Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

(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!

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

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.
  

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

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)

President Barack Obama and the Scandal of Notre Dame

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

• Fr. Jenkin's introduction to President Barack Obama
  
• Transcript: Obama's Notre Dame Commencement Address
  

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.
  

Much more from Opinionated Catholic.

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

“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)

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

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)

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

In Celebration of our First African-American President

The Obamas Don't Need School Vouchers

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"

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Thank you, Jay.

Bishop Arthur Serratelli: If Obama fulfills his promise, "the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood"

A Politician's Promise: No Right to Life! No Freedom!, by Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, NJ:

After committing a murder in Rome, the famous 17th century Italian painter Caravaggio went to Malta to avoid the death penalty. While there, the Great Master of the Order of the Knights of Malta commissioned him to do a painting for the chapel of the Co-Cathedral of St. John in Valletta. Caravaggio chose as his theme the martyrdom of John the Baptist. He produced The Beheading of St. John, his largest work, the only one he ever signed. No doubt the scene touched him personally.

Herod was married to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John the Baptist preached against this sin, he incurred the hatred of Herod’s wife. The day her daughter Salome delighted Herod with her seductive dance, Herodias had her make Herod promise to kill John the Baptist. Within the severe architecture of a 16th century prison, Caravaggio vividly depicts the grisly moment when Herod kept his promise.

Caravaggio’s work, considered his greatest masterpiece, immortalizes the misguided fidelity of a ruler to his gruesome promise. With the stroke of the soldier’s sword, John dies and so does freedom. Freedom is based on the truth of the human person as created by God and protected by his law.
When a ruler can decide against God’s law, true freedom is sentenced to death.

Recently, a politician made a promise. Politicians usually do. If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood. ...

(Hat tip: LifeSiteNews.com).

Obama, ACORN and the U.S. Bishops' Conference

Deal Hudson (InsideCatholic.com) reports that the U.S. Bishop's Conference Gave ACORN Over $1,000,000 in 2007:

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development gave $1.1 million to ACORN in 2007. You can find this fact on the CCHD website. If you add up all the groups called ACORN or Association Of Community Organization For Reform Now, you get a total of $1,111,000 in 2007.

Now, this wouldn't be the same ACORN repeatedly making the news for its bullying "direct action" tactics and subject of repeated investigations for voter fraud, would it?

The same ACORN currently supporting Barack Obama's campaign and on its payroll? -- :

A specific, month by month account of money paid by the Obama campaign to the ACORN front organization, Citizens Services, Inc. for those fraudulent “advance service”, taken from FEC reports and totaling $832,598.29 since Feb, 2008, can be found here.

Barack Obama has a long and colorful history of denying his embarrassing, radical leftwing associations, until he can no longer maintain the façade. At which point, he jettisons whatever or whoever has caused the embarrassment and MovesOn.

As he has done throughout his career, Obama has been rewarding those who support his ambitions. The Obama campaign, flush with cash, has been funneling money to ACORN through Citizens Services, Inc. much as he did in Chicago with the Woods Foundation and the Annenberg-Chicago Challenge. While Obama served on the Board Of Directors of the Woods Fund, for example the Chicago ACORN received grants Of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), And $40,000 (2002) From The Woods Fund, as reported on the Donors Forum Website, ifs.donorsforum.org.

Makes you think twice when they pass that second collection plate.Background reading

• Inside Obama’s Acorn: by their fruits ye shall know them, by Stanley Kurtz. National Review May 29, 2008.
• ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities, by Sol Stern City Journal Spring 2003

Kmiec Spins Obama's Performance at the Saddleback Civil Forum

Doug Kmiec makes an pathetic attempt to deflect criticism of Obama's performance at the SaddleBack Civil Forum. Jay Anderson responds and provides a roundup of commentary.

McCain and Obama at the Saddleback Civil Forum

NRO's Mark Hemingway on Obama's response to abortion during the Saddleback Forums:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States. If you can't solve every problem and are humble about it, that's fine — but you can't get away with being unsure about the most defining moral issue in politics. Of course, he didn't put down the shovel:

But let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion. Because this is something, obviously, the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention.

So after completely hedging on the question and declining to give a specific answer — he wants to speak "more generally" about the issue? And, lo and behold, speak more generally he does: "I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." In related news, Obama is also "absolutely convinced" that the sky is blue, water is wet and puppies are adorable. None of this, however, tells me a thing about his judgment and moral worldview.

Obama did, however, assert definitively that he was "pro-choice," which should go over well with the 500 evangelicals present in the audience.

Related

• Obama, Matthew 25, and Infanticide: A comment about the Saddleback Valley forum, by Francis Beckwith (What's Wrong With The World August 17, 2008):

  When Senator Obama, while in the Illinois senate, had the opportunity to require by law that medical professionals provide nutrition (something to eat), hydration (drink), protection (clothes), and shelter (inviting them in) to the smallest and most vulnerable strangers of all, the true "least of these," newborns who had survived abortions, Senator Obama stood with the goats.

• National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez asks What exactly is Barack Obama’s problem with Clarence Thomas?
  

  
  

• Obama finished off the evening by calling the National Right to Life liars on a question of fact, the latter having the documents on his Illinois "Born Alive" vote to prove his distortion of the matter. (UPDATE: Life Lies: Barack Obama and Born-Alive, by David Freddoso. NOR August 17, 2008).
  

  
  

• Enough about Obama, how'd McCain do? -- Deacon Kieth Fournier thinks "Senator McCain and Pastor Warren took the Gold", and here's Byron York on How McCain Won Saddleback (NRO August 17, 2008).
  

"Barack Obama - Extremist"

Barack Obama is co-sponser to the most draconian pieces of legislation ever put forth in the American debate over abortion, repealing laws passed by voters and state legislatures.

Attention McCain Campaign: don't side-step this issue. This is the type of ad you should be running.

(Via Southern Appeal; DarwinCatholic).

NRLC: " Obama Cover-up On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill"

National Right To Life Committee investigates Obama's defense of his vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

"Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion -- even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 -- denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions -- were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose."

Thanks to the NRLC for doing their homework and acquiring the "smoking gun" documents.