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues, and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them."
"He is the president, and everyone wishes him well, and we will try to work with him. However, I hope he realizes that his election was not a mandate to rush ahead with a proabortion platform."

Interview with Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley
Michael Paulson / Boston Globe. November 11, 2008. (Read the whole thing).

Cardinal George: "The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice."

2008-11-10T20:42:00.003-05:00

We can also be truly grateful that our country’s social conscience has advanced to the point that Barack Obama was not asked to renounce his racial heritage in order to be president, as, effectively, John Kennedy was asked to promise that his Catholic faith would not influence his perspective and decisions as president a generation ago. Echoes of that debate remain in the words of those who reject universal moral propositions that have been espoused by the human race throughout history, with the excuse that they are part of Catholic moral teaching. We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order. The hubris that has isolated our country politically and now economically is heard, but not usually recognized, in moral arguments based simply and solely on individual moral autonomy. This personal and social dilemma is not, of course, a matter of ultimate importance, for America is not the Kingdom of God; but it makes America herself far less than she claims to be in this world.

At our meeting last spring, we heard statisticians tell us that the Catholic Church is a laboratory for our society. What the Church looks like today, in her ethnic composition, her economic situation, her generational cohorts, the entire country will look like in twenty five to thirty years. This gives Catholics a perhaps prophetic perspective on our society’s life and concerns. In Holy Scripture, a true prophet’s life is always marked by suffering. What is of major importance to us, as bishops of the Church, is that the Church remain true to herself and her Lord in the years to come, for only in being authentically herself will the Church serve society and its members, in time and in eternity.

In working for the common good of our society, racial justice is one pillar of our social doctrine. Economic justice, especially for the poor both here and abroad, is another. But the Church comes also and always and everywhere with the memory, the conviction, that the Eternal Word of God became man, took flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, nine months before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This truth is celebrated in our liturgy because it is branded into our spirit. The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice. If the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that African Americans were other people’s property and somehow less than persons were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be president of the United States. Today, as was the case a hundred and fifty years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good.

Excerpt, Plenary Address by Francis Cardinal George, OMI

Obama poised to reverse Bush Administration policies on embryonic stem cell research, Mexico City Policy

2008-11-09T02:18:00.003-05:00

The Washington Post reports that transition advisers have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies:

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.
Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.
But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.
The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.
"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

ObamaCatholics - is this the change you were looking for?

Discussion of Catholics and abortion removed from still on Bishops' general conference agenda

2008-11-08T23:58:00.006-05:00

Religion News Service reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' plans to discuss abortion and politics next week in Baltimore have been scuttled:

In a September, after high-profile Catholic politicians challenged church teaching on abortion, the bishops announced that they "plan to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters at the U.S. bishops' Nov. 10-13, 2008 general meeting in Baltimore." ...
[Sister Mary Anne] Walsh said the bishops' discussion has been removed from the agenda as of late Friday. The agenda will not be finalized until Saturday afternoon, Walsh added.
"I think this is something that has evolved since September," Walsh said. "Many bishops have already addressed the issue (of pro-abortion rights politicians) through pastoral letters, so there's not the same need they saw in September."

The article mentions the likely possibility that the topic will be raised in close-door sessions, but Catholic News Service' Diogenes (Off The Record) is skeptical:

So what has "evolved" to allow the bishops to skip another difficult discussion? Let's see:
Have prominent Catholic politicians ceased to be advocates of legal abortion? Not at all. This year's two most conspicuous offenders, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, will soon stand 2nd and 3rd in line for the nation's highest office. They continue to advance not only the 'culture of death' political agenda, but also a skewed quasi-Catholic theology to justify it.
Have the bishops reached agreement on how to handle the problem? Nope. Right through Election Day individual bishops were issuing their contrasting statements, drawing out different aspects of their malleable common statement, Faithful Citizenship. The most forthright bishops were acknowledging that an air-clearing discussion was overdue.
Have the media moved away from the issue, now that the campaign is over, so that the bishops can retreat into undisturbed silence, away from the glare of publicity? Bingo.

On the other hand, Amy Welborn advises us to "Chill, and Pray":

There are two days of public meetings and two days of private, executive sessions. The issue has obviously exploded beyond the relatively narrow agenda item originally planned for public discussion. I have no problem (as if it matters) with bishops taking this to private discussions in which they can speak freely to each other without the rest of us watching. As enjoyable as that might be for the rest of us.
As we celebrate the feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran, the church of the Bishop of Rome, it seems a good idea to pray for our bishops. It’s particularly apropos on this day because St. John Lateran represents a great deal - and part of symbolism it bears after a millenium and a half regards the complicated and perpetually vexing relationship between Catholicism and civic life, the original church being built by Constantine and the palace, as the residence of the popes for almost a millenium being a center of both politics and religion in Rome - for good and for ill, for the benefit of the Body of Christ and sometimes to its great detriment.
Have you prayed for your bishop lately?

* * *

In other news, noting that Catholics voted 52 percent to 45 percent for Senator Barack Obama, Peter Steinfels recommended to the Bishops a change of strategy (Catholics and Choice (in the Voting Booth New York Times 11/07/08):

Anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. Will that fact be candidly addressed when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meets next week in Baltimore?" ...
If the bishops sweat a little over these figures next week, the reason won’t be worry about their political prowess but about their pastoral and moral effectiveness. By appearing to tie their moral stance on abortion so closely to a particular political choice, have they in fact undermined their moral persuasiveness on that issue as well as their pastoral effectiveness generally?

Update The Catholic News Agency says the meeting is on:

[A] bishop who requested anonymity, confirmed to CNA that the bishops will not drop the issue of abortion or hold the conversation behind closed doors. On the contrary, they will discuss it on no less than three occasions: “in our regional groups, in executive session, and in the public session.”
The sessions open to the media will take place on Monday, November 10, from 9:00 a.m. to mid-afternoon, and Tuesday, November 11, from 9:00 a.m. until mid-afternoon. The rest of the meeting will be for breakout sessions, executive sessions, and prayer and reflection.

Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland -- a member of the task force on the faith formation and sacramental practice -- confirms as well:

“We plan to set aside time to discuss practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion, an issue that remains problematic for us and our people,” he confirmed.

Elections 2008 - Perspectives from Rome and the USCCB

2008-11-06T01:09:00.000-05:00

Pope Benedict, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a dean from the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University weigh in on the results of the election.

Pope Benedict conveyed his congratulations to President-elect Obama in a telegram sent through the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, Mary Ann Glendon:
The Holy Father promises Obama his prayers so that God assists him in his "weighty responsibilities at the service of the nation and the international community."
The Italian-language message expresses the Pontiff's wish that the abundant blessings of the Lord "support you and the people of the United States in your efforts, together with all men and women of good will, to build a world of peace, solidarity and justice."
Cardinal Francis George sent a message of congratulations on behalf of the United States Bishops' conference:
I write to you, in my capacity as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to express our congratulations on your historic election as President of the United States. The people of our country have entrusted you with a great responsibility. As Catholic Bishops, we offer our prayers that God give you strength and wisdom to meet the coming challenges.
Our country is confronting many uncertainties. We pray that you will use the powers of your office to meet them with a special concern to defend the most vulnerable among us and heal the divisions in our country and our world. We stand ready to work with you in defense and support of the life and dignity of every human person.
May God bless you and Vice President-elect Biden as you prepare to assume your duties in service to our country and its citizens.
Fr. Thomas D. Williams, Dean of theology and professor of moral theology and Catholic social thought at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome, provides "a Roman perspective on the election" in a Q&A with National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez. Here's a snippet:
It would be rash to make a sweeping moral judgment on a group of people like the American voting public. Morality entails two dimensions: an objective dimension and a subjective dimension. The first dimension concerns whether a given choice or action is right or wrong in itself. The second dimension involves intention and moral knowledge. Our Catholic tradition has always recognized the possibility of “invincible ignorance,” whereby a person does something wrong while sincerely and perhaps blamelessly believing it to be right. I doubt many Americans voted for Obama thinking they were doing something wrong.
On the other hand, this doesn’t mean that we aren’t morally responsible for this choice. Some people may have allowed more superficial concerns triumph over more weighty moral issues in determining which way they would vote. All who voted for Obama will in some way share in the responsibility for his actions as president, at least as far as they were foreseeable. As far as life issues, marriage, and school choice go (to take three key moral issues), we already know where Obama stands and what he intends to do. Personally, I wouldn’t want that on my conscience.
Read the rest.

Election 2008 - Catholic Blogs Roundup

2008-11-06T00:12:00.002-05:00

Mark Shea puts things into perspective:
I think it's really easy to miss the wood for the trees when contemplating this or any American election. Yeah, I think Obama will be a lousy President. But when I consider the fact that neither he nor any President has come to office by a) poisoning his predecessor, b) marshalling an army to lead a military coup that hails him as Supreme Maximum Leader, c) assuming power by taking his predecessor's concubines and bedding them in public before exiling his enemies from their homes, d) creating an army of child soldiers to terrorize, rape and murder in a genocidal rampage, e) rounding up his enemies and sending them to a gulag or forced labor camp, f) sending teams of assassins to drive ice picks through the brains of his rivals, g) being the deranged heir to the throne who appoints his horse a Senator or murders his scheming mother, h) being some despotic potentate whose rule reflects the inexorable will of Allah--or any of the other myriad crappy ways the human race has organized the state in the past, I have to say that I'm grateful.
Commonweal gets cocky:
Networks call Ohio for Obama. Game over. I never thought I would see this day. I guess (if certain Bishops are right) hell is going to be a little more crowded, but the company there will be good.
Paul (Thoughts of a Regular Guy) rescinds his prohibition on linking to Vox Nova.
Jeff Miller (Curt Jester)'s obligatory post-election rant:
Now we will also have a culture of death Catholic Vice President who will be putting the vice into Vice President with his support of many forms of abortion. I bet the media can hardly wait to snap a picture of him receiving Communion to gloat. The USCCB meets soon to discuss "practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion." Will the scandal of Sen. Biden be addressed? Probably not, but I would love to be wrong.
I hear that Sen. Obama will be FedExing 30 pieces of silver to Doug Kmiec. Moloch is quite happy with all of the Catholics that voted for Sen. Obama. According to Catholic Culture "Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54- 45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61- 37%. Thus Obama drew his support from inactive Catholics." So 45 percent of Mass going Catholics supported the most extreme supporter of abortion ever in a Presidential race. The unborn chopped up via scalpels will be glad to hear about hope and change.
Dale Price asks us to respond like Catholics:
Obama is our next president, like it or not. Our marching orders are clear: Pray for him and our country, work with him where possible to achieve the common good, and fight like a Maccabee when he oversteps his bounds -- all the while remembering that November 2010 and 2012 will be here quicker than we think.
MoveOn (Amy Welborn):
the feeling is mitigated by the politics of the man elected as well as the campaign he headed, and I don’t think that wariness and sadness merits an apology. If the man’s policies and promises sadden and give us pause, are we required to bury that now?
On message, yes. Unflappable, yes. But I disagree with most of his policy proposals at one level or another and believe the campaign was anything but noble. No campaign is without fault, and most are full of fault, and the Obama campaign was no different. In other words, it was not an admirable rise, in my opinion. The achievement is marred by dissembling about the candidate’s past, dishonesty and vitriol from surrogates, a viciousness which was never reigned in by the campaign, as well as near-cultishness and sycophancy for a very inexperienced candidate.
And I’m not going to apologize for that qualification. Because I know full well that those who would scold about ruining the moment by consideration of such little things like policy would not - would not - be joyously basking in the historic moment if Sarah Palin were now the vice-president elect. Or president, it goes without saying. Not for a second. In fact, they would be infuriated.
So here we are. ...

The Catholic Vote

2008-11-05T13:04:00.001-05:00

Data on the Catholic Vote below is taken from the National Exit Polls.

Catholic Vote (27% of those surveyed)

Obama 54%

McCain 45%

White Catholic Vote (19% of those surveyed)

Obama 47%

McCain 52%

Catholics who attend Mass weekly (12% of those surveyed)

Obama 49%

McCain 50%

Catholics who attend Mass less often (14% of those surveyed)

Obama 58%

McCain 40%

My thoughts.

First, Catholics as a “bloc” make up less than a third of the electorate, but a shift of 6% of this “bloc” could have sent McCain to the White House. Here is a look at the Catholic Vote in some Battleground States:

Ohio

Obama 47%

McCain 52%

Florida

Obama 50%

McCain 49%

Pennsylvania

Obama 48%

McCain 52%

Indiana

Obama 50%

McCain 50%

New Mexico

Obama 71%

McCain 28%

Second, it is surprising that of those Catholics who attend Mass weekly, they split evenly between both candidates. I wonder how many of those 49% know about Obama’s promise to sign FOCA?

I am curious what our editors and readers think.

USCCB investigates $1 million church funding to ACORN

2008-11-05T11:30:00.000-05:00

Just to update a prior post -- The Washington Times reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has hired forensic accounting specialists to investigate more than $1 million in church funding to voter-registration group ACORN :

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has hired forensic accounting specialists to investigate more than $1 million in church funding to voter-registration group ACORN, fearing the money may have been spent in partisan or fraudulent ways that could jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status.
The investigation is "thorough, serious and ongoing," according to a July 11 letter to more than 200 bishops from New Orleans Bishop Robert Morin, chairman of the committee that oversees the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.
The CCHD sent $1,037,000 to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in 2007, including a $40,000 grant to an ACORN affiliate in Las Vegas that was raided last month by the Nevada attorney general's office in a voter-fraud probe.
The Catholic aid agency has given more than $7.3 million to ACORN over the past decade for about 320 projects, according to the Catholic News Service.
In June, the Catholic Church froze a $1.2 million grant for 38 ACORN chapters after the community-organizing group was accused of voter fraud in 15 states.

As we reported earlier, ACORN, having played in influential role in Obama's rise to the top of the political ladder, was handsomely rewarded by the Obama campaign via cash funneled to its front organization, Citizens Services, Inc. in 2008.

There isn't anything I can say tonight ...

2008-11-04T23:03:00.001-05:00

... other than what Jay Anderson has already said here.

Thank you, Jay.

Knights of Columbus: "Remember FOCA on November 4th"

2008-11-02T22:22:00.001-05:00

The Knights of Columbus remind us that among the most important issues at stake Nov. 4 is FOCA ["Freedom of Choice Act"]:

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared recently:
“Abortion rights groups and their allies in Congress are promoting a radical bill called the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). If this extreme measure is enacted, widely-supported and constitutionally-sound abortion regulations will be knocked down nationwide.”
FOCA would force taxpayers to fund abortions.
FOCA would require all states to allow partial birth and other late term abortions.
FOCA would violate the consciences of health care providers.
As Supreme Knight Car Anderson stated in a letter to all Knights, “All of the progress we’ve made over the past 35 years in trying to limit and reduce abortions in the United States – would be invalidated with the stroke of a pen if the next Congress passes, and the next president signs, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act.”
Before you cast your vote on Tuesday, Nov. 4, please take the time and effort necessary to learn whether candidates for whom you might vote favor or oppose FOCA.
House sponsors of FOCA
Senate sponsors of FOCA
If your local candidates are not sponsors of FOCA, ask their campaigns what their position on the bill is.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s position on FOCA can be found on this page from his campaign Web site:
U.S. Sen. John McCain’s position on FOCA can be found on this page from his campaign Web site.

White Catholics Moving to Obama

2008-10-29T09:56:00.001-04:00

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post :

On the 19th, McCain led 54 percent to 41 percent. By Oct. 24, that lead has shrunk to 51 percent to 46 percent. And then, in the tracks released on Monday night and Tuesday night, for the first time Obama actually moved ahead -- taking 48 percent of the white Catholic vote to McCain's 47 percent in each track.

Now, it's important to note that Obama's "lead" is not statistically significant. But, the trend line among white Catholics is clearly moving in the right direction for the Illinois senator. He has erased a double-digit lead among this critical voting bloc in the space of 10 days time.

Will white Catholic voters keep their 32-year streak alive next Tuesday?

Catholics in the Public Square

"A Respite from Politically-Oriented Blogging"

Who got to Stupak?

Two Letters.

Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009

Robert D. Novak 1931-2009

Catholic college faces lawsuit over refusal to provide contraception

U.S. Bishops launch website in support of 'truly universal' health care

Americans United for Life launches 'Keep Abortion Out of Health Care' website

Cardinal Rigali Urges Support for Pro-Life Amendments to Health Care Reform Bill

Recommended Reading

Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

President Obama selects rural Catholic doctor, Regina Benjamin, for Surgeon General

Pope Benedict XVI meets President Barack Obama

Michael Sean Winters still doesn't get it. (Obama, Benedict and Notre Dame, revisited)

Obama to visit the Vatican; the triumphant vindication of Michael Sean Winters?

Obama sends President Bush's Council on Bioethics packing; what does the future hold?

Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers

Michael Liccione on "Patching up the Seamless Garment"

Alexia Kelley -- A solid Catholic appointee from President Obama?

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Late-term abortionist George Tiller shot and killed

Robert P. George establishes the 'American Principles Project'

"Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues?" -- A discussion with Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon

President Obama names theologian Miguel H. Diaz U.S. ambassador to the Vatican

President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor

Memorial Day 2009

What does President Obama mean when he asks us to 'work through" our conflicts?

Archbishop Chaput on Jenkins, Obama and Notre Dame

President Barack Obama and the Scandal of Notre Dame

American Papist on the Notre Dame Scandal

How Joe Biden Celebrated Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Justin Cardinal Rigali calls out Doug Kmiec on a falsehood.

Mary Ann Glendon refuses Notre Dame's Laetare Medal

Catholic Democrats of Ohio vs. the Catholic Bishops

Bishop D'Arcy Publicly Corrects President Jenkins' "Flawed Justification for His Actions"

George Neumayr on Sebelius - "A New Front in the Church’s Civil War"

Robert P. George vs. Doug Kmiec - "12 Questions"

Blair Criticizes Pope's "Entrenched Attitudes" on Homosexuality; Former PM Hopes for "Rethinking", "Evolving", and "Sensible Reformation of Attitudes"

President Obama Names Pope-Basher to Faith-Based Initiative Board

Chicago Tribune's Calumny against Cardinal Francis George

Catholic Senators vote AGAINST conscience protection law

Catholic World Report's Notre Dame Roundup

Pro-Life News Roundup

Doug Kmiec debates George Weigel over Notre Dame

Obama and Notre Dame

President Fr. John Jenkins responds to critics; Bishop John M. D'Arcy: "Notre Dame must ask itself if it has chosen prestige over truth."

George vs. Kmiec

President Obama invited to give commencement address at Notre Dame; Catholics respond to the scandal

Cardinal George meets with President Obama; urges Catholics to rally for conscience protection for pro-life health care workers

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke: Sebelius' appointment "greatest disappointment because she has publicly and repeatedly betrayed her Catholic faith"

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted: "President Obama is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research"

Steele Disappoints.

Obama overturns Bush administration's limition on embryonic stem stell research; REVOKES funding for ethical research into 'pluripotent' stem cells

Archbishop Naumann challenges Sebelius' appointment, record on abortion

Documenting Kathleen Sebelius' legislative record on abortion and ties to the abortion industry

Liberal Catholics defend Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius

Obama's picks Kathleen Sebelius for SHHS; "an insult to Catholics"

Obama Administration moves to overturn Bush's 'Conscience rule'

Pregnancy = Involuntary Servitude

Bishop Martino repeats criticism of Senator Casey regarding his vote against the Mexico City Policy

Nice to know Vice President Biden made it to Mass yesterday

President Obama calls Archbishop Dolan

Will Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius be our next HHS Secretary?

Professor Kmiec is upset...

Board Chair of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good heralded for her fundraising, and "getting out the Catholic vote", for Obama

Speaker Pelosi gets a lesson from Pope Benedict

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will meet with Pope Benedict XVI

John Boehner on House Democrat's passing of 1,100 page trillion dollar spending bill

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

W. James Antle, III on Doug Kmiec's " misinformation offensive for Barack Obama"

Catholic Michael Steele New GOP Chairman

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy

Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life and U.S. Catholic Bishops respond to Obama's repeal of the Mexico City Policy

New website calls Christian supporters of Obama to "Moral Accountability"

Obama overturns the Mexico City Policy

Pope Benedict XVI congratulates President Barack Obama; Cardinal George proposes "an agenda for dialogue and action"

In Celebration of our First African-American President

Farewell (and a heartfelt thanks) to President George W. Bush

The Martyrdom of Doug Kmiec